Twitter/Breaking News updates

Chris Ashford‏@lawandsexuality
So given Blair has revealed he didn't support Sarah's Law, how did it end up in law? #leveson










3mPeter Howells‏@Writer_LovinIt
Blair was "pretty ambivalent" about Rebekah Brook's campaign for Sarah's Law. He agrees with Jay that it got out of hand #leveson









3mRoss Hawkins‏@rosschawkins
Jay: Did you develop friendship with Brooks? Blair: Yes, probably closer once I left office #leveson

Drama at Leveson ........

Nat Guest‏@unfortunatalie

DRAMA AT #LEVESON! Protestor just ran in & tried to perform a citizen's arrest on Tony Blair for warcrimes. Amazing



Mel@ArtisanCupcakeCo‏@ArtisanCupcake

wow someone has just stormed leveson ! calling blair a war criminal

Nigel Fletcher‏@nigelfletcher
#Leveson is righty furious the man got access to the Judge's bench. Public gallery you would expect, but that was serious security failure



esther addley‏@estheraddley

#Leveson visibly shocked by intruder, who came into court from behind judge's chair, 'in what is supposed to b a secure corridor'



Ross Lydall‏@RossLydall

What a numpty. He forgot the custard pie #leveson



Tom Latchem‏@theboylatch

Fair play to the protester who managed to get into #Leveson to tell Tony Blair he is a war criminal. Blair is shameless



Sarah Lyall ‏@sarahlyall

Shouting "the man is a war criminal," a protestor suddenly materializes behind judge #leveson; is seized and bundled off.



Roy Greenslade‏@GreensladeR

Blair #Leveson: he strenuously denies substance of claims by "war criminal" protestor

I saw this happening live. This could have been very serious had he had a weapon in his possesion. Not that it isn't serious.

Tony Blair accused of war crimes by protester at Leveson inquiry



Lord Justice Leveson orders investigation into security procedures after man gains access to court


Peter Walker

guardian.co.uk,

Monday 28 May 2012 13.05 BST



A
still image from broadcast footage shows a protester being restrained
by security guards as Tony Blair was speaking at the Leveson Inquiry.
Photograph: Reuters



Lord
Justice Leveson has ordered an investigation into security procedures
at his inquiry into the media after a protester burst into the
courtroom to shout at Tony Blair while the former prime minister gave evidence.
The
man, wearing a white shirt and chino trousers, entered from behind a
curtain almost directly behind Leveson himself, inside court 73 at the
Royal Courts of Justice.
He shouted: "This man should be arrested
for war crimes," before yelling allegations that the global bank JP
Morgan paid Blair millions of dollars in connection with the conflict.
As several security guards tackled him and dragged him away through the
same door from which he entered, the man shouted: "This man is a war
criminal."
Leveson, appearing shocked, stood up from his seat to
watch as the protester was ejected. He asked the court how the man
gained entry. "I'm sorry for that, Mr Blair," Leveson said.
"I'd
like to find out how this gentlemen managed to access the court through
what is supposed to be a secure corridor, and I'll have an
investigation undertaken about that immediately." He ended: "I
apologise."
Blair, who sat impassively throughout the intrusion,
sounded slightly shaken as he answered: "That's fine." He continued:
"Can I just say, actually, on the record, what he said about Iraq and JP Morgan is completely and totally untrue."
Reports later identified the protester as David Lawley Wakelin from a group called Alternative Iraq Enquiry.
Since
leaving office in 2007, Blair has been regularly targeted by protesters
over his central role in pushing for the US-led invasion of Iraq in
2003. In January last year he was greeted by dozens of activists
outside the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in central London as
he returned to give evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the genesis of
the conflict.

What a jolly performance! I love the subdued reactions of the ladies in black floating back and forth, the miscreant being handled out of the door, pulled by two men an pushed by the presumably not very alert security guard. Lovely!

I replayed Blair's remarks several times and although this is probably not verbatim it goes like this:

may I just say - JP Morgan about them and Iraq - I never had a discussion with them about that - or any relationship between them and Iraq.

A little Jesuitical license creeping in here? Blair didn't say at any point that JPM wasn't paying him 6 million a year .

Not having a discussion with them about Iraq doesn't preclude a third person having such a discussion.


You see, Mr. Blair, we're getting very good at hearing what isn't said and we have to give credit where credit's due - TM

Guardian website wrote:Lord Justice Leveson has ordered an investigation into security procedures at his inquiry into the media after a protester burst into the courtroom to shout at Tony Blair while the former Prime Minister gave evidence. The man, wearing a white shirt and chino trousers...

Were they mustard-coloured?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Guardian website wrote:Lord Justice Leveson has ordered an investigation into security procedures at his inquiry into the media after a protester burst into the courtroom to shout at Tony Blair while the former Prime Minister gave evidence. The man, wearing a white shirt and chino trousers...

Were they mustard-coloured?

No, it wasn't Lord McConn , he was shouting out the truth and was better looking.

Operation Weeting: 42-year-old woman arrested over alleged money laundering

Scotland Yard detectives investigating phone hacking arrest woman by appointment in south-west London



Josh Halliday

guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 May 2012 13.47 BST



Detectives from Scotland Yard's Operation Weeting have arrested a 42-year-old woman.


A 42-year-old woman has been was arrested by police investigating phone hacking, on suspicion of money-laundering offences.

Scotland Yard said: "A 42-year-old woman was arrested this morning, Monday 28 May 2012, by officers from Operation Weeting, the Metropolitan Police Service investigation into the hacking of voicemail boxes.

"She was arrested after attending a south-west London police station by appointment at approximately 11:00hrs on suspicion of money laundering offences, contrary to section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and is currently being questioned."

Scotland Yard confirmed that the woman is the first to be held on suspicion of money-laundering offences as part of its Operation Weeting probe.

The force confirmed the woman is not a current or former public official. She is the 25th person to be arrested as part of the investigation into phone hacking. She was later bailed until July, Scotland Yard said.

Section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 relates to concealing or transferring the proceeds of crime. The arrest could signal a fresh turn in Operation Weeting, which was launched on 26 January last year after the disclosure of "significant new information" from News International.

All but three of the former News International journalists arrested last month under Operation Weeting have had their bail extended to unspecified dates. Three of those arrested, including the News of the World's ex-US editor James Desborough, have been released without charge.

Scotland Yard has identified 829 potential victims of phone hacking, of whom 231 are said to be not contactable
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/28/operation-weeting-arrest-money-laundering?CMP=twt_gu

Exclusive: Mirror Editors Depart In Shake-Up


http://blogs.news.sky.com/kleinman/Post:40613515-4eef-4d2c-8a1c-cde3f34814bb

30 May 2012 Last updated at 11:14



Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court


]



Analysis [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/dominiccasciani/]Dominic Casciani Home affairs correspondent

---

The role of judges in cases like Julian Assange's appeal is to listen to the points being put forward by both sides and decide who has the best argument.

But Mr Assange's legal team are suggesting that didn't happen in this case.

They appear to think he has lost his appeal because the judgement from the UK's highest court is based on a point which was neither heard nor argued in the case.

If this is so, the Supreme Court will find itself in the extraordinary position of having ruled against Mr Assange on a point that his lawyers did not have a chance to consider or respond to.

If true, that would mean the judgement is arguably unfair - and that is why in two weeks' time the court could be in the unprecedented position of having to reopen the case.