• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Rupert Murdoch Controls The World

The threat to the Conservative vote from UKIP is growing and Murdoch recently met up with Farage, probably as a not-so-disguised threat to Cameron that his papers may drop their support for the tories.
Cameron is obviously worried enough to go back on his promises.
 
Full story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21825823

A deal has been struck between the three main political parties on a new press regulation regime in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal.

An independent regulator will be set up by royal charter with powers to impose million pound fines on, and demand upfront apologies from, publishers.

The prime minister has outlined to MPs the scope of the formal document, which will set out the regulator's powers.

Press reform campaign group Hacked Off has welcomed the deal.

But the major newspapers have yet to respond to the details.

The deal follows Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry into press ethics, which found that journalists had hacked thousands of phones. He called for a new, independent regulator backed by legislation designed to assess whether it is doing its job properly.

David Cameron said the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour had agreed on a new system of "tough independent self-regulation that will deliver for victims and meet the principles set out in (Leveson's) report".

He said a new system would ensure:

upfront apologies from the press to victims
fines of 1% of turnover, up to £1m
a self-regulatory body with independent appointments and funding
a robust standards code
a free arbitration service for victims
a speedy complaints system
The charter defines publishers as newspapers, magazines or websites containing news-related material.

But there was confusion over how the plans would extend to the rest of the internet - with one Downing Street aide telling the BBC it would not cover blogs such as Guido Fawkes' political commentary...
Click to expand...

So they sorted something out, though the point about the internet is interesting - how will they regulate the less official sites who can say whatever they want, regardless of accuracy? What happens to truth in reporting in the future when opinion takes precedent?
 
A similar initiative here is set to fail as the local politicians fear the Murdoch press too much to stand up to them. Sad.
 
Full story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22278947

Surrey Police's handling of the Milly Dowler murder inquiry has been criticised for failing to check claims the schoolgirl's voicemail was hacked.

A watchdog has accused senior officers of having "collective amnesia" when questioned about why they did not investigate.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission did not discover who decided not to pursue the claims.

Milly, 13, disappeared in March 2002, as she walked home in Surrey.

Surrey Police acknowledged it should have revisited the hacking allegations.

The findings follow an investigation into the conduct of two senior officers, Deputy Chief Constable Craig Denholm and Det Supt Maria Woodall.

'Surprise and dismay'

The IPCC concluded that neither were guilty of misconduct. Surrey Police said it had taken "management action and issued words of advice" to both.

IPCC deputy chair Deborah Glass said: "Phone hacking was a crime and this should have been acted upon, if not in 2002, then later, once the News of the World's widespread use of phone hacking became a matter of public knowledge and concern.

"Our investigation has heard from officers and former officers from Surrey Police who have expressed surprise and dismay that it wasn't investigated.

"We have not been able to uncover any evidence, in documentation or witness statements, of why and by whom that decision was made: former senior officers, in particular, appear to have been afflicted by a form of collective amnesia in relation to the events of 2002.

"This is perhaps not surprising, given the events of 2011 and the public outcry that the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone produced..."
Click to expand...

Yes, why wouldn't the police want to take on the might of the tabloids?
 
Meanwhile:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22278946

The Sun's royal editor has been charged with conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office over allegations he paid for stories about the Royal Family and Sandhurst Military Academy.

Duncan Larcombe was charged along with John Hardy, a colour sergeant at the academy, and his wife Claire Hardy.

An ex-pharmacy assistant at Sandhurst Medical Centre, Tracy Bell, was charged with misconduct in public office.

They will appear before Westminster Magistrates' Court on 8 May...

The charges come after a former police officer was arrested as part of the investigation into alleged illegal payments by journalists to public officials.

The 41-year-old man, who used to be in the Surrey Police force, was arrested at his home in Sussex at 06:00 BST as part of Operation Elveden.

He is being interviewed at a Sussex police station on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

He becomes the 62nd person to be arrested during the investigation.

Operation Elveden is running alongside Operation Weeting, the investigation into allegations of phone hacking, and Operation Tuleta, which is looking at computer hacking and other privacy breaches.
Click to expand...

Just how close were the cops and the journos? Too close, it looks like.
 
Well done, everyone:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22294722

The newspaper industry has rejected a plan for press regulation agreed by the three main political parties in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry.

The newspapers opposed the idea of a regulator backed by a royal charter, and have revealed an alternative plan.

It is closely based on the draft charter agreed after the Leveson report into press standards - but without "state-sponsored regulation".

Campaigners said it showed the industry had "learned nothing" from Leveson.

The Guardian and the Independent are the only two titles out of 11 national newspapers that have not signed up.

The government's royal charter, published on 18 March, has "no support within the press" and has been condemned by media freedom organisations, said a statement released by the Newspaper Society, on behalf of a number of national and local newspapers.

The newspapers also argue that they had no say in the final discussions.

Prime Minister David Cameron said there was all-party agreement around the published charter but he was "always very happy to look at other proposals".

However, BBC political correspondent Norman Smith said government sources are saying their plans "will not be dropped" in favour of the newspaper industry package...

This throws open the post-Leveson debate as politicians cannot force the papers to engage with their plan, our correspondent said.

The risk for politicians is the newspapers' plan could see the press regulating itself once more, under a rulebook it designed - and this is unlikely to appease the public or victims, he said.

The newspapers' proposals are different from the government-backed scheme for England and Wales in that they:

Remove Parliament's power to block or approve future changes to regulation. Instead the regulator, trade bodies and a newly-created "recognition panel" would have to agree to changes
Would see the chair and members of the panel selected by an appointments committee chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge, and include one representative of the industry's interests, one member representing the public interest and one public appointments assessor nominated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments for England and Wales
Remove a ban on former editors sitting on the panel
Give newspaper and magazine readers a say on the industry's proposals
Make it more difficult to bring group complaints
Change the power of the regulator to "direct" the nature, extent and placement of corrections and apologies, saying it should "require", not "direct..."

But campaign group Hacked Off said in a statement: "This desperate move by editors and proprietors… is only the latest proof that most of the industry has learned no lessons from the Leveson experience.

"They are not sorry for the abuses exposed at the inquiry... and they do not accept the need for real change..."
Click to expand...

Brilliant. How many millions was that down the drain? The trouble is, responsible journalists will continue to be responsible, and more power to them, but with one tabloid driving someone to suicide in the last few weeks do the irresponsibles expect us to believe they're on the level?

I notice many quotes from those in the industry who have no intention of changing their game are mentioning the "P" word - they've made politicians such figures of hate over the past decades that when they do try to do something helpful we're expected to oppose it whatever. Any attempt to improve things is supposed to be interference at best, thin end of the wedge nanny state at the worst. Oh well.
 
No political interference? The Murdoch press, the Barclay brothers, Viscount Rothermere and his muppet, Dacre, etc. Nothing political in their motives.
 
Yup, the hypocrisy is quite something to behold.
 
Busted:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23239545 (full story)

Rupert Murdoch has said he "welcomes" the chance to face MPs over comments he allegedly made about a police probe into corrupt payments by journalists.

The Commons culture committee wants to question the News Corp boss, who apparently criticised officers and defended reporters in secretly-recorded conversations with staff on The Sun.

Mr Murdoch's spokesman said he wanted to clear up "any misconceptions"...

Mr Murdoch was secretly recorded in March by Channel 4 News and the Exaro news agency appearing to criticise the police and defending his journalists who have been accused of such payments.

It was broadcast appearing to show him criticising Operation Elveden - the probe into alleged illegal payments to public officials by journalists, mainly from News International.

'Protracted'

In the recording - of a talk Mr Murdoch gave to Sun journalists - he is heard complaining about "totally incompetent" police officers and saying he would do "everything in his power to give you total support, even if you're convicted".[/b]

BBC media correspondent David Sillito said the MPs believed there were contradictions between the apparent contents of the recording and Mr Murdoch's evidence to them that they wanted to explore.

But he added that with more than 20 arrests so far in the Elveden inquiry and several people charged, the committee would be extremely restricted in what questions it could ask.

A spokesman for News Corporation said: "Mr Murdoch welcomes the opportunity to return to the select committee and answer their questions. He looks forward to clearing up any misconceptions as soon as possible."

Earlier on Tuesday, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick told MPs on the Home Affairs Committee that the force was seeking a court order to get hold of the tape recording.

She said voluntary co-operation with News Corp had "significantly reduced" in the past couple of months and all new requests for material were now subject to the approval of a judge - a process she described as "protracted"...
Click to expand...

Nothing really surprising, Murdoch has also said far more incriminating stuff on that tape from what I've read, which makes it all the more imperative we bring these criminals to book. Amusing he was caught out in this way, mind you.
 
A few months after Leveson changed precisely nothing, here's a good article on the subject:
http://therockingvicar.com/?p=3188

I'll highlight this bit:
Recently, I was chatting to a female singer who was part of a successful group in the 1990s and 2000s, and the conversation turned to her life today and how she spends her time.

She told me how she is still stalked by men carrying cameras almost every time she leaves her house, or a hotel. As ‘normal’ photographs of this woman are no longer considered hot property by newspapers, the camera blokes – often with a scooter driving mate in tow, so they can follow her wherever she goes – shout out horrendous insults and swear and spit at her to try and get her to react, hopefully in anger, so they can get an unusual shot, which will sell.

If she happens to have a man with her, they will ramp up the insults in the hope that her companion will lose his temper and photos of the ruckus can be sold on.

What all of these stories have in common is that despite the influence of the Leveson Report, real people with real feelings, families, and friends are being subjected to abominable harassment, abuse, and vituperation.

It makes no difference whether it is the Prime Minister, or someone who used to sing in a girl group ten years ago; nobody should suffer from such unwarranted intrusion.
Click to expand...
 
TBH I had sort of lost interest in the News Int/hacking/Murdoch stuff but this latest development in the Brooks trial is a real WTF moment:

Blair 'advised Brooks before arrest'

Tony Blair gave advice to newspaper executive Rebekah Brooks on handling the phone-hacking scandal six days before her arrest, a court has heard.

The court heard Mrs Brooks spoke to the former prime minister and passed on what he had said to James Murdoch, then News International executive chairman.

In an email, she said Mr Blair had said he was "available" to her, James and Rupert Murdoch as an "unofficial adviser", the Old Bailey heard.

Mrs Brooks denies any wrongdoing.

In the email, Mrs Brooks said Mr Blair had urged her to set up a "Hutton style" inquiry - a reference to the inquiry into the death of government weapons adviser Dr David Kelly.

She said Mr Blair's offer of further advice "needs to be between us".

The defence case for Mrs Brooks is expected to start later this week.

She denies conspiracy to hack voicemails, conspiracy to make corrupt payments to public officials and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26259956

In particular, the reference to a "Hutton-style inquiry" is pretty gobsmaking - and I speak as someone who was never convinced by the Dr Kelly conspiracy theories.
 
Yeah, News International seem to have British politicians eating out of their hand, no matter what side they are on. And for a long time, too.
 
Fallout from the hacking verdict:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28014035

The judge in the phone hacking trial has rebuked David Cameron for commenting on the conviction of Andy Coulson before the trial ended.

The prime minister has apologised for employing former News of the World editor Coulson as his media chief.

Mr Justice Saunders said his intervention was "unsatisfactory" and set a bad example to the media.

No 10 said the PM took the "best legal advice" before he spoke: widely taken as a reference to the Attorney General.

A spokesman for Attorney General Dominic Grieve later confirmed that the PM had consulted Mr Grieve "on his statement and his letter to the court before they were delivered".

The jury has been discharged after failing to reach verdicts on outstanding charges against Coulson.

Mr Justice Saunders will hear on Monday whether the Crown Prosecution Service wishes to launch a retrial.

In other developments:

Labour has asked a former senior civil servant to look at how Coulson was vetted before he started work at No 10, suggesting he did not receive the highest level of security clearance that was given to his predecessors in the role

Carole Middleton, the mother of the Duchess of Cambridge, was a victim of phone hacking, the BBC has learned

The sister of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, Gemma, urges politicians to "keep their promises" to hacking victims by ensuring permanent changes to the way the press operates

The hacking trial has cost £1.745m so far, the Crown Prosecution Service said. The figures cover the period up to 31 May...
Click to expand...

Brooks was cleared, rather incredibly. Guess she and Coulson only shared pillow talk. Lots of questions to answer here.
 
I imagine she was cleared because the evidence failed to convince the jury. So who is witch-hunting who?

Seems to me the whole thing has got entirely out of proportion, driven largely by some slebs and pols who, having eagerly courted the press on their way to power and fame, don't now want the press to reveal their true character as it might damage their carefully-nurtured public image. Not that I personally give a damn who is sleeping with who, unless they go around doing something privately while telling the rest of us not to in public. (Yes, that's you, John Major).

The one conviction so far is on a charge that existed all along. Nothing needs to change except the buying public needs to show a little discrimination - and that isn't going to happen however much I might like it. Does any of you imagine the News of the World put stories in the paper that its public didn't want to read?
 
Seems to me the whole thing has got entirely out of proportion, driven largely by some slebs and pols who, having eagerly courted the press on their way to power and fame, don't now want the press to reveal their true character as it might damage their carefully-nurtured public image.
Click to expand...

I have a real problem with the "they courted the press when it suited them so then they complain when their privacy is invaded" argument, largely because it is EXACTLY the same as the (thankfully now rarely heard) "if you enjoyed consensual sex with someone at some stage you can't complain if they rape you at a later date".

Before everyone starts jumping up and down saying I'm comparing press intrusion to rape, I'm not. I am simply pointing out the logical fallacy in claiming that consent to a third party's actions in one case renders the recipient unable to reject similar actions by a third party at a later date.

Phone hacking, of course, is illegal, as is paying public officials for information. Much of the other behaviour described by gncxx - stalking and abusing minor celebrities and members of the public - is also covered by existing legislation on harassment. The problem is that the police are unwilling to enforce existing laws and in the case of News International there was clear evidence of collusion between police and journos. This can't be acceptable whatever one's views on "slebs and pols".
 
Nicely put, Quake. I'm all for a free press, but I don't want a criminal press.
 
The slebs and pols have no difficulty in thinking of the rest of us as plebs - I don't feel the need to be especially polite about them. Maybe because I don't think there is anything special about the job of being an actor or a politician - its just a job, easier than some. I'd respect a miner or a soldier more, if we were going to characterise people by the job they do.

The criminality in this case has been dealt with. No-one is saying - and I certainly did not say - that celebs courting the press may then freely become victims of criminal action.

But the campaign by hacked-off is not about that it is about preventing the press publishing stories the individuals don't like or which spoils their image.

That seems to me to be utterly hypocritical for precisely the reason I gave.

Further, the outcome of the Leveson enquiry, started because of alleged _widespread_ phone hacking, would, if implemented, be that politicians would be able to vet news items. Is that really what you want?

There is also a scale of criminality. Reading someone's voice mail messages is an invasion of privacy. It involves no violence and usually no financial gain. Should there really be multiple millions of pounds spent on tracking it down when - apparently - we cannot afford to follow up on burglaries or MP's that place fraudulent expense claims?

We also have governments who want to routinely read our email, if not our voice mail.

I suspect the whole thing has entirely different and political motivations, based around dislike of Murdoch (which I share) and of politicians being embarrassed by the press coupled with hasty ass-covering by members of the Chipping Norton set. There is massive spin and misdirection here, and just about everyone seems to have fallen for it - except, thankfully, the jury.
 
The slebs and pols have no difficulty in thinking of the rest of us as plebs - I don't feel the need to be especially polite about them. Maybe because I don't think there is anything special about the job of being an actor or a politician - its just a job, easier than some. I'd respect a miner or a soldier more, if we were going to characterise people by the job they do.
Click to expand...

"Slebs and pols think of us all as plebs?" Oh come on, Cochise, you can do better than that. Pure whataboutery. Plus, you're the only one characterising people by the job that they do.

Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan may not be especially to your taste, but the media's antics were not confined to harassing actors. They hacked the phones of child murder victims and soldiers killed in action overseas. They camped out outside the homes of families of murder victims. Their behavior was beyond the place and it was allowed to continue unchecked.

The criminality in this case has been dealt with.
Click to expand...

The hacking of phones may have been. The ongoing low level harassment of the famous and not so famous alike continues and there seems to will to do anything about it. Bear in mind that most of this harassment involves getting a picture of an actress without make-up or the tearstained face of a grieving relative. We're not talking major public interest journalism here!

There is also a scale of criminality. Reading someone's voice mail messages is an invasion of privacy. It involves no violence and usually no financial gain. Should there really be multiple millions of pounds spent on tracking it down when - apparently - we cannot afford to follow up on burglaries or MP's that place fraudulent expense claims?
Click to expand...

The issue was not the hacking by itself. It was the widespread corruption which accompanied it. And yes, I think corruption of police, public officials and elected representatives on this scale is hugely important and money should not be an object in rooting it out.

Incidentally, the precise links between the Murdoch papers, corrupt police and the axe murder of a private detective in the 80s remain unclear. Don't think this was all victimless crime. It certainly wasn't.

We also have governments who want to routinely read our email, if not our voice mail.
Click to expand...

More whataboutery and irrelevant.
 
So one rule for governments and another for the press?

And what about the people who eagerly buy the press output?

I know from previous discussion you are in favour of a single rule of law. If there need to be stricter laws protecting privacy so be it, although in fact there are perfectly effective laws against harassment that could have been used and haven't been. But any such laws should not be applied to the press alone. How about Google, for example?

I believe the hacked off campaign is utterly cynical, and the way they have roped in all sorts of people is as exploitative as the press itself. You may recall that the primary allegation in the Milly Dowler case, that the press deleted emails from her phone, was untrue.

I do not believe the press are without any blame in this, and I've cited the treatment of Christopher Jefferies as an example in the past. But we actually live in a world where the whole right to privacy is under question, as if wanting to do something in private is an admission of improper behaviour. That will not be addressed by scapegoating the press, who, it would appear, have _not_ been in the general habit of breaking laws. So far the conviction rate is about 11 to 1 not guilty.

edit: Just to save me being accused of 'whataboutary' again - I think I know what you mean by that - here is google CEO Eric Schmidt asserting that if you are doing something you don't want others to know about then maybe you shouldn't be doing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew

Now, if I'm a hairy tattooed biker but my private hobby is collecting postage stamps then I might well not want everyone to know about it but I'm perfectly entitled to do it, and to keep it to myself if I want to. ( I am hairy and a biker, but no tattoos and the only stamp albums I have a relative left me :) )
 
So one rule for governments and another for the press?
Click to expand...

Did I say that? However, since you mention it, yes. I'm happy to accept that there will be occasions where it is reasonable for state agents to infringe on individuals' privacy - bugging terrorist suspects for example. There needs to be appropriate safeguards and governance around this of course and I'm deeply opposed to the sort of blanket surveillance that has been going on in recent years.

I don't see that the fact that the state can do certain things in certain circustances should private individuals or corporations the right to do the same. Would you say that because the state can imprison people we should allow journalists to lock people up?

Of course not.

You may recall that the primary allegation in the Milly Dowler case, that the press deleted emails from her phone, was untrue.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the primary allegation. The tabloids have spun this to the point where a lot of people seem to believe it but I remember the story when it broke and it was the fact that her phone had been hacked at all that caused the wave of revulsion. The "deleting voicemails" thing came a day or so later IIRC and added to the clamour to do something about it. But it wasn't the primary allegation.

In any case it was never shown that it was untrue. The model of phone she had and/or its voicemail service did apparently delete messages automatically after a certain time. However the hacker himself does not remember whether or not he deleted messages. At best it's not proven either way.

So far the conviction rate is about 11 to 1 not guilty.
Click to expand...

Based on what? The Brooks got off, as did Rebekah's PA, but Coulson was convicted and Mulcaire and Goodman pleaded guilty. There have also been a number of public officals convicted of selling information. Where are all these acquittals you mention?
 
There has been, as far as I know, one public official convicted of selling information. Four other defendants in the Brooks trial were found not guilty, though strangely the list of verdicts seems to have disappeared from the BBC.

In any case, these were crimes of which people have been convicted - thus demonstrating that there is legal redress. Wherefore then the Leveson enquiry etc.?

Had the enquiry been into the ownership of the press and its undue influence in the circles of power there might have been some point to it.
 
There has been, as far as I know, one public official convicted of selling information.
Click to expand...

According to this article there have been 14 convictions so far and at least 59 awaiting trial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28027911

So not quite the one-off you portray.

In any case, these were crimes of which people have been convicted - thus demonstrating that there is legal redress.
Click to expand...

But the point - which you continue to ignore - is that this had been going on for years and that there was no legal redress because the police had effectively been nobbled. It is this corruption which is the real issue.
 
Actually you are quite right - I had missed that point. There were trials for this bribery of the police , were there? I ask in all innocence, I can't recall any coverage. I must admit, I'm only going by impression here, I haven't researched this angle.

You repeatedly objected to my characterising celebrities and politicians as tending to regard those outside their circle with contempt - can you really not see the way they behave demonstrates that? Look at the complete lack of reaction among them to actually being found to be in the wrong. This is I grant you a phenomenon relatively recent - there have always been a few that try to brazen it out when found associating with wrongdoing, but look at the lack of reaction to the Savile and Smith scandals for examples. Look at Huhne - he's already back in circulation.

This attitude of failing to take responsibility for ones actions (in contrast to, say, the reaction of Profumo back in the 60's) and brazenly carrying on regardless seems to have taken root as a general thing during the Major government while it was busily professing 'Victorian values' or some such twaddle to the rest of the populous. Even Marples had the decency to run off to the south of France.
 
I tend to think that started with Ian Blair repeatedly and persistently failling to fall on his own sword, or perhaps that was just a particularly good example.
 
There were trials for this bribery of the police, were there?
Click to expand...

From memory I think most of those convicted pleaded guilty. It wasn't just police - prison officers, MoD officials etc are also in the frame. This has been widely reported, I'm surprised you missed it. In any case, dozens more cases in the pipeline. Google "operation elveden".

You repeatedly objected to my characterising celebrities and politicians as tending to regard those outside their circle with contempt - can you really not see the way they behave demonstrates that?
Click to expand...

Some politicians and celebrities behave badly, yes, and the political class in particular seems to have become estranged from those they purport to represent to an unhealthy degree. Many do not - I'm not sure JK Rowling has done anything which would fit in with your characterisation but it doesn't stop her being harassed in cafés and her daughter stalked outside of her school.

It's irrelevant in any case - yes, many politicians and celebrities may not be very nice people. So what? It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be protected from criminal and antisocial behaviour in the same way as anyone else.
 
Don't get me started on JK Rowling :)

I didn't suggest they should be treated differently, I in fact was saying they should be treated the same.

I'm pretty sure the press has always 'hounded' people if there was a story to be had. Its their job. And there have been, for nearly as long, laws in place to limit that hounding. If those laws have been corruptly negated, then yes, additional offences have occurred. But I still don't see any fundamental change is required, just the correct application of existing laws.

If there is widespread corruption - which there does appear to be in the UK, something I did not believe until a couple of years ago - then any system will not work as expected. Removing the corruption is the only way forward - which is why I believe the enquiry had the wrong focus, and rather than going in to the way that journalists work it should have been looking at the newspaper proprietors themselves and their influence. Connections between Murdoch, Blair and Cameron, for example. And that's where my point started - that the wider circus around these charges is a bait and switch to distract us from what is going on at the top.
 
Phone hacking exclusive: The News of the World, the army's IRA mole and more questions for Rupert Murdoch

Phone records of IRA terror informant went to News International

Detectives investigating possible corporate charges against Rupert Murdoch's media empire have obtained evidence to suggest that News International paid private detectives to unlawfully access the phone records of a leading IRA mole who lives under the protection of the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

Senior Scotland Yard officers are analysing an invoice originally seized from a private investigator by the Metropolitan Police in 2007. The document – which dates from the time of the discredited original phone-hacking investigation – bills News International £850 for "Scappaticci phone records".

At the time the invoice was submitted, in April 2006, a senior News of the World executive had allegedly commissioned private detectives to find Freddie Scappaticci, Britain's top agent inside the IRA who was known by the codename "Stakeknife". David Cameron's former director of communications Andy Coulson was the newspaper's editor at the time. Last week, he was convicted of conspiracy to hack mobile phones.

It is understood the explicit request to be paid for obtaining confidential phone records makes the invoice unique amongst the files held by the Metropolitan Police (Met) – and central to possible corporate charges. The request is effectively asking, in black-and-white, to be compensated for a criminal offence.

Given the sensitivities around Scappaticci, it is not clear why Scotland Yard failed to take any action against the News of the World or the private investigator when detectives seized the invoice in 2007. At the time, police chiefs were insisting criminality at the newspaper was confined to "one rogue reporter", Clive Goodman, who was jailed for phone-hacking in 2007. ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 70579.html
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top