Re: Twitter/Breaking News updates

by Guest 06.01.12 15:23

But under whose orders? Brooks? Murdoch?

by aiyoyo 07.01.12 15:53

Stella wrote:But under whose orders? Brooks? Murdoch?

Brooks...she's PA to Brooks for 19 years.

Brooks took her orders from Murdoch,,so it's a chain really.

In my view, the Inquiry should interrogate Cherry Carter thoroughly because as secretary she administers all of Brook's correspondences, communications and filings. Even if not every of Brook's correspondence and communication is handled by her I would imagine the bulk of them are either received, typed, or filed by her. 19 years in service with Brooks is a long time and there must a high trust level between them.

If she is placed under oath, she has no choice but to answer, or risks perjury and has to face the consequences of that.
Her x employer and company are in dire trouble themselves so I doubt they will come to her rescue if she were to be charged, so she might as well come clean than rely on them to save her hide.

by **tigger** 07.01.12 18:03

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

Sorry, slightly off topic, but it cheered me up! 2.4 minutes of newspaper song.

by Guest 09.01.12 16:25

Leveson inquiry: Sun picture editor regrets McCann media scrum

John Edwards says he feels sympathy for toddler's parents over press mob they faced when they returned home from Portugal

Lisa O'Carroll

guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 January 2012 15.02 GMT

Leveson inquiry: Sun picture editor John Edwards has expressed sympathy over the the treatment of Kate and Gerry McCann, above, by the media when they returned to the UK.

The picture editor of the Sun has expressed regret about the media scrum that awaited Madeleine McCann's parents when they returned home shortly after the disappearance of their daughter in Portugal.

John Edwards told the Leveson inquiry the paper had got it right when it covered the story when the child when missing from a holiday apartment in Portugal.

But he said the treatment of Kate and Gerry McCann by the media when they returned to the UK with their other two children was not right.

"Looking back on it now, I don't think it was right that Kate McCann had to drive with the kids through those photographers and TV crews," he said, admitting that his daughter was seven at the time and he felt "tremendous sympathy" for the McCanns.

Last year the inquiry heard first hand from Kate McCann how the family had been besieged by photographers camped outside her home and following her as she drove the children about.

"Often they [the photographer] would spring out from a hedge so they could get a startled look so they could attach 'frail' or 'fragile' [to the caption or headline]," she said. She added that her daughter Amelie, who was two at the time, told her she was "scared" by the photographers.

Edwards said if a story like this were to happen again there should be new rules banning mobs of press and photographers.

"Please God this does not happen again, but if it does I think we have to limit the number of photographers to one photographer and one TV crew. If my wife faced that crowd, I would not have been happy – with the children in the car," he told Leveson.

"We got it spot on in Portugal, but we may have not have been so good when it came back to Leicestershire, no."

Edwards defended his paper's decision to send a photographer to the home of the mother of Hugh Grant's baby, Tinglan Hong.

Last year Grant won a court injunction against photographers harassing the mother of his child after she gave birth in early November.

However, he also revealed that the paper had decided not to publish photographs of a heavily pregnant Lily Allen.

The Allen photographs were taken in a public place, but the paper decided not to go ahead with them after a phone call to her agent established that she did not want them published. Edwards said: "It is a difficult line we walk sometimes."

He also revealed that the paper now has a strict policy of not publishing any pictures of Sienna Miller unless they are taken at a photocall or film premiere.

He said the new guidelines apply to those who have "previous experience of extreme paparazzi harassment or involvement in privacy litigation".

More details soon...

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

by Guest 09.01.12 17:39

From the Leveson inquiry - witness statement of John Edwards..................

Kate McCann

Did your newspaper instruct any photographer, employed or otherwise, to follow or
take photos of Kate McCann on her return from Portugal in September 2007? Did
your newspaper publish any photos of Kate McCann taken in this period? If so, did
the picture editor inquire into the context in which the photos were taken? If so,
what in your view justified the publication of these photos?

The Sun has never employed any photographer to follow Kate McCann but we did
photograph her and family on their return from Portugal, On one occasion pictures were
provided by the Press Association after their arrival at East Midlands airport. This was
arranged on a pool basis. We did continue to cover this story in the days to follow. We
were part of the press and TV crews who were stationed on public land at the exit to the
housing development where they live, From this vantage point our photographer took
pictures of them leaving and arriving home by car. We did not follow them at any time, Qn
one occasion we took photographs of Mr and Mrs McCann walking to and from church, but
we were already there and photographed them as they approached, I believe that in the
early days after Madeleine’s disappearance, they were prepared to be photographed
without pixilation of their children’s faces. However. as the story unfolded and media
attention increased, the family’s media representative requested that their children’s faces
should be pixelated and this was respected, At that time, no complaint about our behaviour
was made, and we believed that continued publicity of this terrible story was paramount in
the search for Made~eine. Had we been aware that our behaviour was causing the
McCanns concerns, we would have acted upon them. I believe that The Sun has had a
positive relationship with the McCanns since the very beginning of the search for their
daughter. For example, f helped design, print and distribute about 2,000 missing posters of
Madeleine with full co-operation from the family, especially Mr McCann’s sister who had
asked for our help directly {see Exhibit "JEI"). In May of this year The Sun serialised the
McCann’s book. running extracts every day for a week: and to promote the book Mrs
McCann agreed to be photographed and interviewed by The Sun, and appear in a video
that has been posted on the title’s website.

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

by sijm 09.01.12 20:14

Don't forget that Fifty day baloon event sponsered by the Sun and the finger pointing to Murat by Sun reporter.

by aiyoyo 10.01.12 6:39

candyfloss wrote:From the Leveson inquiry - witness statement of John Edwards..................

Kate McCann

Did your newspaper instruct any photographer, employed or otherwise, to follow or
take photos of Kate McCann on her return from Portugal in September 2007? Did
your newspaper publish any photos of Kate McCann taken in this period? If so, did
the picture editor inquire into the context in which the photos were taken? If so,
what in your view justified the publication of these photos?

The Sun has never employed any photographer to follow Kate McCann but we did
photograph her and family on their return from Portugal, On one occasion pictures were
provided by the Press Association after their arrival at East Midlands airport. This was
arranged on a pool basis. We did continue to cover this story in the days to follow. We
were part of the press and TV crews who were stationed on public land at the exit to the
housing development where they live, From this vantage point our photographer took
pictures of them leaving and arriving home by car. We did not follow them at any time, Qn
one occasion we took photographs of Mr and Mrs McCann walking to and from church, but
we were already there and photographed them as they approached, I believe that in the
early days after Madeleine’s disappearance, they were prepared to be photographed
without pixilation of their children’s faces. However. as the story unfolded and media
attention increased, the family’s media representative requested that their children’s faces
should be pixelated and this was respected, At that time, no complaint about our behaviour
was made, and we believed that continued publicity of this terrible story was paramount in
the search for Made~eine. Had we been aware that our behaviour was causing the
McCanns concerns, we would have acted upon them. I believe that The Sun has had a
positive relationship with the McCanns since the very beginning of the search for their
daughter. For example, f helped design, print and distribute about 2,000 missing posters of
Madeleine with full co-operation from the family, especially Mr McCann’s sister who had
asked for our help directly {see Exhibit "JEI"). In May of this year The Sun serialised the
McCann’s book. running extracts every day for a week: and to promote the book Mrs
McCann agreed to be photographed and interviewed by The Sun, and appear in a video
that has been posted on the title’s website.

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

First LI made a hullaboolah over kate's leaked diary and certain determination to blame it certain quarter.

Now this, another boot licking mission, to nail the papers that invaded their privacy!
What is so unbelievable is also that, miraculously and ridiculously, the papers had taken turn to apologise to the mccanns on cue, as if they had wrong the mccanns.

The mccanns are going to regret trepassing and hijacking the LI when the tide turns.

by jd 10.01.12 8:47

leveson should recall the fact that gerry said to a committee of MP's some 2 years later that he had no problem with the press and that they had generally respected their privacy. This 'after' NOTW had published the diary that suddenly has now caused kate 'mental rape'. If it is causing this distress then why didn't it a few years, they were fine with it then? leveson is working to a script from his masters and making it bloody obvious he makes my skin crawl so badly I need to see a doctor...anyone know of a good doctor?

by pennylane 10.01.12 9:45

jd wrote:leveson should recall the fact that gerry said to a committee of MP's some 2 years later that he had no problem with the press and that they had generally respected their privacy. This 'after' NOTW had published the diary that suddenly has now caused kate 'mental rape'. If it is causing this distress then why didn't it a few years, they were fine with it then? leveson is working to a script from his masters and making it bloody obvious he makes my skin crawl so badly I need to see a doctor...anyone know of a good doctor?

I feel the same about Leveson. If he was as honest and unbiased as he professes to be..... he would be using the word "disappeared" when discussing the case of missing Madeleine McCann, but instead he speaks as though there are no other possibilities to be considered, other than those put forth by the dodgy doctors, whose ridiculous, ever changing version of events is enough to make your head spin.

So much for standards and ethics... shame on him! He may as well step down from his pulpit and join Clarence Mitchell as a pimping, sleazy McCann PR spokesman.

by Guest 10.01.12 10:37

jonreedJon Reed

David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband, Rupert Murdoch all to go before #Leveson: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

10 hours ago

Wonder if Mr Cameron will explain his decision for the review the very next day, after the McCanns letter in the Sun. thinking

by Guest 10.01.12 10:41

Leveson Inquiry: Gordon Brown 'told Rupert Murdoch he would destroy his company'

Rupert Murdoch said a “furious” Gordon Brown threatened to destroy his empire after The Sun switched its support to the Tories, Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the paper, has told the Leveson Inquiry.

By Andy Bloxham

4:39PM GMT 09 Jan 2012

Mr MacKenzie said Mr Murdoch told him that he had received a phone call in which the former Prime Minister “roared” at him “for 20 minutes”.

The former editor also told the inquiry into press standards that News International, Mr Murdoch’s company, had lied to the Press Complaints Commission and recommended that newspapers be fined for such actions in future.

He also referred to the phone hacking scandal and said The Guardian had “got away” with falsely reporting that News of the World journalists had deleted Milly Dowler’s voicemails.

Had such an error been made by The Sun, he said, the newspaper might have been forced to close.

Mr MacKenzie said he had worked closely with Mr Murdoch for 13 years in which he had spoken to him almost daily.

He told the inquiry that it was Mr Murdoch who disclosed Mr Brown’s alleged threat, something which the former Labour leader has repeatedly denied.

Although Mr MacKenzie was not at the meeting between the two men in late 2009, nor was he the newspaper's editor, he gave an account of the conversation as reported to him by Mr Murdoch.

The evidence, which first came during seminars at an early stage of the inquiry, was read to the hearing by its counsel Robert Jay QC and it refers to a speech by Mr Brown which did not get as much prominence as a story about the paper’s shift of allegiance to the Tories.

Mr MacKenzie had said: “Of course the endorsement blew away Brown’s speech off the front page.

“That night a furious Brown called Murdoch and in Rupert’s words “roared at me for 20 minutes”...

Asked at today's hearing who the source for the story was, Mr MacKenzie replied: “It was Mr Murdoch.”

Mr MacKenzie’s submission continued: “At the end, Brown said: “You are trying to destroy me and my party. I will destroy you and your company”.”

When reports of a conversation between the former Prime Minister and Mr Murdoch first surfaced, Mr Brown claimed to have numerous witnesses who could attest to its not having taken place.

After Mr MacKenzie’s evidence, a spokeswoman for Mr Brown said: “It has already been pointed out that there was no such phone call nor communication between Mr Brown and Mr Murdoch.”

News International declined to comment.

The inquiry heard further details of Mr Murdoch’s behaviour.

Mr MacKenzie refuted the broadcaster Anne Diamond’s previous claims to the inquiry that she had been singled out for negative treatment by his papers.

He said he had “never heard Rupert Murdoch say we should 'go after' anybody”.

Mr Murdoch was furious when he found out The Sun was to pay £1 million in damages to Elton John after a story falsely claimed the singer had hired rent boys, the inquiry heard.

Mr MacKenzie recalled sending the media mogul a fax then receiving a 40-minute phone call of "non-stop abuse".

He told the hearing: "Let's put it this way, he wasn't pleased."

On hacking and the way stories are perceived differently according to the newspaper in which they appear, Mr MacKenzie said: “Take the Milly Dowler deletions of those calls. Had that been The Sun, The Sun would have come very, very close to being shut down had they got that story wrong. The Guardian sticks the story on page 10 and they get away with it.”

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

by jd 10.01.12 11:05

All this just shows how corrupted this country is run.....Nobody is decent, honest and they live in their little bubble desperate to cling onto power at the expense of anyone. They are given the responsible position of the power of this country to look after its citizens, and look how they totally abuse it for their own gain and walk over everyone else who gave them this responsible power. To think we bleat to other countries how they are governed! The whole lot of them make me feel ashamed I am from the same country as these snakes

by Guest 10.01.12 11:20

candyfloss wrote:jonreedJon Reed

David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband, Rupert Murdoch all to go before #Leveson: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

10 hours ago

Wonder if Mr Cameron will explain his decision for the review the very next day, after the McCanns letter in the Sun.

So Cameron Brown and Milliband called to LI - but why hasn't Clarence Mitchell been called. His name has been used countless times in testimonies from the McCanns and journalists. Why isn't he being summoned?? :angryred:

by pennylane 10.01.12 11:43

candyfloss wrote:
candyfloss wrote:jonreedJon Reed

David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband, Rupert Murdoch all to go before #Leveson: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

10 hours ago

Wonder if Mr Cameron will explain his decision for the review the very next day, after the McCanns letter in the Sun. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

So Cameron Brown and Milliband called to LI - but why hasn't Clarence Mitchell been called. His name has been used countless times in testimonies from the McCanns and journalists. Why isn't he being summoned?? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, amazing isn't it? Clarence Mitchell a major 24/7 story spinning, bull shit driving, link between the press, Sky News, the McCanns, and no doubt a few bent coppers.

You put the pink pimp under oath, and the entire mountain of lies is at risk of being exposed, as I am sure Leveson et al, are fully aware.

by **PeterMac** 10.01.12 11:51

I wonder if Leveson is biding his time, collecting the evidence together, before summoning him.

by pennylane 10.01.12 12:53

PeterMac wrote:I wonder if Leveson is biding his time, collecting the evidence together, before summoning him.

Thus far I have seen nothing that points towards him being the slightest bit unbiased where the gruesome twosome are concerned, and I am deeply sceptical at this juncture as to his integrity.....

either that or he is not too switched on....

I lean towards a lack of integrity I'm afraid.

by Guest 10.01.12 14:54

Mitchell IMO, will never be called. He has been under Government orders from day one and will be protected.

by sijm 10.01.12 18:31

Has anybody seen the tweeter Oddityfindert who says he has an old Daily Mail paper dated 6 August 2007, showing a photo of Madeliene with no Coloboma, he says her eyes are clear as glass.

Also would the fact it was a public photograph released by public media to the public mean, it could be put on the net for us all to see without fear of prosecution, I may ask my daughter to ask him to do so.

If this is true, would'nt it prove the campaign based on Madeleine's eye defect was a lie and discredit the Mcs as liars in a libel case?[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by sijm 10.01.12 18:36

sijm wrote:Has anybody seen the tweeter Oddityfindert who says he has an old Daily Mail paper dated 6 August 2007, showing a photo of Madeliene with no Coloboma, he says her eyes are clear as glass.

Also would the fact it was a public photograph released by public media to the public mean, it could be put on the net for us all to see without fear of prosecution, I may ask my daughter to ask him to do so.

If this is true, would'nt it prove the campaign based on Madeleine's eye defect was a lie and discredit the Mcs as liars in a libel case?[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by sijm 10.01.12 18:43

Oh dear!

Sorry about last double post, should never post after having worked hard all day[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **tigger** 10.01.12 19:16

sijm wrote:Oh dear!

Sorry about last double post, should never post after having worked hard all day[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Colindale newspaper library in North London should have a copy.

by sijm 10.01.12 20:34

Afraid I am not v-good at research, if anyone can hunt down that paper it would be good to discredit the Mcs case I'm sure.

If it has been wooshed or altered we then know it is vital evidence to discredit those who dreampt up the campaign based on Madeleine's coloboma.

by Guest 11.01.12 12:06

Leveson inquiry: choice of witnesses and the questions were inadequate

Today's Levenson session revealed all sorts of inconsistencies in approach by the inquiry. Why did Lionel Barber undergo questioning for more than one-and-half hours?

The Financial Times is a paragon when seen beside almost all the other daily newspapers. So why spend so much time with him?

Why did Daily Telegraph editor Tony Gallagher escape scrutiny on the merits of his Vince Cable story?

I am pretty certain that, under oath, he would have found it necessary to say what he really thought of the Press Complaints Commission's censure?

I'm fairly sure he thought it wholly wrong and, therefore, it would have been instructive to hear why. Whether one agrees with him or not, the issue raises central concerns about ethics and regulation - supposedly the inquiry's remit.

Yet the chief executive of the Telegraph Media Group (TMG), Murdoch MacLennan, was asked about the case (along with MPs' expenses) and, as he had made crystal clear, it was nothing to do with him.

Why did counsel fail to push former Daily Telegraph editor Will Lewis to answer a question he plainly avoided about his alleged role in the leak - to the BBC's Robert Peston - of the Cable story?

I don't think the inquiry counsel, Robert Jay, would have given such a weak cross examination in a legal case.

Why was Chris Blackhurst, The Independent's editor, not asked to spell out exactly what he means by the licensing of journalists?

And with the greatest of respect to Andy Mullins and Manish Malhotra, respectively managing director and finance director of Independent Print Ltd (publishers of the Independent and Standard titles), where was the value in calling them to give oral evidence?

Similarly, what was the point of demanding that TMG's finance director Finbarr Ronayne should attend?

It's fine to accept their written evidence and good to consider the role of corporate governance, but it's totally unnecessary to do more than accept their responses to the inquiry's questionnaire.

It would have been of much more value to have heard from Peter Oborne, for instance, and other senior working journalists.

Also noticeable was the difference between the questioning of Barber and The Sun's editor, Dominic Mohan, yesterday.

Mohan handled himself well, but he was given an extraordinarily easy ride. He wasn't asked, for example, why his paper has no page 2 corrections column.

As for Kelvin MacKenzie - and again with the greatest of respect - why was he called to give evidence? He hasn't edited for two decades. And, for that matter, why was he invited previously to make an address at one of the seminars?

It doesn't make sense. There is so little logic to what's happening

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

by Guest 11.01.12 12:21

ellaaytuckEllie Tuck

Ed of mail on Sunday admits he pays up to 50k for high calibre sources and stories #leveson

2 minutes ago

IndexLevesonIndexLeveson

Wright: in the last year the top payment for major interview or big book serialisation would be about £50,000 #leveson

2 minutes ago

SejalKariaSejalKariaITV

#Leveson payment for big interview or big book serialisation would be on order if £50k

2 minutes ago

IndexLevesonIndexLeveson

Wright: biggest cash payment we've made in last year to a source was £3,500 #leveson

3 minutes ago

rosschawkinsRoss Hawkins

Wright at #leveson : in the last year top payment for major iv or big book serialisation would be about £50,000

2 minutes ago

w_nichtweissnicht

#leveson Does Daily Mail also pay those "sources close to Mccann family"

3 minutes ago

by jd 11.01.12 12:28

Yes there is a logic.....whitewash!

by Guest 11.01.12 12:45

sijm wrote:Oh dear!

Sorry about last double post, should never post after having worked hard all day[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Apologies for going off topic but, for those who don't know, posts can be edited within maybe half an hour of being submitted. So duplicate entries can be removed and any typos corrected.

By the way, I can't see the relevance of a particular newspaper photo of Madeleine with no eye defect. There have been so many photos issued, some with it, some without and some of different children!

by jd 11.01.12 12:53

Jean wrote:
sijm wrote:Oh dear!

Sorry about last double post, should never post after having worked hard all day[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Apologies for going off topic but, for those who don't know, posts can be edited within maybe half an hour of being submitted. So duplicate entries can be removed and any typos corrected.

By the way, I can't see the relevance of a particular newspaper photo of Madeleine with no eye defect. There have been so many photos issued, some with it, some without and some of different children!

Without
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 11.01.12 13:33

HayleyMayalHayley Mayal

@benfenton Silva not struggling - McCanns agreed to photos. They also agreed to pose for pix with their other children in Portugal #Leveson

18 minutes ago

11.28am: Silva says that most pictures used of the McCanns were from outside agencies, rather than Daily Mail photographers.

He adds all of the photographs used would have been approved by the McCanns' press officer, Clarence Mitchell.

He admits the paper used unblurred pictures of the McCanns' children. "This was a unique situation … where we'd been allowed to stand in a certain position … and take pictures of the children," he says.

Silva says he understands the point that using the pictures was against the Mail's general policy.

Jays asks whether he should not have used the pictures.

"In hindsight, possibly … but there was no objection raised at the time," he adds.

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

by Guest 11.01.12 20:08

Something is going to blow soon bomb

Ex-Met officer demands key Leveson probe role

Tom Harper
11 Jan 2012

A former Scotland Yard officer arrested over allegations of unauthorised leaks to a journalist has asked to play a key role in the judicial inquiry into press standards.

Ex-detective chief superintendent Dave Cook yesterday requested core participant status, which means he is able to cross-examine witnesses who appear before Lord Justice Leveson.

Mr Cook, 52, who returned to work as an investigator for the Serious Organised Crime Agency this week after six months off sick, is understood to have encountered "obscene corruption" while at the Met. A source close to the inquiry claimed he is due to give evidence to Leveson and could reveal the full scale of alleged wrongdoing he encountered at the force.

Mr Cook was questioned yesterday on suspicion of misconduct in a public office and bailed. The Independent Police Complaints Commission had been passed information by Met detectives from Operation Elveden, investigating alleged payments to police officers by newspapers.

In 2002, Mr Cook led a Met investigation into the axe murder of private eye Daniel Morgan in Sydenham 25 years ago. Main suspects included Met officers and private investigators who also worked for the News of the World. The investigation collapsed last year amid criticism of police evidence.

Soon after Mr Cook made a fresh appeal about the case on Crimewatch in June 2002, he discovered he was under surveillance by men working for the defunct Sunday tabloid.

Mr Cook, whose phone was hacked by the NoW, challenged then editor Rebekah Brooks in December 2002. She admitted the paper had been following him but claimed it was investigating whether he was having an affair with Crimewatch presenter Jacqui Hames. However, it was well-known the pair were married.

Today, a friend said of the leak allegations: "I believe this arrest is a measure to quieten him down ahead of his involvement in the Leveson inquiry. He knows where all the bodies are buried. This is an attempt to blacken his name."

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