Ann McKechin
:Untapped Talent: How Family-Friendly Employment Practices Help Women Fulfil Their Potential
Luke Pollard
:Businesses Are Being Given a Chance to Make Their Voices Heard on APD
Nadhim Zahawi
:Irresponsible Bankers Should Be Jailed
Eleanor Blatchley
:Human Rights, Hashtags and the UK's Policy Towards Central Asia
Natalie Bennett
:Media Reform: Time to Go Back to Leveson
With Murdoch back before the Media Select Committee today, let me share a few of my own thoughts on the evidence we've heard so far.
What we have to decide is whether James Murdoch knew when he signed the cheque to settle a claim brought by Gordon Taylor, that there was evidence that there had been other journalists within the News of the World who had hacked phones.
Was he told that he was party to covering up a much bigger scandal. What he wants us to believe is that he was mildly incompetent rather. That he was unaware when he was signing the cheque that there was evidence that this was not the work of a "rogue reporter", the Royal Correspondent who had been sent to prison.
Clive Goodman has never spoken out. The former in-house lawyer Tom Crone and former editor, Colin Myler says James Murdoch knew. So far James Murdoch has denied knowing. What is the true position?
Imagine a scene:
Colin Myler: "James will you please sign a cheque for a claimant? It's over Tom Crone's limit."
James Murdoch "What's it for?"
CM: "Oh nothing important - just a civil claim."
JM "Sure." James signs cheque, exiting stage right.
Now imagine a different scene:
Colin Myler: "James will you please sign a cheque for a claimant? It's over Tom Crone's limit."
James Murdoch: "How much is it for?"
CM: "About 1 million dollars."
JM: "What did we say about him?
CM: "Oh didn't publish anything about him. He claims we obtained information through hacking his phone. Evidence shows that other journalists were involved, not just the one who went to prison."
JM: "What do the lawyers say?
CM: "The QC says up to £250,000."
JM: "What's a QC?"
CM: "Queen's counsel, a top barrister. He says that the most we could lose is £250,000 but we might lose £25,000."
JM: "So we have the Queen's solicitors and her barrister. What did you say we were paying the claimant?"
CM: "425,000."
JM: "425,000 DOLLARS?"
CM: "No, 425,000 pounds."
JM: "Isn't that more than we were advised? Why are we paying that?"
Which is more likely? You decide.
The first version that a cheque is signed without information. The shareholders' money spent by a director without question. Or the second, a calculated decision to settle a case so that other claims do not come out of the woodwork?
Cock up or conspiracy? Please vote now.
Damian Collins: James Murdoch Delivered His Own Message From the Script of The Godfather
Carla Buzasi: The Week That Was
Mark Fletcher-Brown: MPs, Moments of Truth and Mob Language
James Murdoch Returns To Parliament: Eight New Phone Hacking ...
MURDOCH'S HEIR APPARENT? | More Intelligent Life
James Murdoch's make or break day in parliament | Reuters
James Murdoch | Media | The Guardian
James Murdoch Faces Skeptical British Lawmakers
The ten questions James Murdoch needs to answer
The "Hackgate" Chronicles; James Murdoch's Showdown #2
James Murdoch prepares to face MPs over phone hacking
There is a kind of smoking gun re James M., and I am amazed I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. After writing out a cheque of 700 K, every other boss than James M. would have sent a memo to every person in the company sounding like 'we have just had a significant expense for wrongdoing by someone in the company. Please ensure that you are always on the straight and narrow in your endeavours for this company, in all endeavours, at all times. Should it happen again that someone uses illegal means to obtain information, the person will be fired on the spot.'
Not doing so makes it quite clear that James M. thought nothing of it. He was not shocked into sending a memo as he was used to this kind of thing. It implies he knew it was a normal occurrence.
Allegations of illegal, immoral and unethical behavior continue as well. Was there a police cover up of this case? They had information regarding the hacking for years now. Who is investigating the police and if there was a police or political cover up?
But only because I haven't said it before. (Soooo? How does it feel to say? I'm gonna tell ya, I could get used to it.)
This, and many other such matters, could be cleared up pronto though the use of an MRI scanner. Although that could result in at least two people looking for alternative employment.
So, status quo or brave new world?
they havent learnt any thing
get rid of them