IT'S OFFICIAL - McCanns will also be 'core particpants' in 'Module 4' of the Leveson enquiry

I respect your opinion uppatoffee but just as I would expect the full details of any open court case to be published in the papers for context, I agree with the papers for publishing the things about the Dowlers. I've complained enough times about how the British press selectively publish details about court cases involving the McCanns and missing out pertinent points. There may have been others (perhaps, the police?) who would have felt equally incensed had the same not been done in the Dowler case. The rules should be the same for all whether we like them or not.

I take your point! I am sure the police were incredibly frustrated at the time by Dowler lying.

I think my problem is with the gleeful way in which the papers seem drag up all sort of muck on people. It makes me even more curious to find out why there has been so little coverage of the Gaspar incident. You'd think this was right up the Mail's street. Presumably there is no injunction on this being printed?

Not sure what the point of your 10.09am post is Mr Bennett. I don't think it has any relevance

uppatoffee wrote:You are right, it was a waste of police time. I just didn't feel it was necessary for the paper to splash it all over their pages. I think the family were having enough problems coming to terms with the loss of their daughter without needing all this unwanted attention. This only came out during the trial, so didnt need to be printed as Bellfield was found guilty. Dowler was found not to be involved much earlier in the investigation. Just my feelings though!

I wonder of there is a common element here - and whether the Dowlers are in fact being used by Leveson and the establishment in an effort to increase - perhaps dramatically - control over our press and media.

Let's put it this way: for centuries the wealthy and powerful in this land have very often been able to cover up their crimes and other things they wouldn't want people to know about. They have done this by a substantial degree of control over the media; hence Clarence Mitchell's slip when he admitted (L'Espresso, 27 Setoember 2007) "Our job is to control what comes out in the media".

They have also done in by the most punitive libel laws in any democratic country on the planet. As the Libel Reform Campaign (LRC) and other 'free speech' organisations have demonstrated, these libel laws allow the wealthy and powerful to 'bully' anyone with limited means into being silenced.

Attempts to get reform of libel laws in recent years have consistently been blocked by MPs, who don't like media coverage of some of their activities. Even now, whilst the LRC and other groups have demanded a 'public interest' defence for people who may want to publicly discuss the actions of others, the Coalition government has failed to put this in its current Libel Reform Bill.

Turning to the Millie Dowler case, it now seems probable that Surrey Police, NOT the NOTW, 'hacked' into Millie Dowler's mobile. IF that is the case, what - in all honesty - is the point of Bob Dowler giving even more evidence to the Leveson enquiry? If the NOTW were not guilty of 'hacking' that 'phone, what precisely is the issue for Leveson, insofar as press freedom and press abuses is concerned?

If we look at the 'core participants', are there any ordinary, less well off people among them, who have been badly treated by the press.

So who is there?

Hugh Grant - a very wealthy celebrity.

John Prescott - a 'bulldog' Labour politician.

Max Mosley - wealthy entrepreneur.

Mark Thomson - Director-General of the BBC.

Media Standards Trust - just look at some of the names of their Trustees!*

And the McCanns - who have Mitchell and libel lawyers behind them and have controlled the media for all but a few months over the past 5 years.

And in amongst this constellation of celebrity, business and political stars, we have...the Dowlers, whose 'phone may have been 'hacked' by Surrey Police.

I don't mean this unkindly, but is it possible that the Dowlers, for whom there is massive public sympathy, are being used by Leveson as a kind of useful 'stick' with which to beat the newspapers?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Trustees of the Media Standards Trust include:

Its Deputy Chair: Julia Middleton | CEO, Common Purpose

Anthony Salz | Executive Vice Chairman, NM Rothschild

Charles Manby | Goldman Sachs

Sir Robert Worcester | Founder, MORI

In addition, Sir David Bell recently resigned as a Trustee of the Media Standards Trust, when he was appointed to the Leveson enquiry, he is also a non-executive Director of Common Purpose

This might be an over-simplistic view (I'm prone to them as I'm not an intellectual) but it would be very interesting to have some statistics within the Leveson Inquiry as to exactly how many libel suits within a media context have taken place in the UK courts in say the last five years and a breakdown of the financial power of those doing the suing, those being sued and the conclusions.

I'm on the fence concerning Mr. Dowler. On one hand I think he had a right to privacy but on the other hand if he did hamper the investigation because he didn't want his proclivities exposed then I can't make up my mind whether it was in the public interest for the press to reveal that information. The tabloids are fond of titilation - it sells newspapers but is it really in the public interest to concentrate headlines on someone's private life in such grief-stricken circumstances? Mr Dowler, unlike the McCanns imo did not court the media. IF he lied to the police and IF it was the police who hacked his phone (presumably ok in an investigation) then it would be for the police to deal with that information. The McCanns had a crack team of media specialists and a fund that armed itself with libel lawyers. The McCanns in my opinion were running with the hare and hunting with the hound as and when it suited.

I can't see any reason for either the Dowlers or the McCanns to be in the next round of what I consider a farce.

Just my humble opinion.

aquila wrote:This might be an over-simplistic view (I'm prone to them as I'm not an intellectual) but it would be very interesting to have some statistics within the Leveson Inquiry as to exactly how many libel suits within a media context have taken place in the UK courts in say the last five years and a breakdown of the financial power of those doing the suing, those being sued and the conclusions.

I'm on the fence concerning Mr. Dowler. On one hand I think he had a right to privacy but on the other hand if he did hamper the investigation because he didn't want his proclivities exposed then I can't make up my mind whether it was in the public interest for the press to reveal that information...

The information of course became public because, in common with other criminal trials, it was a trial in public. The issue re Bob Dowler was not really so much his absorption in porn and sado-masochism as the fact that there was a major issue in his life which made his daughter very unhappy - to the point of wanting to take her own life - and, as ShuBob has correctly pointed out, the fact that he lied to police and actively hindered a police investigation, matters for which, incidentally, one can be prosecuted.

But quite apart from an issue as to Bob Dowler's character, what is the point if calling him at all? - if indeed it was Surrey Police who were involved in the 'hacking'? And didn't the NOTW co-operate with Surrey Police anyway to try and trace Millie's killer?

Tony, I believe the NoTW have admitted they hacked into Milly's phone. Surrey police may have done so as well, I don't know.

ShuBob wrote:Tony, I believe the NoTW have admitted they hacked into Milly's phone. Surrey police may have done so as well, I don't know.

Ah! OK, thank you.

I have placed the pdf. Leveson statement of 25 June 2012 in the Research and Analysis Section: link:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

ShuBob wrote:Tony, I believe the NoTW have admitted they hacked into Milly's phone. Surrey police may have done so as well, I don't know.

ShuBob - and to other forum visitors - this Guardian report of 9 May this year covers this issue pretty well, I think:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The full truth about the extent of hacking into [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s phone may never be known, police have admitted. Their report to the Leveson inquiry followed an investigation lasting five months into the hacking of the murdered teenager's phone.

"It is not possible to state with any certainty whether Milly's voicemails were or were not deleted," says [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], which was written by Detective Chief Inspector John Macdonald from the Metropolitan police's Operation Weeting, which is investigating phone hacking.

He said two voicemail messages appeared to have been removed at the time, but because the full technical call data was missing, "reaching a definitive conclusion is not and may never be possible".

The police said last year that a Guardian report might have mistakenly blamed the News of the World private detective Glenn Mulcaire for deleting Milly's voicemails and giving her family "false hope" that she was still alive because new evidence had emerged about the dates of calls.

Wednesday's report does not seek to exonerate Mulcaire over the deletions but refers only to NoW reporters.

It says: "There is no evidence at present to support a suggestion that any journalist attempted to hack into Milly's phone prior to 26th March 2002."

It is believed the "false hope" moment when Sally Dowler found that messages had been deleted on Milly's phone was on 24 March.

The report confirms, however, that NoW hacking did subsequently take place.

Gill Phillips, the lawyer for the Guardian, which originally revealed the hacking of Milly's phone, told the inquiry: "The Guardian welcomes the fact that the Metropolitan police has modified its statement from last December.

"The Guardian has no wish to cause any distress to the Dowler family. We also recognise the continuing need for care in reporting this matter given the ongoing criminal investigation."

She said the statement made clear that "the News of the World hacked into the voice messages of Milly Dowler after she disappeared in March 2002. The police have found evidence to suggest that somebody may have manually deleted two of Milly's messages but they have been unable to identify the person responsible. They have also found evidence which suggests automatic deletion.

"In April 2002. Surrey police made a connection between the apparent deletion of Milly's messages and the News of the World. The manual deletion of the messages was discussed by Sally and Bob Dowler and the police during meetings in 2011. The Dowlers speculated to the police that their 'false hope moment' was due to such manual deletion. Surrey police continued to regard this link as 'completely reasonable and absolutely possible' and the Metropolitan police did not seek to dissuade Mr and Mrs Dowler from this belief. The Guardian's story of 4 July 2011 was based on multiple sources and their state of knowledge at the time. Our error – as we [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] – was to have written about the cause of the deletions as a fact rather than as the belief of several people involved in the case. We regret that.

"After five more months of intensive inquiry, the police have found that the passage of time and the loss of evidence means that 'reaching a definitive conclusion is not and may never be possible'."

The NoW lawyer, Antony White QC, said repeated an apology for the NoW's behaviour. He said that nevertheless the false hope moment was likely to have been caused by automatic dropping-off of voicemails after 72 hours.

The Guardian submitted to the inquiry a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] detailing the paper's understanding of the sequence of events surrounding the hacking of Milly's phone.

David Sherborne, for the Dowlers and other hacking victims, said important questions remained unanswered and that the NoW was "rotten to its core".

He read out a statement from the Dowler family. They thanked the police team for their efforts, but said "neglect and deference" by Surrey police in 2002 had caused the original failure to investigate and prosecute the NoW for hacking. Praising the Guardian's reporter, Nick Davies, they said the scandal had only come to light thanks to the "relentless efforts of one journalist".

Sherborne said: "If Surrey police had prosecuted this activity in 2002 then the position would have been very different and perhaps countless others might also have been avoided having their private messages hacked into by the News of the World. Police neglect and deference meant that it took the relentless efforts of one journalist to uncover what the police knew had gone on, and whilst we would never have wished to have been thrust into the middle of this extraordinary scandal on top of what we have already had to deal with as a family, we continue to have faith that his efforts and the efforts of the inquiry and Operation Weeting will have a lasting positive impact."

Later Mark Lewis, the solicitor acting for the Dowler family, said Rupert Murdoch's decision to pay Milly Dowler's parents £3m in an out-of-court settlement for phone hacking had nothing to do with allegations that the News of the World had deleted her voicemails.

He said demands that some of the Dowler money be refunded, because it was impossible to say whether or not the News of the World deleted a voicemail that led to the "false hope" that the teenager might be alive, were misplaced.

"I cannot recall ever discussing the concept of false hope in any negotiations between the Dowlers through me and News Corporation through their lawyers," he said.

+++ ENDS +++

This taken from the official statement by from Mark Lewis of Taylor Hampton Solicitors on behalf of Bob and Sally Dowler.

"It remains unchallenged that the News of the World listened to Milly Dowler’s voicemail and eavesdropped on deeply personal messages which were being left for her by her distraught friends and family. By listening to messages, deletions occurred even if no conscious act of deletion had been undertaken. This was why Mr Rupert Murdoch apologised to the Dowler family and conceded that his newspaper’s behaviour had been abhorrent and a letdown to his father’s memory and to his mother’s standards."

Ends

Glenn Mulcaire was indeed tasked with the illegal and disgusting act of listening in to Milly's voice mail and the confirmation email that he received only shows that it was dated after it was noticed that Milly's voice mail was once again receiving messages. However, what we do not know for sure and neither do the police is when the phone call or conversation to engage him took place, They only know when the confirmation email to do so was received. The phone call/in person conversation and actual hacking could well have been before the 'false hope' moment but unfortunately it cannot be proven when he actually committed his heinous crime.

What is also now known is that the Leveson inquiry heard yet more evidence that put the NoTW back in the frame. Surrey police have evidence suggesting that one of the paper’s other journalists also had Milly's phone number and pin code. This means that it is possible that prior to GM being tasked, that the other journalist was hacking her voice mail messages and caused deletions to also be made. This claim is as far as I know yet to be refuted by NOTW.

However it is painted, NOTW staff illegally listened to a little girls voice mail messages whilst she lay dead in a field, battered and raped. Actions which were totally despicable and forever unforgivable even if no conscious act of deletion was undertaken.

Will the big players who promoted this culture be brought to book? I doubt it. Why are the McCanns in module 4 of the Leveson Inquiry? Just someone please tell me why.