Rupert Murdoch and the Corruption of the British Media

[Douglas Caddy]

May 31, 2012

The New York Times

British Minister Concedes Sympathy to Murdoch TV Bid

By JOHN F. BURNS and RAVI SOMAIYA

LONDON — With his career in the balance, Culture Minister Jeremy Hunt said at a judicial inquiry into the British media on Thursday that he had been personally sympathetic to a bid by Rupert Murdoch to take over Britain’s most lucrative pay- television network but that he did not act with any favorable bias.

Mr. Hunt, 45, was the minister responsible for overseeing the regulatory processes involved in assessing the $12 billion Murdoch bid for the British Sky Broadcasting network, or BSkyB, and had the ultimate authority to approve it. In July, Mr. Murdoch withdrew the bid under pressure from the phone hacking scandal that has enveloped two tabloid newspapers in his British stable and shaken his global media empire to the core.

Mr. Hunt faced intensive questions at the inquiry, headed by Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson, over a series of e-mails, phone calls, text messages and other communications with the Murdochs and their executives that suggested sympathy for the bid.

He sought to justify an apparent contradiction: his predecessor in assessing the bid, Business Secretary Vince Cable, had been removed for telling undercover reporters that he had “declared war on Mr. Murdoch.”

In the face of the frequent and intimate communications, Mr. Hunt admitted that he had been sympathetic to the Murdochs but said he had set aside his own bias when taking on the “quasijudicial” decision.

“As I understand it,” he said, “the point of a quasijudicial role is not that you approach it with a brain wiped clean, but you set aside any views you have and decide objectively.”

Another central question pursued by Robert Jay, the lead lawyer for the inquiry, was whether Mr. Hunt had subtly adapted the bid process to suit the Murdochs. Mr. Hunt prevented a potentially time-consuming and costly assessment of the bid by British regulators by striking deals known as “undertakings in lieu” to address their concerns. But in the wake of the phone hacking scandal, he wrote to one of his advisors that “it feels like the world doesn’t trust the Murdochs further than they can be thrown”. He added that there had been 40,000 objections to the undertakings in lieu.

The Hunt testimony is being closely watched in Britain for anything that might bring the scandal closer to Prime Minister David Cameron, who appointed Mr. Hunt and has himself faced questions about private discussions about the bid with Murdoch executives, which he has said were not inappropriate.

Mr. Cameron, who has so far avoided serious political fallout from six months of forensic examination of the scandal at the inquiry and elsewhere, is expected to make his own appearance before the Leveson panel, perhaps as early as mid-June.

Separate police inquiries into the tabloid scandal have resulted in the arrests of about 50 editors, reporters, and other staff members from the Murdoch papers, and the first criminal charges — for obstructing justice — were filed against six of those individuals earlier this month. More than 150 detectives and support staff members are engaged in police investigations into the alleged wrongdoing at the tabloids, which is said to have involved widespread phone hacking and bribing public officials, including police officers, to obtain information.

With the criminal cases flowing from the scandal expected to continue for months, if not years, the Leveson inquiry, to avoid prejudicing the legal proceedings, has steered clear of any detailed examination of the wrongdoing at the tabloids.

Instead, its focus has been on the ethical, cultural and political factors that engendered what happened at the tabloids, which have emerged during the scandal as beneficiaries of close interrelationships that involved journalists, politicians and police officers in what Mr. Cameron has described as a “cozy” world of complicity.

At the Leveson hearings, the BSkyB bid, one of the largest corporate takeover moves in British history, has become a test case of that complicity. And the central question has been whether the Conservatives who dominate Mr. Cameron’s coalition government — through Mr. Hunt or through Mr. Cameron himself — sought to usher the bid to approval through personal and political relationships with Mr. Murdoch and his British executives, who had swung the support of the Murdoch-owned newspapers to the Conservatives in the 2010 election that brought them to power.

Mr. Hunt and Mr. Cameron, as well as senior government officials involved in overseeing the bid, have denied any improper interference with the process in statements in Parliament and elsewhere. But their roles in the affair have attracted widespread criticism, some of it within the ranks of the ruling Conservative Party, where disquiet about the handling of the BSkyB bid and a range of other issues, including a deeply unpopular budget earlier this year and what has been seen as a mishandling of controversial reforms in the realms of justice, health and welfare, have led to rumblings about Mr. Cameron’s competence.

One former Conservative cabinet minister, David Mellor, regarded in some quarters as a bellwether for grass-roots opinion among Conservatives, said in a broadcast interview earlier this week that Mr. Hunt would probably have to resign over the BSkyB furor, and that Mr. Cameron’s own future had been compromised.

“He won’t have to resign, but his credibility is blown away — he appears to be rather a shallow, callow sort of guy who doesn’t have too many aims and ambitions and who can’t even get basic judgment calls right,” Mr. Mellor said.

The Leveson inquiry has uncovered an archive of hundreds of e-mails and text messages dealing with the bid that have revealed an embarrassing familiarity — and, critics of the Cameron government have said, complicity — between Mr. Hunt and one of his closest aides, on the one hand, and the chief lobbyist for the Murdoch empire in Britain on the other.

The aide, Adam Smith, resigned last month after the inquiry revealed that the Murdoch lobbyist, Frédéric Michel, made 191 telephone calls and sent 158 e-mails and texts to Mr. Hunt’s team, 90 percent of them exchanges with Mr. Smith, during the period when the BSkyB bid was under review. There was a heavy flow of messages in other direction, too, the vast majority of them written by Mr. Smith, and the picture they gave was of avid support for the takeover bid in Mr. Hunt’s office, and by Mr. Hunt personally. But Mr. Smith, in quitting, said he had exceeded his authority in the exchanges and Mr. Hunt had played no part in them.

Awkwardly for Mr. Hunt, another batch of text messages, between Mr. Hunt and Mr. Michel, showed a close familiarity between the two men, who knew each other well enough to pepper their exchanges with nicknames. Those texts made no reference to the takeover bid but left little doubt of the closeness between the men and their families.

In some exchanges, at a time when both men were new fathers. Mr. Hunt addressed Mr. Michel as “Papa,” and Mr. Michel responded by addressing Mr. Hunt as “Daddy.”

But the larger questions that hang over Mr. Hunt and Mr. Cameron at the inquiry center on their own attitudes toward the BSkyB bid, and whether they remained impartial as the review process unfolded. Mr. Cameron has come under heavy criticism from the opposition Labour Party and from influential political commentators for giving Mr. Hunt the oversight role in December 2010 — after stripping Mr. Cable of the role — when he knew that Mr. Hunt was a strong supporter of the bid.

Mr. Hunt’s attitude had been underlined only a month before the appointment, when he sent Mr. Cameron an e-mail urging that the government back the bid and warning that Britain would “suffer” for decades if it was rejected, since that would deny the country the benefit of the innovative plans Mr. Murdoch and his son James, then the head of Murdoch operations in Britain, had for achieving synergies between their print and television operations in the country.

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/31/the-story-of-my-arrest-for-disrupting-tony-blair/

[Douglas Caddy]

David Cameron 'cannot block Jeremy Hunt conduct investigation’

Jeremy Hunt is facing the prospect of a Whitehall investigation into his conduct after a committee of MPs warned that David Cameron cannot block such an inquiry.

By Robert Winnett, Political Editor

The Telegraph

8:51PM BST 01 Jun 2012

The Prime Minister has refused to refer Mr Hunt to the independent adviser on the ministerial code of conduct, despite senior government sources admitting that the Culture Secretary may have “technically breached” Whitehall rules.

It emerged at the Leveson Inquiry this week that Mr Hunt had defied legal advice and discussed his opinion of News Corporation’s bid for BSkyB with James Murdoch.

The Culture Secretary’s special adviser has already been forced to resign after dozens of private “inappropriate” text messages with a News Corp lobbyist were released.

The ministerial code of conduct stipulates that ministers are responsible for their aides. However, within minutes of Mr Hunt having finished giving his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, Downing Street cleared him of breaking the ministerial code.

Sir Alex Allan, a Whitehall official whose role is to advise the Prime Minister on breaches of the code, may be forced to investigate by MPs after the intervention of the Commons public administration select committee (PASC).

Bernard Jenkin, the chairman of the committee, said: “PASC has made clear . .  . that the Prime Minister’s adviser on ministerial interests should not have to depend on a referral from the Prime Minister in order to determine whether or not there has been a breach of the code.”

He said PASC could consider the issue again when Parliament resumes after the Whitsun recess. Labour has also successfully demanded a parliamentary vote on whether Mr Hunt should be investigated

[Douglas Caddy]

What Rupert Hath Wrought!

June 21, 2012

Reviewed by Geoffrey Wheatcroft

The New York Review of Books

Dial M for Murdoch: News Corporation and the Corruption of Britain

by Tom Watson and Martin Hickman

Blue Rider, 360 pp., $26.95

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/what-rupert-hath-wrought/

[John Dolva]

http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/the-leveson-inquiry-into-the-british-press-oh-what-a-lovely-game

The Leveson Inquiry into the British press - oh, what a lovely game

31 May 2012

Rupert Murdoch is a bad man. His son James is also bad. Rebekah Brooks is allegedly bad. The News of the World was very bad; it hacked phones and pilloried people. British prime ministers grovelled before this iniquity. David Cameron even sent text messages to Brooks signed "LOL", and they all had parties in the Cotswolds with Jeremy Clarkson. Nods and winks were duly exchanged on the BSkyB deal.

Shock, horror.

Offering glimpses of the power and petty gangsterism of the British tabloid press, the inquiry conducted by Lord Leveson has, I suspect, shocked few people. As the soap has rolled on, bemusement has given way to boredom. Tony Blair was allowed to whine about the Daily Mail's treatment of his wife until he and the inquiry's amoral smugness protecting him were exposed by a member of the public, David Lawley-Wakelin, who shouted, "Excuse me, this man should be arrested for war crimes." His Lordship duly apologised to the war criminal and the truth-teller was seen off.

Why Murdoch should complain about the British establishment has always mystified me. His interrogation, if that is the word, by Robert Jay QC, was a series of verbal marshmallows that Murdoch promptly spat out. When he described one of his own rambling, self-satisfied questions as "subtle", Jay received this deft dismissal from Murdoch: "I'm afraid I don't have much subtlety in me."

As the theatre critic Michael Billington reminded us recently, it was in the Spectator in 1955 that Henry Fairlie coined the term "the establishment", defining it as "the matrix of official and social relations within which power in Britain is exercised". For most of my career as a journalist, Murdoch has been an influential and admired member of this club: even a mentor to many of those now casting him as a "bad apple". His deeply cynical mantra, "I'm only giving the public what they want", was echoed by journalists and broadcasters as they lined up to dumb down their work and embrace the propaganda of corporatism that followed Murdoch's bloody move to Wapping in 1986.

More than 5,000 men and women were sacked, and countless families destroyed and suicides committed; and Murdoch could not have got away with it had Margaret Thatcher and the Metropolitan Police not given him total, often secret support, and journalists not lain face down on the floors of buses that drove perilously through the picket lines of their former, principled colleagues.

Cheering him on, if discreetly, were those now running what Max Hastings has called the "new establishment": the media's managerial middle class, often liberal to a fault, that was later to fall at the feet of Murdoch's man Blair, the future war criminal, whose election as prime minister was celebrated in the Guardian with: "Few now sang England Arise, but England has risen all the same."

Leveson has asked nothing about how the respectable media complemented the Murdoch press in systematically promoting corrupt, mendacious, often violent political power whose crimes make phone-hacking barely a misdemeanour. The Leveson inquiry is a club matter, in which a member has caused such extraordinary public embarrassment he must be black-balled, so that nothing changes.

What jolly fun to hear Jeremy Paxman grass on Piers Morgan who, he gossiped, described to him how to hack phones. Paxman was asked nothing by Jay about the essential role of the BBC and its leading lights as state propagandists for illegal wars that have killed, maimed and dispossessed millions. How ironic that the lunch Paxman attended at the Daily Mirror appears to have been in 2002 when the Mirror, edited by Morgan, was the only Fleet Street newspaper uncompromisingly opposed to the coming invasion of Iraq: thus reflecting the wishes of the majority of the British public.

And what a wheeze it was to hear from the clubbable Andrew Marr, the BBC's ubiquitous voice: he of the super-injunction. Just as Murdoch's Sun declared in 1995 that it shared the rising Blair's "high moral values", so Marr, writing in the Observer in 1999, lauded the new prime minister's "substantial moral courage". What impressed Marr was Blair's "utter lack of cynicism", along with his bombing of Yugoslavia which would "save lives". By March 2003, Marr was the BBC's political editor. Standing in Downing Street on the night of the assault on Iraq, he rejoiced at the vindication of Blair who, he said, had promised "to take Baghdad without a bloodbath". The diametric opposite was true. In hawking his self-serving book in 2010, Blair selected Marr for his "exclusive TV interview". During their convivial encounter they discussed an attack on Iran, the country Hillary Clinton once said she was prepared to "obliterate".

In the text messages disclosed by Leveson between Murdoch lobbyist Frederic Michel and Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, there is this one from Michel: "Very good on Marr as always". In a cable leaked to WikiLeaks, the US embassy in London urged Hillary Clinton to be interviewed by the "congenial" Marr because he often "sets the political agenda for the nation" and "will offer maximum impact for your investment of time". Inquisitor Jay showed no interest.

When Alastair Campbell "gave evidence", Jay waved a copy of Blair's A Journey and quoted Blair's view of his chief collaborator as "a genius".

"Sweet," responded Campbell.

"And with great clunking balls as well," continued Jay QC, awaiting the laughter. The silence of 780,000 Iraqi widows was a presence.

Not a single opponent of the institutional power of the media has been called by Leveson, though farce is welcomed. Richard Desmond, who owns the Daily Express and a section of the British porn industry, during his appearance damned the Daily Mail as "Britain's worst enemy" and said the Press Complaints Commission "hated our guts".

Shock, horror. Or just sweet.

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156429/Do-I-Murdoch-scandal-set-engulf-Cameron-appear-Leveson-Inquiry-week.html

[Douglas Caddy]

Scotland Yard launches investigation into Tory 'cash-for-access' affair

Police act on fundraiser's offer that donations would buy No 10 meetings

By James Cusick

The Independent

Saturday, 9 June 2012

Scotland Yard has begun an investigation into the Conservative Party cash-for-access scandal that saw its chief fundraiser claim a £250,000 donation would buy private meetings with David Cameron in Downing Street.

Peter Cruddas resigned as the Tories' co-treasurer in March after he told undercover reporters that paying the party £250,000 would buy "premier league" access to the Prime Minister, including intimate dinners with Mr Cameron and his wife Samantha in their flat above No 10.

The Metropolitan Police probe is particularly bad timing for Mr Cameron. He and the Chancellor, George Osborne, have been called before the Leveson Inquiry at the Royal Courts of Justice next week. They will be grilled over their links with Rupert and James Murdoch and the appointment of Andy Coulson to No 10 as the Prime Minister's media director, without customary security checks. Both may have to hand over text messages and emails for publication. The Electoral Commission, which has been conducting its own review of potential offences committed under party political laws, confirmed last night that the allegations against Mr Cruddas "are being dealt with seriously by the police". The commission has offered the Met team its expertise should it be required.

Mr Cruddas, a City billionaire and, until his resignation, the Tories' largest donor, giving them £215,000 in the first three months of this year, resigned his party post earlier this year following a "sting" operation in which he was covertly filmed telling undercover reporters that donations of "200 grand to 250 is premier league" and could mean dinners with the Camerons in the PM's private apartment in Downing Street. Access to Mr Osborne was also promised.

Mr Cruddas's claim that donations of £250,000 and more would be "awesome for your business" was made despite him being told the money would be coming from a Liechtenstein-based fund. Under electoral law it is illegal to accept donations from foreign funds.

Options alleged to have been discussed in the sting operation are said to have included the creation of a British subsidiary front company and also the potential use of UK employees who would act as financial conduits. Mr Cruddas said afterwards that he regretted "any impression of impropriety" arising from his "bluster".

The public relations executive Mark Adams, who called for an investigation into the actions of Mr Cruddas, has now been told in a letter from the Electoral Commission's chief executive, Peter Wardle: "If you have any concerns about the police investigation, you can of course raise those concerns with them."

Mr Cruddas claimed following his resignation that he had acted without the knowledge of the leadership of his party. Tory headquarters subsequently said that no donation was ever accepted or even formally considered and Mr Cameron called his former fundraiser's promises "completely unacceptable".

Mr Cameron's own internal party inquiry into the scandal faces an uncertain future. With a police investigation in progress, questions will be asked about the validity and effectiveness of the Conservatives' probe into cash-for-access, which is currently being conducted by the Tory life peer Lord Gold.

The terms of reference of the Gold inquiry, ordered by Mr Cameron, have already been criticised as intentionally limited. Although Mr Cruddas's promises involved the Prime Minister, Lord Gold's remit makes no mention of Mr Cameron, other than to state that the report will be handed directly to him.

A senior Conservative Party source told The Independent that given Scotland Yard's decision to mount a criminal investigation, the party would now have little choice but to put Lord Gold's exercise "on hold".

Labour's shadow Cabinet Office minister, Michael Dugher, said: "Allegations that David Cameron's chief fundraiser was attempting to solicit illegal donations and selling access to the Prime Minister called into question the whole integrity of the Government. So it is right that the Metropolitan Police are taking them seriously.

"It's vital that their investigation is allowed to take its course and that they receive the fullest support from both Downing Street and the Conservative Party."

Scotland Yard last night declined to discuss the matter, with a spokeswoman saying that its position had not changed since the resignation of Mr Cruddas in March. The spokeswoman said that the Met had been liaising with the Electoral Commission and that its detectives "continued to assess the allegations" made.

A Conservative Party spokesman said: "The Conservative Party has launched a full inquiry led by Lord Gold and will co-operate fully with the police."

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/9324291/Leveson-Inquiry-Gordon-Browns-evidence-five-key-points.html

[Douglas Caddy]

Ex-British PM denies Murdoch claim to inquiry

By Guy Faulconbridge and Kate Holton

LONDON | Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:01pm EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Monday contradicted testimony by Rupert Murdoch to an inquiry into press ethics in which the media tycoon said Brown had threatened war against his company.

Murdoch had told the government-sponsored inquiry that Brown phoned him in September 2009 after the Sun newspaper switched its allegiance to the Conservative Party. Brown responded by vowing to wage war on Murdoch's company in revenge, Murdoch said.

"This conversation never took place. I am shocked and surprised that it should be suggested," Brown, who served as prime minister from 2007 to 2010, told the Leveson inquiry. "This call did not happen. The threat was not made."

"I find it shocking," Brown said, adding that Murdoch's claim was damaging the tycoon's company. "This did not happen. There is no evidence that it happened other than Mr Murdoch's, but it didn't happen."

A former British leader accusing Murdoch of misleading the inquiry under oath could further tarnish the reputation of the world's most powerful media tycoon in a country which is home to some of his biggest newspaper and broadcasting interests.

When pressed on how a serving prime minister could make such a threat, Murdoch had told the inquiry: "I don't think he was in a very balanced state of mind."

"We were talking more quietly than you or I are now - he said, 'Well, your company has declared war on my government and we have no alternative but to make war on your company,'" Murdoch told the inquiry in April.

Following Brown's evidence, a News Corp spokeswoman said: "Rupert Murdoch stands behind his testimony."

Brown said that Murdoch was wrong about both the date and the contents of the phone call. Statements submitted to a media watchdog by five of Brown's advisers, and seen by Reuters, show none of the five heard Brown threaten Murdoch on the call.

Aides to Brown, including his special adviser, director of strategy and deputy chief of staff, said in statements submitted to the Press Complaints Commission last year that Brown made no such threat on the call, which took place in November, not September as Murdoch had said.

"I listened to the phone call between Mr Brown and Mr. Murdoch in November 2009," Stewart Wood, special adviser to the Prime Minister's office, said in a statement dated October 2011 that Reuters has seen.

"At no point in the conversation was threatening language of any sort used by either Mr Brown or Mr Murdoch," Wood said.

A British parliamentary committee which investigated allegations of illegal phone-hacking by Murdoch publications has already deemed the Australian-born tycoon unfit to manage a major global company.

BROWN'S SON

During his testimony, Brown also challenged a version of events given by Murdoch's lieutenant, Rebekah Brooks, about a Sun report that Brown's four-month-old son Fraser had been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis.

Brooks, who was charged last month with interfering with a police investigation into the phone hacking scandal, told the inquiry the Browns had given their backing to the story.

"I have never sought to bring my children into the public domain," Brown said. He denied his consent had been given to publish the story. "I find it sad that even now in 2012 members of the News International staff are coming to this inquiry and maintaining this fiction."

Analysts said the Sun's treatment of Brown's son would likely garner sympathy for the former prime minister but they said the issue of who was telling the truth between Murdoch and Brown was still unclear. "I think there is also a question about Brown's credibility on this," media consultant Steve Hewlett, who has covered the inquiry closely, told Reuters.

The former prime minister had questioned whether the paper hacked into his son's medical records to get the story. Brooks has denied this and Murdoch has said the story was broken when a father of another child tipped off the newspaper.

Brown said a local National Health Service branch in Fife had apologized to his family because information about his son came from NHS staff. "There were only a few medical people who knew that our son had this condition," Brown said.

He said the NHS in Fife "now believe it highly likely that there was unauthorized information given by a medical or working member of the NHS staff that allowed the Sun through this middle man to publish this story," Brown said.

Murdoch described a relationship with Brown - whose political career effectively ended when he lost an election to incumbent Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010 - that included meals which their wives attended and conversations on topics ranging from charity to the war in Afghanistan.

Brooks told the Leveson inquiry she formed a friendship with Sarah Brown and that they had had a "pyjama party" at the prime minister's official country residence, Chequers, with Murdoch's daughter, Elisabeth, and his wife, Wendi.

But Murdoch said their relationship worsened after his media companies opposed Brown ahead of the 2010 election

[Douglas Caddy]

Coalition at war over Jeremy Hunt and BSkyB

Nick Clegg has opened a major split in the Coalition by demanding that Jeremy Hunt face an independent investigation into whether he misled Parliament over his handling of the BSkyB takeover bid.

The Conservatives privately concede that Mr Hunt may have "technically breached" the Ministerial Code as his adviser’s communications with a News Corporation lobbyist were inappropriate.

By Rowena Mason, Political Correspondent

The Telegraph

9:41PM BST 12 Jun 2012

The Deputy Prime Minister has repeatedly confronted David Cameron about the refusal to order an inquiry into the Culture Secretary, it emerged yesterday.

Sources close to Mr Clegg took the unusual step of providing details of the Liberal Democrat leader’s concerns over the Prime Minister’s handling of the issue.

Mr Cameron has refused to refer the Culture Secretary to the independent adviser on ministerial interests after it emerged that Mr Hunt and his advisers had privately communicated with News Corporation executives when the company was attempting to take over BSkyB.

Within minutes of Mr Hunt finishing his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry last month, Downing Street ruled out a Whitehall inquiry into his conduct.

Last night, Downing Street sources insisted that no investigation would be ordered, although that position is likely to be tested today.

Although Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron have disagreed on policy in the past, the latest row threatens to be the most personal disagreement between the Coalition partners. It is also being waged on an issue close to the Prime Minister, which threatens his own integrity.

The Deputy Prime Minister has instructed his MPs to abstain from a parliamentary vote called by Labour today on whether Mr Hunt should face an independent investigation. The decision is sure to be used by Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, in the Commons.

Last night, a source close to Mr Clegg said: “Nick Clegg went in and instructed his MPs to stay away from the vote and not support the Tories. He asked whether anyone disagreed with this and there wasn’t a single dissenting voice. We can be fairly confident there will be a mass abstention.”

The source said the Liberal Democrats were not calling for Mr Hunt to resign nor “jumping on his corpse”, simply that he should be investigated.

“This is about answering questions, not calling for people to resign,” the source said. “There are questions about the Ministerial Code and on-the-record comments in Parliament. The decision to refer to Alex Allan [the independent adviser on ministerial interests] or not is one made by the Prime Minister. However, it’s not a decision endorsed by the Liberal Democrats.”

Labour MPs have accused Mr Hunt of misleading the House of Commons about his contact with News Corporation. He told Parliament in April that his only contact with Fred Michel, a News Corporation lobbyist, was at formal meetings, where minutes were taken by officials.

It later emerged that he exchanged a number of personal text messages with Mr Michel, as well as sending a “sympathetic” text message to James Murdoch in favour of the bid, despite legal advice not to have “any external discussions” about the deal.

The Conservatives privately concede that Mr Hunt may have “technically breached” the Ministerial Code as his adviser’s communications with a News Corporation lobbyist were inappropriate.

Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron are understood to have had a private meeting last week in which the Liberal Democrat leader criticised the Prime Minister’s decision to effectively clear Mr Hunt of wrongdoing immediately after his appearance at the Leveson Inquiry.

“Nick had previously made his views clear,” a source close to the Deputy Prime Minister said. “They [the Conservatives] went ahead knowing full well it wasn’t something Nick or Liberal Democrats would endorse. The two [Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron] had a face-to-face meeting last week and yesterday in which Mr Clegg made it clear that Mr Hunt still has questions to answer.”

The Deputy Prime Minister will give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry today and is expected to repeat attacks on Mr Cameron and other political leaders for getting too close to the Murdoch empire.

The Prime Minister will come under pressure over his links when he appears tomorrow. He has been criticised for becoming too close to Rebekah Brooks, the former News International boss.

Last night, the Deputy Prime Minister’s intervention in the BSkyB affair infuriated senior Conservatives.

“The Murdoch issue is totemic for them [the Liberal Democrats],” said one party source.

Downing Street sources said they were relaxed about the Liberal Democrats’ decision to abstain in today’s parliamentary vote.

Conservative MPs will be forced to vote in support of Mr Hunt despite several also publicly expressing concern over the affair. Mr Cameron should win the vote but the issue threatens to continue to overshadow his premiership.

Bernard Jenkin, a senior Conservative MP, said civil servants should decide whether Mr Hunt was investigated, not the Prime Minister.

The chairman of the public administration select committee said there had been a “breakdown of good process and good governance”.

“We have a new Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, and he should demonstrate his independence and advise the Prime Minister,” said Mr Jenkin. “If he thinks there has been prima facie case of breach of the Ministerial Code, it should go straight to the independent adviser.’’

Mr Jenkin said his committee was preparing to “consider the matter again”.

The treatment of Mr Hunt has been contrasted to that of Baroness Warsi, the Conservative co-chairman, who has been referred for investigation over accusations that she failed to register relevant business interests.

[Steve Knight]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/murdoch-did-try-to-dictate-government-policy-on-eu-says-major-7845036.html

Murdoch did try to dictate government policy on EU, says Major

Starkest evidence of political interference as ex-PM recalls threat to withdraw papers' support

Martin Hickman Wednesday 13 June 2012

Rupert Murdoch threatened the Conservatives that unless they changed policy on Europe they would lose the support of his newspapers, Sir John Major revealed yesterday, in the starkest evidence so far of the media tycoon's interference in politics.

The former Prime Minister told the Leveson Inquiry that the proprietor of The Sun and The Times made the threat over dinner in February 1997.

"Mr Murdoch said he really didn't like our European policies," he told Lord Justice Leveson. "That was no surprise to me. He wished me to change our European policies. If we couldn't change our European policies his papers could not, would not support our Conservative Government."

"As I recall he used the word 'we' when referring to his newspapers," added Sir John, who was Prime Minister between 1990 and 1997. "He didn't make the usual nod to editorial independence." The comments flatly contradict Mr Murdoch's evidence to the inquiry on 25 April, when the News Corp chief executive said under oath: "I have never asked a Prime Minister for anything."

Explaining the circumstances of the meeting, which he said took place on 2 February 1997, Sir John said: "Just before the 1997 election it was suggested to me I ought to try to make some effort to get closer to the Murdoch papers. I agreed I would invite Mr Murdoch to dinner."

During the discussion, Mr Murdoch was "edging towards" a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. Sir John, who fought running Parliamentary battles with Tory eurosceptics, added: "There was no question of me changing our policies."

Saying he remembered the discussion clearly, the 69-year-old told Lord Justice Leveson: "It is not often someone sits in front of a Prime Minister and says to a Prime Minister 'I would like you to change your policy or my organisation cannot support you'. It is unlikely to be something I would have forgotten."

A News International spokeswoman did not contradict Sir John's remarks, but pointed out that its titles did not act in unison at the 1997 election: "The Sunday Times supported John Major, The Times was neutral, and The Sun and the News of the World supported Labour."

Calling for tougher controls on irresponsible journalism, Sir John criticised Mr Murdoch and parts of his empire. He said that the "sheer scale" of Mr Murdoch's perceived influence was "an unattractive facet in British national life," noting that he held considerable power despite being unable to vote in the UK.

In a lighter moment, he was also asked about an incident involving the then editor of The Sun, Kelvin MacKenzie. According to Fleet Street folklore, at the height of the "Black Wednesday" exchange rate crisis in 1992, Sir John phoned the editor to ask him how he would cover the story.

"Well, John, let me put it this way – I've got a large bucket of xxxx lying on my desk and tomorrow morning I'm going to pour it all over your head," Mr MacKenzie is said to have replied.

But yesterday Sir John said he could not remember that particular phrase.

"I have read the alleged conversation with a degree of wonder and surprise," he said, "I frankly can't recall the bit that has entered mythology.

"I'm sure I would not have forgotten that but I don't recall it." Confirming that the call did take place, he told the inquiry it had been the only time he had telephoned Mr MacKenzie and added: "I was certainly never going to do so again."

Sir John also gave personal examples of bad behaviour by newspapers. In one episode, he said, he was called and falsely told his son's girlfriend required emergency surgery after an accident, but that the hospital needed to know first of all whether she was pregnant or not.

[Douglas Caddy]

Rebekah Brooks and husband appear in court

Former News International chief, husband Charlie and four others are charged with conspiracy to pervert course of justice

By Sandra Laville, crime correspondent

guardian.co.uk,

Wednesday 13 June 2012 06.36 EDT

The former chief executive of News International, Rebekah Brooks, and her husband, Charlie, have appeared at Westminster magistrates court on charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by allegedly concealing evidence from the police.

Brooks arrived with her husband in a black cab outside the court shortly before 10am. The entrance was flanked with photographers and television crews, and as Brooks was led by police to the doors of the court cameras flashed repeatedly.

Wearing matching navy blue suits – Rebekah Brooks's distinguished by a flash of a sage green scarf and high-heeled black shoes – the couple appeared in court one shortly afterwards, where the benches were filled with lawyers representing the six defendants, the press and a few members of the public.

She was led into the glass-fronted dock with her husband and sat flanked by him on one side and Cheryl Carter, her former personal assistant, on the other.

Alongside Carter sat Paul Edwards, Brooks's former chauffeur, and Mark Hanna, the head of security at News International, and behind the five was Darryl Jorsling, who was a security consultant for Brooks provided by News International.

The former News International chief executive, who has edited both the News of the World and the Sun, was asked to stand by the court clerk along with the five other defendants. The six were asked to give their addresses and dates of birth before being asked to sit.

Brooks is charged with three counts of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by allegedly hiding material from police investigating phone hacking at the News of the World. The other five defendants face one charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Nigel Pilkington for the crown said: "I don't propose to say anything about the facts. The court was served with a summary of the case."

Senior district judge Howard Riddle said he had received the summary and Pilkington read out bail conditions for the five. They were all told not to communicate directly or indirectly with each other – except for Charlie and Rebekah Brooks, on whom no such ban on communication as a couple was imposed. No plea was entered by any of the six.

After a hearing lasting no more than five minutes Riddle addressed the six defendants.

"Could I ask you to stand?" he said. "Your case is sent for trial at Southwark crown court. The first hearing will be on 22 June. You should be there no later than 9.30am.

"You have heard the bail conditions read out … If you don't turn up on time you commit an offence and could lose your bail."

Riddle then adjourned the hearing, stood and walked out. A few minutes later, to shouts from photographers of "Rebekah, Rebekah", a smiling Brooks and her husband walked out of the court – him with his hands in his pockets. They got into a black cab and were driven away.

Brooks is charged on count one that between 6 July and 19 July 2011 she conspired with Charles Brooks, Hanna, Edwards, Jorsling and persons unknown to conceal material from officers of the Metropolitan police service.

On count two she is charged with Carter between 6 July and 9 July 2011 of conspiring together to permanently remove seven boxes of material from the archive of News International. In the third count Brooks is charged with her husband, Hanna, Edwards and Jorsling and persons unknown of conspiring together between 15 July and 19 July 2011 to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from officers of the Metropolitan police service. The other five defendants face one charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice each.

[Douglas Caddy]

Leading article: The parallels between hacking and Watergate

Wednesday, 13 June 2012

The Independent

Forty years on, the malfeasance exposed by the Watergate scandal is hardly less shocking than it was at the time. What is different now, however, is the amount of information available.

It was thanks to the peerless efforts of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein that the conspiracy behind the Democratic Party headquarters break-in came out at all. But that, as they write in this newspaper today, was just the beginning. In the decades since, a steady drip of evidence – from secret tape transcriptions to public hearings – has filled in the blanks.

That the Watergate anniversary falls in the midst of the Leveson Inquiry cannot but invite parallels. Phone hacking is one thing: appalling, yes, but straightforwardly illegal. More telling is the light being shed on the overlapping, over-cosy world of Britain's political, media and business establishments. The Inquiry has its flaws. But the lesson from Watergate is not to give up.

[Steve Knight]

Leading article: The parallels between hacking and Watergate

Wednesday, 13 June 2012

The Independent

Forty years on, the malfeasance exposed by the Watergate scandal is hardly less shocking than it was at the time. What is different now, however, is the amount of information available.

It was thanks to the peerless efforts of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein that the conspiracy behind the Democratic Party headquarters break-in came out at all. But that, as they write in this newspaper today, was just the beginning. In the decades since, a steady drip of evidence – from secret tape transcriptions to public hearings – has filled in the blanks.

That the Watergate anniversary falls in the midst of the Leveson Inquiry cannot but invite parallels. Phone hacking is one thing: appalling, yes, but straightforwardly illegal. More telling is the light being shed on the overlapping, over-cosy world of Britain's political, media and business establishments. The Inquiry has its flaws. But the lesson from Watergate is not to give up.

Lol, funnily enough....I just made a post about that

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19192

[Douglas Caddy]

Rebekah Brooks texted David Cameron: 'We're definitely in this together!'

Text exchanges revealed as PM gives evidence to Leveson inquiry about friendship with former News International boss

By John Plunkett

guardian.co.uk,

Thursday 14 June 2012 08.38 EDT

David Cameron gives evidence to the Leveson inquiry. Photograph: -/AFP/Getty Images

Rebekah Brooks sent an effusive text message to David Cameron on the eve of his 2009 party conference speech, telling him: "Professionally, we're definitely in this together!" and signing off: "Yes he Cam!"

Brooks sent the text on 7 October 2009 during the Conservative party conference, a week after the Sun had switched allegiance to the Tories on the eve of then prime minister Gordon Brown's Labour party conference speech. At the time, Brooks was chief executive of the Sun's parent company, News International, and Cameron was still leader of the opposition.

"I am so rooting for you tomorrow not just as a proud friend but because professionally we're definitely in this together!" wrote Brooks. "Speech of your life! Yes he Cam!"

Brooks's sign-off was repeated the following day in the headline on the Sun's leader comment, heaping praise on Cameron's speech.

Cameron, appearing at the Leveson inquiry on Thursday, said the text referred to the fact his party and Brooks's newspapers would be "pushing the same agenda".

"I think that is about the Sun had made this decision to back the Conservatives, to part company with Labour, and so the Sun wanted to make sure it was helping the Conservative party put its best foot forward, with the policies we were announcing, the speech I was going to make and all the rest of it, and I think that's what that means," he added.

"I think what it means was that we were, as she put it, … friends, but professionally we – as leader of the Conservative party and her in newspapers – we were going to be pushing the same political agenda."

Robert Jay QC, lead counsel to the inquiry, said the first part of the text had been redacted because it was not relevant. Jay added that it probably included a joke, as Brooks's message continued: "But seriously I do understand the issue with the Times. Let's discuss over country supper soon.

"On the party it was because I had asked a number of NI people to Manchester post-endorsement and they were disappointed not to see you. But as always Sam was wonderful – (and I thought it was OE's that were charm personified!)."

"OE" is thought to refer to "Old Etonian".

Asked about the text by Jay, Cameron said: "The issue with the Times was that at the party conference I had not been to the Times party.

"The major newspaper groups tend to have big parties at the party conference and they expect party leaders, cabinet ministers, shadow cabinet ministers to go, and that would be the normal thing to do, the Telegraph, the Times, others would do this.

Jay asked if the "country supper" reference was "the sort of interaction you often had with her?" The prime minister replied: "Yes, we were neighbours."

Earlier, Jay asked Cameron at what point he had begun to count Brooks as among his "good friends". Cameron said he was reluctant to be specific because he could not remember and did not want to get it wrong.

"We got to know each other because of her role in the media, my role in politics, but we struck up a friendship. Our relationship got stronger when she married Charlie Brooks, who I've known for some time and who's a neighbour," he added.

Asked if the two were in contact on a weekly basis by 2008 and 2009, as Brooks's evidence to the inquiry suggested, Cameron said: "It's very difficult because I don't have a record and I don't want to give you an answer that isn't right.

"Sometimes I expect we would have been talking to each other quite a bit, particularly around the time perhaps of the wedding or when we were both in Oxfordshire, we would have had more frequent contact.

He added: "Particularly once she started going out with Charlie Brooks, living a couple of miles down the road, I was definitely seeing her more often because of my friendship with Charlie as a neighbour and Charlie and I played tennis together and all sorts of other things."

------------------------------------------

Key questions for David Cameron at the Leveson inquiry

Prime minister must explain why he hired Andy Coulson amid phone hacking scandal and let Jeremy Hunt handle BSkyB bid

guardian.co.uk,

Thursday 14 June 2012 01.00 EDT

David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt. 'Sir Alex Allen could have exonerated (or dispatched) Hunt, and David Cameron could have happily electioneered in Milton Keynes.' Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA Archive/Press Association Ima

• Why did you hire Andy Coulson given that you knew phone hacking had happened during his time as editor of the News of the World?

• Why, despite mounting evidence of the scale of phone hacking at the News of the World reported by the Guardian in July 2009 and New York Times in September 2010, did you not seek independent assurances that Coulson did not know about criminality at the paper?

• Why was Coulson not put through the highest level of "developed vetting" security clearance when he joined No 10? Did you fear he would fail given the furore around the phone-hacking scandal?

• Rebekah Brooks claims you texted one another on a weekly basis. Did you text other newspaper executives as frequently? Did you sign those texts LOL?

• Given that you knew Jeremy Hunt believed the UK media sector would "suffer for years" if the BSkyB takeover was not approved and it would be "totally wrong to cave in" to opponents of the bid, why did you choose him to replace Vince Cable?

• Can you describe your conversation with Rupert Murdoch at the George club in London on 10 September 2009 at which he confirmed the Sun would back the Conservatives at the election

Edited June 14, 2012 by Douglas Caddy