Pressure grows on Lord Leveson to explain why he ignored hacking beyond the press

worriedmum wrote:Who could he have passed this on to ? If it was passed on to him by police officers,where else is there to go with this ?

PeterMac wrote:

worriedmum wrote:Who could he have passed this on to ? If it was passed on to him by police officers,where else is there to go with this ?

It is the old question - where do you go to complain about an Ombudsman ?

What become increasingly clear is that his final report is even more useless and irrelevant that at first we thought.   And that is saying something !

PeterMac wrote:

worriedmum wrote:Who could he have passed this on to ? If it was passed on to him by police officers,where else is there to go with this ?

It is the old question - where do you go to complain about an Ombudsman ?

What become increasingly clear is that his final report is even more useless and irrelevant that at first we thought.   And that is saying something !

candyfloss wrote:Home Secretary Theresa May alarmed at revelations that hacking went beyond media and was used by lawyers and private companies

[snipped from article]


Keith Vaz, the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, believes the evidence was withheld from Parliament during a previous inquiry into private investigators.

Last night, he wrote to Sir Ian Andrews, the chairman of Soca, highlighting The Independent’s revelations and ordering a “full, unredacted” version of the report to be delivered to the committee by Thursday.

He said: “If the allegations about the scale of hacking among private companies are true, this is a very serious matter indeed.
“I intend to write to all the companies suspected of this practice to establish just how widespread it is.”
Among the practices revealed by the confidential Soca report were live telephone interceptions, computer hacking, police corruption and obtaining itemised phone bills.

Lord Justice Leveson is facing questions over why he failed to highlight the allegations of misbehaviour during his inquiry.
Police investigations included in the Soca report found private investigators employed by a raft of clients including law firms, insurance companies, wealthy individuals and local councils.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/home-secretary-theresa-may-alarmedat-revelations-that-hacking-wentbeyond-media-and-was-used-by-lawyers-and-private-companies-8672071.html

aiyoyo wrote:Technically speaking Lord Leveson is correct when he claimed it was outside his remit.  
Nonetheless he will need to explain why he swept it under the carpet instead of informing the then Select Committee.

When he ignores  reports of hacking activities by commercial enterprises he makes a mockery of his own inquiry that is  antithesis to hacking.

plebgate wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:Technically speaking Lord Leveson is correct when he claimed it was outside his remit.  

aiyoyo wrote:
Nonetheless he will need to explain why he swept it under the carpet instead of informing the then Select Committee.

When he ignores  reports of hacking activities by commercial enterprises he makes a mockery of his own inquiry that is  antithesis to hacking.

One wonders whether this should have been reported to the Police instead of it being "swept under the carpet".

But  it came from the Police, rather SOCA, so that's whole point!
 Hence, PM's valid point ie who do you approach to complain about the ombudman.

Leveson gagged me over police smears: Whistleblower tried to expose Met dirty tricks but was stopped by Press inquiry
Peter Tickner wanted to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry over tricks used by officers to smear each other in the media
The former anti-fraud investigator says that he was gagged from doing so
He claims senior figures within Met Police prevented him from speaking
The controversy follows claims of double standards at the inquiry

Lord Justice Leveson has been plunged into new controversy after a police whistleblower revealed he was prevented from exposing how senior officers used the media to smear each other.
Peter Tickner, a former anti-fraud investigator, said he wanted to reveal dirty tricks campaigns within Scotland Yard to the Leveson Inquiry into media ethics last year – but was gagged from doing so.
Speaking publicly for the first time, the official claims senior figures within the Met Police prevented him from ‘speaking a truth that no one wanted to hear’.
Mr Tickner says he told Lord Justice Leveson that he wanted to reveal how senior officers leaked information to the media to discredit rivals and promote their own careers.
But days before he was due to give his evidence he was told by a member of the inquiry team he would be denied the chance to do so.
The judge made his ruling after objections by the Metropolitan Police.
The controversy follows recent claims of double standards at the inquiry, launched in response to phone hacking by Rupert Murdoch’s News International newspapers.
But in recent weeks, it has emerged that phone hacking is commonly used by other non-media businesses, including law and insurance firms, yet was largely ignored by Leveson, with only a passing reference in his final report.
The judge has also has been criticised for refusing to investigate claims of a conflict of interest over the love affair between Carine Patry Hoskins, a barrister at the inquiry, and David Sherborne, who represented hacking victim Hugh Grant.

More...
Three officers face misconduct charges after pregnant woman 'assaulted in police cell'
Watchdog says BBC is too generous with boss payoffs after shelling out £450,000 to chief who quit in wake of Savile scandal
Last night, Tory MP Rob Wilson said: ‘It is a matter of great concern that the Leveson inquiry ruled out potentially significant evidence about the conduct of the police.
‘It is increasingly clear that it focused on the press, while going soft on wrongdoing by others. It raises concerns as to whether Leveson gave a balanced account.
This is very worrying given recent disturbing revelations about police conduct. Mr Tickner’s evidence must be properly looked at.’

Information: Mr Tickner says he told Lord Justice Leveson that he wanted to reveal how senior officers leaked information to the media to discredit rivals and promote their own careers
Mr Tickner was the former director of internal audits at Scotland Yard investigating the misuse of funds, but left the Met in 2009.
He signed a confidentiality agreement before he left, which prevented him from going public about his concerns, so says the Leveson Inquiry was the only forum which granted him protection from speaking out.
THE POLICE WHISTLEBLOWER: PETER TICKNER
Peter Tickner spent 14 years investigating misuse of police funds and corruption.
Within 12 months of his appointment Mr Tickner – whose official job was head of internal audits – was given authority to set up a separate investigative branch to probe contractor and staff fraud.
At its peak he was responsible for 60 to 70 internal inquiries a year.
And over the course of a decade his highly successful unit was able to save £24 million of tax-payers’ money.
Mr Tickner took early retirement in 2009 to set up his own investigative and audit business.
In a draft statement to Leveson, he told of three high-profile cases in which he believed senior officers used their access to confidential material to leak information to newspapers in a bid to destroy internal rivals.
The leaks apparently related to a bungled raid by counter-terrorism police in Forest Gate, East London in which a suspect was mistakenly shot; the expenses of former head of counter-terrorism, Andy Hayman; and former Commissioner Sir Ian Blair’s links to a friend who won £3 million police contract.
Mr Tickner says he wanted to speak out at the inquiry after police chiefs rejected his pleas to track down officers responsible for smears.
He told The Mail on Sunday: ‘I told the police I wanted to be an official witness to the inquiry about relations between the police and the press.
'When they ignored me, the only way I could raise the issue was by going directly to the Leveson team. The effect was to gag me from speaking.’
Lord Justice Leveson said in his two-page judgment that he couldn’t hear Mr Tickner’s evidence because he didn’t have the resources, the time to investigate the claims fully, and that it was partly irrelevant.
But Mr Tickner says this decision kept his ‘highly relevant’ claims secret. ‘Lord Justice Leveson denied me a public platform where I could have spoken without fear of any legal action against me for speaking a truth no one wanted to hear.’

At helm: Bernard Hogan-Howe headed the force during the inquiry run by Lord Leveson
Metropolitan Police lawyers told Leveson it would be ‘unfair’ to senior officers, including Sir Ian Blair and Sir Paul Stephenson, his deputy and later successor, if Mr Tickner was allowed to give evidence.
The Met’s QC told the inquiry that the evidence was aimed at ‘settling old scores’.
Mr Tickner said: ‘Whoever suggested that clearly doesn’t know me. All I cared about was whether officers had behaved stupidly or badly with public funds.
‘Senior police officers should be acting in the public interest, not running personal agendas at the taxpayer’s expense.
'The public needs to know that the behaviour of some senior officers was not acceptable. They should be accountable for their actions but in my experience rarely were.’

Affair: Leveson has also has been criticised for refusing to investigate claims of a conflict of interest over the love affair between Carine Patry Hoskins, left, a barrister at the inquiry, and David Sherborne, right
‘I saw it as my duty to give evidence about unacceptable relations between senior officers and the press.’
Mr Tickner said he suspected senior officers of leaking information to the media during the counter terrorism operation in Forest Gate in 2006, when a Muslim man was mistakenly shot, leading to much adverse press coverage.
THE MET IN THE DOCK
THE FOREST GATE SHOOTING
Two brothers were targeted in a dawn raid by 250 anti-terrorism and firearms officers, with one of the Muslim suspects, Mohammed Abdulkahar, 23, shot in the drama.
He was seized with Abul Koyair, 20, in June 2006 following fears of a chemical weapon at their home in Forest Gate, East London.
When no evidence was found and the men were released without charge, there were briefings that MI5 was to blame for incorrect intelligence that led to the raid.
THE EXPENSES INQUIRY
Andy Hayman was Britain’s top anti-terrorist policeman in charge of the bungled operation that led to the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and the Forest Gate raid.
While Scotland Yard was in turmoil in 2007, newspapers were leaked details of an investigation into Mr Hayman about spending £19,000 on ‘reckless’ hotel expenses.
In late 2007 he retired early. Supporters said he had fallen victim to a ‘dirty tricks’ campaign by Scotland Yard.
THE £3MILLION CONTRACTS ROW
Stories critical of Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair continued after Mr Hayman’s departure.
In July 2008, it was revealed he would be questioned about contracts worth £3million that were awarded to his friend Andrew Miller.
Although Sir Ian had declared his friendship with Mr Miller before the deal, within a few months he had resigned.
The police watchdog, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, later found ‘absolutely no evidence of dishonesty’ over Sir Ian’s handling of the contracts.
Andy Hayman, the officer in charge of the operation, asked for a leak inquiry. Mr Tickner carried it out and said he was convinced a senior officer was to blame, but he claimed the Metropolitan Police Authority, which is responsible for such investigations, banned him from naming the culprits.
Mr Hayman was in charge of the initial inquiry into phone hacking by the News of the World, and gave evidence to Leveson over that role; but he was not quizzed over the alleged leaks about his expenses.
Mr Tickner also wanted to show how information about a £3million Metropolitan Police contract with former Commissioner Ian Blair’s skiing friend Andrew Miller and his business, Impact Plus, had been leaked by a senior officer to the media.
Sir Ian Blair later resigned, partly blaming stories about his relationship with Miller for his departure, but the police watchdog, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, later found ‘absolutely no evidence of dishonesty’ on his part.
Mr Tickner said: ‘In my opinion damaging stories about Ian Blair’s relationship with Andy Miller were being leaked to the press by someone senior at the centre of the Metropolitan Police Service.
‘The motive was to discredit Ian. It was obvious that most of the material in the press had come from papers only held at one of the top offices in the Met.’
His claims also raised concerns of how allegations about Andy Hayman’s £19,000 expenses had been leaked to a Sunday newspaper by Hayman’s enemies in the Met in 2007. Shortly after the story appeared, Mr Hayman resigned.
Mr Tickner says confidential conversations he had with senior officers found their way into the press.
He said: ‘Andy Hayman’s resignation was in part driven by the timing of an article that appeared on a newspaper front page about, among other things, my fact-finding inquiries into his expenses.
'That article contained information that I had discussed with two senior police officers in private.
‘I knew I hadn’t leaked it and the only other two people present were my boss and a lawyer, neither of whom had any press contacts.
'It was another instance of someone trying to get a rival removed from his job by a senior colleague via the press.’
A spokesman for Lord Leveson last night said the judge had given a ‘comprehensive explanation’ of why Mr Tickner was not called to give evidence to the inquiry.
He added: ‘The ruling could have been challenged at the time and was not.’
However, Mr Tickner said he could not afford any legal representation to make such a challenge.
Sir Paul Stephenson said: ‘I certainly did not brief the media against any officers. I would not have dreamt of doing such a thing.’
Lord Blair declined to comment.

Cherry Blossom wrote:KAVANAGH: Press must withdraw from panto stitch-up


LORD Justice Leveson is hacked off, I hear. Serves him right, you might think, for letting actor Hugh Grant turn his inquiry into a pantomime.
But Sir Brian’s close pals say he is more depressed about his once-stellar career than he is about rows over Press freedom.
They say he rues the day two years ago when David Cameron persuaded him to take on the job.
What seemed like the chance of a lifetime has turned into a blight on his seemingly unstoppable climb to the pinnacle of his profession.
In 2006, Sir Brian was appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal and, a year later, Senior Presiding Judge. The sky seemed the limit.
Last year, as the Leveson Inquisition dominated Guardian and BBC headlines, he was tipped as the next Lord Chief Justice — Britain’s top judge.
The LCJ is President of the Courts of England and Wales and presiding judge of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.
Nobody is more powerful — not even the Lord Chancellor

Today, his dream seems in ruins after the furore over frisky lawyers and claims Sir Brian sat on evidence that lawyers are far bigger phone hackers than newspapers.
The Leveson Report itself has been savaged over its loopholes, inconsistencies and contradictions, and his attempt to shackle the centuries-old free Press is bogged down in Parliament.
Now, after loftily refusing to explain himself, he has been summoned to testify to a committee of MPs.
It will end in tears.
M’Lud has had a torrid few weeks, not least over the mid-inquiry flirtation between his glamorous married advisor Carine Patry Hoskins and Hugh Grant’s QC, twice-wed David Sherborne.
Sir Brian first denied Hoskins played any significant role on his team. Then he admitted she wrote key chunks of his report — and was paid a staggering £218,000 for her trouble.
Worse, we learn the Serious Organised Crime Agency gave him evidence that ex-cops were recording private calls on phones, landlines and computers — more serious than hacking text messages.
One hacker claimed 80 per cent of his clients were law firms, wealthy individuals and insurance firms. Only 20 per cent involved the media.
This bombshell was concealed from the inquiry and buried in his lordship’s report.
Yesterday, Sir Brian was accused of barring important evidence of police smear tactics to destroy their critics.
He is not alone in his misery
Throughout his lopsided inquiry, the judge was accompanied by leech-like Sir David Bell, who rarely left Sir Brian’s flank — even joining him during breaks to discuss events.
Yet Bell was never impartial. He was a founder of Common Purpose, a shadowy organisation dedicated to curbing the Press.
He helped set up the Media Standards Trust which virtually scripted Leveson proceedings, Hugh Grant’s Hacked Off, and the disastrous Bureau of Investigative Journalism which led the BBC to falsely suggest Lord Alistair McAlpine was a paedophile.
Sir David, whose links with these organisations should have disqualified him from the outset, recently poured out his heart to a friend.
He criticised Leveson for failing to keep a grip on the inquiry, making his report too complicated, and missing a chance to bring internet journalists under control.
He fumed against David Cameron for failing to act on the report quicker and giving the Press time to regroup.
Sir David is a meddlesome menace.
But his outburst reveals much about the anti-Press agenda pursued by his organisations and spin-off groups.
It is now clear the Leveson Inquiry was an establishment stitch-up.
It was intended to move fast, avoid scrutiny and deliver its report in time for swift, irreversible legislation.
Instead, plans for a royal charter are bogged down in discord and controversy, making a laughing stock of Britain’s hard-won reputation as a bastion of Press freedom.
After this fiasco, it would serve MPs right if the newspaper industry now withdrew from the process, flatly rejected Press regulation — and challenged Parliament to do its worst

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4990928/KAVANAGH-Press-must-withdraw-from-panto-stitch-up.html