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

[5t3IIa]

That's now in the record and counts as proper legal stuff right?

It's in Morgan's book The Insider and that was gone over in December (or whenever). He said the same thing in print in 2005 that Paxman says he said to him at the dinner. Just fyi.

 

[elbows]

Finally Mr Smith is on.

Michels evidence sounds like it will take a while to publish due to the quantity of material.

 

[gabi]

Crikey. he's a boy.

 

[Lock&Light]

Crikey. he's a boy.

30 years old is hardly a "boy".

 

[gabi]

Considering the CV they just read out he's young for the position he finds himself in. i assume that's why leveson interrupted to ask him his age.

 

[DaveCinzano]

It's in Morgan's book The Insider and that was gone over in December (or whenever). He said the same thing in print in 2005 that Paxman says he said to him at the dinner. Just fyi.

But repeatedly Morgan's book has been shown to be a less than accurate account, especially in terms of details, and in its presentation as a diary (Eyes passim).

Whilst he certainly mentioned phonehacking as an industry-pervasive activity in the book, he didn't specifically claim to have undertaken it himself. In it he claims the Jonsson/Eriksson story was passed to him by another journalist, and that he confirmed it in a conversation with Jonsson's agent. Indeed, he vociferously denied that the book made any claims to his personal use of phonehacking (remember the spat with Louise Mensch?)

This sticks it on the record, alongside the earlier evidence given by Richard Wallace (the journalist Morgan referred to) back in January, and Morgan's own account to Leveson last December.

 

[Streathamite]

The direct texts between Michel and Hunt might be new, but they aren't so much a smoking gun but rather an indication that they were friendly towards each other.

given that JH was the minister with the remit for referring murdoch's bid for the rest of BSkyB to ofcoom/mmc, and even to block that extremely controversial bid outright, I'd say even that degree of friendliness is enough of a smoking gun, in itself

 

[elbows]

given that JH was the minister with the remit for referring murdoch's bid for the rest of BSkyB to ofcoom/mmc, and even to block that extremely controversial bid outright, I'd say even that degree of friendliness is enough of a smoking gun, in itself

Well it may well turn out that one or two of the text messages will be successfully used as dynamite by the media. My own standards for 'smoking gun' are reserved for very dramatic evidence that is new and makes a certain conclusion seem almost inevitable. Nothing today achieved that for me, but perhaps I've set the bar wrong.

Jay is doing fairly well with Smith, so Im listening closely right now.

 

[elbows]

lol I may be misinterpreting it but so far Smith is demonstrating a lack of understanding of the whole Quasi-judicial thing, and even who may be considered an interested party in the bid.

 

[gabi]

lulz, yeh Michel didnt seem to understand the term 'quasi-judicial' either. i kept waiting for him to deploy the fact that english isnt his first language.

 

[elbows]

Just when it was getting interesting, its all over till tomorrow morning, when Smith will return.

At this rate the permanent secretary will then have his work cut out for him in managing to make it look like the department took the quasi-judicial thing seriously, and understood that sky & news corp were not the only interested parties to the bid.

From what I've heard so far, I would think that even if we throw away much of Michel's dramatic language, a case could be made for dismissing Hunt based on a failure to ensure his special advisor was acting appropriately during the process. This is hardly news, but its certainly an angle I would fall back on if some other avenues go nowhere.

 

[London_Calling]

given that JH was the minister with the remit for referring murdoch's bid for the rest of BSkyB to ofcoom/mmc, and even to block that extremely controversial bid outright, I'd say even that degree of friendliness is enough of a smoking gun, in itself

 

[DaveCinzano]

I suspect that on the last day of the inquiry Mr Jay will turn up at the RCJ in a battered old Peugeot convertible, leave a shonky-looking Bassett Hound with the court bailiff, put down a chewed-up cigar onto his stack of documents, and then proceed to tie up every last thread he has pulled at over the past few months until he's got a massive great macramé hammer with which to nail everyone's bollocks to the wall.

 

[elbows]

I suspect that on the last day of the inquiry Mr Jay will turn up at the RCJ in a battered old Peugeot convertible, leave a shonky-looking Bassett Hound with the court bailiff, put down a chewed-up cigar onto his stack of documents, and then proceed to tie up every last thread he has pulled at over the past few months until he's got a massive great macramé hammer with which to nail everyone's bollocks to the wall.

Maybe so, although I expect certain bollocks will escape a full nailing when all is said & done, whilst others were nailed as soon as detail has emerged, no need to wait for report conclusions, convictions or sackings to see great damage done to those whose reputations meant so much to their level of power. And I have to balance any glee I feel for specific swine getting nailed with a deep desire not to see the squandering of an opportunity for a broader media change to occur. Leveson has his work cut out for him in terms of recommendations for future regulation, and coming up with something that will actually be implemented by others, and I shall be most upset if we don't emerge from this with anything that will curb some of the most disgusting excesses of the likes of the Daily Mail. This golden opportunity is made even harder to make the most of by the sort of stuff that Andrew Marr ended up talking about in regards to bloggers etc, i.e. defining who can be touched by regulation. There also seem to be some problems with the private detective aspect, since it doesn't seem to be an area they want to intrude on too deeply as there are several cans of worms there that are even harder to deal with than issues of the press. And all of this without even beginning to dwell on the purely party political issues which can impact on the chances of Leveson recommendations turning into solid, enforceable rules.

 

[Streathamite]

Well it may well turn out that one or two of the text messages will be successfully used as dynamite by the media. My own standards for 'smoking gun' are reserved for very dramatic evidence that is new and makes a certain conclusion seem almost inevitable. Nothing today achieved that for me, but perhaps I've set the bar wrong.

Jay is doing fairly well with Smith, so Im listening closely right now.

by 'smoking gun' I mean that Hunts quasi-judicial authority and status is totally compromised, if we take the full totality of texts and emails revealed today, together with Smith's somewhat nonchalant viweing of the whole 'quasi-judicial' thing. The press will make a 3 course meal out of this, given how battered News Corp's reputation is

 

[elbows]

Well I was speaking before Smith went on, and most of our disagreement boils down to how I reserve the smoking gun phrase for a specific juicy revelation that is either brand new or reinforces an existing suspicion to a significant new extent. Perhaps some of todays evidence does get at least close to meeting the latter part of this criteria, not yet fully sure, I couldn't take it all in in realtime.

Since Smith started putting his foot in it later, and publications are drawing attention to specific fragments of earlier evidence, I would say today may well add a notable degree of pressure to several players. Its certainly enough for the Guardian to write stories that make Hunt, Smith & Cameron look bad. Now I have to wait to see if theres anything from today that a wider section of the press will make much of.

Or to look at it from a different angle, my own instincts for when a ministers position may become untenable may well be subject to excessive optimism (anticipation they will go), and so I try to moderate my expectations to compensate for this.

Ick my brain hurts, watching inquiries or reading technical, legal or government documents leaves me in a state where I am even more likely than normal to talk like a robot for a while afterwards.

 

[Streathamite]

I don't think we're in that great a disagreement, and I agree a better picture may emerge by tomorrow evening (Smith is still to complete his evidence).
one other interesting thing tho'; all throughout this, NI were adamant they had no plans for cross-media bundling; now it transpires that was precisaely their plan - 'wapping 2'

 

[elbows]

Deliberately looking at what the Telegraph are saying rather than the Guardian, its not looking good for the tories

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...r-BSkyB-before-taking-charge-of-decision.html

The Culture Secretary told the Prime Minister it would be “totally wrong” for the Government to “cave in” to News Corp’s opponents and instead allow it to help the UK “lead the way” in the media industry.
The memo was not declared by either Mr Cameron or Mr Hunt when the Culture Secretary took over the brief for handling the BSkyB bid from Vince Cable, meaning both Mr Cameron and Mr Hunt are likely to face serious questions from the Opposition.
Just four days before he wrote the memo, Mr Hunt had spoken to James Murdoch on his mobile phone, having been told by lawyers to cancel a proposed meeting with the News Corp executive.
The memo, dated November 19, 2010, said: “James Murdoch is pretty furious at Vince's referral [of the bid] to Ofcom.
“He doesn’t think he will get a fair hearing from Ofcom. I am privately concerned about this because News Corp are very litigious and we could end up in the wrong place in terms of media policy.

“He thinks what James Murdoch wants to do is to repeat what his father did with the move to Wapping and create the world's first multi-platform media operator, available from paper to web to TV to iPhone to iPad.
“Isn't this what all media companies have to do ultimately? And if so, we must be very careful that any attempt to block it is done on genuine plurality grounds and not as a result of lobbying by competitors.
“The UK has the chance to lead the way ... but if we block it our media sector will suffer for years. In the end I am sure sensible controls with be put into any merger to ensure that there is plurality but I think it would be totally wrong to cave in to the Mark Thompson/Channel 4/Guardian line that this represents a substantial change of control given that we all know Sky is controlled by News Corp now anyway.
“What next? Ofcom will issue their report saying whether it needs to go to the Competition Commission by 31 December. It would be totally wrong for the government to get involved in a competition issue which has to be decided at arm's length. “However I do think you, I, Vince and the DPM should meet to discuss the policy issues that are thrown up as a result.”

And thats before even getting into the text messages between Michel and Hunt.

LOL

 

[Roadkill]

Or, as the same august paper's sketch-writer puts it: Memo to Mr Cameron - you've got problems

Heheheheheheheheheh

 

[two sheds]

Yes, particularly with Cable having been specifically removed because he was anti Murdoch, Cameron chooses someone who is pro Murdoch.

I wonder how this ties in to the Murdochs' discussions with Cameron. I should be able to work it out but can't be bothered.

 

[magneze]

When's Cameron up?

 

[DaveCinzano]

Yes, particularly with Cable having been specifically removed because he was anti Murdoch, Cameron chooses someone who is pro Murdoch.

That's called balance.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I think it would be totally wrong to cave in to the Mark Thompson/Channel 4/Guardian line that this represents a substantial change of control given that we all know Sky is controlled by News Corp now anyway.

He's surely got to go

 

[DaveCinzano]

Crikey. he's a boy.

To paraphrase someone or other, no longer a boy, not yet a man.

 

[DexterTCN]

Why should Hunt go? Cameron was well aware of Hunt's position - and appointed him. Hunt was only doing what he would reasonably be expected to do, flying the murdoch flag.

That's why disco dave put him in that position.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Why should Hunt go? Cameron was well aware of Hunt's position - and appointed him. Hunt was only doing what he would reasonably be expected to do, flying the murdoch flag.

That's why disco dave put him in that position.

Don't want to defend Dave in anyway, but is there anyone in the Tory party who hasn't had their tongue up Murdoch's arse for many years?

 

[DexterTCN]

Do we really think dave would appoint someone who was not going to have things turn out the way dave wants?

Hunt sacked Smith, no-one really believes it was Smith who was at it, the sacking was met with general derision and unimpressedness. (I made that word up)

Sacking Hunt, although it's certainly welcome, is merely the same thing again. Another fire-wall.

 

[laptop]

Crikey. he's a boy.

*cough*

Appeared so, er, fresh out of PPE at Magdalen that "spotty youth" was likely to be an aspiration for his future... friends of laptop said.

And not a civil servant - probably a member of Hunt's staff. Such people speak for their bosses. And frequently think for them too. No get-out for Hunt there - just the option of denunciation.

laptop, Apr 24, 2012

 

[London_Calling]

Got nothing more on Jezza, it seems. Certainly a shrewdy.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Haven't been watching yet this morning, but just caught that Tony Blair is up on Monday.

Almost certainly won't be as interesting as we hope, unless he tries to stick the Tories in it, which he is certainly not adverse to doing.