Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail "hacked by News of the World"

tom watson: "when you signed the Taylor payment did you see or were you made aware of the for Neville email, the transcript...."for Neville email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?

James murdoch: No, I was not aware of that at the time"
 
what the fuck is this lost bag story all about?

7.09pm: More news of the mystery bag belonging to Rebekah Brooks's husband which was found in a bin in an underground car park near the couple's home on Monday.

Charlie Brooks has said the bag – which contained papers and a lap top – is his and does not contain material connected with the phone hacking inquiry. My colleague Amelia Hill has a story on this soon. Here's a taste:

The Brooks's spokesperson David Wilson said that Charlie Brooks is currently "disappointed" that three days later, police are still refusing to return the bag but remains confident that, once they have established the bag is his, it will be returned to him.

"Police have been in touch and have asked for the passwords," he confirmed. "Charlie was hoping it would be returned before now but he is adamant that everything it is his computer and that there is nothing on it that is Rebekah's and nothing that has anything to do with the case [into phone hacking].

"He hopes it will all be returned without much more delay. It is in their [the police's] hands now but Charlie is confident they will return it in the fullness of time," he added.
 
My god. So what will this mean?
It means Colin Myler and the NI legal manager have basically accused james Murdoch of lying to the committee, and have thoroughly dumped him in the shit! :D:D
It also means JM is inching closer and closer to being in real trouble, and of it being proved he knew far more than he's making out.
<cackles gleefully>
 
Is it me or is Cameron looking extremely shifty? And sorry if I've been missing things but do we know what meetings Coulson had with NI employees when he was in the country's employ, and what was discussed?
 
Nothing inappropriate was discussed, that's been answered several times. Now, if we could start getting onto other matters, such as terrorism ...
 
It means Colin Myler and the NI legal manager have basically accused james Murdoch of lying to the committee, and have thoroughly dumped him in the shit! :D:D
It also means JM is inching closer and closer to being in real trouble, and of it being proved he knew far more than he's making out.
<cackles gleefully>

Won't he just get out of it though? After all they're just as corrupt as each other ...
 
Here's The Guardian's four key points for today:

• Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture secretary, has written to Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, asking who made the decision not to seek the highest-level security clearance for Andy Coulson and why (see 5.32pm http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/201...-scandal-live-coverage?commentpage=9#block-44). Unlike his predecessors Alastair Campbell, Dave Hill and Michael Ellam, Coulson, David Cameron's press chief from 2010 to 2011, was only accorded "security check" level clearance rather than the higher "developed vetting".

• Andy Coulson's successor, Craig Oliver, has refused to say whether he has undergone a more stringent security vetting than Coulson's mid-level checks. A series of readers who have been through civil service vetting themselves have been in touch to say they are astonished that Coulson, a man working at the heart of Downing Street, was not vetted more thoroughly.

• In response to Guardian enquiries, the Cabinet Office said that Coulson was subject to "National Security Vetting". However, this term appears to cover any of three levels of vetting – counter-terrorism check, security check, and developed vetting – so only reiterates what we already knew (see 5.30pm http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/201...-scandal-live-coverage?commentpage=9#block-43).

• Nick Clegg has backed David Cameron over the PM's contacts with News International during the BSkyB bid process, but stressed the Lib Dems' different views on links with the Murdoch empire. The current crisis is "a once-in-a-generation opportunity to really clean up the murky practices, the dodgy relationships which have taken root at the very heart of the British establishment", he added. At a speech in Birmingham, Ed Miliband said the scandal had shown "such irresponsibility among the powerful in our society" (see 3.11pm http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/201...-scandal-live-coverage?commentpage=9#block-31).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/phone-hacking-scandal-live-coverage
 
He's never had an inappropriate discussion, doesn't that answer your question? But if he did discuss anything which is discovered to be inappropriate, he will issue a full and frank apology.
 
Gotcha.

7.15pm: John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons select committee, has told my colleague Patrick Wintour that he will be recalling James Murdoch to explain the statement issued tonight by Colin Myler and Tom Crone.

Whittingdale said:

We as a committee regarded the For Neville email as one of the most critical pieces of evidence in the whole inquiry. We will be asking James Murdoch to respond and ask him to clarify.
 
It means Colin Myler and the NI legal manager have basically accused james Murdoch of lying to the committee, and have thoroughly dumped him in the shit! :D:D
It also means JM is inching closer and closer to being in real trouble, and of it being proved he knew far more than he's making out.
<cackles gleefully>
An important part of the news international narrative is that they acted swiftly as soon as they became aware there was more than one rogue journalist. This happened in late 2010 when the civil cases had gotten quite far.

The Taylor payout and case shows that is not a credible version of events. So they did not behave in a honest fashion and they cannot explain things as merely trusting the wrong people.

Also news international staff have covered up evidence of criminal behaviour by staff other than Goodman and as part of this cover up offered a very substantial payout to a plaintive (Taylor) in order that the case not reach court. There may be ground (I dont know how strong) for charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. James Murdochs signature is on the cheque.
 
Greg miskiw has been located in florida and is flying back to the UK.

In today's Palm Beach post, Alexandra Clough reports:
Ihor "Greg" Miskiw had been living in a tropical hideaway in Delray Beach, The Palm Beach Post reported Wednesday.

Press reports say police want to talk to Miskiw about the burgeoning phone hacking scandal.

While he was at the News of the World, Miskiw famously said: "That is what we do - we go out and destroy other people's lives."

Miskiw worked for AMI's The Globe in Boca Raton for about two months earlier this year but left several months ago, a spokesman said. In June, Miskiw incorporated a company, News Team LLC, according to the Florida secretary of state's office.

"I'm returning to the UK momentarily," Miskiw told the Telegraph today. He said his lawyer has been in touch with the police.

The News of the World illegally hacked into the voicemail messages of celebrities and other prominent people to find stories. The scandal exploded two weeks ago when it was reported that the tabloid intercepted voicemails of a 13-year-old murder victim.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/former-news-of-the-world-editor-greg-miskiw-1632379.html
 
Won't he just get out of it though? After all they're just as corrupt as each other ...
It depends on how insistent Myler and Crone are. the key thing is; two prominent, senior ex-NI people have flatly contradicted him, which as butchers alluded to in typically enigmatic fashion (;)), they've now begun to fight amongst themselves, and the old NI pack loyalty looks truly dead and buried.
In fact, JM has already been recalled by the CMS committee chair, for questioning on this.
e2a; if enough of this shit sticks to him, what it also means is that the next CEO of Newscorp will NOT be called Murdoch
 
An important part of the news international narrative is that they acted swiftly as soon as they became aware there was more than one rogue journalist. This happened in late 2010 when the civil cases had gotten quite far.

The Taylor payout and case shows that is not a credible version of events. So they did not behave in a honest fashion and they cannot explain things as merely trusting the wrong people.

Also news international staff have covered up evidence of criminal behaviour by staff other than Goodman and as part of this cover up offered a very substantial payout to a plaintive (Taylor) in order that the case not reach court. There may be ground (I dont know how strong) for charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. James Murdochs signature is on the cheque.
Absolutely agree with all of this - and loving it!:D
 
It depends on how insistent Myler and Crone are. the key thing is; two prominent, senior ex-NI people have flatly contradicted him, which as butchers alluded to in typically enigmatic fashion (;)), they've now begun to fight amongst themselves, and the old NI pack loyalty looks truly dead and buried.
In fact, JM has already been recalled by the CMS committee chair, for questioning on this.
e2a; if enough of this shit sticks to him, what it also means is that the next CEO of Newscorp will NOT be called Murdoch

It's not necessarily fighting amongst themselves - maybe it's young jim being the next to get thrown under the bus? Either way, I think he's done for...
 
This is like an extended disembowelling - each time you tug, out falls another pile of entrails, while the disembowellee screams & wriggles. :cool:
 
It's not necessarily fighting amongst themselves -
It looks that way to me.

James Murdoch claimed he relied on legal advice from experts. The legal experts have stated that he was fully aware of the facts when he chose to sign the cheque.

The simplest way to see things is that the lawyers are now settling into a "just following orders" and "client confidentiality" defense of their behaviour.

They are placing the consequences of the choices onto James. So long as they have their story and legal position well prepared I would expect them to be able among the most comfortably placed.
 
I'd rather stick to the issues in hand but you're obv. keen to be another keyboard hero, so if you want to make it personal and be abusive, we can do that you over-blown, self-important, ignorant cunt.

Who's the self-important one, the person making a fairly uncontentious statement that you talk guff, or the person reacting in the manner of a foul-mouthed prima donna?

Unless you're suggesting they should have stood in the middle of the Chamber and ‘the Commons’ take turns at them, they were questioned by a sitting Select Committee comprising (it would appear from the quality of questioning) zero legally qualified MPs.

Remind me, what was your ever-so-worthwhile point? Something about 'the Commons' questioning them because of so many silks? Love to hear more about that.

Having problems with your reading comprehension again? Must be something to do with getting in a tizz every time someone points out that you're coming out with a load of old bollocks.

I'll simplify what I said for you. Parliament, especially the House of Commons, has a disproportionately high number of lawyers on the benches. Nothing about the Commons questioning anybody. Such an active imagination you have.

Learn to read, or learn to keep quiet, in case you reveal what people have previously only guessed at: That you're an idiot.
 
Back
Top Bottom