Murdoch's Scum Credentials All In Order I See

[zigackly]

Who is "David Jones Investigative Journalist" employed by?

 

No idea, but track that down and it might lead to an interesting pile of shit ...

[Anny Road]

If that's the best they can front her with she has nothing to fear.

Bet you it's Piers Morgan.

[PestiRed]

There's an investigative journalist called David Jones at the Daily Mail. Given the Motorman accusations it wouldn't surprise me if they were involved

[zigackly]

Presuming Mensch will have tipped the police off. He's done nothing illegal there, but it's highly suspicious behaviour at least.

[Whelan]

He should have asked if there is anything in the rumour that her real father is Jimmy Hill.

The fucking ugly bint.

[zigackly]

I don't have a lot of time for Mensch by the way, but sending that email is disgusting.

[dennis tooth]

July 29, 2011

 

Murdoch's Other Moral Crimes

 

When Rupert and James Murdoch appeared before the House of Commons media select committee on July 19, not one of the MP inquisitors demanded accountability for News International’s biggest moral crime – its shameful role as a facilitator of war. Robin Beste, of the Stop the War Coalition, put it succinctly:

 

‘Rupert Murdoch's newspapers and TV channels have supported all the US-UK wars over the past 30 years, from Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands war in 1982, through George Bush Senior and the first Gulf War in 1990-91, Bill Clinton's war in Yugoslavia in 1999 and his undeclared war on Iraq in 1998, George W Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Tony Blair on his coat tails, and up to the present, with Barack Obama continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and now adding Libya to his tally of seven wars.’

 

The consequences in Iraq include a million dead people, four million refugees, a devastated country and the West’s corporate capture of huge oil resources.

 

David Swanson observes correctly that ‘Murdoch has blood on his hands’ and reminds readers of Article 20 of the UN International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights: ‘Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.’

 

Murdoch admitted his complicity during a televised debate at the World Economic Forum in Davos when he said that his media empire had tried to shape public opinion in support of the Iraq war. That he largely failed in his aim, thanks to the scepticism of the public towards the incessant war-mongering, does not detract from the scale of his wrongdoing.

 

The Hall Of Shame: Samples From The Archives

 

Consider some of the evidence of the Murdoch empire’s attempts to manipulate the public. The Sun screamed ‘BRITS 45 MINUTES FROM DOOM’ on its front page following Tony Blair’s ‘dodgy dossier’ of September 2002. When UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix found no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the Sun’s hysterical headline was ‘HE'S GOT 'EM. LET'S GET HIM’. Once the war was underway, the Sun and News of the World were full of propaganda about the need to get behind ‘our boys’ (and girls). In the United States, Fox News was perhaps even worse: a primitive mix of ‘patriotism’ and vitriol directed against even mild dissenters.

 

The Times could be relied upon to put a more genteel sheen on the propaganda. Michael Gove, then a Times journalist, now Secretary of State for Education, wrote:

 

‘We have no alternative but to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq to prevent Saddam completing his drive to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Massive military force must be deployed to remove Saddam's regime.’ (Gove, 'We need Bush and not Saddam calling the shots,' The Times, August 28, 2002)

 

Gove remains in close contact with his former colleagues. George Eaton reports in the New Statesman this week:

 

‘The Education Secretary listed 11 meetings at which executives from the company [News Corp] were present, including seven with Rupert Murdoch. Gove met the News Corp head more times than any other minister and had dinner with him twice last month.’

 

Gove’s wife, Sarah Vine, works for News International.

 

In 2004, after Fallujah had been subjected to a brutal US onslaught leaving at least 800 civilians dead, a Times editorial declared:

 

‘the US military had to act decisively or fail those entitled to its protection.' (Leading article, ‘Taking Fallujah,’ The Times, November 10, 2004)

 

In 2006, the prestigious Lancet journal published a paper estimating the Iraq war death toll at around 650,000. The study was led by researchers from the world-renowned Johns Hopkins University and followed standard epidemiological practice for estimating mortality in war. John Tirman, who commissioned the Lancet study, notes in a recent article that ‘the Murdoch media machine did its part in attempting to discredit the household surveys’ which formed the basis of the paper:

 

‘The reaction to the Johns Hopkins estimate of 650,000 “excess deaths” came in for savage treatment, trashed as a “political hit” in Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. This campaign against the scientists had a chilling effect.’

 

The ‘chilling effect’ meant the corporate media failed to give the study the prominence it deserved. But awkward silences and embarrassed shoe-gazing is standard behaviour when we, the good guys, are doing the killing.

 

Like most newspapers, The Times and Sunday Times have published good journalism: Michael Smith’s excellent investigative reporting on the Downing Street Memos springs to mind. So too does Jerome Starkey’s work to expose the horrific killing of Afghan schoolchildren in night-time raids led by US forces. The Times editors were, however, on hand to portray the atrocity in the required context of a 'just war':

 

‘The legitimacy of the cause in Afghanistan is called into question by civilian deaths. The conflict needs to be conducted with regard for the native population.’

 

Not content to justify war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Murdoch press has lined up Iran in its crosshairs. In 2006, Times columnist Gerard Baker donned his fatigues and boots to declare:

 

‘The unimaginable but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are going to have to get ready for war with Iran.'

 

In 2008, The Times once again came under the Media Lens spotlight for its unbalanced coverage on Iran. Our analysis of the output of the paper's then chief foreign commentator, Bronwen Maddox, did not go down well. In fact, we received threats of legal and police action from Alastair Brett, then legal director of Times Newspapers Limited. This was the first time we had been subjected to such outrageous threats. Peter Wilby, former News Statesman editor, suggested it was ‘an extraordinary reaction’ from the giant newspaper group, while Noam Chomsky said pithily that the Times reaction was ‘pretty sick’.

 

In 2010, Times propaganda over the Iranian nuclear ‘threat’ was ramped up yet again when the paper published documents which, it confidently asserted, showed Iran’s intention to develop a trigger for a nuclear weapon. In fact, the authenticity of the documents was highly questionable, with some intelligence experts claiming they were forgeries most likely created as part of an attempt to further boost war fervour against Iran.

 

Meanwhile, The Times continued to shore up Western foreign policy in its attack on WikiLeaks in an editorial last October:

 

‘Nowhere in WikiLeaks's self-serving self publicity is there a judgment of what the organisation is achieving for the Iraqi nation, and what it hopes to achieve... Its personnel are partisans intervening in the security affairs of Western democracies and their allies, with a culpable heedlessness of human life.’ (Leader, ‘Exercise in Sanctimony; The release of military files by WikiLeaks is partisan and irresponsible,’ The Times, October 25, 2010)

 

The Times managed to miss the target by a full 360 degrees. It is the corporate media, not WikiLeaks, which demonstrates a ‘culpable heedlessness of human life’ in its endorsement of the West’s fixed foreign policy: to attack, bomb, invade, torture and steal based on any pretext that can be fed to the public.

 

The above is but a tiny sample of the abysmal historical record of News International. Journalist Neil Clark correctly noted of Murdoch’s papers that ‘no other newspaper group has as much blood on its hands when it comes to propagandising for illegal and fraudulent military conflicts.’

 

 

His Master’s Voice: Cues From The Boss

 

In 2001, reporter Sam Kiley left The Times following ‘pro-Israeli censorship’ of his reporting. Why the censorship? Kiley believed the explanation lay in Murdoch's heavy investment in Israel and close friendship with the then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. Indeed, Murdoch has travelled to Israel numerous times and met many of its leaders. Kiley said:

 

‘In the war of words, no newspaper has been so happy to hand the keys of the armoury over to one side than the Times.

 

‘The Times foreign editor and other middle managers flew into hysterical terror every time a pro-Israel lobbying group wrote in with a quibble or complaint and then usually took their side against their own correspondent.’

 

He added:

 

‘No pro-Israel lobbyist ever dreamed of having such power over a great national newspaper.’

 

Robert Fisk, now at the Independent, explained that he too left The Times after interference with his reporting on the Middle East:

 

‘The end came for me when I flew to Dubai in 1988 after the USS Vincennes [a US Navy guided missile cruiser] had shot down an Iranian passenger airliner over the Gulf. Within 24 hours, I had spoken to the British air traffic controllers at Dubai, discovered that US ships had routinely been threatening British Airways airliners, and that the crew of the Vincennes appeared to have panicked. The foreign desk told me the report was up for the page-one splash. I warned them that American ‘leaks’ that the IranAir pilot was trying to suicide-crash his aircraft on to the Vincennes were rubbish. They agreed.

 

‘Next day, my report appeared with all criticism of the Americans deleted, with all my sources ignored. The Times even carried an editorial suggesting the pilot was indeed a suicider. A subsequent US official report and accounts by US naval officers subsequently proved my dispatch correct. Except that Times readers were not allowed to see it.’

 

Fisk said that he believed Murdoch did not personally intervene. However:

 

‘He didn't need to. He had turned The Times into a tame, pro-Tory, pro-Israeli paper shorn of all editorial independence.’

 

In March 2009, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) honoured Murdoch with their ‘National Human Relations Award’. In his speech, Murdoch declared his own version of Middle East reality, including this gem:

 

'In Iran, we see a regime that backs Hezbollah and Hamas now on course to acquire a nuclear weapon.'

 

So Murdoch’s editors and columnists can be in no doubt of where the boss stands on the ‘threat’ of Iran. News Corp employees would also do well to heed the master’s views on Israel, made clear in the same speech: namely, that the state is an integral part of the West as ‘defined by societies committed to freedom and democracy’. Only weeks after the brutal onslaught by Israeli forces in Gaza, with around 1400 Palestinians killed including over 400 women and children, Murdoch had this to say to his audience:

 

‘My friends, I do not pretend to have all the answers to Gaza this evening. But I do know this: The free world makes a terrible mistake if we deceive ourselves into thinking this is not our fight.

 

‘In the end, the Israeli people are fighting the same enemy we are: cold-blooded killers who reject peace … who reject freedom … and who rule by the suicide vest, the car bomb, and the human shield.

 

‘Against such an enemy, I will not second-guess the decisions of a free Israel defending her citizens. And I would ask all those who support peace and freedom to do the same.’

 

Murdoch’s pro-Israeli position is reflected in his newspapers. According to Isi Liebler, an Australian Jewish community leader who now lives in Israel, Murdoch’s ‘affection’ for the state ‘arose less out of his conservative sensibility than from his native Australian sympathy for the underdog fending off elites seized by conventional wisdoms’. Liebler added:

 

‘He's met Israelis, he's been to Israel, he's seen Israel as the plucky underdog when the rest of the world saw Israel as an occupier.’

 

But the pro-Israel lobby is now ‘warily watching the unfolding of the phone-hacking scandal that is threatening to engulf’ his media empire. ‘Murdoch’s sudden massive reversal of fortune’ has ‘supporters of Israel worried that a diminished Murdoch presence may mute the strongly pro-Israel voice of many of the publications he owns.’

 

One recent article in the Jewish Chronicle was even headed, ‘Is this curtains for pro-Israel Murdoch?’

 

 

The Farcical Faustian Pact

 

Andrew Neil, a former Murdoch editor, once said that although the media mogul would not intervene directly at The Times or the Sunday Times, ‘he does regard himself as someone who should have more influence on these papers than anyone else.’

 

During his time as Sunday Times editor, Neil ‘was never in any doubt what the News Corp boss thought about issues.’ It obviously helped that Neil and Murdoch ‘share[d] a common worldview’; indeed this is a requirement for all editors and proprietors:

 

‘An editor has to be on the same planet [as the paper’s owner]. You don't have to be on the same continent or the same country for all of the time but you need to be on the same planet.’

 

When it came to Murdoch’s tabloid press, direct intervention by the owner did take place:

 

‘If you want to know what Rupert Murdoch really thinks read the editorials in the Sun and the New York Post because he is editor-in-chief of these papers.’

 

Neil continued:

 

‘There is no major geopolitical position that the Sun will take whether its attitude to the euro or to the current European treaty or to whom the paper will support in the upcoming general election. None of that can be decided without Rupert Murdoch's major input.’

 

In 1999, News of the World exposed the former Tory MP Jeffrey Archer as a liar and perjurer, which led to him being imprisoned. But Murdoch had not wanted the Archer scoop to be published and sacked the editor Phil Hall for defying him. It was a clear example of what happens to editors who step out of line.

 

The threat of proprietorial interference, then, is always present; whether directly (Murdoch’s tabloid press) or by knowing exactly what the owner’s views are and conforming to them (Murdoch’s ‘quality’ press). Denying or downplaying all of this, even in defiance of the clear ‘evidence’, is ‘in everyone's interests’, said Neil, adding:

 

‘It suits the editors and proprietors to continue this farce.’

 

This is not limited to the Murdoch press. Throughout the corporate media, editors and proprietors enter a ‘Faustian pact’ to pretend that interference does not happen; editors do not want to be seen ‘as puppets of proprietors.’ But, in effect, that is what they are.

 

Thus, it is important to look beyond the Murdoch media empire at the wider context of the scandal engulfing News International, a corrupt police force and a supine political establishment. Seumas Milne made some good observations along these lines in the Guardian recently:

 

‘These revelations [of phone hacking] should ram home the reality that Britain has become a far more corrupt country than many realise. Much of that has been driven by the privatisation-fuelled revolving door culture that gives former ministers and civil servants plum jobs in the companies they were previously regulating.’

 

Milne notes that several ‘opportunities’ to clean up this corruption ‘have come and gone’:

 

‘First the official deception of the Iraq war, then the collapse of a deregulated banking system, then the exposure of systematic sleaze in parliament revealed a growing crisis in the way the country is run. Now that crisis has been shown to have spread to the media and police. Official Britain isn't working. Sooner or later, pressure for change will become unstoppable.’

 

It is hard to argue with Milne’s article. But he is silent, for obvious reasons, about the Guardian’s important role as a liberal gatekeeper that helps preserve the established order. As we have repeatedly pointed out in our media alerts and books, this role is a crucial missing ingredient in any serious discussion of the nexus of power, politics and the media. As ever, we have to look to someone commenting from beyond the confines of the self-regarding Guardian for the unvarnished truth. John Pilger is one such voice:

 

‘the truth is, Britain's system of elite monopoly control of the media rests not on News International alone, but on the Mail and the Guardian and the BBC, perhaps the most influential of all. All share a corporate monoculture that sets the agenda of the “news”, defines acceptable politics by maintaining the fiction of distinctive parties, normalises unpopular wars and guards the limits of “free speech”. This will be strengthened by the illusion that a “bad apple” has been “rooted out”.’

 

Even if Murdoch’s empire were to collapse, there would still be no free press, no responsible corporate news agenda and no brave new world of media democracy. For these to take root, the stranglehold of corporate media and corporate politics needs to be broken. That will happen only when enough people demand change.

 

 

SUGGESTED ACTION

 

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. For this alert we are leaving it up to you to decide which journalists, if any, to contact.

[lifetime fan]

Just to warn people this is the cunt on Question Time.

 

‪Kelvin MacKenzie on Question Time - Hillsborough‬‏ - YouTube

 

I'd urge people to watch until the end to see what the printer says.

[lfcwonderboy1]

that mans just got 6 weeks in wansworth for chucking a foam pie at his face.... what a joke? that bitch should get at least 5 years for slapping him then?

[zigackly]

Six weeks in Wandsworth is more than any of those who signed the pay cheques will get.

[DJLJ]

Phone hacking: News of the World reporter's letter reveals cover-up | Media | guardian.co.uk

 

Phone hacking: News of the World reporter's letter reveals cover-up

 

Disgraced royal correspondent Clive Goodman's letter says phone hacking was 'widely discussed' at NoW meetings

• Read Clive Goodman's letter to News International

 

Nick Davies

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 August 2011 12.34 BST

Article history

 

Clive Goodman

The News of the World's former royal correpsondent, Clive Goodman, who was jailed over phone hacking. A letter from him claims phone hacking was widely discussed at the paper. Photograph: Carl De Souza/AFP/Getty Images

 

Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and their former editor Andy Coulson all face embarrassing new allegations of dishonesty and cover-up after the publication of an explosive letter written by the News of the World's disgraced royal correspondent, Clive Goodman.

 

In the letter, which was written four years ago but published only on Tuesday, Goodman claims that phone hacking was "widely discussed" at editorial meetings at the paper until Coulson himself banned further references to it; that Coulson offered to let him keep his job if he agreed not to implicate the paper in hacking when he came to court; and that his own hacking was carried out with "the full knowledge and support" of other senior journalists, whom he named.

 

The claims are acutely troubling for the prime minister, David Cameron, who hired Coulson as his media adviser on the basis that he knew nothing about phone hacking. And they confront Rupert and James Murdoch with the humiliating prospect of being recalled to parliament to justify the evidence which they gave last month on the aftermath of Goodman's allegations. In a separate letter, one of the Murdochs' own law firms claim that parts of that evidence were variously "hard to credit", "self-serving" and "inaccurate and misleading".

 

Goodman's claims also raise serious questions about Rupert Murdoch's close friend and adviser, Les Hinton, who was sent a copy of the letter but failed to pass it to police and who then led a cast of senior Murdoch personnel in telling parliament that they believed Coulson knew nothing about the interception of the voicemail of public figures and that Goodman was the only journalist involved.

 

The letters from Goodman and from the London law firm Harbottle & Lewis are among a cache of paperwork published by the Commons culture, media and sport select committee. One committee member, the Labour MP Tom Watson, said Goodman's letter was "absolutely devastating". He said: "Clive Goodman's letter is the most significant piece of evidence that has been revealed so far. It completely removes News International's defence. This is one of the largest cover-ups I have seen in my lifetime."

 

Goodman's letter is dated 2 March 2007, soon after he was released from a four-month prison sentence. It is addressed to News International's director of human resources, Daniel Cloke, and registers his appeal against the decision of Hinton, the company's then chairman, to sack him for gross misconduct after he admitted intercepting the voicemail of three members of the royal household. Goodman lists five grounds for his appeal.

 

He argues that the decision is perverse because he acted "with the full knowledge and support" of named senior journalists and that payments for the private investigator who assisted him, Glenn Mulcaire, were arranged by another senior journalist. The names of the journalists have been redacted from the published letter at the request of Scotland Yard, who are investigating the affair.

 

Goodman then claims that other members of staff at the News of the World were also hacking phones. Crucially, he adds: "This practice was widely discussed in the daily editorial conference, until explicit reference to it was banned by the editor." He reveals that the paper continued to consult him on stories even though they knew he was going to plead guilty to phone hacking and that the paper's then lawyer, Tom Crone, knew all the details of the case against him.

 

In a particularly embarrassing allegation, he adds: "Tom Crone and the editor promised on many occasions that I could come back to a job at the newspaper if I did not implicate the paper or any of its staff in my mitigation plea. I did not, and I expect the paper to honour its promise to me." In the event, Goodman lost his appeal. But the claim that the paper induced him to mislead the court is one that may cause further problems for News International.

 

Two versions of his letter were provided to the committee. One which was supplied by Harbottle & Lewis has been redacted to remove the names of journalists, at the request of police. The other, which was supplied by News International, has been redacted to remove not only the names but also all references to hacking being discussed in Coulson's editorial meetings and to Coulson's offer to keep Goodman on staff if he agreed not to implicate the paper.

 

The company also faces a new claim that it misled parliament. In earlier evidence to the select committee, in answer to questions about whether it had bought Goodman's silence, it had said he was paid off with a period of notice plus compensation of no more than £60,000. The new paperwork, however, reveals that Goodman was paid a full year's salary, worth £90,502.08, plus a further £140,000 in compensation as well as £13,000 to cover his lawyer's bill. Watson said: "It's hush money. I think they tried to buy his silence." Murdoch's executives have always denied this.

 

When Goodman's letter reached News International four years ago, it set off a chain reaction which now threatens embarrassment for Rupert and James Murdoch personally. The company resisted Goodman's appeal, and he requested disclosure of emails sent to and from six named senior journalists on the paper. The company collected 2,500 emails and sent them to Harbottle & Lewis and asked the law firm to examine them.

 

Harbottle & Lewis then produced a letter, which has previously been published by the select committee in a non-redacted form: "I can confirm that we did not find anything in those emails which appeared to us to be reasonable evidence that Clive Goodman's illegal actions were known about and supported by both or either of Andy Coulson, the editor, and Neil Wallis, the deputy editor, and/or that Ian Edmondson, the news editor, and others were carrying out similar illegal procedures."

 

In their evidence to the select committee last month, the Murdochs presented this letter as evidence that the company had been given a clean bill of health. However, the Metropolitan police have since said that the emails contained evidence of "alleged payments by corrupt journalists to corrupt police officers". And the former director of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, who examined a small sample of the emails, said they contained evidence of indirect hacking, breaches of national security and serious crime.

 

In a lengthy reply, Harbottle & Lewis say it was never asked to investigate whether crimes generally had been committed at the News of the World but had been instructed only to say whether the emails contained evidence that Goodman had hacked phones with "the full knowledge and support" of the named senior journalists. The law firm reveals that the letter was the result of a detailed negotiation with News International's senior lawyer, Jon Chapman, and it refused to include a line which he suggested, that, having seen a copy of Goodman's letter of 2 March: "We did not find anything that we consider to be directly relevant to the grounds of appeal put forward by him."

 

In a lengthy criticism of the Murdochs' evidence to the select committee last month, Harbottle & Lewis says it finds it "hard to credit" James Murdoch's repeated claim that News International "rested on" its letter as part of their grounds for believing that Goodman was a "rogue reporter". It says News International's view of the law firm's role is "self-serving" and that Rupert Murdoch's claim that it was hired "to find out what the hell was going on" was "inaccurate and misleading", although it adds that he may have been confused or misinformed about its role.

 

Harbottle & Lewis writes: "There was absolutely no question of the firm being asked to provide News International with a clean bill of health which it could deploy years later in wholly different contexts for wholly different purposes … The firm was not being asked to provide some sort of 'good conduct certificate' which News International could show to parliament … Nor was it being given a general retainer, as Mr Rupert Murdoch asserted it was, 'to find out what the hell was going on'."

 

The law firm's challenge to the Murdochs' evidence follows an earlier claim made jointly by the paper's former editor and former lawyer that a different element of James Murdoch's evidence to the committee was "mistaken". He had told the committee that he had paid more than £1m to settle a legal action brought by Gordon Taylor of the Professional Footballers Association without knowing that Taylor's lawyers had obtained an email from a junior reporter to the paper's chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, containing 35 transcripts of voicemail messages. Crone and the former editor, Colin Myler, last month challenged this.

 

In letters published by the committee, the former News of the World lawyer repeats his position. He says this email was "the sole reason" for settling Taylor's case. He says he took it with him to a meeting with James Murdoch in June 2008 when he explained the need to settle: "I have no doubt that I informed Mr Murdoch of its existence, of what it was and where it came from."

 

Myler, in a separate letter also published on Tuesday, endorses Crone's account. Their evidence raises questions about James Murdoch's failure to tell the police or his shareholders about the evidence of crime contained in the email.

 

Watson said that both Murdochs should be recalled to the committee to explain their evidence. Hinton, who resigned last month, may join them. Four days after Goodman sent his letter, Hinton gave evidence to the select committee in which he made no reference to any of the allegations contained in the letter, but told MPs: "I believe absolutely that Andy [Coulson] did not have knowledge of what was going on". He added that he had carried out a full, rigorous internal inquiry and that he believed Goodman was the only person involved.

[Kevin D]

[TheHitman]

Here is the link to the letter by Clive Goodman.

 

Clive Goodman's letter to News International | Media | guardian.co.uk

[lifetime fan]

It'll take more than that unfortunately.

 

Hopefully emails have been saved.

[PestiRed]

This bit could be the killer

 

Worse, two versions of the Goodman letter were given to the committee - one, supplied by News International, redacted to remove all references to hacking being discussed in editorial meetings.

[PestiRed]

It's going to be difficult for James Murdoch to deny a deliberate cover-up when the evidence he sent to the select committee appears to deliberately hide evidence of a cover-up

Compare Goodman Letter Redactions by News Corp and Law Firm - ProPublica

[Sut]

Phone hacking: News of the World Hollywood reporter is arrested | Media | guardian.co.uk

 

Phone hacking: News of the World Hollywood reporter is arrested

James Desborough is arrested by London police investigating UK hacking allegations

 

 

Amelia Hill

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 August 2011 10.29 BST

 

 

James Desborough, an award-winning reporter at the former News of the World newspaper, has been arrested by officers investigating the phone-hacking scandal.

 

Desborough was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications, contrary to section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 after arriving at a south London police station on Thursday morning at 10.30am. He had arrived at the station by appointment for questioning about criminal activities at the paper.

 

The allegations are believed to relate to events prior to Desborough being promoted to be the newspaper's Los Angeles-based US editor in April 2009.

 

He was given the job less than a month after winning the British Press Award for showbusiness reporter of the year.

 

His move to the US makes his arrest, the 13th made by Operation Weeting, particularly significant. If Desborough was involved in hacking while in Britain, as police appear to believe he was, it raises the question of whether he practised those techniques in the US – and if so, whether he was the first and only News of the World journalist in the US to do so.

 

At the 2009 British Press Awards ceremony, Desborough was praised by judges for his series of "uncompromising scoops which mean no celebrity with secrets can sleep easy". He was presented with his award by Jon Snow, the respected Channel 4 journalist and anchorman.

 

Desborough continued to win plaudits after his move to America. Ian Halperin, a Hollywood author, described him as someone who "never gets his facts wrong. He's a rock solid reporter." Hollyscope, an online site, also praised Desborough for "seem[ing] to have information that not even close family members … know."

 

Desborough joined the News of the World in 2005 and broke stories including "Fern's big fat lie", which revealed that former This Morning host Fern Britton's dramatic weight loss was the result of having a gastric band fitted, not exercise and sensible eating as had been thought.

 

Desborough was writing for the News of the World up until it closed last month. He was among journalists who travelled with Prince William and Kate Middleton on their post-honeymoon trip to Los Angeles.

 

His final story for the online version of the paper was on 8 July, two days before it closed, claiming the new Duchess of Cambridge was to act in a Hollywood film.

[Sut]

A life unravelled … whistleblower who incurred wrath of the Murdoch empire | Media | The Guardian

 

A life unravelled … whistleblower who incurred wrath of the Murdoch empire

Relentless legal pursuit of ex-News Corp employee likened to 'Rambo tactics'

 

Ed Pilkington in New York

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 17 August 2011 19.09 BST

 

Five years ago Robert Emmel was enjoying the American dream. He lived in a detached house in a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, drove a BMW, and earned $140,000 a year as an accounts director in a highly successful advertising company called News America Marketing.

 

Today, Emmel is described by his lawyers as destitute. Jobless and in debt, he was discharged from bankruptcy last year. He does occasional consultancy work that last month brought in $500, and this month, court documents show, will probably produce nothing. His wife's earnings raise monthly household income to about $3,000 – half their outgoings.

 

This is a cautionary tale about what can happen to someone who dares to become a corporate whistleblower. Or, more specifically, someone who incurs the wrath of News Corporation, the media empire owned by Rupert Murdoch, of which News America forms a part.

 

Emmel's lawyer, Philip Hilder, has had a ringside seat at the gradual unravelling of his client's life. A former federal prosecutor based in Houston, Texas, Hilder is well versed in whistleblower cases having represented Sherron Watkins, who helped uncover the Enron scandal. Hilder said: "News America has engaged in Rambo litigation tactics. They have a scorched earth policy, and it's taken a huge toll on him."

 

News Corp has devoted the efforts of up to 29 lawyers to pursuing Emmel personally, at a cost estimated at more than $2m. Emmel, by contrast, has relied on two lawyers, Hilder and Marc Garber in Atlanta, working for no pay since January 2009.

 

Attention has been focused on News Corporation's activities in the UK, where the News of the World phone-hacking scandal has led to the arrest of 10 people associated with the company. In the US, oversight of News Corp is gathering pace with the department of justice and the FBI looking into the company, while senators are considering launching committee hearings into News Corp practices.

 

One incident that US investigators are exploring is the hacking of a website run by one of News America's rivals, an instore advertising business called Floorgraphics. The firm discovered that its password-protected site had been breached from an IP address at News America's offices in Connecticut. News America has condemned the breach as a "violation of the standards of our company" but says it does not know how it happened.

 

Emmel was one of the main witnesses for Floorgraphics at a subsequent trial against his old company. He worked for News America for seven years from 1999 to 2006, turning whistleblower in his final year there. The company is the leading US provider of in-store advertising services, helping to bring products from firms such as Coca-Cola, Kraft and Nabisco to the attention of supermarket shoppers. Headed by Paul Carlucci, who now publishes Murdoch's tabloid the New York Post, it enjoys annual revenues of more than $1bn and has a 90% stranglehold on the market. News America also has a record of legal disputes with its commercial rivals, three of whom have launched lawsuits against it in recent years accusing the firm of using unlawful practices.

 

All three lawsuits – including the Floorgraphics one and cases initiated by Valassis and Insignia – were eventually settled, but not before News America agreed to pay an astounding $655m to end the disputes. Emmel acted as a whistleblower in all three cases. He gave two days of evidence in the Floorgraphics trial after which News America rapidly settled, and was also named in the Valassis and Insignia cases.

 

By 2006 Emmel said he was increasingly concerned about what he alleged were improper practices on the part of his employers. He alleged that News America was engaging in "criminal conduct against competitors" and using "deceptive and illegal business practices" to defraud its retailer customers out of money owed. He claimed he had "substantial oral and documentary evidence" to support his allegation that the company had defrauded its own customers, used anti-competitive techniques against rival companies, and fraudulently inflated its reported earnings unbeknown to its shareholders.

 

News America denies the allegations. In a statement, it said: "There have been three very public lawsuits about these matters and at no time during any of these legal proceedings was any evidence produced to support Mr Emmel's claims."

 

For a year before he was sacked in November 2006, Emmel began compiling documentary evidence that he suggested backed up the allegations, and posted it to public bodies and individuals including the US securities and exchange commission, two senators, two Senate committees and the New York attorney general.

 

It is not known what happened to Emmel's allegations within the regulatory bodies he approached. He posted one set of 55 pages of documents on 20 December 2006, shortly after he had been fired and a day before he signed a non-disclosure agreement with News America.

 

That set of documents went to Nicholas Podsiadly, an official in Washington then working as an investigative counsel at the Senate finance committee. At one point, court documents show, Podsiadly said the committee was considering referring the allegations to the justice department and the federal trade commission.

 

Podsiadly did not reply to a request for information. A spokeswoman for the finance committee said nothing would be done with any documents sent by Emmel until the litigation over them had ended.

 

Emmel today remains under a court-imposed injunction that forbids him from disclosing anything from these documents. "I cannot comment," he said.

 

News America learned of Emmel's whistleblowing activities after it had sacked him in a dispute over his timekeeping. It then unleashed its legal armoury against him. In April 2007 it filed a lawsuit accusing him of six violations relating to his disclosure of confidential information, pressing its case with more than 300 pleadings to the Georgia courts. The company said Emmel refused to return "tens of thousands of stolen documents" and added: "Initiating legal action was News America Marketing's only recourse to protect the company's private information."

 

Despite the tenacity with which it has pursued Emmel, News America has had very little satisfaction through the courts. In March 2009 the district court in Georgia threw out all of its claims against him, bar one – a claim of breach of contract relating to his posting of the 55 pages of documents the day before he signed a non-disclosure agreement. Even that count, however, has been overturned by the US appeal court, which ruled in Emmel's favour in June, although the court kept the non-disclosure injunction in place noting that a significant proportion of Emmel's legal fees had been paid by News America's competitors.

 

In 2009 the company made clear that it intended to go to trial to ask for $425,000 from Emmel to cover legal costs incurred in the breach of contract element of the lawsuit, as it was entitled to dothough the sum was way beyond his ability to pay. Emmel's lawyers say the move forced him into bankruptcy. News America then insisted on a deposition to extract financial information out of Emmel, a move that is allowable under the law but that astonished Emmel's bankruptcy lawyer, Danny Coleman, because he says there had been no suggestion from the authorities that anything about the bankruptcy was out of order. "In my view, that was an abuse of the legal system," he said. "They took the law to its extreme and they used it to harass my client and prolong his agony.

 

After months of work on the deposition, nothing irregular was found. Hilder said he was struck by an irony in the Emmel case. "Here is a company, News Corp, that is in the business of disseminating information to the public, and yet its subsidiary does everything in its power to silence him."

 

News America denies engaging in inappropriate litigation and insists that it only wants to protect commercially confidential information, adding that Emmel's lawyers were "once again attempting to distort the facts in this case". The company added it had "vigorously defended itself against Mr Emmel's charges against the company, all of which were dismissed by the court". It says the injunction does not prevent him from co-operating with any formal investigation into News America.

 

The idea that Emmel had been driven into destitution was "preposterous", it said, "given his legal fees – to the tune of $750,000 – were paid by two competitors to News America". Emmel's lawyers do not dispute that until 2009 he received legal fees from Floorgraphics and Insignia, but say that was consistent with his role as a whistleblower against his old company.

 

While legal proceedings continue, the injunction preventing Emmel from approaching corporate regulators remains in place. But the appeal court in June made one important proviso. Nothing in the injunction, it ruled, "prevents Emmel from complying with grand jury or court-issued subpoenas or from co-operating with law enforcement authorities in any formal investigations of News America".

[Dougie Do'ins]

The private investigator jailed over phone hacking for the News of the World is taking legal action against the newspaper's publisher News International.

 

Glenn Mulcaire, who was jailed for six months in 2007 for intercepting messages on royal aides' phones, has lodged papers at the High Court.

 

A spokeswoman for News International, which owned the now-defunct Sunday tabloid, confirmed the action was being taken, adding that "the claim will be vigorously contested".

 

Neither News International or Mr Mulcaire's solicitor Sarah Webb, of Payne Hicks Beach, would give any further details about the nature of the action.

 

It came as the former US editor of the News of the World was quizzed by police over phone hacking.

 

James Desborough, who won a British Press Award in 2009, was arrested by appointment at a south London police station, sources said. He was quizzed for several hours about voicemail interceptions alleged to have taken place before his switch from London to Los Angeles, and later released on bail until October.

 

Desborough, who joined the News of the World (NOTW) as a showbusiness and news reporter in 2005 before being promoted to US editor in 2009, was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept voicemails.

 

He is among journalists in the midst of a 90-day consultation period following News International's decision to kill off the paper in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.

 

Desborough, who was commended for a series of showbiz scoops including that TV host Fern Britton had a gastric band fitted, is the 13th person to be arrested as part of the fresh investigations into criminal activities at the Sunday tabloid.

 

A statement from News International said: "We are fully co-operating with the police investigation and we are unable to comment further on matters due to the ongoing police investigation."

 

Mulcaire to sue News International - Breaking News - News - Liverpool Echo

[PestiRed]

Andy Coulson reportedly paid by News International when hired by Tories | Media | The Guardian

 

David Cameron is facing fresh questions about his decision to hire Andy Coulson in 2007 after it was reported that his former communications director received several hundred thousand pounds from his former employer News International after he was hired by the Conservative party.

 

The BBC's Robert Peston said that Coulson received cash payments from the company until the end of 2007 after his resignation as editor of the News of the World in January of that year.

 

Coulson resigned after Clive Goodman, the former royal editor at the paper, which was closed last month, was jailed for illegally intercepting voicemail messages.

 

The title's owner News International allegedly agreed to honour the remainder of Coulson's two-year contract, and the money was paid in instalments. Coulson also continued to receive other benefits, including private health insurance and a company car, for several years.

 

He took up his post as director of communications at the Conservative party in July 2007.

 

The alleged payments ended before Cameron became prime minister but the fact one of Cameron's closest advisers was receiving money from News International after he started work for the Tories will cast doubt over Coulson's impartiality. The spotlight will again fall on Cameron's close ties with the Murdoch media empire because of the revelations.

 

Conservative party sources insisted on Monday night they had no knowledge of any News International payments made to Coulson, after checks were made with every senior party official who might have been involved in hiring him in 2007.

 

Rumours of a financial relationship between Coulson and News International have circulated for some time. It is understood that, prior to him standing down as director of communications in January this year, party officials had asked Coulson directly whether he had received payments from News International during the period he had worked for them. They were seemingly confident enough to give the "categorical" assurances that he hadn't as recently as last month.

 

On 12 July, when asked by the Guardian, a senior Conservative party official said: "We can give categorical assurances that he wasn't paid by any other source. Andy Coulson's only salary, his only form of income, came from the party during the years he worked for the party and in government."

 

Coulson was asked by the Commons culture, media and sport committee in 2009 whether he had received a payment from the company. He told MPs it was a private matter but added he would be prepared to discuss it privately with John Whittingdale, the Conservative MP who chairs it.

 

In February, the Conservative party spokesman, Henry MacRory, told the Guardian: "I'm 100% satisfied that there is no truth in the suggestion that Andy was bankrolled by News International or by anybody else."

 

And Michael Spencer who was party, treasurer said: "I have no knowledge of it and would think it is highly unlikely that there was any such arrangement."

 

Labour MP Tom Watson, who sits on the culture, media and sport committee, said the money could be classed as a donation to the Tory party which should have been declared to the Electoral Commission.

 

"This is a remarkable revelation" Watson said. "Not only was Coulson being paid when he gave evidence to the committee, he failed to declare it. I will be writing to the electoral commission to invite them to look into this."

 

Under electoral law both the donor and recipient are obligated to report donations, meaning that if the payments are interpreted as donations in kind to the party, both News International and the party could face sanctions.

 

On Monday night Watson, who has vigorously pursued the hacking affair and emerged as one of Rupert Murdoch's most trenchant critics, also said: "We need to be certain that everyone involved in hiring Andy Coulson was not aware of these additional payments from NI. We need a cast iron guarantee nobody knew."

 

The allegations raise more questions about how closely Coulson was scrutinised by Cameron and his team before he was offered the role as one of the future prime minister's most senior advisors and whether he was subjected to the appropriate checks.

 

It emerged earlier this year that Coulson did not receive the same security clearance as officials of similar seniority after he entered Downing Street.

 

A Labour spokesman said: "David Cameron now faces allegations that one of his top advisers was also in the pay of News International. The prime minister needs to immediately make clear whether these allegations are true.

 

"There are serious questions to answer about Mr Coulson's employment in Downing Street and the country should not have to wait for full transparency."

 

News International paid off Clive Goodman, who received in £242,000, after he threatened to sue the company in 2007. Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator who worked for the company, also received a payment. Both men are believed to have received their settlements in instalments.

 

A spokesman for News International said on Monday night: "News International consistently does not comment on the financial arrangements of any individual."

 

MP's questions

 

The exchange between Andy Coulson and Tom Watson MP when Coulson gave evidence to the culture select committee on 21 July 2009:

 

Tom Watson Just one last round of questioning. You knew that you were going to resign before sentencing, but on the day of sentencing you resigned from the paper.

 

Coulson I actually resigned two weeks before I announced it.

 

Tom Watson Two weeks before. And did you get a redundancy payment for that?

 

Coulson I got what was contractually due to me. Obviously I did not work my notice so I received what was contractually due.

 

Tom Watson Then you were six months out of work.

 

Coulson About five months.

 

Tom Watson And then you went to work directly for the Conservative party.

 

Coulson That is right.

 

Tom Watson And you have not got any secondary income other than that have you?

 

Coulson No.

 

Watson So your sole income was News International and then your sole income was the Conservative party?

 

Coulson Yes.

 

Tom Watson: That is great, thank you

[PestiRed]

Cameron says he never suspected that Coulson still had a NOTW company vehicle

 

[Anubis]

Drip....drip....drip....drip....drip.... Especially interesting about the parliamentary pass.

 

 

 

Andy Coulson 'broke' Commons pass rules by failing to declare NI payments | Media | guardian.co.uk

 

 

 

Andy Coulson 'broke' Commons pass rules by failing to declare NI payments

 

 

Andy Coulson appears to have broken House of Commons rules by failing to declare payments and benefits he received from News International while holding a parliamentary pass sponsored by David Cameron.

 

Registers held in the Commons archive, seen by the Guardian, reveal that in September 2007 – three months after Coulson was employed by Cameron's office – the former News of the World editor failed to declare the health insurance, company car and severance payments he was receiving from his old employers.

 

The records also show that for at least two months after he resigned from his position as No 10's head of communications in January this year, Coulson continued to hold a parliamentary pass, sponsored by Downing Street, which allowed him access to parliament as a No 10 employee.

 

That will raise new questions about whether Coulson – who Cameron has admitted seeing on a social basis since his resignation – continued to perform an unofficial role for the Tories after he had left.

 

The Labour MP Tom Watson called for the parliamentary commissioner for standards to investigate.

 

Commons rules say all holders of parliamentary passes sponsored by MPs, which allow unfettered access to most of the parliamentary estate, must register any paid employment, gifts or benefits worth more than £329 they receive within that calender year from sources that could "in any way" relate to their work in parliament.

 

The Guardian also understands that News International continued to pay Coulson's legal bills after he stepped down as the editor of the News of the World in January 2007.

 

The company is considering ending the arrangement after this week's revelations that Coulson had continued to receive payments after becoming Cameron's director of communications.

 

Coulson is understood to have consulted lawyers frequently since leaving News International after several public figures brought civil cases against the News of the World, alleging that their voicemail messages had been hacked.

 

News International paid his legal bills last December when he was a witness in the perjury trial of the former Scottish MP Tommy Sheridan. The company declined to comment.

 

Cameron and George Osborne first employed Coulson when the Conservatives were in opposition in July 2007.

 

He appeared on the next register for MP-sponsored passes, published in September, declaring no other employment, gifts or benefits in that calendar year. It is now known that he received hundreds of thousands of pounds in "several" instalments from News International after leaving the company.

 

He also failed to register the health insurance and company car he received from the company under gifts or benefits.

 

Coulson's pass was personally sponsored by Cameron, not the Conservative party. His register entry noted only that he was director of communications and planning for the Conservative party, making no mention of any other income.

 

From October, his pass switched to a journalist's pass, sponsored by the Conservatives, which operated with a separate declaration register. Declarations are only required of an "occupation or employment", earning more than £657 in that calendar year, that could be benefited from access to parliament.

 

For his entire period working for Cameron at Conservative campaign headquarters, and subsequently in Downing Street, Coulson declared nothing on the registers.

 

A Conservative spokesman said: "It is the individual's responsibility to declare relevant financial interests to the parliamentary pass office.

 

"We were not aware until Monday night of allegations that Andy Coulson's severance package, agreed with News International before he was employed by the Conservative party, was paid in instalments that continued into the time he was employed by the Conservative party."

 

Watson, a member of the culture select committee who has campaigned on the phone hacking debate, is writing to the parliamentary commission for standards to complain about the apparent breach.

 

"We now know that, in September 2007, Andy Coulson was receiving staggered payments, free private healthcare and apparently a motor car from News International," Watson said.

 

"When he applied for his House of Commons pass, Mr Coulson was expected to declare these hidden payments under parliament's transparency rules. He failed to do so.

 

"Moreover, instead of being allocated a political party press pass, he was placed on David Cameron's personal allocation of passes. This meant David Cameron had to personally vouch for his application, so presumably they had a discussion about it. I'm writing to the standards commissioner to request he investigates the matter."

 

Commons officials confirmed that it could take up to a month for people who hand their passes in to be removed from the register of journalists' interests.

 

Coulson resigned on 21 January and appears on the next two registers, published in March and April, but not from June. That suggests he could have continued to hold his Downing Street-sponsored pass up until May, four months after his resignation.

 

He resigned from News International after the jailing of two private investigators who worked for the News of the World, during his time as the paper's editor, for phone hacking.

[Pidge]

Reporter held in police pay investigation - Crime - UK - The Independent

[PestiRed]

The bit of the story that I find most shocking

 

The reporter, who was shortlisted at the British Press Awards in 2006 for a story revealing that Prince Harry wore a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party,

 

Award-winning journalism?

[Anubis]

Link's not working for me, but I assume that's The Sun journalist.