Evidence has emerged that the Police may definitely have been in a quid pro quo arrangement with NI, leaking information to their benefit to NI’s newspapers, and using these leaks to smear victims and sway public opinion.
The family of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot on the Tube six years ago by armed police, suspecting him to be a suicide bomber, have written to the Prime Minister urging him to look into why the phone numbers and personal details of the de Menezes family, and members of the Justice4Jean campaign, appeared in the notes of the disgraced Mulcaire.
Further, it appears that Rupert Murdoch will refuse to testify in front of the Parliamentary select committee headed by Vaz. It’s unclear whether he can be compelled to do so.
This is a very good breakdown of that story (and from Dec 2010 as well, so impressively ahead of the curve).
In essence: When Hayman screws up with de Menezes, NOTW takes his story at face value. When NOTW screws up with hacking, Hayman takes their story at face value.
"In his initial response to committee chairman John Whittingdale, Rupert Murdoch said that although he was not available on Tuesday, he was ‘fully prepared’ to give evidence to the judge-led inquiry announced by the government.
"James Murdoch offered to appear on an alternative date, the earliest of which was 10 August, while Mrs Brooks said she ‘welcomed the opportunity’ to give evidence.
“But after the committee issued summonses on Thursday morning for the men to appear, a few hours later News Corporation announced that the pair would attend the committee meeting.”
So initially, they were too busy to appear on Tuesday, and James wasn’t even free for three weeks, but once summonses were issued, their schedules suddenly cleared up.
I just found it ludicrous that James Murdoch wouldn’t be free for three weeks to discuss the biggest issue to affect his company in years. The busy schedule story was obviously a lie. And I read somewhere else that there was concern that the Murdochs might ignore a summons, because they are US citizens. I wonder what the consequences would be of ignoring a summons from a country of which you’re not a resident, subject or citizen.
Why a “lie” exactly? I find it quite plausible that international media barons might find it convenient to schedule such an appearance three weeks in advance until until a summons gives you no option.
Presumably there would be no consequences at all, provided you avoided entering that country.
James is a dual US/UK citizen according to the FT, so he could be compelled to attend. (Actually, how does that work? I was under the impression that the US frowned on dual-citizenship. Am I wrong about that?)
I’ve been watching this scandal, hoping against hope that the effects would reach the U.S. and Fox News. On The Colbert Report, they showed a clip of Fox News panelists talking about how they were not going to touch this story. It was also shown on CNN:
True, the only real punishment will be the stripping of her credibility. That has begun but may well be compounded by whatever the inquiry uncovers.
(and let’s not rule out criminal and civil punishments either!)
But ultimately, unless she actually cares what people think about her (in which case…why be a tabloid editor?) then she will be sitting blissfully ignorant and smug on a large pile of cash. The best we can hope for is that her reputation is shot and she gets reminded of that at regular intervals.
The sound of the stable door slamming shut, whilst the horse is racing for the horizon: it’s a loud noise but everyone’s much more interested in the speeding equine and what it is going to do next.
By the looks of things, the horse in question is actually Pegasus and is currently flying across the Atlantic. If they tie News Corp to 9/11 victims, it is game, set and match. Brooks will only be the first big name with reputation in tatters.
