Douglas Caddy

'NOTW' staff offered lucrative severance pay The Independent By Ian Burrell, Media Editor Tuesday, 9 August 2011 Former staff at the News of the World are being offered lucrative "early leaver" settlement packages worth tens of thousands of pounds in what appears to be a U-turn on a promise by Rupert Murdoch that all employees of the defunct newspaper would be found work within his media empire. Staff have been given until the end of the month to accept an offer which could amount to the equivalent of a year's pay for former senior executives on the newspaper. The offer by Mr Murdoch's News International was made on Friday in an email to around 280 former employees. The news came as News International refused to comment on stories that the former chief executive Rebekah Brooks was receiving financial support for her legal and public relations bills from her former employer. The company did deny that she was still a director, saying documentation of her resignation was in the process of being registered by Companies House. News International may be unsettled by the potential to be sued by former NOTW employees, scores of whom have been preparing a class action for stigma damages after Ms Brooks branded the paper "toxic" and the paper was suddenly closed down. Admissions by Mr Murdoch before MPs that things had gone wrong at News International are thought to add to the strength of potential legal actions brought by former staff. The enhanced redundancy terms offered under the "early leaver option" include a bonus of 25 per cent on top of their existing redundancy terms. Even the most junior staff will be offered a minimum of £5,000 on top of redundancy packages. In addition the package includes a 2.5 per cent annual pay rise, the offer of a £1,000 lump sum in lieu of the company's annual performance-related pay system, and a further £1,000-worth of skills training, including offers of courses in multi-media journalism and use of Photoshop. Staff will also be offered career advice, including interviewing skills. The package will be seen as an indication that News International wants to be seen as a good employer but also wishes to part company with large numbers of former NOTW staff, all of whom were put on a 90-day period of gardening leave which ends on 6 October. Attempts to find them alternative employment within the company have been largely unsuccessful and many are deeply unhappy after being offered positions at outposts of the News Corp empire including Siberia and Bulgaria. News International said that it was still committed to Mr Murdoch's pledge to MPs last month that it would make "every effort to see that those people will be employed in other divisions of the company". But NOTW insiders told The Independent that many former staff were likely to take the offer. "I think there will be a rush out of the door after this," said one. "A lot of people think they don't stand a chance of being re-employed within the company and will take the money and leave."

Report: Rebekah Brooks still on Murdoch payroll www.rawstory.com By David Edwards Monday, August 8th, 2011 -- 10:25 am Weeks after Rebekah Brooks resigned as CEO of News International, it appears that she may still be on Rupert Murdoch's payroll. A report published in The Telegraph Saturday indicated that Brooks would continue to get a paycheck from the media mogul for at least the next year. "My understanding is that Rupert has told her to travel the world on him for a year and then he will find a job for her when the scandal has died down," a source told The Telegraph's Tim Walker. Blogger "Dephormation," writing on No DPI, found that Brooks continues to be listed as director of News International. By law, News International would have had to notify Companies House before July 29 if Brooks had resigned on July 15 as reported. "Rebekah Brooks resigned as CEO of the company on 15th July 2011," a News International spokeswoman told The Guardian Monday. "The process for her to resign as a director of the Company is currently underway and will be filed at Companies House shortly." But when asked if Brooks would continue to be paid by Murdoch as she travels the world for a year, her personal publicist at Bell Pottinger declined to respond. "We’re offering no comment on your query regarding Rebekah," Bell Pottinger's Steve Double told Walker. (H/T: The Daily Beast)

A welcome decision to release Nixon’s grand jury testimony The Washington Post By Editorial, Published: August 5, 2011 IN 1975, FORMER President Richard M. Nixon spent 11 hours, over two days, providing testimony to a federal grand jury investigating the Watergate break-in and cover-up. But some 36 years later, little is known about what he said. Press reports have asserted that Nixon addressed the notorious 18½-minute gap in his taped White House conversation with former chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, as well as the administration’s alleged use of the Internal Revenue Service to harass political adversaries, among other topics. But certainty is not possible because the former president’s testimony remains under seal — off limits to the public, including historians and other academics. That may soon change, thanks to a laudable July 29 decision by Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Grand jury proceedings are typically kept secret — and with good reason. Such secrecy prevents harassment of grand jurors, and it prevents witnesses from changing their stories to fit accounts provided by others. But judges have made exceptions. Federal courts in New York, for instance, ordered the release of grand jury material in the cases of accused spy Alger Hiss and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed after being found guilty of espionage. In both cases, transcripts were made public some 50 years or more after the testimony was given. The courts concluded that the historical importance of the cases, the significant amount of time that had lapsed and the fact that the principals in the case were deceased justified such disclosures. The same holds true in the Nixon case. The Justice Department opposed release, arguing that not enough time had passed since the testimony was given and expressing concern that making an exception in this case could set a dangerous precedent that could erode the integrity of grand jury proceedings in the future. Neither argument is persuasive. A 36-year lag between Nixon’s testimony and possible release is more than sufficient to protect individuals’ privacy interests. Nixon has passed away, as have other major players; many who were involved in the scandal have testified publicly in congressional hearings or given media interviews or written books about the episode and their role in it. The formal Watergate investigation has long since been closed, yet public interest remains high. In granting the request by Watergate scholar Stanley Kutler and several historical associations to unseal Nixon’s grand jury testimony, Judge Lamberth made clear that judges are only authorized to order grand jury disclosures in cases that involve “exceptional circumstances.” If there was ever a case that met this standard, it is one involving a former president of the United States who was called to testify under oath in a matter that brought the country to the brink of a constitutional crisis.

News Corp.’s Soft Power in the U.S The New York Times By DAVID CARR August 7, 2011 Over the last month, many Americans watched from a distance in horror or amusement as it became evident that the News Corporation regarded Britain’s legal and political institutions as its own private club. That could never happen in the United States, right? As it turns out, a News Corporation division has twice come under significant civil and criminal investigations in the United States, but neither inquiry went anywhere. Given what has happened in Britain with the growing phone-hacking scandal, it is worth wondering why. Both cases involve News America Marketing, an obscure but lucrative division of the News Corporation that is a big player in the business of retail marketing, including newspaper coupon inserts and in-store promotions. The company has come under scrutiny for a pattern of conduct that includes below-cost pricing, paying customers not to do business with competitors and accusations of computer hacking. News America Marketing came to control 90 percent of the in-store advertising business, according to Fortune, aided in part by a particularly quick and favorable antitrust decision made by the Justice Department in 1997. That year, the News Corporation announced it wanted to buy Heritage Media, a big competitor, for about $754 million in stock plus $600 million in assumed debt. The News Corporation said it would sell the broadcast properties and hang onto the marketing division, which serviced 40,000 groceries and other retailers. The deal would make News America Marketing the dominant player in the business and, for that reason, the San Francisco field office of the Justice Department recommended to Washington that the News Corporation’s takeover bid be challenged on antitrust grounds. Typically, such a request from a field office would carry great weight in Washington and, at a minimum, delay the deal for months. But the Justice Department brass overrode San Francisco’s objections and gave its blessing in just two weeks. So who ran the antitrust division at the Justice Department at the time? Joel Klein, who this year became an executive vice president at the News Corporation, head of its education division and a close adviser to Rupert Murdoch on the phone-hacking scandal in Britain. It’s worth noting that less than a year later, the Justice Department division led by Mr. Klein blocked the News Corporation from selling its share of a satellite company to PrimeStar, owned by a group of cable providers, on antitrust grounds, so any suggestion that a department of the United States government was snugly in the hip pocket of Mr. Murdoch would not be correct. None of this suggests that Mr. Klein cut some sort of a deal that resulted in a job 14 years later. But the speed of the antitrust decision surprised even the people involved in the takeover. One of the participants, who declined to be identified discussing private negotiations, said he thought the sale was effectively blocked before the surprising turnaround. “After that meeting with the San Francisco office, we all looked at each other and said, ‘This deal is not going to happen,’ ” he said. My colleague Eric Lipton and I spent a few days trying to tease apart who made the actual decision to give the purchase the go-ahead — “It was as if a magic button had been pushed somewhere. We were all in shock,” said one of the same participants in the deal — but there is no paper trail. People who worked at the Justice Department back then either could not recollect how the decision was made or declined to share information if they knew. A spokeswoman for the News Corporation released this statement: “Joel didn’t know Mr. Murdoch at the time of the Heritage Media transaction 14 years ago. A year later, the D.O.J. under his leadership challenged the PrimeStar transaction in which News Corporation had a major interest. Any suggested inference is ludicrous.” A lawyer who worked in the Justice Department in Washington at the time but did not want to be identified discussing internal matters, said: “This decision was made on the merits. The front office in Washington didn’t think a case could be won in court based on the very narrow definition of the market.” But in retrospect, the anticompetitive fears of the San Francisco office were well founded. After the Heritage Media deal, News America Marketing was in a position to throw its weight around and it did just that, drawing a variety of lawsuits in which competitors claimed they had been threatened and harassed. The News Corporation has settled those cases at a cost of over $650 million, and now the F.B.I. is looking into whether there was a pattern of illicit tactics by that division of the News Corporation. “The way this whole thing got started was a horrible mistake. The government was bamboozled or worse,” said Thomas J. Horton, a law professor at the University of South Dakota who used to work at the Justice Department and represented a competitor, Insignia Systems of Minneapolis, in a lawsuit against News America Marketing. “The company has a long history of behaving unethically with no regard for our system of justice or legal ethics. They are ruthless.” One of News America Marketing’s other competitors was Floorgraphics, a small New Jersey company that did in-store ads. George Rebh, who founded Floorgraphics along with his brother Richard, met with Paul V. Carlucci, head of News America, in 1999 at a Manhattan restaurant, and the News Corporation executive got right to the point. “I will destroy you,” Mr. Carlucci said, according to his deposition in the Floorgraphics suit against News America, adding, “I work for a man who wants it all, and doesn’t understand anybody telling him he can’t have it all.” (Mr. Carlucci is now the publisher of the News Corporation-owned New York Post.) Just in case the Rebh brothers did not get the point, court records indicate that beginning in October 2003, someone working out of the Connecticut headquarters of News America Marketing gained access to the Floorgraphics computer network, which included a collection of advertisements the company had created for its customers. The News Corporation’s executives, as they have in case of phone hacking in Britain, said they had no idea that people working for them were engaged in such activity. But in 2004, a Floorgraphics board member sent a letter to David F. DeVoe, chief financial officer of the News Corporation, detailing that Floorgraphics computers had “been breached by News America, as identified by their I.P. addresses.” News America has since admitted in court to breaching its competitor’s computers, but attributed it to lax security and a rogue employee. According to correspondence that has been forwarded to members of the New Jersey Congressional delegation, Mr. Rebh also got in touch with the F.B.I., which sent two special agents to the Floorgraphics offices in 2004. One of the agents, Susan Secco, followed up with an e-mail in which she commented on the evidence Floorgraphics had compiled. “I believe I have all I need to conduct interviews, as there is an excellent paper trail,” she wrote. She then got in touch with the United States attorney in New Jersey and, after an initial burst of interest, the case died a slow death. The United States attorney at the time in New Jersey was Chris Christie, now governor of New Jersey and a rising star in the Republican Party. Michael Drewniak, the governor’s press secretary, said politics played no role. “The U.S. attorney’s office receives thousands of referrals each year from parties seeking criminal investigations. Any decision to prosecute or not prosecute is based strictly on the strength of the evidence or lack thereof,” he said. Two senior lawyers who supervised the unit that handled the initial investigation — Kevin O’Dowd and Deborah L. Gramiccioni — are now senior aides to Mr. Christie in the governor’s office. A state official said neither Mr. O’Dowd, then an assistant United States attorney, nor Ms. Gramiccioni, then chief of the office’s commercial crimes unit, recalled the details of the case and suggested that it had been handled at a lower level. In early 2005, Mr. Rebh urged Representative Rush Holt and New Jersey’s two senators at the time, Jon S. Corzine and Frank R. Lautenberg — both Democrats — to press Mr. Christie and Alberto R. Gonzales, then the United States attorney general, to pursue the matter. The Federal Trade Commission asked for jurisdiction and was denied by the Justice Department. Frustrated, the Rebhs went to the Secret Service, but the case died for lack of cooperation. Floorgraphics filed a civil lawsuit in federal court in 2009, but the suit was dropped when the News Corporation agreed to buy the assets of Floorgraphics for $29.5 million. Given the pattern of conduct revealed recently in Britain, there is renewed interest in how News America behaved in the in-store business. Mr. Lautenberg and Mr. Holt sent a letter last month to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., reminding him about the original accusations made by Floorgraphics and suggesting that the Justice Department revisit the case. Although the statute of limitations on many of the ostensible crimes has expired, Mr. Lautenberg and others have indicated that the Senate Commerce Committee may hold hearings to investigate whether there was a broad pattern of misconduct by the News Corporation. It’s too early to say what the result of these accusations and inquiries might be. And certainly no one has credibly said that the News Corporation’s employees here have hacked phones as they did in Britain, or replicated in America the kind of cozy, possibly corrupt relationships British employees fostered with officials. Then again, maybe they didn’t have to. In America, where the News Corporation does most of its business and also has a long reach into film, TV, cable and politics, the company’s size and might give it a soft, less obvious power that it has been able to project to remarkable effect. E-mail: carr@nytimes.com; Twitter.com/carr2n

Poster's notte: This interview is not to be missed. Chris Bryant is one courageous individual. --------------------------------------- Murdoch & me: How Chris Bryant brought a media mogul down to earth Chris Bryant MP has been barracked by the tabloids for seven years. But as a man who has experienced far worse an alcoholic mother, state terrorism and intense poverty in his parish while he was a vicar he wasn't about to stop hounding Rupert into the dock The Independent Interview by Robert Chalmers Sunday, 7 August 2011 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/murdoch-amp-me-how-chris-bryant-brought-a-media-mogul-down-to-earth-2331193.html One day in December 2003, after he had dared to question the ethical standards of Britain's bestselling newspapers, Chris Bryant recalls, he was approached by a senior editorial figure of a popular tabloid. "We will have killed you," the journalist said, "by Christmas." More than seven years on, this promise remains unfulfilled. The worst Bryant has suffered in that time is embarrassment surrounding a leaked photograph he took of himself, posing in front of a mirror in his Y-fronts discomforting as an experience, certainly but, career-wise at least, rather less disruptive than death. Meanwhile, the professional reputations of the executives who have grown to despise him threaten to disintegrate with a dark inevitability reminiscent of certain tragedies by Marlowe or Shakespeare. "Or Dickens," says Bryant. "At the first civil hearing I attended [when News International was negotiating out-of-court settlements with PFA chairman Gordon Taylor and publicist Max Clifford], the name of the Metropolitan Police's lawyer was Mr Buckett; the News of the World's man was a Mr Silverleaf, and now we discover that the legal firm they've been using is called Harbottle & Lewis. All of them could have come straight out of The Pickwick Papers." Chris Bryant's name may lack the wild implausibility that so appealed to the creator of Wackford Squeers, Luke Honeythunder and Paul Sweedlepipe, but many aspects of his character he's bright, determined, and not easily intimidated are not incompatible with the qualities of a Dickensian hero. Had it not been for the tireless work he put in, together with fellow MP Tom Watson, it's more than likely that the full extent of News International employees' improprieties, both proven and alleged, would never have become the subject of a full and transparent investigation. The righteous outrage of the majority of his fellow MPs has been reactive, a passive response to revelations concerning the News of the World's hacking into Milly Dowler's phone messages, and the targeting of the mobile belonging to Sara Payne, whose daughter was abducted and killed in 2000; the case that famously prompted then-editor Rebekah Brooks to launch the News of the World's campaign for the shaming of paedophiles, known as "Sarah's Law". Where the alleged hacking of phones and computers is concerned, Bryant, by contrast, has been on the front foot for almost a decade. He's proved to be a dubious operator's worst nightmare: tenacious, with an exceptional memory for detail, and not easily deterred by intimidation. We're sitting in his office at Portcullis House, the modern annexe across the street from the Commons, not far from the room where Rupert and James Murdoch endured an uncomfortable session of questioning from the Culture, Media and Sports Committee last month. Just beyond his reach is a ceremonial sword, awarded to the swimming champion of the House of Commons, a trophy which he's retained for the past five years. Bryant, 49, was born in Wales, though he retains no trace of the accent. He is unusually articulate by the standards of his political peers and, while friendly and accommodating, doesn't trouble to employ the kind of ingratiating gestures of overfamiliarity perfected by to choose one name from many Tony Blair. The Murdoch affair has been likened, somewhat prematurely, to Watergate. One similarity it does share with that scandal is the way in which the crude simplicity of the initial allegations is tending, with time, to become obscured by minutiae. "Just to help anybody who hasn't followed the history of this business in every detail, could you remind me how you came to be so prominently involved?" "I was elected in 2001 as Labour MP for the Rhondda. The following year we began an enquiry, on the Culture, Media and Sports Committee, into media intrusion." "Did you have a particular interest in this?" "A couple in my constituency had got in touch with me. Their child had a disability which, while it was not an obvious one, they hadn't wanted to be made public. A newspaper ran the story anyhow. It had been very upsetting for the family. They'd complained to the Press Complaints Commission, which was completely useless. There was another case where a man had been a victim of crime; days later he was called by the News of the World saying they were going to print the story." "And that made you wonder about the relationship between some members of the press and the police?" "That's where the matter of payment to police officers came in. So [in committee hearings in March 2003] we summoned all the editors of the national newspapers. I asked Rebekah Brooks, 'Have you ever paid police officers for information?' And she said, 'Yes.' Andy Coulson attempted to correct her by saying, 'But only under the law,' which of course paying policemen can never be." "And then?" "And then we ran out of time." "Since when you've continued to scrutinise News International more closely than some colleagues?" "I suppose so, yes. I left the committee in 2005 and then I was a PPS [Parliamentary Private Secretary] first of all to Charlie Falconer, then Harriet Harman; after that I became a minister." (Following Labour's 2010 General Election defeat, Bryant, by then Minister for Europe, returned to the back benches). "This phone-hacking business resurfaced in my life in 2009, when I read the Guardian story about the money that had been paid to the PFA chairman Gordon Taylor, and about how there were many more victims." At that point, Bryant says, he wrote to the Metropolitan Police, asking whether his own name was mentioned in the files relating to Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator jailed for six months in 2007 for hacking phones on behalf on the News of the World and the man whose notebooks contained the mobile number of Rebekah Brooks's "good friend" Sara Payne. "The police took seven months to reply. They said, 'There's a piece of paper with your name on it, but no evidence that you have been hacked.'" "Did the detectives show you the full paperwork?" "I asked them to. They wouldn't release the document, so we launched a judicial review on the Metropolitan Police, at the same time trying to set up a public inquiry. I was convinced there had been a cover-up. David Cameron kept on pooh-poohing it. Boris Johnson, as you will remember, said it was 'codswallop'." Finally, in January 2011, the police investigation, Operation Weeting, was launched. "And that was when officers showed me two sheets of foolscap, with names and addresses of people I'd been close to. There's a list of 23 telephone numbers which you could know only if you'd listened to my messages." "So when people talk about 4,000 victims, does that figure refer to people who were central targets, like you, or does it include each subsidiary caller?" This is one of many important questions, Chris Bryant says, which have yet to be answered. When Rupert Murdoch gave his evidence in committee last month, Bryant was seated directly behind the Australian's wife, Wendi. "It seemed to me," I suggest, "that Rupert Murdoch's defence was essentially: how can it be my fault that the plane hit the mountainside? I was too busy captaining the aircraft." "It was even worse than that. One side to it was: 'Look, I'm an old, old man. I have to answer questions very slowly. I have no memory. And secondly, yes, this is a very big company. Both defences are dangerous. As to the first: if it's true, he shouldn't be in charge of the company. Regarding the second, if they have no proper corporate governance, all these things could happen again next week." It was curious, I tell Bryant, to see those individuals striking poses of apparent contrition. "A couple of years ago," I remind Bryant, "James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks burst into the offices of the editor-in-chief at The Independent, shouting, 'You xxxxing xxxxwit.' ['Vocabulary,' the former Sunday Times editor Harold Evans remarked, when he heard, 'never was their strong point.'] You've encountered Rebekah Brooks in one of her less conciliatory moods, haven't you?" "That was at a party conference, I think in 2004. The journalist Andrew Pierce took me to the News International Party; I wasn't invited. Rebekah Brooks was there. She said: 'Ah, Mr Bryant. It's after dark. Shouldn't you be out on Clapham Common by now?' This was not long after [then-Labour MP] Ron Davies had been caught there." (Davies was robbed at knifepoint by a man he had met at that well-known gay meeting place.) "And that's when Rebekah Brooks's then-husband Ross Kemp said: 'Shut up, you homophobic cow.'" "And then?" "I laughed, then I drank a couple more glasses of News International's champagne, as an act of vengeance." "Aren't you the person who once remarked on Rupert Murdoch's 'casual violence'?" "Well, you saw that in the way he kept tapping the table, when he was facing the committee. Normally he does that with rings on. He wasn't wearing his rings. Wendi stopped him. James tried to stop him. But it's what he does. He is very intimidating." k "You felt they sort of got away with it, at least temporarily," I suggest. "It was a very good act. James Murdoch did manager-speak for hours. He wittered on and on and on. But when you look at what he said about the money paid to Gordon Taylor... there is simply no rationale for paying out £700,000. If he really believed what he said, he got terrible legal advice. And [at that hearing] he had nine acolytes, including Wendi, but there were only eight seats. So you had two very expensively attired lawyers sitting on each other's laps." "These comparisons with Watergate may be exaggerated, but you do get the same sense that, in order for the whole truth to emerge, events require at least one more small push." "What you've still got to come are the police investigations," Bryant responds. "Rebekah Brooks was interrogated by detectives for 12 hours, and by MPs for 90 minutes. In American committees you can take a witness for a whole day." In addition, Bryant adds, "you have Operation Weeting. They are now contacting all the victims, which of course is what they should have done in the first place. And lastly you will have the inquiry [the judicial investigation into the regulation of the media, which began last week, led by Lord Justice Leveson]. In the course of that process, all of these emails, which apparently incriminate very senior figures at the News of the World, will come out." Concerning Rebekah Brooks's denial that she, as editor of the News of the World, could have known that her paper had hacked the messages of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler, Bryant believes that, "If she did know, she's been lying all this time. If she didn't know, she has been culpably negligent." The revelation that Mulcaire's notes contained the mobile phone number of Sara Payne, is, Bryant says, "breathtaking". The fact that a woman who considered the News of the World operatives her trusted allies could be targeted is, he adds, "a clear sign that this newspaper was completely out of control. The hypocrisy is just unimaginable." Whatever your views about Bryant's politics, you can't but admire his passion and commitment. As recently as March he was addressing the Commons, imploring the few members present to address the allegations as a matter of urgency. In the past few weeks notably on the recent Channel 4 Dispatches special other MPs have spoken candidly about their fear of being victimised, should they appear to hinder the ambitions of News International. And this, says Bryant, is why the impending investigation is so important because it goes to the heart of a rather significant question: "Namely, who runs the country?" A former vicar, Conservative activist and heterosexual, Chris Bryant, who has been openly gay since he was in his mid-twenties, has some personal experience of the risks of confronting powerful players in the British media. The many admirable things that Bryant has achieved in his life include overcoming a very difficult childhood (a subject he will address in due course), gaining an English degree from Oxford, producing two well-written biographies (of Stafford Cripps and Glenda Jackson) and risking his life to help vulnerable individuals in Latin America. All of which, I suggest to the MP, makes it especially unfortunate that he was best known, until recently, for having, as is widely believed, posted that notorious photograph on the Gaydar dating website. "What were you thinking of?" "That's what everybody assumes: how stupid can he possibly be? But the only people who put that picture on a website were The Mail on Sunday and The Sun." The first sign of trouble, he says, came when a Mail on Sunday reporter showed up at his Welsh constituency office. "A large percentage of what was written was untrue." "And yet that picture exists, and it will never go away." "It won't. If I had £1,000 for every time I've read, 'Chris Bryant who once posed in his underpants,' I would be a very wealthy man." "One thousand? I think you'd be financially secure if we said 10." "Indeed. Or if anybody had paid me for the copyright: because I am clearly the photographer. I received proposals from middle-aged women who had clearly not grasped the main point of the story. And I increased my majority at the next election. Which possibly shows that it pays to advertise." "If you didn't post the picture on Gaydar, how did The Mail on Sunday get it?" "I don't know." "Curious?" "I am. I imagine it came from someone I had emailed it to." "To me, that photograph was something and nothing. What surprised me more were those reports of you blogging under the name of Alfa101." "I didn't blog as anything." "Have you ever used that particular nom de guerre?" "It's a fact that I was on Gaydar." Anyhow, I tell Bryant, it was his alias as "Alfa101" that I found bizarre. "Why?" "I suppose because it's not a pseudonym I'd choose myself. Perhaps because it would encourage expectations that might be problematic to fulfil." "It's a car." "Pardon?" "It's a car. It's an Alfa Romeo. What did you think it meant?" "I thought it referred to Alpha Male." "But that would be spelt with a 'ph', wouldn't it?" I've never thought of using my own vehicle name as an online sobriquet, I tell him, "maybe because I drive an elderly Sharan". "I don't know what a Sharan is. The 101 is actually a very cheap Alfa. And it wasn't the car I drove..." Bryant's tone indicates that this somewhat surreal conversation has gone as far as it will go. "OK, you've put your £10 in the pot," he says. "The irony of that story was that it was about a gay man who failed to get sex. I'm fortunate that my constituency was very supportive." Looking through his file of press cuttings, you see the extent to which Chris Bryant has been vilified. In the first week of December 2003 alone, he inspired headlines including "Gay MP Faces the Axe", "How Gay Is My Valley?" (Daily Mail) and "Voters Must Give Bryant A Rhondda Rogering" (The Sun). The Mail sent a man to show the photograph to constituents. "A window cleaner," the journalist reported, "gasped, 'God help us!'... then the colour drained from his cheeks." The Sunday Times published a profile in the same month, entitled "Blair's Attack Poodle Says Pants To The Lot Of You". Its author claimed to have observed men of the Rhondda "quivering with shock" at the photograph. I remind him of how, around this time, a stalker rang his doorbell, "and said 'I am very submissive.' And you said: 'Well, piss off, then.'" "Yes. Then he said: 'I'm not that submissive.' I had two stalkers. The other ended up in prison." In modern politics, Bryant says, "I believe you have to be sufficiently open to the world around you to be hurt, when people attack you, but you have to have a thick enough skin to be able to survive. I have had hideous emails. Absolutely hideous. You have to let that hurt enough; otherwise you just become arrogant and irrelevant." Chris Bryant was born in Cardiff, but between the ages of seven and 12 lived in Spain; first in Bilbao, then Madrid, where his father Rees ran the IT department for Chrysler. Gracie, the politician's late mother, had studied art in her home city of Glasgow. He was a day boy at Cheltenham College before reading English at Mansfield College, Oxford, where contemporaries included William Hague and Boris Johnson. "I know you don't like dead metaphors, but not to beat about the bush you're posh." "The cheap end of posh." I would have had some trouble, I tell him, in guessing that he was a former vicar. (Bryant, who trained at Ripon College, Cuddesdon, Oxford, served as a curate, chaplain and priest between 1986 and 1991.) "There was a period when everything went wrong at home and I lived with my school chaplain, Sam Salter, and his wife Margaret, for a year. He was eccentric and wonderful. He had a great influence on me." "When you say 'went wrong'..." "My mother was alcoholic. It was a terrible, terrible mess. She was a very unhappy person. I have memories of pouring vast quantities of vodka down the drain; of Mum being drunk in the kitchen, and of searching around trying to find out where the bottle was. I remember realising that the reason my avocado stone hadn't grown a root was because it was suspended not over water, but vodka. It became impossible for my dad. Once he left, I was the oldest [sober] person in the house." (Bryant has a younger brother, Rhodri.) "The first time I went on a date with a girl I came home and Mum had fallen over and hit her head; she was lying in the kitchen, in a pool of blood." "Did this responsibility give you a different perspective on life, as a child?" "Possibly, in the sense that I spent a great deal of time with adults. Teachers were very supportive of me. I took mum through DTs several times." "Which is a life-threatening condition?" "It is. She had terrible fits, on the floor. The really difficult thing was all the lies. I remember once taking her to Marks & Sparks and buying her some clothes. I came back a month later and she was in the old ones. The new stuff had all been taken back and exchanged for booze. It was very hard to help her in that period. It was just miserable, around her. "How did this end, with your mother?" "We don't know the exact date she had a lodger who was away at the time but she probably died on 1 May 1993. I'm not sure whether she deliberately took so many pills with too much booze." On his first weekend in Oxford, in 1980, the MP recalls, "I thought: shall I go to church? I did, and I loved it." Chris Bryant served as a curate in High Wycombe, and as a youth chaplain in Peterborough. He conducted the funeral of Michael Croft, founder of the National Youth Theatre (where Bryant performed regularly as a teenager) at Croft's specific request. "I heard you were 25 when a girlfriend told you: 'You know you're gay, don't you?'" "About that age. I had some wonderful girlfriends, one of whom sang at my civil partnership [with the company director Jared Cranney] last year. But I had also... dabbled." "And you left the church because of your sexuality?" "Yes. A second-century saint said that there are only two rivers you can never dam: spirituality and sexuality. I don't think the Church of England has noticed, but I am boycotting them. Because if they don't want us, I don't see why we should want them." "How old were you when you left the clergy?" "Twenty nine. I knew so many men who had stayed in the Church lots of them gay because they had no choice. I didn't want to end up like that. I would have hated to be in there now, with this suggestion that you can be in a civil partnership but only if it's celibate. This nonsense that the Church got itself into. I didn't want to live a lie. So I looked around for some other area where I could make a difference." "How did your parents react?" "My mother said she should always have known I was gay because I walked oddly." "And your father?" "When I came out, we were in a period where we weren't talking, because of the trauma of my mother's drinking." "How long did that estrangement last?" "Twelve years." "How did it end?" "I wrote to him; I said, 'I think you ought to know that I'm gay.' We get on very well now." "Of all the things you've been, the most surprising to me is that you were a Tory." "I went to Cheltenham College. The world around me was Tory. At Oxford I stood for the Conservative Association executive, where the aim was to deliver the vote of the Tory Reform Group against William Hague." "I'd have thought that the era of Margaret Thatcher would have politicised anybody with a strong sense of right and wrong." "Two things changed me. The National Youth Theatre, where I think I was the only public schoolboy. And, especially, the Church. My first placement was at Walker, in Newcastle." "Which introduced you to a different world?" "Yes. One of boarded-up houses and intense poverty. I realised that people were being generous to me with money that they didn't have. They were putting food on the table for me that they simply couldn't afford. And yes, that opened my eyes to a different world; the world I represent now, in the Rhondda." At the suggestion of Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, Bryant went to Latin America, in his early twenties. He recalls being beaten up in Lima, after spending a day with liberation theologist Gustavo Gutiérrez. He spent six months in Buenos Aires, studying theology and working for a human-rights organisation. "After that, I was supposed to spend three months in Chile. But I was ordered to leave after a week because I went to the funeral of a boy who'd had petrol poured over him by the police. I was asked to lead the prayers; then the police arrived with water cannon and tear gas." It was this latter episode, he says, that prompted him to join the Labour Party. "All the tear gas used by Pinochet was made in Britain. I brought a canister back. I wrote to Chris Patten, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He never replied. I wrote to the Liberal Simon Hughes. He told me to write to Patten. Then I contacted George Foulkes, now Lord Foulkes, and he invited me for tea." "There seems to have been general surprise that, in the Rhondda, out of 53 candidates for the Labour nomination, you were selected." "I was surprised." "And you got on with Blair, who was not universally adored in those Labour heartlands. I remember talking to his father-in-law, Tony Booth, and explaining that, at one point, I'd believed Tony Blair to be fundamentally driven by morality. Booth said: 'That's where you're making your mistake.'" "I don't agree. I think Blair was good for the Labour Party and the country. I think there were a couple of things he got profoundly wrong." "Iraq?" "I voted in favour of the war. For me it was never about the dossier; it was about the failure to comply with the international community's demands." "So you wanted regime change?" "Erm... not quite... there were big, big mistakes. We should have fought harder for a second resolution. It was a ludicrous decision to dismantle the security services." "Especially letting them keep all their weapons." "Yes. It meant the country collapsed into madness." k "So if you had your time again?" "I can only stand by what I did. I'd seen what Pinochet had done in Chile. I had friends who'd been tortured. That made me instinctively an intervener." (By September 2006, Bryant had become sufficiently disenchanted with Blair, then widely perceived as a liability, to co-ordinate a letter demanding his resignation.) "Given your experience with News International, what on earth do you make of Tony Blair's decision, in 1995, to fly halfway across the world to Hayman Island and begin sucking up to Murdoch? After everything he had done to Neil Kinnock?" "In the 1992 election, everybody thought we were going to win. We lost. It's not so much that they systematically attacked Neil Kinnock. It was more that they tried to destroy him." "But that's exactly what I mean. Given that appalling history, how could Blair..." "As leader of a Labour Party which had been out of power for 18 years, you'd say, right, I have at least to neutralise everything that's been against us. We probably surrendered policy areas that we shouldn't have done because of it." "But the question there is..." "Whether you surrender your soul in the process." There's a sketch from A Bit of Fry and Laurie circulating on YouTube, based on the James Stewart film It's a Wonderful Life, showing how Britain might have been if Murdoch had never lived: a country less troubled by racial intolerance, sexism and greed. "It ends," I tell Bryant, "with Fry, in the role of guardian angel, pushing Murdoch off a bridge and into a river. Have you seen it?" "No. I've heard about it." "You've been a priest and an English literature student. The Edinburgh Review wrote an article about Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray in which they described the novel as 'the opposite of sacred'. Do you think that phrase could apply to what Rupert Murdoch has done in the world?" "No," says Bryant. "That's not the way my mind works. My politics sprang out of liberation theology, where everything is black and white. But that's not where I am now." "Tell me a few of the good things Murdoch has done." "In the Rhondda," Bryant says, "people wouldn't have got access to digital television if not for Sky." "That's like saying there would be no cars if it wasn't for Carl Benz. It possibly wouldn't have happened so soon." "Not so soon... all right. The problem has been that television, by its nature, tends to produce monopolies. The Murdoch empire has always used anti-competitive practices to move faster towards monopoly." "Anything else?" "Well, TiVo couldn't get off the ground in the UK; but Sky Plus means that you don't have to watch terrible adverts. And they've improved the showing of cricket." "Just staying with sport, how about The Sun's allegations that Liverpool fans robbed the dead at Hillsborough. Or...?" "Listen, I believe they have done appalling things. I'm not detracting from that." These are remarkably measured responses from a man who knows better than most what can happen when, to quote the late US investigative journalist Gary Webb, "you get the big dog off the porch". In The Sunday Times' 2003 profile alone, Bryant was described as "a pillock", "sanctimonious", "po-faced" and "a bumptious little berk": characteristics that I couldn't identify in the man I met. But Chris Bryant is a man focused more on the future than on past grievances. His aims, he tells me, are simple. "All the criminals in prison," he says. "The Met never compromised so much again. A press that is robust but based on decency and legality. And better media-ownership rules that do not place too much power in the hands of one person." "You received some feedback from people purporting to be connected to NewsCorp quite recently, didn't you?" "It was along the lines of: 'This will not be forgotten. Nothing will happen now. But Rupert will not forget it.' It came via a friend. Two lieutenants of Rupert Murdoch's, one in the States, one here, approached him independently with the same message." One of the less contentious paragraphs in that 2003 profile referred to a statement the MP once made concerning London theatres. Their interiors, he suggested, should be modernised, "because the seats were designed for backsides of the Victorian, not the modern era". While 19th-century furniture was stable, the author remarked, "Chris Bryant's own seat may have an ejector button." It's entirely possible that the MP may, having made so many powerful enemies, find himself catapulted into the void. And yet in view of the persistence and courage with which he has pursued his cause it seems equally likely that, as his career progresses, Chris Bryant will see his endeavour rewarded with some more gradual and dignified ascent.

A welcome decision to release Nixon’s grand jury testimony Washington Post By Editorial, Published: August 5, 2011 IN 1975, FORMER President Richard M. Nixon spent 11 hours, over two days, providing testimony to a federal grand jury investigating the Watergate break-in and cover-up. But some 36 years later, little is known about what he said. Press reports have asserted that Nixon addressed the notorious 18½-minute gap in his taped White House conversation with former chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, as well as the administration’s alleged use of the Internal Revenue Service to harass political adversaries, among other topics. But certainty is not possible because the former president’s testimony remains under seal — off limits to the public, including historians and other academics. That may soon change, thanks to a laudable July 29 decision by Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Grand jury proceedings are typically kept secret — and with good reason. Such secrecy prevents harassment of grand jurors, and it prevents witnesses from changing their stories to fit accounts provided by others. But judges have made exceptions. Federal courts in New York, for instance, ordered the release of grand jury material in the cases of accused spy Alger Hiss and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed after being found guilty of espionage. In both cases, transcripts were made public some 50 years or more after the testimony was given. The courts concluded that the historical importance of the cases, the significant amount of time that had lapsed and the fact that the principals in the case were deceased justified such disclosures. The same holds true in the Nixon case. The Justice Department opposed release, arguing that not enough time had passed since the testimony was given and expressing concern that making an exception in this case could set a dangerous precedent that could erode the integrity of grand jury proceedings in the future. Neither argument is persuasive. A 36-year lag between Nixon’s testimony and possible release is more than sufficient to protect individuals’ privacy interests. Nixon has passed away, as have other major players; many who were involved in the scandal have testified publicly in congressional hearings or given media interviews or written books about the episode and their role in it. The formal Watergate investigation has long since been closed, yet public interest remains high. In granting the request by Watergate scholar Stanley Kutler and several historical associations to unseal Nixon’s grand jury testimony, Judge Lamberth made clear that judges are only authorized to order grand jury disclosures in cases that involve “exceptional circumstances.” If there was ever a case that met this standard, it is one involving a former president of the United States who was called to testify under oath in a matter that brought the country to the brink of a constitutional crisis.

Coulson vetted by investigator linked to News International Man who cleared the former editor for Downing Street was once paid by Murdoch The Independent James Hanning, Jane Merrick and Matthew Bell Sunday, 7 August 2011 Andy Coulson was cleared for work at No 10 Downing Street last year after an investigator who had also done work for News International (NI) carried out his vetting, the IoS can reveal. Mr Coulson, David Cameron's media chief, who resigned in January as the phone-hacking scandal developed, was scrutinised by an experienced investigator with strong links to both the Security Services and to the newspaper group that owned the News of the World, which Mr Coulson had previously edited. The revelation is certain to renew controversy about Mr Cameron's 2007 decision to appoint Mr Coulson months after the former journalist's resignation as editor of the paper when two men were sent to prison for phone hacking. The vetting process, which took place around the time of last year's election, gave Mr Coulson the green light to work alongside the Prime Minister in Downing Street and to see certain secret documents. Last week, a former tabloid journalist and author, Wensley Clarkson, alleged on Newsnight that the investigator in question – who is known to Mr Clarkson – "would have used phone-hacking in the past" as one of his investigative tools. Now the IoS has learnt, independently of Mr Clarkson, that the person had done work for NI, a conflict of interest of which the PM is aware and knowledge of which is likely to cause embarrassment in Downing Street. Last night, a No 10 spokesman said he had spoken to "several top security people" and issued a categorical denial that the work had been "farmed out" to a private investigator, but left open the possibility that someone working for the Security Services had done work for News International. "It is pretty ironic, given what has happened recently," said Mr Clarkson last night. "For one thing, it calls into question the efficiency of the vetting procedure and, for another, it makes you wonder why the Security Services are not doing this stuff themselves from their own resources. But they're not likely to admit it, are they? I know the way the vetting world works. They just never admit things like this. I'm not in the least surprised to hear that Coulson would be vetted by a private individual, but I suspect most people assume the Security Services do their own donkey work, although they, like everyone else, are suffering from the current splurge of cuts." Questions have been raised as to why Mr Coulson was not submitted for "Developed Vetting", the highest form of clearance, as soon as he started working in Downing Street. There was speculation this was the result of royal or Civil Service pressure, or that something might be unearthed that would prevent him being awarded clearance. Downing Street has said that his resignation from the News of the World (NOTW) had no bearing on any decision about his vetting status. It was reported last week that senior officials working with Andy Coulson believed he did have the highest security clearance, raising questions over whether he was inadvertently granted access to the most sensitive information. Mr Coulson underwent a total of three vetting procedures during his time working for David Cameron, yet it seems none uncovered serious concerns about the extent of phone hacking during his time as editor of NOTW (2003-07). At the time of his initial appointment in July 2007 to work with Mr Cameron in opposition, Mr Coulson was given a low form of clearance, which was reportedly handled by a branch of Control Risks, a private security company with good connections to the Conservative Party. Downing Street has declined to confirm that the company carried out the search, as does the company, now known as Sterling Infosystems. But a security expert last night questioned the wisdom of Mr Coulson being employed, even in opposition, if that was the case – on the basis of the sort of search that this firm carries out. Ambrose Carey, 49, who owns and runs an investigations company Alaco, said: "Control Risks Screening was the company you would call if you wanted a standard background check. There is nothing wrong with it, but it is absolutely entry level. It's what multinational companies do as a matter of routine on everyone from the receptionist upwards. They are good and respected, but the kind of investigation they do is the most basic. They'll check degrees and qualifications, essentially just box-ticking stuff. "I would be amazed if that was the only check the Tories did on someone of Andy Coulson's seniority. A thorough 'due diligence' would require bespoke investigation – canvassing as many people from the man's past to get as full a picture as possible. Background screening typically costs a few hundred pounds. But a full 'due diligence' report would typically cost a few thousand." The final stage, unusually for someone of Mr Coulson's closeness to the Prime Minister, did not begin until six months after the election. The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, has said that it was felt that Mr Coulson's security clearance level should be upgraded following a counterterrorism incident at East Midlands airport last October. Sir Gus has warned about the danger of misunderstanding "the purpose of security vetting, which is about access to information not suitability for a job". In Mr Coulson's case, the Developed Vetting (DV) process, which Sir Gus said can take up to six months, was cut short by the media chief's resignation in January. The Security Services are in charge of DV, which is regarded with extreme seriousness. Having DV clearance would have enabled Mr Coulson to be shown the most secret of government documents. Downing Street has said the ongoing vetting process had nothing to do with Mr Coulson's eventual resignation, and Mr Coulson denies having known that unlawful phone hacking was going on during his editorship of NOTW. It was reported yesterday that Mr Coulson's predecessor as editor of the News of the World, Rebekah Brooks, who resigned as chief executive of News International last month, was still on the payroll, having been told by Rupert Murdoch to go travelling for a year until the phone-hacking scandal dies down. A News International spokesman said last night: "We decline to comment on the financial arrangements of any individual."

Posted at 11:34 AM ET, 08/05/2011 Guardian reporter admitted to phone hacking By Elizabeth Flock Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/guardian-reporter-admitted-to-phone-hacking/2011/08/05/gIQAXK9SwI_blog.html As CNN anchor Piers Morgan continues to deny allegations of phone hacking, an article written in 2006 has surfaced in which the Guardian’s assistant editor readily admits to having participated in the practice. David Leigh wrote the article after News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman pleaded guilty to phone hacking, a crime for which he was later jailed. In the article, Leigh admits to once hacking the phone of a “corrupt” arms company executive, after the businessman accidentally left his voicemail pin code on a printout. Leigh writes that investigative journalism is “not a dinner party”, “particularly in a secretive country like ours where the privacy cards are stacked in favor of the rich and powerful.” His defense: It all depends who the target is. “Unlike Goodman, I was not interested in witless tittle-tattle about the royal family. I was looking for evidence of bribery and corruption,” he writes. Leigh also admits to what’s called “blagging,” or pretending to be someone else on the phone to get a story. Leigh suggests that these kind of practices should be kosher in journalism only when it is a last resort and when it is in the public interest. “As for actually breaking the law? Well, it is hard to keep on the right side of legality on all occasions,” he writes. Leigh’s investigative work has led to the jailing of former British MP Jonathan Aitken and to the exposure of secret payments by defense and aerospace company BAE. Leigh is also a professor of reporting at City University in London. By Elizabeth Flock | 11:34 AM ET, 08/05/2011

The Madman Theory The New York Times By KURT ANDERSEN August 6, 2011 I had breakfast this week with one of Hollywood’s most ferocious, self-confident and successful doers of deals. He was still steamed about what an unforgivably lousy negotiator his president had been on the debt ceiling agreement. One particular Obama move he found appalling above all the rest. “There is a provision in our Constitution that speaks to making sure that the United States meets its obligations,” the president had said, referring to Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, “and there have been some suggestions” — by Bill Clinton and various legal scholars — “that a president could use that language to basically ignore that debt ceiling rule.” According to my Hollywood supernegotiator friend, Obama should’ve stopped right there — or, even better, followed up with that standard ambiguous saber-rattling line: “No option is off the table.” Raising the possibility of unilateral executive action would’ve strengthened his hand against the Republicans. Instead, Mr. Transparent and Reasonable instantly ruled it out in the weakest way possible: “I have talked to my lawyers. They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.” My friend recited the president’s surrender sentence incredulously, slipping an obscene seven-letter gerund in front of lawyers. Since the Republicans were threatening to go nuclear in unprecedented fashion, why didn’t the president at least threaten to use his unprecedented nuclear option to stop them? In other words, it’s a pity Barack Obama isn’t more like Richard Nixon. I think of Nixon every year around now, as another anniversary of his resignation (Tuesday the 9th) rolls around. President Nixon famously tried convincing the Communists that he might literally go nuclear if they didn’t behave. “I call it the Madman Theory,” he explained to his chief of staff. “I want the North Vietnamese to believe that I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war.” Of course, a lot of us swooned over Obama partly because he seemed so prudent, straightforward and even-keeled. But now, with Republicans spectacularly applying the Madman Theory for the first time in domestic politics, Obama’s nonconfrontational reasonableness isn’t looking like such a virtue. It’s frustrating. We’ve had presidents who were intelligent and progressive but also cynical and ruthless when necessary. Effective, tough-minded, visionary liberals such as F.D.R., Clinton ... and Nixon. In popular imagination, Nixon remains nothing but a great goblin — scowling bomber of Southeast Asia, panderer to fear and racism, paranoid anti-Semite, dispatcher of burglars — but the truth is, he governed further to the left than any president who followed him. The overreaching Euro-socialist nanny state that today’s Republicans despise? That blossomed in the Nixon administration. Spending on social services doubled, and military budgets actually decreased. He oversaw the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. His administration was the first to encourage and enable American Indian tribal autonomy. He quadrupled the staff of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, almost tripled federal outlays for civil rights and began affirmative action in federal hiring. He supported the Equal Rights Amendment and signed Title IX, the law granting equality to female student athletes. One of his Supreme Court appointees wrote the Roe v. Wade decision. Nixon made Social Security cost-of-living increases automatic, expanded food stamps and started Supplemental Security Income for the disabled and elderly poor. It helped, of course, that Democrats controlled the House and Senate. But it was the president, not Congress, who proposed a universal health insurance plan and a transformation of welfare that would have set a guaranteed minimum income and allowed men to remain with their welfare-recipient families. It was Nixon who radically intervened in the free market by imposing wage and price controls, launched détente with the Soviets, normalized relations with Mao’s China and let the Communists win in Vietnam. And, for good measure, the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts grew sixfold, by far the biggest increase by any president. The idea of Nixon — Nixon? — as a de facto liberal provokes cognitive dissonance, especially among people over 50. Facts notwithstanding, they refuse to buy it, as if they’ve been fooled by a parlor trick. But the only trick involved is judging Nixon circa 1970 by the ideological standards of 2011. My late mother, who voted for every Republican presidential candidate from Wendell Willkie through George H.W. Bush, became a Democrat in her 70s. “These black hats,” she said of the G.O.P. right, “have gotten as nutty as fruitcakes. Nothing they say shocks me anymore.” She voted five times for Nixon, whose Madman Theory was a tactical posturing to make the Communists think he was an unhinged, reckless fanatic itching to wreak havoc. But a national Republican Party dominated by actually unhinged, reckless fanatics itching to wreak havoc in America? I think that would’ve shocked her. I think it probably would’ve even shocked Nixon. Kurt Andersen, the host of public radio’s “Studio 360” and the author, most recently, of the novel “Heyday,” is a guest columnist.

Key quote from article: “It now seems to be everyone for themselves. The edifice is cracking. They’re all fighting like rats in a sack.” ------------------------------------------ A Murdoch’s Missed Opportunity The New York Times By JAMES B. STEWART August 6, 2011 When the News Corporation announced it would stop paying the legal fees for Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator at the center of Britain’s tabloid phone hacking scandal, the consequences were swift. Mr. Mulcaire could obviously shed light on who at the News Corporation knew about the phone hacking and efforts to conceal it. After four years of silence, and just hours after the News Corporation said it would stop paying, he stepped before television cameras outside his home to say, “I have no further comment to make at this stage.” He added, “This may change.” Mr. Mulcaire is said to employ a lawyer full time as well as several more part time, an arrangement he surely can’t afford for long on a private investigator’s income. In Parliament, the Labour member Paul Farrelly asked James Murdoch, who heads the company’s international operations, if he understood why people might interpret paying those legal fees as an effort to buy the private investigator’s cooperation or silence. Mr. Murdoch murmured his agreement, saying his lawyers had told him “it’s important and customary” to pay such fees. “I’ve asked for those things to cease.” After the company cut Mr. Mulcaire loose, two former executives came forward to accuse Mr. Murdoch of being “mistaken” in his testimony to Parliament about his knowledge of phone hacking. Now Mr. Murdoch is under investigation for potentially misleading Parliament. As Mr. Farrelly put it, “It now seems to be everyone for themselves. The edifice is cracking. They’re all fighting like rats in a sack.” However controversial in Britain, the practice of companies’ paying their officers and employees’ legal expenses in criminal investigations is not only routine in America but has been elevated by some to the status of a constitutional right. A little-discussed but open secret among defense lawyers and prosecutors alike is that who pays the legal fees often decides the outcome of an investigation. As John C. Coffee Jr., Berle professor of law at Columbia, told me: “Someone whose legal fees are not paid may have a strong and urgent need to cooperate with the government. The employee, if he can’t afford to defend himself, has to cut a deal, and he might, shall we say, color his testimony. Who’s going to get the benefit of that, the company or the government? Lawyers know very well how to coach witnesses on what to say without telling them to lie.” Confronted in the 1990s with an unprecedented wave of white-collar crime at major corporations like Enron and WorldCom, Justice Department prosecutors grew exasperated with companies that made public pledges to cooperate with investigators only to unleash a phalanx of defense lawyers bent on anything but. In 2003, when he was chief of the Justice Department’s criminal division, Larry Thompson wrote that a factor in whether a company, as opposed to individuals, would be charged with a crime would be the extent of its cooperation, one measure of which “is whether the corporation appears to be protecting its culpable employees and agents,” among other things, “through the advancing of attorneys fees.” Mr. Thompson might well have added lavish severance packages and other forms of hush money to the list. In 2005, the accounting firm KPMG admitted to creating fraudulent tax shelters that enabled wealthy clients to evade $2.5 billion in federal taxes, and six former partners, including the firm’s former deputy chairman, were indicted. KPMG, as it had in the past, paid their legal bills. All pleaded not guilty and declined to cooperate with the government. As an accounting firm dependent on public trust, KPMG recognized that its survival depended on the firm’s escaping criminal charges. At a meeting with prosecutors, the firm’s lawyer, Robert Bennett, emphasized that KPMG “had decided to change course and cooperate fully.” The prosecutors zeroed in on the issue of legal fees, with one saying that “misconduct should not be rewarded” and another warning that with respect to legal fees, “we’ll look at that under a microscope,” according to notes taken at the meeting. KPMG subsequently said it would pay legal fees up to $400,000 as long as employees cooperated and did not invoke the Fifth Amendment but would cease altogether for anyone indicted, including the six former partners already indicted. Two years later, United States District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan took the drastic step of dismissing the indictments and harshly criticized both the Thompson memo and the prosecutors’ use of it to cow KPMG into terminating the fees to its former partners. He suggested that this violated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and ruled that the Justice Department “deliberately or callously prevented many of these defendants from obtaining funds for their defense that they lawfully would have had absent the government’s interference. They thereby foreclosed these defendants from presenting defenses they wished to present and, in some cases, even deprived them of counsel of their choice. This is intolerable in a society that holds itself out to the world as a paragon of justice.” In reaching his decision, Judge Kaplan asked the defense lawyers what it would cost to defend the case. Their estimates ranged from $7 million to $24 million per defendant. In the wake of Judge Kaplan’s broadside (subsequently upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals), the Justice Department discarded the Thompson memo. While still giving credit for cooperation, Justice Department policy now states flatly that “prosecutors should not take into account whether a corporation is advancing or reimbursing attorneys’ fees or providing counsel to employees,” unless the fees are part of an effort to obstruct justice, such as making their payment conditioned on supporting “a false version of events.” Today, “99 percent of all publicly held U.S. companies have indemnification agreements with their senior management and directors” to pay legal expenses, Mr. Coffee noted. “Their bylaws state that they will indemnify to the full extent permitted by law.” He noted that in litigious America, this is sound public policy in order to attract qualified officers, directors and employees, who otherwise might face ruinous costs of defending themselves against what are often frivolous lawsuits. Still, not everyone is enamored of either Judge Kaplan’s opinion or the outcome of the KPMG case. The six former partners had their indictments dismissed, but other defendants were found guilty at trial. Both a federal judge and a prominent defense lawyer I spoke to said they doubted that the Supreme Court would elevate a corporation’s payment of legal fees to a constitutional right. “It’s a leap, to put it mildly,” the lawyer said. “Just because you can’t afford the most expensive lawyers or have an unlimited budget doesn’t mean your constitutional rights have been violated.” The right to counsel is far less established in English law, and Parliament may have been well within its rights to pressure the Murdochs on the subject of legal fees. But the News Corporation is incorporated in Delaware with headquarters in New York. If I were Rupert Murdoch, I’d wrap myself in the American flag and Constitution, and pay everyone’s lawyers. However heinous Mr. Mulcaire’s investigative techniques, he’s entitled to due process, which in America would be the best, most expensive defense lawyers the News Corporation’s money can buy.

Phone hacking: police who took tip-off fees to be investigated by taxman HMRC crackdown means officers who accepted payments from newspapers or private investigators face prosecution and fines By Patrick Collinson guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 August 2011 18.54 BST Police officers who allegedly took payments from newspapers and private investigators could face hefty fines and criminal prosecution after it emerged HM Revenue & Customs is reopening personal tax records to check if payments were fully disclosed. It is understood HMRC has already begun probing self-assessment forms from previous years in the wake of new information obtained amid the phone-hacking revelations. Last month Sir Paul Stephenson, the outgoing Metropolitan police commissioner, said documents provided by News International appear to include information on "inappropriate payments" to police officers. It was reported that the company provided the Met with details of payments made by the News of the World to senior officers between 2003 and 2007. Under HMRC rules any payments earned in connection with an individual's employment are required to be disclosed for tax purposes, even if the payment is deemed illegal. An HMRC spokesperson said he could not confirm the nature or extent of any investigation into a private individual's tax affairs. But he confirmed that HMRC will act on any new information and that illegal earnings can still be liable for tax. Action to recover tax from police officers paid illegal tip-off fees relies on the precedent set by the "Miss Whiplash" prostitution case of the early 1990s, which has since entered the HMRC rule book. Miss Whiplash, who also went by the name of Lindi St Clair, was pursued for £112,000 in unpaid income tax in the late 1980s. It culminated in a court case in 1990 where she argued that since it was illegal to live on immoral earnings, taxing her would be committing an offence. But she lost the case and was subsequently made bankrupt. An HMRC spokesman said: "If you receive money in connection with your employment then it is liable for income tax. Illegality is irrelevant." Over the past year HMRC has intensified investigations into alleged tax cheats and promised to increase the number of prosecutions. Since April HMRC has had powers to name and shame anyone found to have deliberately evaded £25,000 or more in tax. The scheme will see names, addresses and details of the evasion made public. But those who come clean can avoid having their details published. Earlier this year the government gave HMRC with an additional £900m to fund more investigations into tax evasion. The aim is to raise an additional £7bn in tax each year by 2014/15. HMRC has also gained new powers to inspect taxpayers' records and documents. In a typical investigation it will examine income and earnings dating back six years. If it discovers an individual has knowingly submitted an inaccurate return or document, or taken active steps to conceal earnings, it can demand repayment of the tax, plus interest and a penalty of up to 100% of the unpaid tax. The department recently announced the targeting of the restaurant industry with a new task force dedicated to detecting tax and national insurance evasion. But it added that criminal prosecutions were reserved only for the most serious cases of high level fraud.

Elisabeth Murdoch opts not to join board of News Corporation Statement from conglomerate says she suggested it would be 'inappropriate' for her to join board of father's company By Damien Pearse The Guardian, Saturday 6 August 2011 Elisabeth Murdoch will not be joining the board of her father Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation conglomerate, despite expectations that she would do so. The company said in a statement that she had suggested to its directors it would be "inappropriate" for her to make the move. She had been expected to join the board after News Corp bought Shine Group, the television production company she runs, in a deal worth £415m. Viet Dinh, chairman of the nominating and corporate governance committee of the News Corporation board of directors, said: "Elisabeth Murdoch suggested to the independent directors some weeks ago that she felt it would be inappropriate to include her nomination to the board of News Corp at this year's AGM, as had been announced by chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch at the time of the acquisition of Shine Group earlier this year. "The independent directors agreed that the previously planned nomination should be delayed. Both Elisabeth and the board hope this decision reaffirms that News Corp aspires to the highest standards of corporate governance and will continue to act in the best interests of all stakeholders, be they shareholders, employees or the billions of consumers who News Corp content informs, entertains and sometimes provokes every year." Murdoch founded Shine, which has produced shows such as The Tudors, Ashes to Ashes and Masterchef, a decade ago, and built it into a powerhouse in the British independent television sector and a transatlantic business. Other popular programmes for the group include Merlin, and Spooks. It is understood Murdoch, who owned a 53% stake in the company, with Sony holding 20% and BSkyB a further 13%, made £153m after completing the sale to News Corp. She is is married to the public relations executive Matthew Freud. Reports have suggested that some shareholders believe the 16-member board of News Corp is too beholden to Rupert Murdoch. The Murdoch family controls nearly 40% of the company's voting shares through a family trust, and Murdoch's sons James, 38, and Lachlan, 39, already sit alongside him on the board. In February, after announcing News Corp's plans to buy Shine, Rupert Murdoch said: "Shine has an outstanding creative team that has built a significant independent production company in major markets in very few years, and I look forward to them becoming an important part of our varied and large content creation activities. I expect Liz Murdoch to join the board of News Corporation on completion of this transaction."

Alex Salmond accused of pandering to Rupert Murdoch Scottish first minister has met with media mogul or his News International executives 25 times since taking officeBy Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 August 2011 22.44 BST Alex Salmond has been accused of trying to "seduce" Rupert Murdoch and News International after it emerged that he offered the media baron a series of gifts and has met him or his executives 25 times since becoming Scotland's first minister. Labour's Scottish leader, Iain Gray, said Salmond was guilty of "highly questionable behaviour", adding: "What is now clear is Alex Salmond has waged a four-year campaign since he became first minister to seduce Rupert Murdoch and News International, which has included gifts. "It has been a top priority and he has spent more of his media time in the last year with News International than any other party leader in Britain." In the latest set of ministerial disclosures in the News of the World hacking scandal, the Scottish government revealed that Salmond had met or spoken to Murdoch senior four times and his son James once since becoming first minister. The latest meeting with Murdoch senior was in June in London, shortly before the hacking scandal erupted. Salmond's officials insisted the latest contacts with the Murdochs, including a private meeting with James Murdoch in London in January, were "perfectly proper and reasonable". They discussed BSkyB's investments in Scotland, where it employs 6,000 people and is one of Scotland's largest private employers. Salmond's spokesmen did not deny that the first minister also discussed the significant political support for the SNP from the Sun and News of the World's Scottish editions in the run up to Salmond's landslide victory in the Holyrood elections in May. The titles are now Scotland's highest-selling papers. Among 25 meetings with NI and News Corp executives since June 2007, Salmond met editors and executives from the Sun, NoW, the Times, the Sunday Times and Sky, including Rebekah Brooks in 2008when she was editor of the Sun. The frequency of those meetings increased sharply this year, before the Sun and NoW announced they were backing the SNP in March. Pressed several times on whether the tabloids' editorial backing for the SNP was discussed at either meeting with the Murdochs, Salmond's spokesman said: "All I can say is, not to my knowledge." He insisted that Salmond's lobbying of the Murdochs was to press for increasing BSkyB investment and jobs, and to highlight his government's transport investments. This year the broadcaster has added a further 150 jobs in Scotland. He said Salmond had begun lobbying the Murdochs in 2007 even though the Sun had published a noose on its front page in an attack on the SNP before the 2007 Scottish elections. "I would say he has been really assiduous in doing his job as first minister," Salmond's spokesman said. There is no allegation of any undue influence involving the Scottish government, Nnews International and the police in Scotland in the hacking scandal or any other criminal investigation. Labour accusations about the increasingly close links between Salmond and NI came after the Scottish government published 17 pages of correspondence between the first minister, the Murdochs and other NI executives, including Les Hinton, who resigned from News Corp last month. After referring to Salmond's previous role as a horse racing tipster for the News of the World when Brooks was editor, Gray said: "SNP claims that these meetings were to promote Scotland are laughable as it is clear they were all about promoting Alex Salmond and the SNP." The Liberal Democrats also went on the offensive. Willie Rennie, the Scottish party leader, said: "The blatant sycophantic behaviour laid out for all to see should make the first minister squirm. The crucial letter following the meeting in January does not contain one mention of Alex Salmond quizzing James Murdoch about phone hacking." The four-page list of Salmond's meetings with other media executives show he met Richard Desmond, owner of the SNP-supporting Express newspapers, three times, Alexander Lebedev once and Michael Johnston, of the Scotsman, once. The correspondence shows that Murdoch and Salmond began exchanging gifts in October 2007 after the News Corporation chairman met Salmond in New York and accepted his invitation to join the Scottish government's "Globalscots" network, an "elite sales force" of 900 business people with Scottish connections. Murdoch responded by sending Salmond a book, and made the first minister guest of honour at the opening of a new NI printing plant near Glasgow. Salmond reciprocated by offering Murdoch tickets to see Black Watch, a Scottish theatre production in New York about the Iraq war, and meet the cast. He said Murdoch could "attend incognito" if he wished. Murdoch was offered tickets to a Ryder Cup golf tournament in Kentucky by Salmond in September 2008. In October and December 2008, Salmond twice invited Murdoch to be his "special guest" at events to celebrate the year of Homecoming in 2009, and sent him a DVD narrated by Sir Sean Connery. In February 2009, the first minister repeated his guest of honour offer and also lobbied Murdoch directly with an offer to give Sky the exclusive broadcasting rights to a pageant launching the year of Homecoming. In March 2009, Murdoch replied: "I can't promise to be there but I am trying." Murdoch promised to pass on Salmond's broadcasting offer to Sky. In April 2009, the then Scottish Sun editor David Dinsmore thanked Salmond for helping to raise £27,000 at a charity lunch, and offered him a golfing trip. In February 2010, Dinsmore offered Salmond and his wife Moira tickets to see Scottish Opera in Glasgow. In April 2011, two weeks before the Scottish election, Salmond appeared as the sole party leader at a NI-organised "political breakfast" in Edinburgh. On 9 May 2011, Dinsmore, now NI's general manager in Scotland, congratulated Salmond on his "quite astonishing" election victory. Sun executives in Scotland then treated Salmond to a curry dinner after the election. Dinsmore wrote: "I look forward to News International playing its part in helping to make the country a place where outward looking, forward thinking and risk taking are the norm. You have been given great power – I wish you wisdom, strength – and patience – in wielding it."

Trinity Mirror: Remember what happened to Murdoch The owner of the Mirror titles is close to taking an unresponsive approach to phone hacking reminiscent of Murdoch By Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 August 2011 21.24 BST It may not be owned by Rupert Murdoch, but Trinity Mirror, owner of the Mirror titles, is perilously close to taking an unresponsive approach reminiscent of Murdoch's Wapping as it contends with vague allegations of phone hacking swirling around its stable of titles. On the face of it, the accusations are limited. There is an allegation from Heather Mills that a journalist admitted her phone had been hacked, a sense of suspicion from Nancy Dell'Olio, and the same set of remarks made by Piers Morgan to the Daily Mail and Desert Island Discs. There are not – as in the case of Glenn Mulcaire, the News of the World's private investigator – 11,000 pages of notes about hacking held by the police. Mirror journalists past and present feel considerable frustration over how the story has acquired momentum. Some argue that Mills has not always been a reliable source in the past – although there is no evidence to disprove her account on this occasion – while others point out that the most cited pieces of evidence seem to consist of statements made by Morgan himself, who would be unlikely to admit his own guilt. Trinity Mirror's official response has been muted. Last month it announced an internal review into phone hacking, led by Paul Vickers, the company's legal director. But he is focusing only on current practices at the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and People, and the company has been careful to describe his work as "review rather than an investigation". Now, as the likes of Mills make their allegations, Trinity Mirror has little more to say. It has repeatedly described claims made by her, and former journalist James Hipwell, as "unsubstantiated" and said its reporters "work within the criminal law and the PCC code of conduct". There is no sense that the company is prepared to conduct a backwards looking review – which is risky, because there always remains the possibility that, as News International found out, new, more clearcut evidence could emerge. It has been known for some weeks that the Mirror Group used Southern Investigations, the firm headed by Jonathan Rees, who was jailed in 2000 for conspiring to plant cocaine on an innocent person. Rees, who was involved in the hacking of phones and the blagging of bank account details, may not have worked for the Mirror newspapers since then but his firm was used 230 times between October 1997 and September 1999. Trinity Mirror may, at the very least, want to investigate that period of its newspapers' history

FBI widens News Corp inquiry after alleged computer hacking by subsidiary US authorities reportedly looking into 'larger pattern of behaviour' by Murdoch companies following claims of strong-arm tactics By Ed Pilkington in New York guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 August 2011 20.41 BST The FBI is widening its investigation of News Corporation's activities within the US to look at whether alleged computer hacking by one of its subsidiaries was an isolated case or part of a "larger pattern of behaviour", Time magazine is reporting. Time suggests that the FBI inquiry has been extended from a relatively narrow look at alleged malpractices by News Corp in America into a more general investigation of whether the company used possibly illegal strong-arm tactics to browbeat rival firms. The allegation of computer hacking was made by the retail advertising company Floorgraphics against the advertising branch of News Corp, News America. In a civil lawsuit against News Corp in 2004, Floorgraphics told a court that its website, protected by password security, had been breached 11 times over four months without authorisation. The source of the alleged hacking was traced back to an IP address registered to News America in Connecticut. Time has obtained a copy of a confidential fax sent in the same year by a major investor in Floorgraphics to News Corp's chief financial officer, David DeVoe. William Berkley wrote: "We have just discovered evidence that our proprietary and password-protected computer files … has been breached by News America." Berkley accuses the News Corp subsidiary of carrying out "some sort of corporate espionage" to obtain the password. The CEO of News America was later promoted to be the publisher of the Murdoch newspaper the New York Post. A spokeswoman for News Corp told Time that this was the only incidence of computer hacking that had been brought to the company's attention, and said News America had condemned the act as a violation of its standards.

Phone hacking: Piers Morgan has questions to answer, says Harman Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman says former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan needs to answer the phone-hacking allegations by Heather Mills By James Robinson guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 August 2011 10.44 BST Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman said on Thursday that former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan "has got to answer" questions about phone hacking at the paper during the period he was editor. Harman told Sky News: "Morgan … said he heard a 'heart-breaking' phone message, which clearly gives rise to the assumption that he'd heard a tape-recorded message." Morgan wrote in the Mail on Sunday five years ago that he had once been played a message left by Sir Paul McCartney on the mobile phone of his then-girlfriend Heather Mills, in which the former Beatle sounded "lonely, miserable and desperate". Harman said: "It is not good enough for him to say – or for someone to say on his behalf – 'I always complied with the law and the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct'. He's got to answer now we've got these allegations from Heather Mills." Mills claimed on Wednesday that a senior journalist at one of the Mirror Group titles told her in 2001 they had hacked into her mobile phone messages. She told the BBC the unidentified journalist read out parts of a message left for her by her then-boyfriend Sir Paul McCartney and, when challenged, admitted it had been obtained by listening to her phone messages. The reporter in question is not thought to have worked for the Daily Mirror, which was edited by Morgan from 1995 to 2004. Its parent company, Trinity Mirror, also owns two other national titles, the Sunday Mirror and the People. In a 2006 Mail on Sunday article, Morgan seems to be referring to a similar phone message to the one Mills claimed had been hacked by the senior Mirror Group journalist. Mills said the message read out to her had been left by McCartney while she was in India, following a row the couple had back in London. According to Mills, the journalist rang her and "started quoting verbatim the messages from my machine". She said she challenged the journalist, saying: "You've obviously hacked my phone and if you do anything with this story … I'll go to the police." Mills said he responded: "OK, OK, yeah, we did hear it on your voice messages, I won't run it." Trinity Mirror said: "Trinity Mirror's position is clear: all our journalists work within the criminal law and the PCC code of conduct." Morgan issued a statement through CNN, for whom he records a chat show, Tonight with Piers Morgan, late on Wednesday reiterating he had no knowledge of phone hacking at the Mirror. He added: "Heather Mills has made unsubstantiated claims about a conversation she may or may not have had with a senior executive from a Trinity Mirror newspaper in 2001. The BBC has confirmed to me that this executive was not employed by the Daily Mirror. "I have no knowledge of any conversation any executive from other newspapers at Trinity Mirror may or may not have had with Heather Mills. "What I can say and have knowledge of is that Sir Paul McCartney asserted that Heather Mills illegally intercepted his telephones, and leaked confidential material to the media. This is well documented, and was stated in their divorce case."

The Buzz: Sirhan Sirhan file now available at California State Archives Share Sacramento Bee newspaper Published: Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 3A Last Modified: Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2011 - 12:20 am Calling all crime buffs and political historians. The California State Archives is now keeper of a collection of evidence, tapes and photographs from the investigation into Robert F. Kennedy's assassination in Los Angeles. A candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968, the New York senator won the California primary on June 4, beating Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy. After midnight, Kennedy gave a victory speech at the Ambassador Hotel. Shortly afterward, he was shot. He survived about 26 hours before he died. Sirhan Sirhan was convicted of killing Kennedy. Researchers will now have easier access to the case file that Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department investigators built in 1968 and 1969. Sirhan was originally sentenced to death, but his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. He has since been denied parole 14 times, most recently in March. In late April, his lawyers filed new legal papers claiming a mind-control plot in which a mysterious girl in a polka-dot dress induced Sirhan to fire at Kennedy. – Micaela Massimino Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/03/3804973/the-buzz-veterans-of-californias.html#ixzz1U4qb5lgh

Heather Mills claims Mirror Group journalist admitted hacking her phone Former model told BBC's Newsnight that in 2001 journalist admitted listening to message following row with Paul McCartney By James Robinson guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 August 2011 18.44 BST Heather Mills on Wednesday claimed a journalist from the Mirror Group admitted to her that he had obtained a story about her and her former husband Sir Paul McCartney by hacking into her mobile phone messages. The former model told the BBC's Newsnight that the unidentified journalist called her in 2001, following a row with the ex-Beatle, who was then her boyfriend, and quoted parts of a message McCartney had left on her voicemail after she had travelled to India. According to Ms Mills, the journalist rang her and "started quoting verbatim the messages from my machine". Ms Mills said she challenged the journalist, saying: "You've obviously hacked my phone and if you do anything with this story ... I'll go to the police." She said the individual responded: "OK, OK, yeah we did hear it on your voice messages, I won't run it." Nancy Dell'Olio, the ex-partner of former England manager Sven Göran Eriksson also told Newsnight that she believes the Mirror hacked their voicemails. "There were strange coincidences that made me to believe it absolutely," Dell'Olio said. "How they could get hold of some information? I do know that in some particular circumstances the only person who knew was me and my ex-partner so it was absolutely unbelievably strange how they could get hold of such information." The interviews were recorded for Wednesday's programme. The Mills accusation will place the spotlight back on the Mirror's publisher, Trinity Mirror, and the paper's editor at the time, Piers Morgan. Mills told the BBC it was not Morgan who called her, but the corporation has chosen not to identify the journalist. Morgan, who now hosts a chat show for CNN, has consistently denied hacking into phones, having any knowledge about hacking at the title, or running stories obtained by using the method. A spokesman for Trinity Mirror said: "Trinity Mirror's position is clear: all our journalists work within the criminal law and the PCC code of conduct". Morgan wrote a column in the Mail on Sunday in 2006 in which he described being played a message that had been left by McCartney for Mills. "It was heartbreaking," Morgan wrote. "The couple had clearly had a tiff, Heather had fled to India, and Paul was pleading with her to come back. He sounded lonely, miserable and desperate, and even sang 'We Can Work it Out' into the answer phone." Mills was the subject of intense tabloid interest before, during and after her marriage from the former Beatle. She is considering launching legal action against the News of the World after the Metropolitan police confirmed to her earlier this year that her mobile-phone number and other details had been found in notebooks belonging to Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator who worked for the News of the World. Morgan wrote in his published diary, The Insider, that following a personal request from McCartney he had pulled a story about Mills and McCartney arguing in 2001 over Mills's decision to go to India to help the victims of an earthquake. Newsnight also claims it has established that other celebrities, including Ulrika Jonsson, beleive their phones were hacked by the Daily Mirror or its Sunday sister title the Sunday Mirror.

Latest Arrest Highlights a Tabloid’s Cash Payments The New York Times By JO BECKER and RAVI SOMAIYA August 3, 2011 LONDON — On the ground floor of the sprawling office complex that was, until recently, the home of The News of the World, a bespectacled clerk sat at a counter behind a reinforced glass cashier’s window. When reporters needed cash to pursue articles, they simply filled out a green form and, after getting authorization from the managing editor, exchanged it at the window for up to tens of thousands of pounds, said several journalists who worked there. As the police on Tuesday arrested the former managing editor, Stuart Kuttner, on suspicion of conspiring to hack cellphones and pay police officers, that cash payment system has become the focus of inquiries by Scotland Yard and by News International, which owned the tabloid until it closed in July. Mr. Kuttner, who is the 11th former News of the World employee arrested in the scandal surrounding the tabloid, personally authorized cash expenses until his retirement two years ago in his role as managing editor, said multiple current and former company employees, who, like most people interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the continuing police investigations and to avoid jeopardizing their ties with the company. Mr. Kuttner did not respond to requests for comment. A person familiar with the company’s internal investigation said the regular infusions of cash, usually also authorized by newsroom editors as well as Mr. Kuttner, contributed to the newsroom’s “wild West” atmosphere. The funds were used as advances on expenses and also to pay sources for articles, said the former journalists. So far a search by the company of the cash records has found more than $200,000 in payments to police officers from The News of the World, according to two people with knowledge of the documents. The investigation of payoffs to the police is one part of what has become a three-pronged inquiry that began by focusing on the hacking of cellphone voice messages and has also expanded to the hacking of e-mails. An official at News International, a British subsidiary of the News Corporation, said the records of cash payment went back as far as 2002, covering the editorships of Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks, both of whom were arrested in recent weeks. The News International internal review has been expanded to examine both cash payments and the use of private investigators at the company’s other British newspapers, which include The Sun, The Times of London and The Sunday Times, the official familiar with the News Corporation inquiry said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. A press officer for News International said the police agreed to allow the company to retain possession of the records while it conducted the first examination of them. The company said it could not hand the evidence directly to police without ensuring that journalistic sources, and legally privileged documents, were protected. That arrangement drew criticism from a former senior Scotland Yard official, who was not involved in the hacking inquiry. “On the day News Corp. announced it was shutting down the newspaper, what I would have done is gotten a warrant, raided the premises and taken everything so that I could have looked at it myself,” the former official said. Scotland Yard declined to comment because investigations were still under way. Mr. Kuttner, 71, who worked at the tabloid for 22 years, is known to have kept meticulous written records. Former reporters describe him as a penny pincher, prone to calling journalists to demand justification for expenses. Reporters had to give details about whom the cash was intended for, and the nature of the article. “He didn’t see it as Rupert’s money you were spending,” said one, referring to the tabloid’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, “he saw it as Stuart’s money.” In a 2003 e-mail exchange that has partly formed the basis for the investigation into police payments, the newspaper’s royal reporter complained about a management push, spearheaded by Mr. Kuttner, to cut back on payments to sources. The reporter, Clive Goodman, told Mr. Coulson, the top editor at the time, that he needed to pay his contacts in the Scotland Yard unit that protects the royal family. Mr. Goodman pleaded guilty to phone hacking in 2006 and was jailed. He was recently rearrested on suspicion of making payments to the police. In the years after Mr. Goodman’s initial arrest, and as the newspaper moved to a new building, the payments system changed, said two former journalists. Small payments were doled out from a safe in a senior editor’s office, the journalists said. Larger amounts of money, if needed, were brought from banks, said a senior News International official. The company is also reviewing its own records at the request of the police, in an effort to uncover hacking and other potentially illegal practices. Also Tuesday, a London court imposed a six-week jail term on a 26-year-old man who threw a paper plate of foam at Mr. Murdoch two weeks ago during a parliamentary hearing. The lawyer for the man, Jonathan May-Bowles, a stand-up comic known as Jonnie Marbles, said the court had been told that Mr. Murdoch had not wanted charges to be brought. But the district judge said the comic had aimed to disrupt a parliamentary hearing that was of “huge importance.” John F. Burns contributed reporting.

Tom Watson: 'Phone hacking is only the start. There's a lot more to come out' The Labour MP has won the admiration of fellow politicians for doggedly investigating the phone-hacking scandal. What has the experience taught him, how has it changed his life – and what revelations are still to come? By John Harris guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 August 2011 19.59 BST A month ago, Tom Watson received word that the Guardian was about to expose the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone by the News of the World. With 72 hours to go, he cleared his diary; a few days later, he was averaging three hours sleep a night, as he and his staff picked through leaked documents, newspaper archives, personal testimony from phone-hacking victims, and more. As the MP who had been obsessively trying to cut through the murk surrounding News International for two years, he well knew that the most dramatic chapter in the two-year phone-hacking saga had arrived – and the imperative now was to work harder than ever. So how have the last few weeks been? "Sleep-deprived, totally crazy," he says, sitting in his parliamentary office during what seems to be a rare moment of calm. "But also, there's been a great sense of relief. I think I said something to David Cameron about a month before: that there were powerful forces trying to cover this story up. At some points over the last two years, I thought it might blow. But I've also thought that the lid could be welded back on. But when Nick Davies broke the Milly Dowler story, that was the point where I knew they'd never get the lid back on." And has he been surprised by what's happened since? "Yeah. I guess two years ago, I felt that all this would probably cost Rebekah Brooks her job. I thought the scale of wrongdoing was so great that somebody on the UK side of the company would have to take responsibility. And I was absolutely convinced that there was a cover-up. But I didn't know that it would all travel abroad. I didn't know it would get to America and Australia, and everywhere that it has." The closure of the News of the World, he says, came as "a genuine shock" to him, but he says that the same applied to News International: "There was a huge consumer boycott, there was going to be no advertising . . . I don't think they had a choice." Raised in Kidderminster in a family split between communists and passionate Labour supporters, Watson has been the MP for West Bromwich East since 2001. In the eyes of his parliamentary colleagues, he has undoubtedly been one of the heroes of the phone-hacking story – so much so, that when he speaks on the subject in the House of Commons, he is now greeted with a reverential hush. But three or four years ago, his reputation was very different: he was routinely described as a "bruiser", and known as one of a small circle of insiders that linked Gordon Brown's coterie to some of the most powerful elements in the trade unions. In 2006, he was a junior defence minister, but resigned as part of the so-called "curry-house plot": the attempt at toppling Tony Blair that placed fatal cracks in his premiership, and led to his departure the following year. Six months after Gordon Brown's arrival in Downing Street, Watson became a minister in the cabinet office with a focus on "digital engagement", though this phase of his progress did not last long. In 2009, he was falsely accused of involvement in the infamous plan to set up an unseemly website for anti-Tory political gossip known as "Red Rag", and returned from a trip to Cornwall to find his next-door neighbour upset after the latter's bins had been rooted through. This, he says, was time of "constant anxiety" and "sleepless nights": he considered standing down as an MP, but settled for returning to the backbenches. In response to the Red Rag accusations, he took legal action against the Sun and the Mail on Sunday. In short order, the Mail on Sunday apologised for the Red Rag story and paid him damages (the Sun soon followed suit), Watson joined the culture, media and sport select committee, and the Guardian broke the first stories about phone hacking at the News of the World running wider than a "rogue reporter", and big pay-offs to victims – all of which fed into a watershed select committee hearing on 21 July 2009. That day, Watson and his colleagues interviewed four key people: Stuart Kuttner, who had just resigned as managing editor of the News of the World (and who yesterday became the latest NI figure to be arrested as part of Operation Weeting), former editor Andy Coulson (by then Cameron's head of communications), the then News of the World editor Colin Myler, and the company's legal head Tom Crone (who left the company three weeks ago). The latter had tried to have Watson excluded from the hearing on account of his legal action against the Sun, which gave the proceedings an additional charge. Watson's key questions focused on the £700,000 payment NI had made to Gordon Taylor, chief executive of footballers' union the PFA, though by his own admission, he wasn't quite sure what he was doing. "When Myler and Crone first turned up, my knowledge was novice-level," he says. "I knew about three facts. But what I knew was that in any great scandal, you've got to follow the money. They were hick, amateur questions: I think I opened with: 'When did you tell Rupert Murdoch [about the payment]?' I thought that you might as well start at the top. "They said: 'Oh no – we didn't tell Rupert Murdoch.' Then it was, 'Well, who did you tell? Who authorised it?' Myler got frustrated me with me, because I came back to this four or five times. He ranted. And don't forget: Crone had already tried to get me off the committee. So at that point, I thought: 'You're rude, you've tried to remove me from this committee, you've put me under extreme pressure for a number of years – there's more to this, and I'm getting to the bottom of it.' "When Myler was so over the top . . . it was like there was a big neon light behind his head, saying, 'Dig here.'" So began two years of dogged work. In the build-up to last year's general election, the select committee's drive to investigate hacking temporarily faded – but Watson was already talking to hacking victims, dealing with "one killer insider at News International" who was secretly sending him material, and piecing together evidence already in the public domain. At one point, he and his staff went through five years of News of the World back-issues. ("You learn a lot about Kerry Katona," he says.) He was also liaising with his fellow Labour MP – and phone-hacking victim – Chris Bryant, and a small handful of journalists. There is one fascinating subtext to the whole story: Watson's claim that Brooks has long been driven to damage him, which he says dates back to his move against Blair. "I had one particular chilling conversation in 2006," he says, "when I was told that she would never forgive me for doing what I did to 'her Tony'. When I was made an assistant whip under Brown, the Sun did a story saying it was an outrageous I'd been awarded a job. Whenever I moved, there was a dig. It's painful and it's not easy, but that's the job, and the culture we operated in. It's when it's scaled up that those attack pieces take on a greater significance." How was it scaled up? "Well, there was the Red Rag week, where they ran stories for six or seven days, accusing me of lying and worse, on the basis of a story that wasn't true. And then things like . . . people coming back to me, reporting conversations. Bob Ainsworth [then Labour defence secretary] met Brooks for a lunch and said she spent 15 minutes slagging me off before they could talk about defence policy. Those things end up coming back to you." Of late, there have been reports that she told Labour insiders she would pursue Watson "for the rest of his life" – a story he dates to the Labour party conference of 2006. When the Red Rag story broke, he claims Brooks texted Labour cabinet ministers, demanding that he was sacked. At one point, he says, a senior editor at the Sun made a point of sending him a message via another Labour MP: "Tell that fat bastard Watson we know about his little planning matter." This, he says, was a reference to his application to put a conservatory on his family home in the Midlands: a typical "non-newsy, low-level thing" that played its part in making him "start to think like a conspiracy theorist". From a credible source, he has just discovered that in 2009, all of this turned completely pantomimic. "There were always people outside my flat, and I felt pursued," he says. "But then last Thursday, the home affairs correspondent of the BBC told me they had a story that they [the News of the World] hired private investigators to follow me around Labour party conference in 2009, when we were right in the middle of the first select committee enquiry. "I laughed at that, because they'd have basically followed me around drinking Guinness with a load of fat blokes. If you're an ex-minister, it's a bit of a holiday. It wouldn't have been very productive. But in all seriousness, at that point the pressure was immense. There were little conversations with people: 'We've had News International on the phone, how aggressive are you going to be on this committee? What are you going to ask?'" Who was asking that? "People who worked at No 10. People I'd worked with before. In conversations, these things were dropped in." On 10 July, his old friends at the Mail on Sunday ran a story claiming that Tony Blair had urged Brown to get him to back off News International. How much truth does he think there is in that? "Er . . . They've both denied it. But if Rupert Murdoch were to phone Blair to ask him to get me to back off, it wouldn't surprise me. They're very close." What does that mean? That he may well have done? "Well, he's denied it. Two or three people in the party have told me that happened, but I can't stand it up." Two weeks ago, Watson played his part in the select committee's questioning of James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch and Brooks, which was followed by Myler and Crone's claim that a crucial part of James Murdoch's evidence had been "mistaken". Watson pushed for him to be issued with an immediate summons to return and give evidence, but was outvoted: the committee has now written to James Murdoch seeking further explanation, and its chairman, the Tory MP John Whittingdale, says it's "very likely" that he will eventually be recalled in person. Meanwhile, the story about the targeting of Sara Payne has broken ("I didn't think it could get any lower, and it has," he tells me), there are regular stories about the Metropolitan police (their reputation, says Watson, is "in tatters") and new information about the deletion of thousands of News International emails. So how much more is there to come? "I think we're probably only about halfway through the number of revelations. I'm pretty certain there will be quite detailed stuff on other uses of covert surveillance. I suspect that emails will be the next scandal. And devices that track people moving around. That's just starting to come out." Does he expect confirmation of the targeting of 9/11 victims? "I don't know that. I want the prime minister to put pressure on as far as that's concerned, because it's internationally significant. What we know from the evidence we took in 2009 is that Glenn Mulcaire worked exclusively for the News of the World from 2001. He was on a £10,000-a-month contract. So if he was prepared to hack Milly Dowler's phone . . . you know . . . it's entirely conceivable that he would have been told to hack the phones of victims, and families of victims, of 9/11. What we need is certainty, so people can move on from there." What other things will become public? "People who aren't household names, but who are associated with people who have been the victims of high-profile crimes . . . I think there's a lot more of them to come out. Ordinary people whose lives have been turned inside out." Ten days ago, Watson said he had seen no evidence that implicated any newspaper group other than News International in phone hacking – since when, there has been news of prospective cases against Trinity Mirror, the publisher of titles including the Sunday Mirror – and the barrage of accusation and denial surrounding Piers Morgan. A copy of Morgan's diaries, I notice, is sitting on the coffee table in front of us. "I'm doing my research now," he says. "There are a lot of people on Twitter who are raising different points of fact with me. The good that I want to come from this is the industry recognising that it's got to reform and change. Everyone's got to play their role in that. And that probably requires other media groups, if there was wrongdoing, to get it out there and be honest about it." Hanging over just about everything we talk about is a slightly awkward implied presence: the politician Watson used to be, a man happy enough to play his part in New Labour's often moronic dances with the Murdoch press, and issue shrill messages either aimed at, or inspired by, the red-tops. Not for the first time, he says he's "totally ashamed" about an occasion in 2001 when he called for Kate Adie to be sacked by the BBC after she was alleged to have revealed the details of a trip by Blair to Middle East: his quote was given at the behest of Downing Street and used for a characteristic BBC-bashing splash in the Sun. He acknowledges the Blair and Brown governments' neurotic focus on "media management", and their cynical fondness for dishing out "populist messages to the newspapers". On the latter count, he again has form: in 2004, he ran Labour's infamous by-election campaign in the Birmingham seat of Hodge Hill, among whose choicest messages was: "Labour is on your side – the Lib Dems are on the side of failed asylum seekers." That sounds, I tell him, like the kind of rhetoric that Labour copied from the tabloids. "It's not a great line," he says. "I don't think I'd write that again." By way of underlining another kind of repentance, he reminds me that though he voted for the Iraq war in 2003, he recently abstained when it came to the UK intervention in Libya, "because I'd never again vote for a war on the promise of a prime minister." So, he has changed. "I have changed. This has been a profoundly life-changing event for me, in many ways. It's certainly changed my politics. When I was first elected, I was a completely naive and gauche politician. You look at the pillars of the state: politics, the media, police, lawyers – they've all got their formal role, and then nestling above that is that power elite who are networked in through soft, social links, that are actually running the show. Why didn't I know that 10 years ago, and why didn't I rail against it? Why did I become part of it? I was 34. I'm 44 now. I was naive. But I'll never let that happen again

The message that the deletion of News International emails sends out News International ordered the mass deletion of emails from its servers several times. Is there anything odd about this? By Charles Arthur guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 August 2011 16.52 BST HCL Limited has told the House of Commons home affairs select committee that since May of last year it deleted "hundreds of thousands of emails on a total of nine occasions" from News International's computer servers. It said, though, that it was aware of "nothing which appeared abnormal, untoward or inconsistent with its contractual role". Keith Vaz, the committee chairman, has indicated that he wants to know more about this. HCL is an India-based IT firm, which manages NI's email system. It doesn't hold or store the NI data; it simply manages the systems, remotely. (It sets out details of its precise responsibilities in the letter to Keith Vaz, the committee chairman.) What do companies that are hired to oversee 'live emails' do? Most companies don't need the hassle of managing their email and other computer systems. It's the sort of job that is best done by experts, and the internet means that you don't have to be in the same building – or even continent – as a computer to control it. That has created a huge business for companies offering "outsourcing" of email and other systems management. You tell them where your systems are, and they will provide an agreed level of service for you, making sure – for example – that your emails don't fill up the storage on the servers, and guaranteeing that any interruption is limited to, say, less than an hour. That function is handled from HCL's headquarters in India, where skilled staff are plentiful but pay is lower than it would be in the UK. HCL helped with in-house support of the email service, which it could do by controlling the systems via the internet. From time to time, the emails on the "live" system (going back about 15 days) would be copied off to an archive. In the past, such archives would use tape-based systems, but hard drives are cheap and commonly used now. The archiving system was provided by another company, which HCL and NI have not yet named. Can you really delete emails or do they always survive somewhere? You can delete emails from the sender's or receiver's machine, but if one of those is outside the organisation that's trying to delete the emails, deleting the "sent" version won't get rid of the "received" version. (It might make it hard to track down, of course.) Inside the organisation, the archiving system means that almost anything more than 15 days old will have been stored somewhere. In addition, newer emails will be copied onto a temporary archive as they travel through the system (either arriving, leaving or travelling through the company): this means that if there is a catastrophic failure of the email server, no work is lost. Between the 15-day archive backup and the temporary backup, it's almost impossible for an email to vanish forever. For any message, that would require reaching into backups and getting rid of the relevant part of an email conversation – not easy, since modern emails use "threading", which would indicate where part of a conversation had been deleted – or the whole of it. Modern forensic systems can map out email conversations by the thread "headers" and show any gaps or inconsistencies. So deleting an email forever requires special access to the email system, which would be flagged at a high level by the company managing the systems. Difficult? Very. Impossible? Not completely. Is it unusual to be asked to delete huge numbers of emails? HCL cites examples of what it was asked to delete: email "boxes" of users who had left (HCL decided not to as they weren't affecting the system); 200,000 "delivery failure" messages generated by misaddressed emails (these were deleted by someone else); a "public folder" of older emails by a user who "didn't need them" any more; 21,000 outgoing emails that were "stuck" in the email server; deletion of emails when moving from an older version of Microsoft Exchange to a newer one; and so on. Such requests aren't unusual, because large organisations generate and deal with large amounts of email, and things do go wrong with it – which is why you need experts looking after it. The challenge, though, is spotting when a deletion of something like a public folder is requested because it really isn't needed – and when there's some different motive. But an outsourcing company such as HCL wouldn't be expected to know that. Which may be why it has referred further questions back to NI

Poster's note: What is needed is for a "John Dean" to come forward and testify, using first hand inside knowledge, as to the criminal activities of the Murdoch empire. Such an individual may yet appear on the scene. ------------------------------ Stuart Kuttner's arrest: a statement of intent from a humbled Met It is impossible to underplay the importance of the managing editor of the News of the World for 22 years By Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 August 2011 21.23 BST Stuart Kuttner's arrest – leading to hours of questioning before he was bailed – demonstrates the determination of the now humbled Metropolitan police to comprehensively investigate the phone-hacking affair. The move against the former veteran managing editor of the News of the World may well come as no great surprise to those following the saga – not least because people who were both above him (former editors Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson) and below him (ex-news editors Ian Edmondson, Neville Thurlbeck and James Weatherup) have all been arrested already. But it is impossible to underplay the importance of the managing editor of the Sunday tabloid for 22 years; a man whose job it would have been to deal with budgets and any staffing and personnel issues under a succession of editors. His arrest is a clear statement that the Operation Weeting team, led by the deputy assistant commissioner Sue Akers, intend to be thorough. News International did its best to appear uninterested on Tuesday – with insiders arguing that Kuttner was no more than an "ex-employee" – as the Rupert Murdoch company tries to ruthlessly distance itself from its chequered past. The company also believes that it is now increasingly on top of the ongoing criminal inquiry, in that it is aware of what information has been handed over to the Weeting team. But that thinking also depends on the notion that there are no other sources of revelations – and it is far from certain how individuals under arrest, or even just pressure, will behave. A sign of what may be to come can be seen in the conflict between James Murdoch and News of the World's last editor, Colin Myler, and the title's former chief lawyer Tom Crone, none of whom have been arrested. Anxious to protect their reputation, Myler and Crone accused the junior Murdoch of providing misleading evidence to the culture, media and sport select committee last month. On Tuesday, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal looked like it was hitting back, with a page 7 report in its European edition which said that in 2000 the Sunday Mirror was involved in paying a police officer £50 in exchange for information about the arrest of Tim Blackstone, a PR professional, who was the brother of a Labour peer. High up, in the third paragraph of the already prominent report, the Journal noted that the editor of the Sunday Mirror at the time was Myler, who was also pictured in the title. The stakes for Murdoch, Myler and Crone are considerable, but for those who have been arrested, they are clearly higher still. News International may hope it can control the outcome now that so many key figures have left the company, but it is far from clear how the police investigation will develop, or where indeed it will ultimately

Jerome Taylor: Gone but not forgotten: how deleted emails can be traced The Independent Tuesday, 2 August 2011 Think your email has been wiped when you press the delete button? Well think again. Removing information from a hard drive or server may seem like a simple one-click procedure, but permanently deleting data is all but impossible without military grade software. We've all read about how police investigators can rebuild a shattered hard drive to convict paedophiles. With the correct software, forensic investigators can sift through broken data and rebuild it, a little like piecing together a jigsaw puzzle. Even if you mistakenly delete photos from your camera's memory card, you can often get 60 per cent of the pictures back by running the card through over-the- counter recovery software. Emails are no different. When you send someone a message it will travel through – and be stored on – a whole host of servers, from a sender's hard drive, to a company's server, through various email gateways and then on to the recipient's server and hard drive. The only way to delete such an email permanently would be to wipe it at each and every one of those steps. If investigators have access to those steps they can start to piece together the gaps. If large tranches of News International emails have been deleted it will make it harder for police to piece together what was being sent and by whom. But they should still be able to get access nonetheless. To wipe a hard drive it is possible to buy military grade deletion software which effectively wipes the slate clean of any trace of the original file. But emails – which bounce from server to server – are much harder to disappear.

Phone-hacking scandal: Stuart Kuttner is latest NoW exec to be arrested Former managing editor and one-time public face of the News of the World taken into custody By Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 August 2011 14.27 BST Stuart Kuttner, the public face of the News of the World and its most vocal public defender for 22 years, has been arrested by police investigating allegations of phone hacking and of bribing police officers to leak sensitive information. As managing editor until his resignation in July 2009, Kuttner was in charge of finances at the now-defunct tabloid. Kuttner, 71, was described at the time of his resignation by the last editor of the newspaper, Colin Myler, as a man whose "DNA is absolutely integrated into the newspaper which he has represented across the media with vigour". Kuttner reportedly did not know he was going to be taken into custody when he arrived by appointment at a police station in London on Tuesday at 11am for questioning over the phone-hacking scandal. Police from both Operation Weeting (the investigation into phone hacking) and Elveden (the investigation into allegations of inappropriate payments to police), are understood to have arrested Kuttner, who is suffering serious health problems and recently returned from treatment in the US. Kuttner is believed to have been arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications, contrary to section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, and on suspicion of corruption contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. They are the same allegations that Rebekah Brooks, the former News of the World editor and ex-News International chief executive, faces since her arrest last month. When Brooks faced a Commons culture, media and sport select committee hearing last month she told MPs that payments to private investigators were the responsibility of the paper's managing editor's office. Brooks admitted using private investigators during her time as editor of the tabloid between 2000 and 2003 for, she claimed, "purely legitimate" purposes. When asked whether she had ever discussed individual payments to private investigators with Kuttner, she admitted that "payments to private investigators would have gone through the managing editor's office". But, she added: "I can't remember if we ever discussed individual payments." Kuttner's role as the public face of the News of the World proved to be key to the tabloid under the editors, Rebekah Brooks – then Rebekah Wade – and her replacement, Andy Coulson, both of whom were reluctant to talk to the media. When Brooks's "Sarah's Law" campaign caused public hysteria in some towns and cities across the UK, prompting some Portsmouth residents to burn the homes of suspected paedophiles, it was Kuttner who faced the cameras. He also played a role in the paper's dealing with Sara Payne in the years after her eight-year-old daughter, Sarah, was abducted and murdered in July 2000. The Guardian revealed last week that Payne's mobile phone had been targeted by private investigator Glenn Mulcaire at a time when key members of the newspaper's executive staff were working hard to forge what Payne believed to be a close and genuine friendship. Kuttner was one of those who attended the funerals of her parents. No reason was given for Kuttner's departure from the newspaper two years ago, shortly before the Guardian exclusive that blew the phone-hacking story wide open. At the time, News International said he would continue to work on "specialised projects", including its Sarah's Law campaign. In February 2008, he appeared on Radio 4's Today programme and claimed the News of the World was a "watchdog" which guarded against corruption among those in positions of power. "If [the use of private investigators] happens, it shouldn't happen," he said. "It happened once at the News of the World. The reporter was fired; he went to prison. The editor resigned." He went on to argue that British journalism is "a very honourable profession" and that newspapers such as the News of the World had to act as watchdogs because "we live in an age of corrosion of politics and of public life – degradation". His role as the public face of the News of the World continued when he visited Soham in 2002, following the disappearance of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, to defend the tabloid's decision to offer a reward of £150,000 in conjunction with the Sun newspaper for information that could lead to their safe return. He also appeared on the BBC's Breakfast with Frost, responding to criticism of the reward and saying the man leading the investigation into the girls' disappearance, Detective Superintendent David Hankins, had welcomed it. The managing editor was also an influential presence behind the scenes. When Gordon Brown and Tony Blair gave their first joint newspaper interview for more than 10 years to the tabloid in April 2005, Kuttner's byline was on the story, along with that of Ian Kirby, the paper's long-serving political editor. The arrest of Kuttner, who was news editor at the London Evening Standard before moving to the NoW in 1987, is the 11th by Operation Weeting police. After being questioned by police – a process that lasted 12 hours in the case of Brooks – he is expected to be released on bail until October. Others arrested and bailed have included Brooks, ex-NoW editor Andy Coulson, ex-NoW assistant editor Ian Edmondson, ex-NoW chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck, senior ex-NoW journalist James Weatherup, freelance journalist Terenia Taras, an unnamed 63-year-old man and ex-NoW royal editor Clive Goodman. Operation Elveden was also involved in Kuttner's arrest. Officers from Elveden are being supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Met still holding Brooks laptop found in the rubbish The Independent By Matt Blake Monday, 1 August 2011 Police were last night still holding a laptop, an iPad and paperwork that were dumped two weeks ago in a bin near the riverside home of Rebekah Brooks. Two briefcases containing the items were found in a plastic sack on 18 July among rubbish in an underground car park at Chelsea Harbour in west London, where Ms Brooks lives in an apartment with her husband, Charlie. The bag was found by binmen before Mr Brooks tried to claim it back, but a security guard refused because he could not prove that he owned its contents. Instead, the guard called police who took the equipment away. Met detectives last week contacted Mr Brooks to demand passwords for the computer so they could examine its contents to establish whether it contained anything relevant to their inquiry into criminality at News International. Mr Brooks said a close friend had accidentally left the objects in the car park when he should have dropped them off and that they must have been placed in the bin by a cleaner. The incident came 24 hours after Ms Brooks, the former News International chief executive, was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications and on suspicion of corrupting police officers. Mr Brooks' spokesman said yesterday that police were planning to hand back the items, although this could not be confirmed by police sources.