Douglas Caddy

Hacking probe shocks Sarah Payne's mum The Independent By Sam Marsden Thursday, 28 July 2011 Police have told the mother of murdered schoolgirl Sarah Payne her phone may have been hacked by a private investigator used by the News of the World, a friend said today. Sara Payne, who worked closely with the Sunday paper to campaign for better child protection laws, previously said she had not been told she was a victim of phone hacking. But her friend Shy Keenan confirmed today that Scotland Yard has since informed her that her contact details were found on a list compiled by private detective Glenn Mulcaire. Ms Payne was "absolutely devastated" when the news was broken to her by officers from Operation Weeting, as the Metropolitan Police's phone hacking inquiry is known, her child welfare group, The Phoenix Chief Advocates, said. She became a tireless campaigner on child abuse issues after her eight-year-old daughter was murdered by paedophile Roy Whiting in 2000. The Phoenix Chief Advocates - run by Ms Payne, Ms Keenan and Fiona Crook - said in a statement: "Whilst it was previously confirmed by Operation Weeting that Sara Payne's name was not on private investigator Glenn Mulcaire's list, it has now been confirmed by the Operation Weeting that Sara's details are on his list. "Sara is absolutely devastated by this news, we're all deeply disappointed and are just working to get her through it. "Sara will continue to work with the proper authorities regarding this matter." It has been suggested that the evidence found in Mulcaire's files relates to a phone given to Ms Payne by former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks as a gift so she could contact her supporters, The Guardian reported today. Ms Payne wrote a column for the final issue of the News of the World on July 10 after it was closed amid growing political and commercial pressure over the phone hacking scandal. Describing the paper as "an old friend", she described how it became a driving force behind her campaign for a "Sarah's law" to give parents the right to find out if people with access to their children are sex offenders. She wrote: "We did not meet under the best of circumstances. In fact, it was the worst, most horrendous time in my life. But from that moment on the News of the World and more importantly the people there became my very good and trusted friends. "And like all good friends they have stuck with me through the good and the bad and helped me through both." The revelation that Ms Payne's phone may have been hacked follows allegations that the News of the World illegally accessed the voicemails of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, 7/7 victims' relatives and grieving military families. As well as resulting in the closure of the paper, the scandal has led to the resignations of Ms Brooks, two of Britain's most senior police officers and Les Hinton, one of Rupert Murdoch's most trusted lieutenants. Ms Brooks said the latest allegations were "abhorrent" and "particularly upsetting" because Ms Payne was a "dear friend". She said in a statement: "For the benefit of the campaign for Sarah's Law, the News of the World have provided Sara with a mobile telephone for the last 11 years. It was not a personal gift. "The idea that anyone on the newspaper knew that Sara or the campaign team were targeted by Mr Mulcaire is unthinkable. The idea of her being targeted is beyond my comprehension. "It is imperative for Sara and the other victims of crime that these allegations are investigated and those culpable brought to justice."

News of the World targeted phone of Sarah Payne's mother Evidence found in private detective's notes believed to relate to phone which Rebekah Brooks gave to Sara Payne as gift By Nick Davies and Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 July 2011 16.08 BST Sara Payne, whose eight-year-old daughter Sarah was abducted and murdered in July 2000, has been told by Scotland Yard that they have found evidence to suggest she was targeted by the News of the World's investigator Glenn Mulcaire, who specialised in hacking voicemail. Police had earlier told her correctly that her name was not among those recorded in Mulcaire's notes, but on Tuesday officers from Operation Weeting told her they had found her personal details among the investigator's notes. These had previously been thought to refer to a different target. Friends of Payne have told the Guardian that she is "absolutely devastated and deeply disappointed" at the disclosure. Her cause had been championed by the News of the World, and in particular by its former editor, Rebekah Brooks. Believing that she had not been a target for hacking, Payne wrote a farewell column for the paper's final edition on 10 July, referring to its staff as "my good and trusted friends". The evidence that police have found in Mulcaire's notes is believed to relate to a phone given to Payne by Brooks as a gift to help her stay in touch with her supporters. One of Payne's close colleagues said: "We are all appalled and disgusted. Sara is in bits about it." In a statement, Brooks said the latest allegations were "abhorrent" and "particularly upsetting" because Sara Payne was a "dear friend". Coming after the disclosure that the News of the World hacked and deleted the voicemail of the murdered Surrey schoolgirl Milly Dowler, the news will raise further questions about whether News Corporation is "fit and proper" to own TV licences and its 39% share of BSkyB. It will also revive speculation about any possible role in phone hacking of Brooks, who was personally very closely involved in covering the aftermath of Sarah Payne's murder and has always denied any knowledge of voicemail interception. On 15 July Brooks resigned as chief executive of News International and was arrested and interviewed by police. The Labour MP Tom Watson, who has been an outspoken critic of News International, said of the Payne revelation: "This is a new low. The last edition of the News of the World made great play of the paper's relationship with the Payne family. Brooks talked about it at the committee inquiry. Now this. I have nothing but contempt for the people that did this." Friends of Payne said she had accepted the News of the World as a friend and ally. Journalists from the paper attended the funerals of her mother and father and visited her sick bed after she suffered a severe stroke in December 2009. In the wake of the Guardian's disclosure on 4 July of the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone, there were rumours that Payne also might have been a victim. Police from Operation Weeting, which has been investigating the News of the World's phone hacking since January, checked the names of Payne and her closest associates against its database of all the information contained in the notebooks, computer records and audio tapes seized from Glenn Mulcaire in August 2006. They found nothing. The News of the World's sister paper, the Sun, was quick to report on its website, on 8 July, that Payne had been told there was no evidence to support the rumours. The next day the Sun quoted her paying tribute to the News of the World, whose closure had been announced by News International. "It's like a friend died. I'm so shocked," she told them. In the paper's final edition on Sunday 10 July, Payne registered her own anger at the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone: "We have all seen the news this week and the terrible things that have happened, and I have no wish to sweep it under the carpet. Indeed, there were rumours - which turned out to be untrue - that I and my fellow Phoenix charity chiefs had our phones hacked. But today is a day to reflect, to look back and remember the passing of an old friend, the News of the World." Since then, detectives from Weeting have searched the Mulcaire database for any reference to mobile phone numbers used by Sara Payne or her closest associates or any other personal details. They are believed to have uncovered notes made by Mulcaire which include some of these details but which had previously been thought to refer to a different target of his hacking. Police have some 11,000 pages of notes which Mulcaire made in the course of intercepting the voicemail of targets chosen by the News of the World. Friends of Sara Payne today said that she had made no decision about whether to sue the paper and that she wanted the police to be able to finish their work before she decided. Operation Weeting is reviewing all high-profile cases involving the murder, abduction or assault of any child since 2001 in an attempt to find out if any of those involved was the target of phone-hacking. The statement from Brooks said: "For the benefit of the campaign for Sarah's Law, the News of the World have provided Sara with a mobile telephone for the last 11 years. It was not a personal gift. "The idea that anyone on the newspaper knew that Sara or the campaign team were targeted by Mr Mulcaire is unthinkable. The idea of her being targeted is beyond my comprehension. "It is imperative for Sara and the other victims of crime that these allegations are investigated and those culpable brought to justice."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20101112.html The Tea Party's Apparent Willingness to Shut Down the Federal Government and What the Consequences May Be By JOHN W. DEAN Friday, November 12, 2010 As the recent mid-term elections progressed towards their culmination, and in their immediate aftermath, one theme clearly emerged for the Tea Party Movement's success: They are ready to shut down the federal government to enforce spending discipline. While choking government operations by fiscal inaction is outrageous, we have all been warned that extreme behavior is the Tea Party's norm. Given the attitude at the White House, unless there is some planning it is more likely than not that these antics will work. And if the Tea Party folks succeed, it will benefit Republicans at the expense of others. The Coming Tea Party-Sponsored Government Shutdowns Mark Meckler, a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, pounded the shutdown drum before the election. Tea Party supporters in the Republican leadership have now joined the effort, and there is a growing consensus that we are headed towards one or more government shutdowns, or threats of shutdown, to implement the radical Tea Party agenda. Causing shutdowns, of course, is not a new gambit. But bringing the government to a halt by refusing to enact appropriations legislation is, in fact, an exclusive ploy of Republicans, and it has been used by both Capitol Hill and the White House when under GOP control. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has prepared excellent monographs on prior government shutdowns, looking at their causes, effects and process as well as potential solutions -- which Republicans have made sure have gone nowhere. This tactic operates with about the same finesse as those used by Mexican drug lords. As the Tea Party Movement candidates enter the Washington political arena -- with their penchant for Second Amendment remedies -- shutting down the government could be one of their friendlier strategies, unless, of course, the GOP establishment co-opts this crew. But yesterday's Republican radicals, like Mitchell McConnell and John Boehner, actually look reasonable if put in a room with Rand Paul and Michelle Bachman -- the poster people for the Tea Party. Threatened shutdowns are political tantrums, and thus a form of extortion. If such behavior is rewarded, it will only become more frequent and demanding. Historically, when exposed and dealt with firmly, these efforts have failed. But the Tea Party -- along with other Republicans -- views Barack Obama as a weak president, not without reason, so they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by using this approach. Government-Shutdown Situations: How They Have Historically Played Out Under Article I, Section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution -- often called the "appropriations clause" -- funds cannot be drawn from the Federal Treasury, or obligated by federal officials, unless Congress has appropriated the money by law. In addition, under the Anti-deficiency Act, which has been the law almost from the nation's founding, federal departments and agencies are prohibited from acting -- except in matters of emergency and national defense -- without an appropriation. As the country has grown more polarized, particularly since the Reagan Administration, it has become increasingly difficult for Congress and the White House to agree upon the appropriations needed to fund the federal budget. Accordingly, when Congress fails to adopt the annual appropriation, Congress enacts and the president signs a continuing resolution to temporarily fund departments and agencies until the appropriation has been enacted and signed into law. Refusal to enact an appropriation, or at least to enact this kind of continuing resolution, will bring about forty percent of the government to a halt until differences are resolved. Appropriations must be made annually. Another disruption point is the federal debt limit, which has been steadily increased over the decades. By law, federal spending cannot exceed the debt limit, which is also established by law. Thus, when the federal government reaches its debt limit, Congress must agree to extend it, or the Government will default on its obligations that exceed the limit. Such a default, of course, could have catastrophic implications for the world's financial market. Theoretically, a handful of filibustering U.S. Senators, hell-bent of not extending the debt limit, could create world financial havoc. Economists say that the debt limit will need adjusting by January or February 2011. These situations have created an opportunity for Republicans -- who love to profess fiscal responsibility when they do not control the Congress and the White House -- to employ their extra-constitutional, if not unconstitutional, tactics to impose their will and embarrass Democrats, by using the threat of closing down the government by refusing to appropriate funds or adjust the debt limit. Both Ronald Reagan and George Bush I used vetoes of continuing resolutions that resulted in shutdowns to try to impose their will on Democratic Congresses. And, more famously, Republican Speaker Of The House Newt Gingrich refused to pass a budget when Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was president, unless the Congress was given what the GOP leadership wanted. The Reagan and Bush I shutdowns lasted only days and cost taxpayers only a few million dollars. The Gingrich shutdown, which lasted almost three weeks, cost billions of dollars. Democrats in Congress, and Bill Clinton, refused to be extorted. So the shutdowns failed. Government should not be a costly game of Blindman's Bluff, which hurts our country in the eyes of the world. Indeed, all federal officials, including both presidents and members of Congress, are oath-bound not to do what Republicans have repeatedly done when cutting off funding, or threatening to do so, for government operations. Tea Party candidates will soon be taking that oath as well, but I am not sure they will honor it. More than likely, they see the Congressional Oath as merely a pro forma ceremony before taking office. In fact, oaths are public promises, and pledges for future action. Honoring an oath is a matter of character. And there are not different oaths for Republicans, Tea Party people, and Democrats; one oath applies to all. The Congressional Oath In January of every odd-numbered year, when a new Congress is formed, all members of the House of Representatives and a third of Senate assemble in their respective chambers to take the Congressional Oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." What does it mean to "support and defend" the Constitution? What is bearing "true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution? How do those in Congress "well and faithfully discharge the duties" of their offices? A few years ago, Arkansas Congressman Vic Snyder, a family doctor as well as a graduate of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law, did what no one else has bothered to do, and took a hard look at these questions. He did so in an article for his former law school's law journal in 2001. (Snyder, first elected to Congress in 1996, is retiring this year and is currently serving the remainder of his term. Unfortunately, his article, at 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 811, is behind pay-walls.) Allow me to distill into a few sentences my understanding of what the Congressman said in several thousands of words, in his wide-ranging survey of the scant existing literature addressing the Congressional Oath. He explored its history; he developed its meaning by examining a few relevant Supreme Court holdings that shed light on it; and he looked at its application in the context of amending the Constitution. Although Congressman Snyder was not looking at the Congressional Oath in the context of those participating in forcing -- or threatening -- a government shutdown, I think what he found is relevant. As I read Congressman Snyder's findings -- along with the comments of several of his congressional colleagues as well as then-Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, who joined him in accompanying essays -- the Congressional Oath is a pledge of conscience that requires a commitment to "abide by our constitutional system," and to operate "by constitutional processes." Most importantly, there is nothing casual about this pledge. Congressman Snyder approvingly cites Justice Story, who found that, because of their oath, federal officeholders have a "sacred obligation" toward the Constitution. In addition, Congressman Snyder believes that the oath embraces George Washington's admonition that the Constitution must "be sacredly maintained" by office holders, and James Madison's call for "veneration" of the Constitution. In short, the Congressional Oath demands a special "seriousness" in honoring its ways and means; it requires not merely following its terms, but also the spirit it represents. The Congressional Oath And Government Shutdowns Threatening, or forcing, a government shutdown is a conspicuous breach of the Congressional Oath. Our Constitution contemplates continuous government, undertaken pursuant to the structure set forth within that document, unless amended by the terms of that document, as spelled out in its Article V. While the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, this appropriations process is divided between the Congress and the president, for no appropriation becomes law without the president's approval, unless his veto is overridden by two-thirds of the Congress. Notwithstanding this Constitutional reality, Speaker Gingrich has called the fact that the Congress must appropriate the funds for government to operate Congress's "trump" of the president's powers. As Newt discovered, this was wishful thinking. Remarkably, Gingrich is one of those who are enthusiastically pushing the Tea Party and current GOP leadership to again use the shutdown ploy to get what they want. These threats to shut down the government, and the decisions to actually do so when necessary to make the point, are based on the belief that if a Republican Congress (House or Senate, alone when not together) can take the heat of public outrage, then Republicans can embarrass the Democratic president, who can't take the heat -- especially when a president is seeking reelection. Why can't the president take the heat, in Republicans' view? Because -- as many Republicans have told me -- the public is too stupid to figure out who is to blame for the mess, so they will blame the president. Accordingly, Republicans can use the shutdown threat to get what they want, forcing a president to promise not to veto it. Newt, for example, wanted to abolish a good hunk of the Executive Branch, and lower taxes, along with the other Republican wish-list items set forth in the Contract With America that he spearheaded. The tactic of threatening the shutdown of, or actually shutting down, the federal government by withholding funding will not be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it is a brazen abuse of power. This is a kind of gaming of the appropriations process, or taking advantage of a president when confronted with a debt limit, in a manner that is far beyond even Richard Nixon's abuse-of-power activities, for which he was forced from office. Disrupting government operations is not merely a blatant violation of the Congressional Oath, which requires honoring our system and using the processes of government as they were intended. It also pushes the give-and-take of politics, in some circumstances, into the area of criminal extortion. A Strong Reason For Concern: It's Possible the Tea Party May Successfully Bully the President The reason I raise this subject at this time is that I am worried that when the thug-talking Tea Party players get going in Washington this coming January, they may successfully bully their way with President Obama. President Obama is a wonderful human being -- smart, caring, a man who wants to do what is best for America. But he has not yet figured out that a president is not simply a super-Senator, a legislator-in-chief, a consensus-seeker extraordinaire, always willing to compromise to keep everyone happy. Being president of the United States is not the same as being president of the Harvard Law Review, which was his prior executive experience. Mr. Obama learned his politics as a legislator, and while he clearly has the talent to do so, he has yet to employ his skills as they are needed by a modern American president. Republicans, using the Tea Party toughs, no doubt feel emboldened. In the last election, they kicked President Obama's behind for doing what he believed to be best for the nation. I do not know when, or if, Mr. Obama will realize his potential as a president. So I worry. For example, as I write this column, he is floating a trial balloon as to what the reaction would be if he collapsed on the issue of prohibiting further ongoing tax cuts for America's super-wealthy, who are the very last to need tax cuts. Such a collapse would please Republicans and really upset Obama's base. Soon, the President will be negotiating with the government shutdown crowd, and I worry he will give up even more of the greater good to appease Republicans. In fact, he should be planning now (and putting Tea Party members on notice of his plans) as to how, at a minimum, he will embarrass them (no easy task) for threatening to shut down our government. Or, better yet, he should place them on notice that he will request his Attorney General to criminal prosecute them if they use such criminal tactics for political ends. (Congressional immunity is very limited.) The bottom line: It is time now to plan for the bad behavior that will be coming to Washington with the Tea Party Movement, and to recognize the high stakes that will be involved when they threaten to shut down the government. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.

Warning over Boris Johnson phone hacking denial The Independent By Sam Marsden Thursday, 28 July 2011 Boris Johnson would have been attempting to pervert the course of justice if he knew police were actively investigating phone hacking when he described fresh allegations as "codswallop", it was claimed today. The London Mayor's deputy for policing, Kit Malthouse, was informed on September 10, 2010 that Scotland Yard detectives were looking into claims made in a New York Times article. Five days later Mr Johnson publicly dismissed questions about the new hacking allegations as "a load of codswallop cooked up by the Labour Party" at Mayor's Question Time. Members of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), which oversees Scotland Yard's work, today quizzed Mr Malthouse on whether he discussed the fact that police were investigating the New York Times claims with Mr Johnson between September 10 and 15. Mr Malthouse, chairman of the MPA, replied: "It think it is probably unlikely that we did but I cannot recall precisely." Green Party MPA member Jenny Jones suggested that the mayor must have known there was an active police investigation when he made his "codswallop" comments. She told the meeting at London's City Hall: "If he did know, he was attempting to pervert the course of justice." Asked about Mr Johnson's choice of words, Mr Malthouse said: "The mayor is a personality who likes to express himself in particular ways." Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin, who took over running Scotland Yard on Monday after Sir Paul Stephenson resigned as Commissioner, declined to comment on the Mayor's words. Mr Malthouse confirmed today that former Met assistant commissioner John Yates briefed him on September 10 last year that police were considering whether there was any new evidence in the New York Times report and that a team of officers might fly to the US to conduct interviews. Asked about phone hacking at Mayor's Question Time five days later, Mr Johnson said: "I am almost in continuous conversations with my deputy mayor for policing (Mr Malthouse) about this and other matters. "It would be fair to say that he and I have discussed this. The conclusion of our conversation would be obvious from what I have said. "In other words, this is a load of codswallop cooked up by the Labour Party and that we do not intend to get involved with it."

Phone-hacking inquiry may need more time, says Lord Justice Leveson Judge appointed by David Cameron to look into phone-hacking scandal says terms of inquiry have expanded considerably By Patrick Wintour, political editor guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 July 2011 11.57 BST Lord Justice Leveson, appointed by David Cameron to look into the fall-out from the phone-hacking scandal, has warned that the expansion of the terms of reference of his inquiry has been so broadened that he may not be able to complete the first part of the inquiry within the planned timescale of a year. He was speaking as his inquiry team met for the first time in London to discuss how it would proceed. He said "in the first instance the inquiry will focus primarily on what I am calling the relationship between the press and the public and the related issue of press regulation". He said he would have powers to compel named witnesses to attend and would be discussing with the DPP the extent to which he will be able to look at the scale of specific media wrongdoing before the criminal inquiries have been completed. In a prepared statement, he said: "It may be tempting for a number of people to close ranks and suggest that the problem is or was local to a group of journalists then operating at the News of the World but I would encourage all to take a wider picture of the public good and help grapple with the width and depth of the problem." He said it was critical that the inquiry concentrated on "the central and most important issue", adding the "focus of the inquiry is the culture practices and ethics of the press in the context of the latter's relationship with the public, the police and politicians." He said in September he would be holding in the first instance "a series of seminars on the ethics of journalism and the practices and pressures of investigative journalism". He added: "At some stage there needs to be a discussion of what amounts to the public good, to what extent the public interest should be taken into account and by whom". He added he would later hold seminars on press relationships with the police, politicians and the political process. In one of his few specific commitments he said one aspect of the inquiry may look into why "no action was taken in 2006 following a report by the information commissioner" into the use of private detectives and eavesdropping. He stressed the 2005 Inquiries Act under which he is operating gave him powers to require witnesses to attend and provide documentation. He said he would not at this stage be seeking to invite editors or proprietors to provide files on which they had based stories into "the utterly inappropriate behaviour of small sections of the press". Leveson's aides stressed that the Lord Justice of Appeal's repeated references to the press in his statement should not be taken to mean that he would be ignoring the role of broadcasters or social media. The terms of reference were widened by a group of select committee chairmen determined to look at the role of the BBC in seeking to dominate the broadcasting and websites . Leveson also addressed concerns that he may be seen as close to News International due to the fact that he has attended two parties at the home of Matthew Freud, the publicist and husband of Elisabeth Murdoch, the daughter of News Corps chairman, Rupert Murdoch. He said he had met Freud by chance at a dinner in February 2010 when Freud had offered to do some work free of charge on the issue of public confidence in sentencing. Leveson is chair of the Sentencing Council. With the knowledge of the Lord Chief Justice, Leveson attended two large evening events at Freud's London home in London in July 2010 and January 2011 to discuss these issues. He said he had not spoken with anyone from Freud Communications since January 2011. Another inquiry member Lord Currie said although he was a past chairman of Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, that did not mean he favoured statutory regulation. In a statement he said: "That is not the case. I believe self regulation with good governance in place, can be superior. Each case needs to be judged on it merits

Morgan defiant as enemies try to implicate him in hacking scandal The Independent By Ian Burrell, Media Editor Thursday, 28 July 2011 The former British newspaper editor Piers Morgan yesterday took steps to protect his high-profile job at CNN, and his six-figure salary, as he issued a statement to deny a series of accusations that he was implicated in the phone-hacking scandal. Morgan, a former editor of the News of the World and a friend and former colleague of Andy Coulson, refuted claims that his previous comments on the matter were evidence of culpability. James Hipwell, who worked on the Daily Mirror when Morgan was editing that paper, has told The Independent that hacking was "endemic" and that it was "inconceivable" that the editor did not know about it. The accusations and insinuations have gathered pace. The blog Huffpost UK published a transcript of Morgan's appearance on the BBC Radio 4 show Desert Island Discs in 2009, when he discussed tabloid practices. He told Kirsty Young: "A lot of it was done by third parties. That's not to defend it, because obviously you were running the results of their work. I'm quite happy to have to sit here defending all these things I used to get up to. I simply say the net of people doing it was very wide and certainly encompassed the high and low end of the newspaper market." The political blogger Guido Fawkes quoted a 2006 article Morgan wrote in the Daily Mail, in which he referred to a phone message left by Sir Paul McCartney for Heather Mills. "I was played a tape of a message Paul had left for Heather on her mobile phone. It was heart-breaking. "The couple had clearly had a tiff, Heather had fled to India and Paul was pleading with her to come back." Fawkes, real name Paul Staines, asked: "How can Piers say he never authorised phone hacking when he admits to listening to recordings of the voicemail of a distressed old man and his soon-to-be ex-wife?" The Guardian republished a piece from GQ magazine in 2007, when Morgan told Naomi Campbell that hacking was "a very widespread practice". He said: "It was pretty well known that it if you didn't change your pin code when you were a celebrity who bought a new phone, then reporters could ring your mobile, tap in a standard factory setting number and hear your messages." Morgan yesterday rubbished the claims. "I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, nor to my knowledge published any story obtained from the hacking of a phone," his statement said. Of Desert Island Discs, he said: "Millions of people heard these comments when I first made them in 2009, and none deduced that I was admitting to or condoning illegal activity." Morgan used his Twitter account to label his detractors as liars, druggie ex-bankrupts and con men. Morgan's tweets yesterday * "I don't mind being wrongly smeared with all this #Hackgate stuff, I'd just rather it wasn't done by liars, druggie ex-bankrupts and conmen." * "For those who don't know who @GuidoFawkes is, here's his biog: http://t.co/3TJEX4k Not exactly Woodward/Bernstein is it?" * "And as for 'Professor' @GreensladeR in today's Guardian, he admitted faking Spot The Ball for Robert Maxwell so no Mirror reader could win." * "I'll be making no further comment on #Hackgate. But important for everyone to know who these lying smearers are."

Read academics' letter of complaint over Times cartoon Read the letter claiming Peter Brookes's 'cynical' cartoon in the Times tried to deflect attention from the phone-hacking row guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 July 2011 17.27 BST Sir, At a time when News International is being investigated for alleged unethical media practices, we write to object in the strongest possible terms to a recent cartoon by Peter Brookes in the Times (21 July 2011). It features three emaciated African children with distended stomachs, holding begging bowls, with a caption reading 'I've had a bellyful of phone-hacking'. Many have noted how coverage of the phone-hacking scandal has shunted equally, if not more, important news items from the front pages: the humanitarian crisis in Somalia; the reforms intent on privatising the NHS and English universities; the huge cuts in the UK to legal aid and benefits budgets. Yet for one of Murdoch's newspapers to use racist caricatures in an attempt to deflect attention from legitimate public scrutiny of its actions is wholly unacceptable. The cartoon is cynical and repugnant, a blatant piece of propaganda that demonstrates precisely the self-serving irresponsibility for which News International is being criticised. At best hypocritical, since Murdoch's publications do little to support aid to Somalia or other African countries at times of crisis, at worst, inhuman, it is clear to us that nobody who genuinely cares about the lives of men, women and children, in a country subject to worsening conflict, drought and famine, could fail to react to this cartoon with anything but shock and anger. Tom Akehurst (University of Sussex) Graham Askew (University of Cambridge) Mark Bergfeld (NUS) Cuneyt Cakirlar (UCL) Jennifer Cooke (Loughborough University) Sam Cooper (University of Sussex) Simon Englert (University of Sussex) Priyamvada Gopal (University of Cambridge) Stella Hawkins (Hounslow Library Network) Ben Highmore (University of Sussex) Chris Kempshall (University of Sussex) Laleh Khalili (SOAS) Slawek Krolak (University of Warsaw) Chris McCabe (Cambridge) William McEvoy (University of Sussex) Shamira Meghani (University of Sussex) Vincent Quinn (University of Sussex) Lucy Robinson (University of Sussex) Tessa Roynon (University of Oxford) Matthew Smith (Kingston GMB) Aaron Winter (University of Abertay)

No 10 refuses to disclose Coulson's access to top-secret information Questions remain as to how many knew former director of communications had not undergone developed vetting By Robert Booth and Vikram Dodd guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 July 2011 19.50 BST Downing Street is refusing to say whether Andy Coulson attended any meetings as David Cameron's head of communications in which he had access to sensitive information on counter-terrorism, Afghanistan and foreign affairs that would have been in breach of his relatively limited security clearance. But it did admit that Coulson's level of security clearance meant he would have access to certain secret papers. The Guardian on Tuesday night sent Downing Street a list of 14 questions about the vetting process for Coulson and asked about meetings the former News of the World editor may have attended with the prime minister. The prime minister's office was asked if Coulson saw documents or attended briefings about the printer bomb terrorism scare at East Midlands airport in October 2010 for which he did not have appropriate security clearance; if White House or US state department officials were informed he had not completed "developed vetting" when he accompanied Cameron on his visit to Washington in July 2010; and if he ever attended a meeting relating to Afghanistan, UK military matters or counter-terrorism at which intelligence was discussed. Downing Street had admitted he had not undergone the rigorous security vetting process that was applied to both his successor and several of his predecessors. Coulson, who has been arrested and bailed by police investigating phone hacking and illegal payments to the police, did not undergo developed vetting which involves rigorous cross-examination and background checks by trained investigators to uncover anything in a person's background that could make them vulnerable to blackmail. Once cleared, it allows unsupervised access to top-secret material and previous senior Downing Street media officials, including Alastair Campbell, have claimed it would be very difficult to do the job properly without it. "These queries seem to misunderstand the nature of vetting," a spokesman said. "Andy Coulson was security clearance [a lower level of vetting] cleared, which allowed him access to secret papers. "Developed vetting is not an employability test, it is about access to papers. It is required for those who need frequent access to the highest classification of material. This is a small minority and is not a standard vetting even for special advisers and senior officials in Downing Street. "In Andy Coulson's case, there is no suggestion he was sent papers incorrectly. Nor, as the PM has said, have there been complaints or assertions that he broke the rules in his employment at Downing Street." He added that it was decided that Coulson should undergo DV after the East Midlands airport scare owing to the "importance of communications in handling specific terrorist incidents". Downing Street also refused to say which ministers or officials were informed of the decision not to subject Coulson to the DV process when he started working in government in May 2010. It declined to comment on the level of screening applied to Coulson when he started working for the Conservative party which is thought to have been carried out by Control Risks Screening, which offered standard checks for £150.40. "I don't intend to go into further detailed questions," the spokesman said. "To repeat, vetting is about access to paperwork, not meetings and I think the explanation above, the Cabinet Secretary's letters and assurances set out the facts well."

9/11 phone-hacking claims: families to meet US attorney general Top law official agrees to discuss progress of FBI investigation into allegations against journalists working for News Corp By Ed Pilkington in New York guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 July 2011 23.30 Relatives of victims of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York are to meet with America's top law enforcement official to discuss allegations that journalists working for News Corporation tried to gain access to the phone records of the dead. The US attorney general Eric Holder has agreed to see a group of family members and their legal representative on 24 August to discuss the progress of an FBI investigation. The agreement to hold the meeting is a sign of how seriously the inquiry is being taken. Norman Siegel, a New York-based lawyer who represents 20 families who lost loved ones on 11 September 2001, confirmed the meeting and said he intended to take as many of the relatives as possible to see Holder in Washington. "We are hoping the allegations of hacking prove to be untrue but we want a thorough investigation to determine what happened," he said. The allegation that News of the World reporters attempted to gain unauthorised access to victims' voicemails was made in an article in the Mirror earlier this month. The paper said the journalists had approached a former New York police officer working as a private detective and asked him to do the hacking, which he declined to do. So far no evidence has emerged to corroborate the Mirror's story but, should the allegations firm up, News Corp could face a rash of civil litigation from family members. Lawyers have begun preliminary discussions with relatives pointing out their legal options. "If there is something to the story, then there are a number of different claims that people could file," said Mark Vlasic, a Washington-based lawyer and professor at Georgetown University. Vlasic said one possible legal recourse open to families would be to sue under the electronic communications and privacy act. Title 18 USC section 2701, which carries a minimum fine of $1,000 (£612) for every event proved, makes it unlawful to obtain unauthorised access to stored communications, including voicemail. Title 18 USC section 1030, barring unauthorised access to protected computers, could also be invoked in relation to the mainframe computers on which the phone companies store voicemails. Siegel said that he had pointed out to the families he represents that civil legal action could be open to them. Any attempt by News of the World reporters to gain access to voicemails, even if such an attempt were unsuccessful, could be liable to penalties. But Siegel said that the priority at this stage was to find out whether the allegations were true. "Family members are painfully going back to the period of 9/11 and trying to recall whether there were articles about their loved ones that could only have been written on the basis of hacking of calls or computers." Sally Regenhard, who lost her firefighter son Christian at the World Trade Centre, said families were adopting a wait-and-see policy: "We just want to know what's happening with the investigation." Another victim's relative, who asked not to be named, said she had been talking to a lawyer about a possible lawsuit. "Between Osama bin Laden's death and the 10th anniversary of 9/11 in September, this is a very stressful time for us. If the phone-hacking allegations turn out to be true it would be very upsetting for us – it would be such a violation." During his testimony to the UK parliament earlier this month Rupert Murdoch referred to the 9/11 phone-hacking claim and said "we have seen no evidence at all and as far as we know the FBI haven't either". But he added that he did not know whether News of the World employees or the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire could have taken it upon themselves to do the hacking. On Wednesday Piers Morgan, the former editor of the Daily Mirror, denied for the second time in a week that he printed stories obtained through phone hacking. CNN, which employs him as a chatshow host, issued the latest denial over comments Morgan made when he was on Radio 4's Desert Island Discs.

Rupert Murdoch and phone hacking: an insiders' story Jacques Peretti on what he learned from Sean Hoare, Paul McMullan and others when making a film about the mogul Guardian. July 27, 2011 I started making a film about Rupert Murdoch when no one seemed that interested in an 80-year-old man who seemed to rule the world Sauron-like, and with little prospect of that changing till the opening of the cracks of doom. "Who cares about phone hacking?" was the usual response from the fabled fnf (phone-hacking jargon for "friends and family"). Then I had a stroke of luck – people at the News of the World screwed up big time and suddenly the flames were licking ever closer to the old man's chair. Overnight, everyone was really interested in Murdoch, and my film was no longer really out of date but on the money. Thankfully, I'd filmed lots of interviews when it was really out of date, so I had people who wouldn't talk now – Sir Tim Bell, the spin chief to more than 40 governments (and best friend of both Murdoch and Mrs Thatcher), who laughed at my crude attempts to analyse Murdoch ("he's like a human satellite dish, beaming across the planet, isn't he?" Er, no). There's Andy Hayman, the much-criticised former Met anti-terrorism chief, dubbed "Inspector Clouseau" by MP Keith Vaz, and blamed for not pursuing the phone-hacking inquiry, and then there's former NoW staffer and punchbag to Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan, Paul McMullan. Paul bought a crappy pub in Dover ("last stop before the ferry") on the proceeds of papp'd pics he took of Brad Pitt. When I arrived, the cellar was flooding as the sea came in underneath. He told me he couldn't phone any of his friends from the NoW any more as the police seized their mobiles, so if you texted them, you were texting plod. I also travelled out to Watford to interview Sean Hoare, the original NoW whistleblower, who ran the showbiz pages and partied with Sean Ryder and the Gallaghers. Shockingly, Sean died suddenly just one day before Murdoch appeared before the parliamentary select committee, never getting to see the fruit of his labours in trying to expose all this. Hoare knew Nick Davies of the Guardian well and had unstintingly put his head above the parapet when no one else would. Plus he was a lifelong Hammer, and I've never met a Hammer I didn't like. Sean told me mad, mad stuff about what they got up to at the NoW. Aside from the predictable evils we all know about and are (rightfully I suppose) morally indignant about, there was also a crazy camaraderie and humour at the NoW: in the characters who worked there and what they did to get a story, like sitting in an unmarked transit van in their underpants (as Paul did) throughout summer, just to secretly film some poor sod shagging his secretary. Sean worked with the fabled Neville Thurlbeck – a man who would go to ridiculous lengths to get a story, even stripping off to ingratiate himself with a bunch of nudists, so earning him the office nickname of "Onan the Barbarian". It's easy to make a doomy film about Murdoch and phone hacking, missing the story of the people who did it. Even Murdoch himself is not Sauron, but a fascinating and complex man. He is fascinated with process, with the mechanics of producing information, and with the mechanics of manipulating people who crave power. He is not evil: he is more of a mirror reflecting back the vanity and insecurities of four decades of politicians. Murdoch's butler Philip Townsend paints a picture of a witty irascible figure low on confidence and with little time for toadying employees, fakes and the usual crowd who would try to curry influence. When Tony Blair flew to Australia to seek his patronage, his team were told that Murdoch was a big bad bastard who likes big bad bastards. Cameron, Townsend said, isn't Murdoch's kind of person. Gordon Brown, on the other hand, he liked. But just couldn't back, because he was clearly going to lose. Murdoch only backs winners, regardless of their ideology. Watching Murdoch at the select committee, I couldn't help thinking that his long silences betrayed the fact he was in fact the smartest man in the room. He always plays the long game, and this set-back, in a tiny outcrop of his empire, is not the end of the story. Sure he's a big bad bastard, but that doesn't stop him being fascinating, and probably fantastic company if you were to invite him to dinner. Let's face it, the devil has all the best tunes, and Murdoch has learned some tunes in his time.

Times editor agrees NI's handling of phone hacking was 'catastrophic' James Harding says some readers cancelled subscriptions in wake of revelations about News of the World's alleged activities By Lisa O'Carroll guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 July 2011 16.24 BST The editor of the Times, James Harding, has admitted that News International's handling of the phone-hacking crisis was "catastrophic" and that it impacted on the paper's sales. Harding said readers had cancelled subscriptions to the Times and to digital versions of the paper in the immediate aftermath of the revelations about Millie Dowler's phone allegedly being hacked by News International sister title the News of the World. Asked whether News International would recover and if he still felt the way the company had reacted had been "catastrophic", as described by one of his paper's leader columns, he said: "Yes, I think that would be a pretty descriptive word for what it happened and the struggle they had in getting to grips with it." But Harding, who has pursued a fiercely independent line on the scandal since the Dowler story broke in early July, said he believed Rupert Murdoch was now back in charge after accepting the resignation of Rebekah Brooks, dropping the bid for BSkyB and apologising to the Dowler family. "You have to own your mistakes, otherwise your mistakes own you," Harding told Steve Hewlett, presenter of Radio 4's The Media Show. The Times lost more than 20,000 sales on some days following the Dowler revelation, according to industry sources. "In the first couple of weeks after the Milly Dowler story broke we were acutely concerned about it and with good reason. There were some people who were not just disgusted by the News of the World but wanted to express that anger in any way they could," Harding said. He was then asked if the Times saw evidence of this in losing its own readers. "Yes we absolutely did," Harding replied. "We saw small numbers of people cancelling their digital subscriptions or cancelling their print subscriptions – happily those have largely come back." He said he knew he was in for a "very testing" time when the Dowler story broke more than three weeks ago and that the scrutiny of press behaviour on all newspapers would be a "watershed" moment for British journalism. But he added it would be lamentable if the ambitions of journalists to hold the powerful and privileged to account were in any way stymied. "I think it's an unpopular position at the moment. But we need to make sure we don't get into a circular firing squad in Fleet Street, we don't spend our time in a process of self-flagellation, we believe in a free press," Harding said. "I was very concerned for the reputation of journalism generally the moment I woke. We are now three and a half weeks, the better part of a month on," he added. "I think if you went round the country today and you said 'Do you still think that's it's important in a free society that the press hold the powerful and the privileged to account?' I think they would say yes. If you said 'Do you think it would be a good idea for David Cameron and Ed Miliband to set the terms of the way in which newspapers work?', most people would say no."

British Panel Wants to Hear From Three Men Who Dispute Murdochs’ Testimony The New York Times By ROBERT MACKEY July 26, 2011, 7:32 pm The chairman of the British parliamentary panel that questioned Rupert and James Murdoch last week about phone hacking wants to hear from three men who claim that the Murdochs gave inaccurate testimony. John Whittingdale, a Conservative member of Parliament who chairs the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, told The Evening Standard of London on Tuesday: “It is somewhat frustrating to keep hearing media reports about people wishing to correct evidence. If they have doubts about any testimony they should get in touch with us immediately.” Mr. Whittingdale was referring to statements released in recent days by three men who all held senior positions at News International, the Murdochs’ British newspaper division, until earlier this month. Colin Myler, who was the editor of The News of the World, the British tabloid at the center of the hacking scandal, and Tom Crone, who was the chief legal adviser to News International, said in a joint statement on Thursday that James Murdoch “was mistaken” when he told the committee that he had not been made aware of an incriminating e-mail in 2008, when he agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by a phone hacking victim. The e-mail, from a News of the World journalist, strongly suggested that phone hacking was more widespread at the paper in 2005 than the company had previously acknowledged. Then on Friday, Jon Chapman, News International’s director of legal affairs until this month, said in a statement that he wanted to cooperate with the committee to correct “serious inaccuracies in statements made” at last week’s hearing. Mr. Whittingdale told The Standard, “If Mr. Chapman has information which he believes calls into question the evidence provided by James Murdoch, then we would be very keen to speak to him.” The Standard notes that Mr. Chapman was a senior executive at Enron before he started working for News International in 2003. During last week’s hearing, James Murdoch was asked if he was familiar with the term “willful blindness,” which was used to describe the behavior of senior executives at Enron who averted their eyes from wrongdoing. As The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by the Murdochs’ News Corporation, explained on Friday: Mr. Chapman had served on the front lines since News International started having to deal with the allegations back in 2006, when News of the World royal correspondent Clive Goodman and a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, were arrested. Mr. Chapman ultimately reported to Les Hinton, a top aide to Rupert Murdoch and executive chairman of News International until December 2007. Mr. Hinton then became head of News Corp.’s Dow Jones & Co., which publishes The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Hinton recently resigned from that role, saying he was “ignorant of what apparently happened” at The News of the World. Mr. Chapman played a key role in settling an unfair-dismissal dispute brought by Mr. Goodman after his conviction — a settlement that was approved by Mr. Hinton and the unit’s head of human resources, according to testimony by Mr. Chapman before the parliamentary committee. He also played a role in an internal inquiry that resulted from that dispute, in which Mr. Chapman and a colleague reviewed a batch of e-mails between Mr. Goodman and five others, and then forwarded some or all of them to an outside law firm for review. That law firm, Harbottle & Lewis LLP, at the time found no “reasonable evidence” that others knew about or were carrying out similar illegal procedures. Another lawyer recently hired by News International, Ken MacDonald, said following a review of nine or 10 of those emails that there was “blindingly obvious” evidence of corrupt payments. During testimony on Tuesday to the parliamentary committee, Rupert Murdoch appeared to lay responsibility with Mr. Chapman, who helped oversee the Harbottle review, saying the former legal counsel would have been familiar with the file’s contents “for a number of years.” Mr. Chapman was a central figure in an internal inquiry conducted by News International into phone hacking in 2007. He has also previously provided evidence on the matter to the parliamentary committee. In response to a request from the committee in October 2009, News International provided a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Chapman on May 29, 2007, from Lawrence Abramson of Harbottle & Lewis. Here, from the House of Commons Web site, is the full text of that letter: Re Clive Goodman We have on your instructions reviewed the emails to which you have provided access from the accounts of: Andy Coulson Stuart Kuttner Ian Edmondson Clive Goodman Neil Wallis Jules Stenson I can confirm that we did not find anything in those emails which appeared to us to be reasonable evidence that Clive Goodman’s illegal actions were known about and supported by both or either of Andy Coulson, the Editor, and Neil Wallis, the Deputy Editor, and/or that Ian Edmondson, the News Editor, and others were carrying out similar illegal procedures. Please let me know if we can be of any further assistance. In hindsight, what is striking about the letter is that it suggests that Harbottle & Lewis was instructed by News International to conduct a very narrow review of the e-mails; the lawyers looked only for evidence that Mr. Goodman’s superiors knew about his use of the illegal technique or that others at the paper were using it. They were not asked to look for evidence of other kinds of illegal activity, like payments to the police, or to review e-mails sent by other reporters at the paper, like the one that contained a transcript of 35 hacked voice mail messages that Mr. Myler and Mr. Crone said they told James Murdoch about in 2008. As my colleagues Jo Becker and Ravi Somaiya reported last weekend, while some of the e-mails reviewed for News International’s internal inquiry in 2007 “showed no direct evidence of hacking, according to three company officials they did contain suggestions that Mr. Coulson may have authorized payments to the police for information.” They also reported that, according to News International officials, the 2007 review of e-mails was not undertaken to find out if hacking had been widely practiced by News of the World journalists. Rather, the review “was aimed at defending the company from a lawsuit filed by Clive Goodman,” who had been fired for hacking. Mr. Goodman claimed that his dismissal was unfair because his colleagues had also used the technique. This might explain why Harbottle & Lewis was asked to review e-mail traffic only between Mr. Goodman and his editors. Three of the five editors named in the Harbottle & Lewis letter — Andy Coulson, Neil Wallis and Ian Edmondson — have been arrested in recent months in connection with new police investigations into phone hacking and illegal payments to police officers.

Murdochs were given secret defence briefings Ministers held meetings with media mogul's people more than 60 times The Independent By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor Wednesday, 27 July 2011 The extraordinary access that Cabinet ministers granted Rupert Murdoch and his children was revealed for the first time yesterday, with more than two dozen private meetings between the family and senior members of the Government in the 15 months since David Cameron entered Downing Street. In total, Cabinet ministers have had private meetings with Murdoch executives more than 60 times and, if social events such as receptions at party conferences are included, the figure is at least 107. On two occasions, James Murdoch and former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks were given confidential defence briefings on Afghanistan and Britain's strategic defence review by the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox. A further briefing was held with Ms Brooks, Rupert Murdoch and the Sunday Times editor John Witherow. The Chancellor, George Osborne, has had 16 separate meetings since May 2010 with News International editors and executives, including two with the Murdochs within just a month of taking office. He also invited Elisabeth Murdoch as a guest to his 40th birthday party last month. The Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, dined with Rupert Murdoch within days of the Government coming to power and, after being given quasi-judicial oversight for the Murdochs' £8bn attempted takeover of BSkyB, had two meetings with James Murdoch in which they discussed the takeover. Mr Hunt said last night that these were legitimate as part of the bid process. But the minister who sees Rupert Murdoch the most frequently is the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, a former News International employee. Mr Gove has seen the mogul for breakfast, lunch or dinner on six occasions since last May. Overall, Mr Gove has had 12 meetings with Murdoch executives since becoming a minister. The list, released by government departments yesterday evening, reinforces the impression of an unhealthily close relationship between the top echelons of News International and senior members of the Coalition Cabinet, which first became apparent when Mr Cameron released his list of contacts with news organisations a week ago. He revealed then that he had met News International executives on 26 occasions since entering Downing Street. Senior executives and editors from News International have held private meetings with Cabinet ministers more than 60 times since last May. Other newspaper groups and media organisations had significantly fewer meetings. Mr Osborne met with representatives of The Daily Telegraph group on six occasions and The Independent/London Evening Standard twice. Mr Hunt met Telegraph and Independent figures twice each and members of the BBC 11 times. The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, who was stripped of responsibility for ruling on whether the BSkyB bid should go ahead after boasting in December that he had "declared war on Rupert Murdoch", did not have as much contact as some of his colleagues. Mr Cable met the editor of The Times, James Harding, in December, although it is unclear whether this was before or after he was stripped of his responsibilities for the BSkyB bid. The Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, held a meeting shortly after the election with No 10's then communications director Andy Coulson, the former head of the Metropolitan Police Sir Paul Stephenson and Neil Wallis, the former deputy editor of the News of the World and then an adviser to the Met. Both Mr Coulson and Mr Wallis have since been arrested on suspicion of phone hacking and Sir Paul resigned over his handling of the scandal. Last night a spokesman for Mr Gove insisted that his meetings with the Murdochs were of a personal nature. "Michael worked for the BBC and News International and his wife works for News International now," he said. "He has known Rupert Murdoch for over a decade. He did not discuss the BSkyB deal with the Murdochs and isn't at all embarrassed about his meetings, most of which have been about education, which is his job." A spokesman for Mr Fox said that the defence briefings given to the Murdochs covered a range of issues and were given because of the "interest in defence matters" shown by News International papers. He did not say who initiated the meetings. The Chancellor had said he would be happy to talk about the meetings, but the list was released just after interviews he gave on GDP figures so he was not available for comment. The Conservative Party co-chairman, Sayeeda Warsi, said the release of the information showed that, in contrast to Labour, the Government was being open about its dealings with the Murdochs. "This Government is delivering unprecedented transparency," she said. "Ed Miliband now needs to come clean. Where is his list of Shadow Cabinet media meetings?" Watson to write book with Independent reporter Tom Watson, the Labour MP who has done much to uncover the extent of the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World, is to write the "full behind-the-scenes story" with The Independent correspondent Martin Hickman. The publisher Penguin promised yesterday that the book would "describe in previously unpublished detail the nexus between News Corporation, the police and politicians, and will explain how the connections between them were unravelled". The tenacious MP for West Bromwich East led the questioning of Rupert and James Murdoch and the former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks last week when they appeared before the House of Commons select committee for Culture, Media & Sport. Hickman was named 2009 Journalist of the Year by the Foreign Press Association. Penguin said: "With unique information and access, their book will show what went wrong with some very prominent British institutions and will mark the moment when everything began to change." As yet untitled, it will be published later this year. The book is likely to be one of several documenting a scandal that has gone to the heart of British society.

Murdoch Veterans Portray a Fully Engaged Boss The New York Times July 26, 2011 By SARAH LYALL and GRAHAM BOWLEY LONDON — It was the political scoop of the year, a damning, serialized exposé in The Daily Telegraph about how British politicians were abusing their parliamentary expense accounts to pay for things like moat-cleaning and wisteria-trimming. The articles, in May 2009, shook up Parliament and shamed lawmakers. They also irritated Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of the News Corporation, for the simple reason that two of his own newspapers, The Times of London and The Sun, had been offered the chance to buy the information that led to the exposé, but had turned it down. “There was anger wafting across the Atlantic,” said a former reporter for one of Mr. Murdoch’s papers here. At News International, Mr. Murdoch’s British newspaper arm, executives scrambled to deflect responsibility. The blame fell largely on an in-house lawyer who had cautioned against paying some $450,000 for a stolen disc containing the parliamentary expense records. (A few months later, the lawyer was asked to leave News International, where he had worked for 33 years, apparently after another disagreement over advice.) While it is not clear whether Mr. Murdoch played a direct role in the matter, there is little question that The Telegraph’s scoop remained a sore point for him and that his feelings seeped down through various layers of his company. Soon afterward, The Wall Street Journal, his flagship American newspaper, did its own investigation of American lawmakers’ expenses. And the editor of the rival Telegraph who got the scoop, William Lewis, a former business editor at The Sunday Times of London, was then rehired by Mr. Murdoch as News International’s group general manager, in charge of all the company’s print publications in Britain. The expenses story was still on Mr. Murdoch’s mind two years later: it was the one big British story he mentioned by name at last week’s parliamentary hearing on phone hacking. In that appearance before the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, Mr. Murdoch sought to distance himself from the hacking scandal, explaining that because he employs “53,000 people around the world” he cannot be expected to know everything everyone is doing at The News of the World. He may have come across at the hearing as vague, detached and unfocused — as an old man who was at times not quite all there. Investors in the News Corporation have been pressing for years for the company to arrange a clear succession plan for Mr. Murdoch, who is 80 years old, and speculation about his future is rife now that the company has suffered a significant blow to its reputation. But Mr. Murdoch, who every morning reads avidly from what one former editor referred to as “the best clippings service I have ever seen,” has never been a disengaged boss, especially from his newspapers. “I really didn’t buy that, to be honest,” said Roy Greenslade, a former Murdoch editor who is now a professor of journalism at City University London. “I’m sure he’s not as interfering as he was 20 years ago, but you can see through the way The Sun and The News of the World operate that his word remains law.” Indeed, in January, as the phone hacking scandal began to gain traction and Andy Coulson, a former News of the World editor, quit his job as the government’s top spokesman (he has since been arrested on suspicion of phone hacking and bribing the police), Mr. Murdoch postponed his trip to the World Economic Forum and swept into London to take charge. Surrounded by the editors of The Sun and The Times of London; his son James; and Rebekah Brooks, then chief executive of News International (she has also since been arrested on the same suspicions as in Mr. Coulson’s case), Mr. Murdoch ate lunch in the News International staff cafeteria. He then appeared at The Times’s editorial conference, where he weighed in on one of the day’s big stories: the decision by Sky News to fire the host of a sports program who had made lewd remarks to his co-host, a woman, including suggesting that she tuck her microphone in his pants. To make matters more complicated, Sky is part of the media conglomerate British Sky Broadcasting, or BSkyB, which is controlled by the News Corporation, and the co-host in question, Andy Gray, had recently sued The News of the World, claiming his phone had been hacked. Taking all this in at the news conference, Mr. Murdoch said, according to accounts at the time, “This country has lost its sense of humor.” Mr. Murdoch began his career when he inherited his father’s small newspaper business in Australia. He remains at his core a hard-nosed businessman with the instincts of a tabloid reporter, said many former and current employees, who all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to make Mr. Murdoch angry. “He vicariously lives through his papers in many ways,” said a former editor at one of News Corporation’s major papers. “He’s a news junkie. He’s interested in what’s driving the sales, what’s on the front page. He’s always talking to his editors.” Mr. Murdoch hires editors who often share his philosophy — right of center, anti-big government, anti-European Union, pro-business — and focuses on his favorites. He cements these ties through what a former editor at one of Mr. Murdoch’s London broadsheets described as “weird, familial relationships,” in which Mr. Murdoch and his editors socialize frequently and attend one another’s weddings. “They go on holiday with him, they attend his conferences in Sun Valley,” the former editor said. But if the News Corporation’s British and American broadsheets — The Times and The Sunday Times of London, and The Wall Street Journal — give him gravitas, his tabloids give him a platform to promote his political and business interests. And they are where his heart lies. Former editors at The News of the World, new defunct, and The Sun say he called frequently, affecting casualness but conveying just the opposite with pointed questions and long, ominous silences. “We called it telephone terrorism,” Mr. Greenslade said. “You’d try to fill in the gaps, and when you’re gabbling you’re bound to make mistakes.” Mr. Murdoch expects his tabloids to beat the competition with aggressive, intrusive reporting that results in splashy exclusives that expose sexual misbehavior or debunk the establishment line. It is this expectation, former editors and reporters say, that has pushed his tabloids’ editors into ever more adventurous news gathering practices. None of the editors said Mr. Murdoch ordered them to use illegal phone hacking or other illegal methods to obtain information. But his enthusiasm for articles that generated mass sales at the newsstand and riled the political elite was legendary on Fleet Street. “What am I supposed to do, sit idly by and watch a paper go down the drain, simply because I’m not supposed to interfere?” he once said, speaking of The News of the World. “Rubbish!” Mr. Murdoch has never hesitated to dress down editors at The Sun and The News of the World when they make mistakes, either of omission or commission. It has never been a secret that The Sun promotes his business interests by, for instance, denouncing the BBC, or writing favorably about BSkyB television programs or 20th Century Fox films. At The New York Post, former employees remember how Mr. Murdoch meddled in the coverage of his rival Conrad Black, then the owner of The Telegraph, during Mr. Black’s legal troubles. Nor is it a secret that Mr. Murdoch’s tabloids enthusiastically promote the politicians he likes and denounce those he does not. “I’m beginning to understand the true scope of Murdoch’s influence, and the way he does business, and it’s quite scary,” Piers Morgan writes in “The Insider,” his memoir of editing The News of the World and other tabloids. The observation comes after an incident in which Mr. Murdoch began arguing about Europe with the prime minister at the time, John Major, over dinner, rudely dismissing the single currency, which Mr. Major supported, as “a bloody bad joke.” (Soon afterward, Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Morgan and The News of the World switched allegiances to the Labour leader, Tony Blair, who in turn submitted an editorial to the paper titled “Major’s Failed and He Knows It.”) According to Lance Price, a former special adviser to Mr. Blair when he was prime minister, Mr. Murdoch was behind a News of the World headline criticizing Mr. Blair over his European Union policy in 2004. “Treachery,” the headline said, over an article calling the prime minister “Traitor Tony Blair.” “I understand it was Rupert Murdoch himself who chose that word,” Mr. Price said on the Channel 4 program “Dispatches” on Monday night. A spokeswoman for the News Corporation said the company had no comment for this article. In his testimony last week, Mr. Murdoch said that he telephones John Witherow, the editor of The Sunday Times, most Saturday nights, and talks frequently to Robert Thomson, the Journal editor, a fellow Australian and the editor he is closest to. Since Mr. Murdoch bought it, The Journal’s articles have become shorter, punchier and more news-focused, in keeping with the owner’s views on how newspapers should look. And for a time, Mr. Murdoch was a constant presence in the newsroom, often sitting in on news meetings, although he usually remained silent and often left halfway through. “Rupert likes to gossip,” a senior journalist at the paper said. “He is interested in what the news is that day.” But, according to a former editor at one of the London papers, “Rupert has an attention span of — maybe not zero minutes — but nine minutes.” In an informal conversation with the senior journalist on the newsroom floor, Mr. Murdoch showed that he was especially excited by the future introduction of the weekend Review section, the journalist said. “He said he wanted to make it upmarket. He wanted to make it brainy. He said, ‘I really want people to have something to read’ — stressing the word read — ‘on weekends.’ ” But for all their personal closeness, Mr. Murdoch makes no effort to influence the news coverage, said Mr. Thomson, The Journal’s top editor. “We simply do not discuss details of coverage,” Mr. Thomson said via e-mail. “Not once. Never. There is a clear, distinct, very honorably observed demarcation line. Rupert respects the independence of the editor and my autonomy, and to suggest that we skew coverage is an insult to all of The Journal’s journalists, who person for person, pound for pound are certainly the best in the world.” People at The Times of London, where Mr. Murdoch is referred to in absentia as simply “K.R.M.” — the initials are of his full name, Keith Rupert Murdoch — say that the boss’s shadow looms large, although he comes into the newsroom at most several times a year. “Normally he’s picking our brains about what’s going on in the world,” one former journalist at the paper said. “We tell him what’s going on in politics and business and Afghanistan; we sing for our supper.” But in the last few years, some employees say, the company’s focus has shifted, and, with James Murdoch in control in London, it has become more corporate and less concerned about the papers. The legal troubles at The News of the World are very much viewed as having taken place under the aegis not of Rupert but of James Murdoch, who does not share his father’s love for newsprint. “Suddenly, it was all Los Angeles and New York; it was all film and satellite and the Internet,” one former editor said, describing how suddenly the newspapers felt obliged to clamor for attention from the company, lest they be forgotten or sold off. “Newspapers were seen as the old man’s hobby.” Tim Arango contributed reporting from Baghdad, and William K. Rashbaum from New York.

George Osborne met NI chiefs 16 times The Independent Tuesday, 26 July 2011 Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has met executives of News Corporation companies on 16 occasions since the coalition Government took power, it was revealed today. Details of the meetings were released as the Government published records of all ministerial contacts with senior media executives, in the wake of the controversy over phone-hacking at the News Corp-owned News of the World and Mr Murdoch's ditched bid to take over BSkyB. It also emerged that News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch was the first senior media figure to meet Jeremy Hunt after he was appointed Culture Secretary in May last year - though this was before Mr Hunt was given responsibility for deciding on the BSkyB bid. Mr Osborne met Rupert Murdoch twice, once for what was described as a "general discussion" shortly after taking office in May and the second time in December. He met former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks and Mr Murdoch's son James - News Corp's chief executive in Europe - on five different occasions each. The Chancellor has also had one-to-ones with editors of News International papers James Harding of The Times, John Witherow of the Sunday Times and Colin Myler of the News of the World. The first senior media figure that Jeremy Hunt met on becoming Culture Secretary in May last year was Rupert Murdoch at an evening reception and dinner. The following month he met James Murdoch for a general discussion. Following his assumption of responsibility for the BSkyB takeover bid in December, he had two further meetings with James Murdoch in January this year to set out the process around the proposed merger. Business Secretary Vince Cable, who was stripped of responsibility for ruling on whether the BSkyB bid should go ahead after boasting in December that he had "declared war on Rupert Murdoch", did not have as much contact as some of his colleagues with News Corp figures. Mr Cable met Times editor James Harding in December, though it is unclear whether this was before or after he was stripped of his responsibilities for the BSkyB bid. He also attended a Sunday Times business lunch last April. The publication of ministers' contacts with media figures was ordered earlier this month by Prime Minister David Cameron, who revealed then that he had himself met News Corp executives on 26 occasions since entering 10 Downing Street. Today's release also revealed that Education Secretary Michael Gove has met News Corp executives 11 times since the general election in May 2010. Mr Gove, a former journalist for The Times, met Rupert Murdoch seven times and former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks eight times at events including lunches, dinners and social gatherings. A spokesman for Mr Gove said: "Michael worked for the BBC and News International and his wife works for News International now. "He's known Rupert Murdoch for over a decade. He did not discuss the BSkyB deal with the Murdochs and isn't at all embarrassed about his meetings, most of which have been about education which is his job."

Phone hacking: the case for the defence Celebrities encourage intrusion, and we have a right to know about anything that affects politicians' ability to do their jobs By Damien McCrystal guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 July 2011 12.00 BST The most extraordinary thing about the News International crisis is the way in which it has caused the British national media to lose its greatest weapon: scepticism. If this was happening in any other sector, there would be have been a brief flurry of witch-hunting followed quickly by more measured analysis of the bigger picture, and calm would have descended. But journalists appear to be incompetent when reporting on their own activities. A few commentators have sounded warning notes about the scale of the current hysteria but in general the press has rolled over. Regarding the most shocking revelation of them all, that Milly Dowler's voicemail was allegedly hacked into on behalf of the News of the World, there is a valid, albeit arguable, journalistic justification for it. If it is true, as alleged, that private detectives deleted some messages in order to allow new ones in, then any new message might have carried a clue as to the child's whereabouts and indeed our increasingly beleaguered police might have thought of this for themselves. The NoW showed some initiative here – it is only a pity they did so in such an insensitive and self-interested fashion, failing entirely to acknowledge the distress this could (and did) cause the Dowler family. Looking into the affairs of celebrities is a tawdry business but, as has been said many times in the past under broadly similar circumstances, it is generally encouraged by those concerned. A huge number of long-lens "intrusions" are carefully stage-managed. I know this from direct experience. Indeed, the show-business end of the public relations industry is handsomely rewarded to increase the media coverage of celebrities and drum up interest in their private lives. Ever since the Camillagate scandal (when Prince Charles's mobile phone call to his lover, Camilla Parker-Bowles, was recorded and sold to the media) broke 19 years ago, it has been common knowledge that hacking unprotected mobile phones is easy. It has also been possible to block such hacking. Prince Charles hasn't been hacked again. Nor have subsequent political leaders, as far as I can recall. That is because the technology is available to protect mobile phone users from intrusion. Surely, the failure of others to employ such protection was a factor which contributed to, and therefore mitigated, the intrusion? Gordon Brown's rather unpleasant attempt to clamber onto the anti-Murdoch bandwagon has rightly been denounced, but why has there been no fightback by the media, to justify and defend journalistic investigation of all Brown's affairs, both public and private? Is it not right that every aspect of a prime minister's life should be examined in minute detail? Is it not right that the public should know if there are factors in his private life that might hamper his ability to govern? Brown can say all he likes about "criminal elements" digging into his privacy but is it not for the common good that his bank accounts and tax affairs have been scrutinised, to ensure that there is no impropriety? The matter of his child's illness required more sensitivity than the NoW was ever able to muster, but there is nonetheless a strong argument that it should have been in the public domain, as it affected Brown's ability to govern. Who is to find out these sometimes awkward details and present them to the public, if not journalists? The hacking affair is remarkable in that the celebrities and politicians who wish to benefit from media coverage, but also control it, are being allowed to do so. And it is doubly extraordinary that this is happening with scarcely a whimper from the media. It does not help, of course, that the "but everyone was doing it" argument will not work only a year after the media denounced all politicians who tried the same line in defence of their outlandish expenses claims. It also did not help that, until last weekend, there was typically little else to write about at this time of year. And it does not help that the police force senses its own mortality and is desperate to do something to win back credibility. But this is more than just a silly season story. The rest of the media have the scent of blood in their snouts and show no signs of mercy. We have lost one of the oldest newspapers in the country, a part of British life for more than a century and a half. The most powerful media magnate in the world has been panicked into a bizarre and unedifying retreat, so irrational that he has committed the cardinal business sin of sacrificing the brand in favour of the people – and then been forced to ditch the people anyway. And now the hunt is expanding beyond the boundaries of News International. Instead of defending their wayward sibling, Britain's journalists handed it to the wolves. It looked to an outsider like an act of cowardice and treachery. I know for certain that other newspapers in other media groups have, directly or indirectly, used the same investigative tactics. If or when that emerges, giving ammunition to the growing censorship lobby, journalists will bitterly regret their disloyalty.

Daily Mirror publisher to review editorial controls Trinity Mirror move comes as share price falls amid allegations that phone hacking was not confined to News of the World By John Plunkett guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 July 2011 11.02 BST Trinity Mirror has begun a review of its editorial controls and procedures amid allegations that phone hacking was not confined to the News of the World. The six-week review is being led by Trinity Mirror's group legal director Paul Vickers and will include all of the group's national and regional newspapers, including the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, the People and the Daily Record. Trinity Mirror's share price fell 9.8% on Monday amid investor concerns that the hacking scandal was not restricted to News International, following allegations about its papers over the weekend. Its shares were down another 1.4% by 10am on Tuesday, to 42.9p. Former Daily Mirror reporter James Hipwell reiterated his earlier claim that hacking was widespread at other newspapers, including the Mirror. A separate report on BBC2's Newsnight alleged the use of phone hacking and private detectives was widespread at the Sunday Mirror. Trinity Mirror described both sets of allegations as "unsubstantiated", saying its journalists "work within the criminal law and the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct". A company spokesman said today: "We can confirm that we're conducting a review of editorial controls and procedures." Sources at the company indicated it was a "review rather than an investigation" into the company's editorial controls and procedures and was a response to general concern about newspaper practices rather than to specific phone-hacking allegations. Rival newspaper group, the Daily Mail & General Trust, on Tuesday ruled out an internal review into phone hacking. The DMGT chief executive, Martin Morgan, reiterated comments by Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre last week that the company was not involved in any hacking. "I have received assurances that we have not published stories based on hacked messages or sources obtained unlawfully," said Morgan. "We have strong processes and procedures right across the group."

A scandalous story: New Rupert Murdoch book on the way Los Angeles Times July 25, 2011 | 2:12 pm The phone-hacking scandal sending shock waves through Rupert Murdoch's media empire will be the subject of a new book by Guardian reporter Nick Davies, Faber and Faber announced Monday. "Hack Attack: How the Truth Caught up with the World's Most Powerful Man" is planned for publication in 2012 in the U.S. Galleycat has more about the book, from the publisher's release: "On July 8, 2009, Nick Davies broke the story that Rupert Murdoch’s News International had paid £1 million to settle legal cases that threatened to lift the lid on News of the World journalists' involvement in illegal phone-hacking... The seismic shocks affecting Rupert Murdoch's international media empire and family as well as law enforcement agencies and officials and highly placed political figures are already being called the biggest political scandal in Great Britain in seventy-five years. Davies, author of the bestseller FLAT EARTH NEWS, intends to provide an authoritative account and commentary on the News International Scandal, including new revelations." But will it include the inside story of how Murdoch's wife, Wendi, leapt to his defense when he was approached by a pie-wielding assailant during a hearing last week? Oh, never mind, it seems Newsweek's already got a breathless blow-by-blow.

Majority want Murdoch to be forced out of BSkyB altogether The Independent By Andrew Grice, Political Editor Tuesday, 26 July 2011 Two out of three people believe Rupert Murdoch's News Corp should have to dispose of its entire stake in BSkyB. According to a new survey for The Independent by ComRes, 65 per cent agree that the phone-hacking scandal shows News Corp is not a "fit and proper" organisation to own any part of BSkyB, while 26 per cent disagree. The finding will increase the pressure on media regulator Ofcom, which is reviewing whether Mr Murdoch's global media empire is "fit and proper" to keep its 39 per cent holding in BSkyB. Mr Murdoch's firm has scrapped plans to buy 100 per cent of the television company. Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians have already called for News Corp to be forced to sell its remaining share. The poll suggests the hackling scandal has damaged David Cameron's reputation more than those of the two other main party leaders. One in three people (33 per cent) says the scandal has made them less favourable towards him. Recent polls have shown that the Labour leader Ed Miliband's personal ratings have improved. But ComRes found that people also regard him and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, less favourably than they did before the controversy – a sign it may have damaged politicians generally. While 10 per cent now regard Mr Miliband more favourably, 20 per cent view him less favourably; 4 per cent view Mr Clegg more favourably, and 22 per cent less favourably. According to the polling, Labour has a 6-point lead over the Conservatives, its highest with ComRes since March, which suggests the scandal and economic uncertainty may be damaging Mr Cameron's party. Labour is unchanged on 40 per cent since the last ComRes poll for The Independent on Sunday a week ago; the Tories on 34 per cent (down 2 points); the Liberal Democrats on 13 per cent (up 3 points) and others on 13 per cent (down 1 point). This would give Labour an overall majority of 70 at a general election. The public is divided over whether Mr Cameron's actions during the controversy make them question if he has the right judgement and skills to be Prime Minister, with 47 per cent agreeing and 44 per cent disagreeing. ComRes telephoned a random sample of 1,002 UK adults between 22 and 24 July. Data were weighted demographically and by past vote recall. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full tables are at www.comres.co.uk

DPP was warned hacking was rife at Murdoch paper The Independent By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor Tuesday, 26 July 2011 The former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Lord Macdonald was warned by his own employees as far back as 2006 that there were a "vast array" of News of the World phone-hacking victims. Lord Macdonald, who has since been hired by the newspaper's owner, Rupert Murdoch, was sent a memo nearly six months before the reporter Clive Goodman and the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were convicted, revealing that the charges they were facing related to just a fraction of the potential victims. However, the hacking investigation was never widened despite pressure on the police and Lord Macdonald, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service at the time, to do so. In a letter released yesterday, the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith revealed: "The Director [of Public Prosecutions] and I were aware that the particular cases referred to were not isolated examples." Lord Goldsmith said protocol prevented him from speaking to the police, but this did not apply to the Crown Prosecution Service, which Lord Macdonald led at the time, and whose lawyers briefed him on other victims of hacking. The Met had to reopen its inquiries into criminality by the NOTW in January this year when it became apparent that police and prosecutors had failed to fully investigate the widespread phone hacking by the newspaper five years ago. The revelation is embarrassing for Lord Macdonald because when he examined emails held by News Corp as part of his new job assisting the company's internal investigation earlier this year, he took "three to five minutes" to decide that the material constituted evidence of criminality and needed to be passed to police. He told the Home Affairs Select Committee last week: "The material I saw was so blindingly obvious that trying to argue that it should not be given to the police would have been a hard task. It was evidence of serious criminal offences." He added that a police probe into alleged illegal payments to officers could have been launched as far back as 2007. The memo came to light yesterday in a letter written to the Home Affairs Select Committee by the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith. In it he said that he had consulted files held by his former department and confirmed that he had been sent a memorandum, prepared by CPS lawyers for both him and the DPP, explaining that there were a "vast array" of other victims of phone hacking in May 2006. Lord Goldsmith revealed that the memo said the other phone-hacking allegations uncovered could be followed up and that it concluded: "These may be the subject of wider investigation in due course. A number of targets have been informed." He wrote: "I have no knowledge of why that wider investigation of those other cases may in the result not have proceeded. The committee will need to address such questions to the DPP and the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service]. "My role was not to direct either an investigation or the prosecution." Meanwhile, the law firm Harbottle & Lewis – which was given access to a large number of NOTW internal emails in 2007 from the accounts of six people, including Goodman and the former editor Andy Coulson – has written to the Commons Culture Committee outlining its role. Its letter could be published as soon as Friday. The Chancellor, George Osborne, who advised David Cameron to hire Mr Coulson as his spin doctor after he resigned as the NOTW's editor over the scandal, said yesterday that he regretted the appointment. Yesterday, an editorial committee set up by The Wall Street Journal to answer critics of its coverage of the phone-hacking scandal said the newspaper "could have done a better job" with an interview it published with its proprietor Rupert Murdoch. The committee also said the WSJ had been slower than it should have been in pursuing the story. So, who should have acted on the evidence? THE DPP...? As head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP – in this case Lord Macdonald) is responsible for deciding whether there is enough evidence for bringing cases to court in England and Wales, writes Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor. Police investigating suspected criminal acts submit their conclusions to the CPS, which then judges whether there is a good chance of securing a conviction. High-profile cases, such as allegations of phone hacking, would be referred to the director personally for a decision. Lord Goldsmith's memo confirms that CPS lawyers had considered the allegations in detail. The DPP is constitutionally required to act independently of the Government. ... OR THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL? The Attorney-General (in this case Lord Goldsmith) is a non-Cabinet minister whose main duty is to act as the Government's chief legal adviser. The role's significance was highlighted in 2003 when Lord Goldsmith finally concluded the planned invasion of Iraq was lawful. The Attorney is also responsible for supervising the Crown Prosecution Service. That means that the Attorney can be "copied in" to the progress in cases considered to be of public concern – but in such instances the Attorney has to act independently of the Government and not share the information with other ministers. All decisions on initiating prosecutions, such as in the phone hacking investigation, are made by the DPP.

Murdoch interview could have been tougher, admits WSJ special committee Body that oversees paper's editorial integrity says it was slow to cover story, but is now making up with 'aggressive coverage' By Jane Martinson guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 July 2011 18.42 BST The Wall Street Journal "could have done a better job" when it published an interview with proprietor Rupert Murdoch in which he said News Corporation had made only "minor mistakes" in managing the phone-hacking scandal, according to the paper's special editorial committee. In a report published in the Journal on Monday designed to answer critics of its phone-hacking coverage, the committee – set up when Murdoch bought the paper in 2007 – admitted that its journalists failed to cover the scandal as promptly as its rivals. It also offered criticism of a one-sided interview earlier this month, just 24 hours before News Corp lost two of its most senior newspaper executives, including Les Hinton, who was responsible for the Dow Jones newswires. "[The Journal] could have done a better job with a recent story allowing Mr Murdoch to get his side of the story on the record without tougher questioning," the report said, adding "We have discussed this with the involved editors." However, in response to a political request for evidence that the US journalists were not involved in wrongdoing last week, the committee found "nothing to even hint that the sort of misdeeds alleged in London have somehow crept into [WSJ publisher] Dow Jones". In one critical paragraph of the Journal's coverage of a scandal that has rocked the company, the UK political establishment and police authorities, the committee wrote: "The Journal was slower than it should have been at the outset to pursue the phone-hacking scandal story, in our opinion, though it is doing much better now with aggressive coverage, fitting placement in the paper, and unflinching headlines." Last Friday, two days after Rupert Murdoch and his heir apparent James appeared before parliament, the Journal broke the news that the justice department is preparing wide-ranging subpoenas to gather evidence in the phone hacking case. The committee had nothing to say about the WSJ editorial published last week that accused journalists at the Guardian and other news outlets for pushing coverage of the phone-hacking story for "commercial and ideological motives". Much of the committee's evidence seems to have been gathered by asking relevant editors and reporters: "Is anybody putting political, ideological or commercial pressure on you to influence your news judgment?" The answer, perhaps unsurprisingly, is "no". The report comes after the Journal, edited by Robert Thomson, a former editor of the Times in London, has come under heavy criticism from rival media organisations in recent weeks. New York Times columnist Joe Nocera, who has previously written in support of Murdoch ownership, said: "The Journal was turned into a propaganda vehicle for its owner's conservative views. That's half the definition of Fox-ification. The other half is that Murdoch's media outlets must shill for his business interests. With the News of the World scandal, the Journal has now shown itself willing to do that, too." The members of the special committee to oversee the editorial integrity of the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires include Thomas Bray, former Detroit News opinion editor, Louis Boccardi, former head of AP, Jack Fuller, former president of Tribune Publishing Co, Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the MIT Media Lab, and Susan Phillips, former dean of the George Washington University business school. They are each paid $100,000 a year to keep an eye on the standards and ethics of the WSJ and Dow Jones Newswires, according to PaidContent. This is understood to be the first report they have

Blog home Law Society worried phone hacking included lawyers' mobiles Leading lawyers feel client information may have been intercepted after their names were found in Glenn Mulcaire's file Guardian. July 25, 2011 (Robbie Williams: Scotland Yard told his solicitor that a number of his clients were referred to in Glenn Mulcaire's documents. Photograph: Luke Macgregor/Reuters) Now it's the turn of lawyers and the legal process to be sucked into the phone-hacking vortex. The Law Society has even suggested justice itself is under threat, implying messages could have been intercepted with the intention of influencing court cases. Several prominent solicitors fear their mobile phones have been hacked. Some have been formally informed of the risk by police after detectives discovered their numbers among a private investigator's notes. Graham Shear, of Berwin Leighton Paisner who has represented celebrities such as Robbie Williams and Jude Law, is one of those who has lodged a claim against the News of the World for damages over breach of privacy. "In January this year I was contacted by senior officers in Operation Weeting [the Metropolitan police inquiry into phone hacking]," Shear said. "They told me that, contrary to what had been said previously, a number of my clients were referred to in documents from [Glenn] Mulcaire's file. My name was among them." If messages had been intercepted, he said, it would have been a breach of confidential relationship with clients. The media lawyer Mark Stephens expressed similar anxieties. "I asked [scotland Yard] if I'd been hacked - they came back to me in 90 minutes and said yes," he told Channel 4 News. "It confirmed my worst suspicions, that I was in Mulcaire's notebook. There is nothing I can do about it, but the important thing is to ascertain which client [was the target] so I can advise them. My concern is for them, not myself." Mark Lewis, the solicitor who represented Gordon Taylor in the first settlement with the News of the World for phone hacking, may also have had his voicemails illegally accessed. One barrister involved in media cases admitted he had been worried enough to check with the detectives to see if his mobile number was on the list. He had been relieved to be assured it was not. In a statement, Des Hudson, the Law Society chief executive, said: "Hacking into solicitors' phones would be very serious indeed, and we urge the police to carry out a full investigation. If hacking was carried out with the intention of undermining court action, it might well constitute an attempt to pervert the course of justice, which is a serious criminal offence. "It is a shocking breach of the privacy of both solicitors and their clients. I will also be writing to Lord Justice Leveson [the judge leading the phone-hacking inquiry] asking him to investigate these allegations." The Solicitors Regulation Authority has also launched an investigation into the role of other, unspecified lawyers "in events surrounding the News of the World phone-hacking scandal". Antony Townsend, the authority's chief executive, said: "The first step in this investigation is to obtain the evidence necessary to ensure a thorough investigation, using the powers we have under the Solicitors Act 1974. We will pursue our investigation vigorously and thoroughly, but emphasise that our inquiries are at an early stage, and that no conclusions have been reached about whether there may have been any impropriety by any solicitor." The law firm Harbottle & Lewis, which reviewed emails from the accounts of Andy Coulson and others, is also expected to face questions from the culture, media and sports select committee. The MPs have said they will be seeking an explanation for the firm's statement that it had not found "reasonable evidence" that senior editors were aware of phone hacking. Harbottle and Lewis has, meanwhile, written to Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, about phone hacking, saying that the firm is "free to explain the position in general terms, without commenting at all on the circumstances in question". With such widespread suspicions, the habit of leaving messages on a mobile phone may soon become as obsolete as ink pots and quill pens

Mystery ‘Murdoch Leaks’ site appears online www.rawstory.com By Kase Wickman Monday, July 25th, 2011 -- 10:39 am A site geared toward collecting anonymously sourced information about the phone hacking scandal surrounding Australian magnate Rupert Murdoch's media empire, News Corp., has appeared online. Thus far, Murdoch Leaks, as the site is titled, only has submission information displayed. "With the recent phone hacking scandal surrounding Rupert Murdoch's News of the World and other aspects of his empire, it's become evident that the fourth estate has failed so it's time to invoke the fifth estate. And what is that? - It is You!" is written on the site, along with a Twitter link. TechCrunch was the first site to notice the mysterious website's appearance, and theorized that it was another product of the LulzSec/Anonymous hacking collective. After all, a hacker associated with the group claims to have 4GB of incriminating emails from within Murdoch's news properties. However, MurdochLeaks tweeted that "we have no boat," disassociating itself with LulzSec, which often portrays itself like sailors on a boat, traversing the internet, and sometimes refers to itself as "lulzboat." In the group's Twitter bio, they claim to be "Making Rupert Murdoch, News Corp and News International accountable." The site's domain name is registered via Cinipac, a German anonymous hosting service that shields the identity of whoever registered the site. The domain was registered July 13, and lists an address in Malaysia — one used often by Cinipac. A phone number with a Washington, D.C. area code is also listed on the domain registration. When called, the number goes directly to a recorded Cinipac message.

Phone hacking: Police chief Andy Hayman paid for champagne dinners with News of the World journalists The senior Scotland Yard officer accused of failing to fully investigate the phone hacking scandal enjoyed champagne dinners with News of the World journalists paid for using his Metropolitan Police corporate credit card. The Daily Telegraph By Robert Mendick, Chief reporter 7:30AM BST 24 Jul 2011 Andy Hayman, the former Met assistant commissioner, quit the police in 2007, a month after an investigation was launched into his expenses. Mr Hayman spent £19,000 in two years on his corporate credit card and a further £2,000 on another credit card given to him by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo). Two months after his resignation, he landed a job with News International, writing for The Times on security and terrorism. The Sunday Telegraph understands his contract has been terminated in the wake of the phone hacking scandal. Mr Hayman's spending sparked a secret investigation by Gwent police, whose findings have never been made public. It is understood they include details of long lunches and dinners with News of the World journalists at a time when the newspaper was under investigation for phone hacking. On one occasion he bought a £50 bottle of champagne which he drank with a News of the World reporter. The arrangement is unusual because normally a journalist would pay to entertain a police contact - and not the other way around. Details of Mr Hayman's extravagant entertaining are to be published in a book written by Peter Tickner, the Met Police's former Director of Internal Audit. His inquiries into Mr Hayman's credit card bills - which added up to more than the rest of the Met's senior management board added together - sparked the inquiry that led to the officer's resignation in December 2007. Mr Tickner told The Sunday Telegraph: "I was alarmed by the size of spending on Andy Hayman's corporate credit card and that is why I asked for a full explanation of his spending. I found out that a large amount was spent on alcohol on his card." Mr Tickner told The Sunday Telegraph the corporate cards were issued to officers and were intended for use on assignments outside London, including overseas trips. But Mr Tickner found much of Mr Hayman's spending was on entertaining colleagues and journalists in and around Scotland Yard. He said officers were not supposed to drink on duty and that he was surprised by the amount of alcohol being claimed back on expenses by Mr Hayman. Mr Hayman was also investigated over foreign trips taken with his then staff officer Heidi Tubby, who had spent a further £8,000 on her Acpo credit card. Inspector Tubby, who was not under investigation, was Mr Hayman's staff officer in Norfolk when he was chief constable before taking up his job as assistant commissioner in charge of anti-terrorism. Mr Tickner, in his forthcoming book - the Successful Frauditor's Casebook - writes: "It was patently clear to me that the senior officer had treated the Met's credit card as an accessory for whatever purpose he deemed fit, including buying food and alcohol for journalists and entertaining his management team at a restaurant at public expense where the cost of alcohol equalled the cost of food. "In one twenty-four hour period, he had used the card on three separate occasions to buy alcohol. "First, an evening meal for himself and his female staff officer away from London on official business, then the following lunchtime to buy alcohol and food at what I suspected was a farewell lunch for a member of his senior team. "Finally, much later that same evening he had used the card to buy a bottle of champagne, although according to his official diary he was meeting a female journalist for a one-to-one briefing. "It wasn't fraud but it certainly wasn't a proper use of public funds." A committee of MPs last week castigated Mr Hayman for his handling of the initial phone hacking inquiry in 2005 to 2006 and for the evidence he gave to the Home Affairs Select Committee. Mr Hayman oversaw the initial investigation into hacking of the mobile phones of Princes William and Harry, which led to the jailing of the News of the World's Royal reporter Clive Goodman and the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, who worked exclusively for the newspaper. Mr Mulcaire's notebooks, containing 11,000 pages with the names of as many as 4,000 victims - including the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler - were seized by police in 2006 but never fully investigated at the time. Last week, the Home Affairs Select Committee, in its report into hacking, concluded Mr Hayman's conduct during the investigation was "both unprofessional and inappropriate". The committee, chaired by Keith Vaz, criticised "Andy Hayman's cavalier attitude towards his contacts with those in News International who were under investigation which, even if entirely above board, risked seriously undermining confidence in the impartiality of the police, and accuses him of deliberate prevarication in order to mislead the committee". The Sunday Telegraph revealed last week how Mr Hayman had dined with the then editor and deputy editor of the News of the World at the height of the inquiry. Both men Andy Coulson and Neil Wallis have since been arrested on suspicion of phone hacking. But the full extent of his close relationship with news International journalists has never been made fully clear. Only some of the hospitality he enjoyed with journalists is declared in his official hospitality register. Mr Hayman failed to return calls to the Sunday telegraph last week. But when he quit in 2007, he said he had been the victim of a series of "leaks and unfounded accusations" which he strongly refuted. He has insisted that his relationship with News International played no role in the decision not to investigate other journalists at the newspaper. News International has been accused of "deliberately thwarting" the original police inquiry, making it difficult for detectives to secure further convictions without its cooperation. The phone hacking investigation was reopened in January, only after News International handed further emails to police, providing apparent proof that news hacking was not the preserve of a single 'rogue reporter'.

Scandal Splinters a Family Business The New York Times July 25, 2011 By DAVID CARR The News Corporation, the global enterprise controlled by Rupert Murdoch, has a history of living by its own rules and operating beyond consequence. That ended last week. Mr. Murdoch, long a spectral presence who made his plays on a chess board of his own making, was brought low before a committee of Parliament composed of people he could not have been bothered with three weeks ago. In testimony last Tuesday, he appeared as a supplicant, a faltering one at that, who interrupted his son James in the opening moments of the hearing, not to correct him, but to tell the members of the committee how sorry he was. He is very sorry. Sorry that one of his tabloids hacked into the voice mail of a 13-year-old murder victim. Sorry that the scandal threatens to derail his plans of succession. And sorry to find himself suddenly in the public stockade. Is he sorry that he and his employees created a culture and a business where all that seemed cricket? Probably not so much. His family and the board of his company are sorry as well, but that will probably not end up meaning much. The protective instincts of the family were on broad display last week. James sought to leap in front of every hard question while Mr. Murdoch’s wife, Wendi, inserted herself into the fray when someone tried to shove a shaving cream pie at her husband. She has a mean right hook. Rupert has his own protective streak when it comes to his family, and has gone to great lengths to make them central to the News Corporation’s success structure. But what his sons and daughters could soon find out is that if Mr. Murdoch is forced to choose between the family and the company he has built, he will choose the News Corporation. “Rupert may end up having to make a choice between his son and the company, which is fairly biblical,” said a friend of the family who works in the media business and who declined to be identified when speaking about private family matters. James Murdoch is done. He and his father both know that. His testimony curdled as he emitted it, and within two days a couple of former News Corporation executives publicly challenged it. The hooks are still in him, as Prime Minister David Cameron made clear when he said James still had “questions to answer.” And so he will, gradually sinking further into the mess he has overseen. Oddly, the News Corporation’s stock began to tick up during the hearings as Rupert Murdoch testified, his large hands thumping as he dropped them to the table. But it was less about his performance than about the clear message that emerged: an era had ended. The family business is splintering. If James is out, as would seem to be the case, will his other offspring, Elisabeth and Lachlan, come swinging into view? I and others doubt that the charms of a global media enterprise being run as a corner grocery store will continue. While the family reign seems certain to fracture, the News Corporation’s own fortunes are less predictable. A report by the analyst Michael Nathanson of Nomura Capital Investments nicely captured the moment. The market does not care if you have done bad things; it cares when you get caught. “While we remain disappointed by the actions of a muckraking newspaper and frustrated that perhaps the least-valuable asset in the News Corp. portfolio could cause this much value destruction,” Mr. Nathanson wrote, “we continue to believe that the risk/reward for News Corp. investors remains positive.” Reached later by phone, Mr. Nathanson suggested that the News Corporation had been cornered into doing the right thing, after doing a lot of not-so-right things. The fact that the company moved swiftly to buy back its stock — approving $5 billion of the oodles of cash the company has on hand — calmed the markets, if not the troubled waters that the company finds itself in. “The loss of the BSkyB deal is significant and not good for the company, but in the long term, I think this will force the company to take a hard look at where they are putting capital,” he said, referring to the company’s abandoned bid for British Sky Broadcasting, Britain’s most lucrative satellite television network. Historically, Mr. Murdoch has used the digital and broadcast parts of his empire to make money, and the more quotidian assets — newspapers, family influence and raw political power — to create running room for the rest of the organization. That was fine as far as it went. The hacking scandal changed the dynamics. Suddenly, Mr. Murdoch’s fetish for newspapers looked like an ill-advised indulgence. The News Corporation’s prized relationships with 10 Downing Street and Scotland Yard became liabilities, with all of the coziness on view for inspection. It speaks to the scale of the drama and the company that it is almost an afterthought that the government of Britain hangs in the balance. Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Murdoch has lost the ability to punish, which has been his lever of power for so many years. People are suggesting what has long been on their minds, which is that having one man control so much of the conversation can’t be good for anyone besides him. His support structure is badly damaged as well. To make room for his children, he pushed out Peter Chernin, the former chief executive, and Gary Ginsberg, the former communications executive. Lachlan Murdoch flew in from Australia to back up his father, but he won’t choose this moment to show up on his father’s behalf. Elisabeth may end up in the middle things, but why would she choose to grab the baton when it is on fire? The best case is that Chase Carey, deputy chairman, president and chief operating officer — who has been stored behind glass for the duration of the scandal — will grab the tiller until things calm down. “The board has talked and will continue to talk about Rupert stepping aside as C.E.O. and serving as chairman with Chase Carey becoming chief executive, but Rupert would never do that at the point of gun,” said a person who is close to both Mr. Murdoch and the board. “Not in a million years. Not in two million years. Six months, nine months or a year from now, that may happen, but it will not happen in the current circumstances.” In his testimony, Mr. Murdoch was frank about his objective for the day, beyond making a well-coached — and perhaps deeply felt — apology for the sins of those in his employ. He deflected responsibility for the whole mess, suggesting that he had been betrayed by those who worked for him and that he was as offended as the rest of us. When pressed, he suggested that the man to get to the bottom of all of it was the man who had enabled much of it in the first place. “I think that, frankly, I’m the best person to clean this up.” Others may not agree. The board members of the News Corporation have watched the free fall with an increasing sense of doom. They could not be blamed for finding it difficult to get their arms around the concept of a News Corporation absent Rupert Murdoch. But now the laws of men, and not some ticking clock on Rupert Murdoch’s health, have brought other questions into play. How is it that Mr. Murdoch, the ultimate deal guy, got clobbered by John Malone, his former partner in DirecTV. True, as the result of the DirecTV deal, he increased family control of the business he runs, but how is that good for the shareholders? Mr. Murdoch was hailed as a visionary when he bought MySpace — by me among others — but that did not end up working out so well. He gets credit for getting his hands on The Wall Street Journal, but at what price? At $5.6 billion, he looked less like a businessman in pursuit of an asset and more like a compulsive shopper who couldn’t resist the bauble in the window. And his decision to buy Shine, the company owned by his daughter, looked like checkbook nepotism and nothing more. It could end up making sense if she winds up running the company, but in terms of pure economics? Not so much. Mr. Murdoch is suddenly, deeply mortal. And the questions that I am asking will be asked by others as well. It’s not just James who is done. Rupert Murdoch, as we have long known him, is done as well. E-mail: carr@nytimes.com; Twitter.com/carr2n