Rebekah Brookes and Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

by Snifferdog 11.05.12 21:57

Sounds like Black Mail to me......Definitely goes higher up than UK Government. R Murd. and cabal are there to ensure the mccs get off scott free as I think mccs set up the 'disappearance' and planned mcBlackmail plot before PDL, knowing their plot hatched would be protected by a person in Pdl at the time and related to the elite circle that exists on this earth, who control governments. Poor dead/missing M is nothing to these people as they have been formenting wars in which our ancestors/relatives/children have fought and died, financing both sides and earning billions of interest thereby. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 11.05.12 22:01

I knew I had heard correctly, It was Mr Jay quoting what Dr G Mccann said in his evidence to Leveson. So..........

Dr McCanns answer was
"I think it's probably worth just elaborating a
2 little bit because it's quite a complex decision-making
3 process. News International actually bid for the rights
4 to the book along with HarperCollins, and one of their
5 pitches was the fact that they would serialise the book
6 across all their titles. We were somewhat horrified at
7 the prospect of that, given the way we had been treated
8 in the past and the deal was actually done with the
9 publishers, Transworld, that excluded serialisation.
10 "Now, we were subsequently approached by
11 News International and Associated to serialise the book,
12 and after much deliberation, we had a couple of meetings
13 with the general manager and -- Will Lewis and
14 Rebekah Brooks and others, and what swung the decision
15 to serialise was News International committed to backing
16 the campaign and the search for Madeleine."

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

Full transcript now online on above link

by Guest 11.05.12 22:15

Like Mr Jay's style...........

We can find out in due course whether this is true or
4 not, but I must repeat it to you. It is said that you
5 directly intervened with the Prime Minister and warned
6 him that unless there was a review by the Metropolitan
7 Police, the Sun would put the Home Secretary,
8 Theresa May, on the front page every day until the Sun's
9 demands were met. Is that true or not?10 A. I did not say to the Prime Minister: "I will put
11 Theresa May on the front page of the Sun every day
12 unless you give me a review." I did not say that. If
13 I'd had any conversations with Number 10 directly, they
14 wouldn't have been particularly about that, but they
15 would have been, if I'd been having a conversation, that
16 the Sun was leading a major campaign with a very strong
17 letter on page 1 to start the campaign, and anyone who
18 knew me would have talked to me -- any politician would
19 have talked to me about it. But I did not say that.
20 I don't know who said I said that, but we're going back
21 to sources again.
22 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Could we ask this: were you part of
23 a strategy that involved your paper putting pressure on
24 the government with this sort of implied or express
25 threat?

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

by Guest 11.05.12 22:21

Do you know how it came about that the review was
23 ordered?
24 A. No, I -- I can't remember, I'm sorry. Such a lot has
25 happened since then, but --
1 I think it was very short.
2 Q. Yes, it didn't take very long because the government
3 yielded to your pressure, didn't they? It took all of
4 about a day.
5 A. Or perhaps they were convinced by our argument.
6 Q. There are always two sides to the coin here, that of
7 course everybody would say, on one level, money should
8 be spent, but the campaign to date, I'm told, has cost
9 £2 million and some would say maybe that money might
10 have gone somewhere else. It's never clearcut, is it?
11 A. What, the Madeleine McCann campaign?
12 Q. No, the operation which started up the review, which was
13 called Operation Grange, I understand.

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

by **HiDeHo** 12.05.12 1:57

by Guest 12.05.12 1:59

Thanks HiDeHo, you are a little gem roses

by **HiDeHo** 12.05.12 2:02

I continued recording the afternoon 3 hrs while I was out...Is there anything on there of any interest?

by aiyoyo 12.05.12 10:15

It beggars belief that a Secretary turned Editor can wield so much power over the country's politicians.

She literally had a gun on Cameron's head and said " do this or else?
And stupid Cameron shouldn't have given in because once he gives in there will be no end to it.
When he gave in and showed that he lives in fear of their power to destroy him just as they'd supported him, he proves he was theirs to make and to destroy.
The irony is once he gave in he's already a destroyed man, because he proves himself to be coward who cannot stand up for his rights. More importantly, he proves he cannot stand by what is right for the people, his ambition takes priority over his duty to the Country and People.

It it was true RB threatened to put TM on the front page every day if Cameron didn't accede to her request, then logically speaking DC and Theresa May should have exposed her by telling the world about her threat and RB will be shown to be the sly fox whose ruthless ambition to sell papers and to suck up to her boss is taking precedence over what is right and wrong.

How can it be right for her to interfere in the criminal case on the mccanns behalf just because she said she got along with Kate and Gerry?
Obviously high profile mccanns are marketable and hence profitable. But what has the profitability of her papers got anything to do with moral issue and moral fibre of the society? What gives her the right to dictate to PM which missing child cause should be supported so that she can meet NI titles profit objective.

What have her views about the mccanns and her personal relationship with them got anything to do with the cause of mccanns or the merits of their case? How can that be objective?

What gives her the right to interfere in criminal case just based on her "get-along-basis" with the mccanns?
More importantly what gives her the right to determine the mccanns' campaign has more merits over other similar cases say Ben Needham for example, that she felt that No 10 should obey her order or incur her wrath hence unleashing on the front pages?

Since when Newspapers run the Country?

by aiyoyo 12.05.12 10:46

Newintown wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Newintown wrote:
justme3 wrote:SPEECHLESS. What a filthy country we live in.

I was SPEECHLESS listening to it and trying to type it all at the same time.

I was gobsmacked that RB had read the bewk and believed every word. Pity she hadn't read the PJ files first. I also find it unbelievable that a newspaper can pay 2 people who may be involved in the disappearance of their child half a million pounds not really knowing whether they were involved or not.

Poor, poor Madeleine. RB should be totally ashamed of herself. I hope she gets everything coming to her. I doubt she had sleepless nights wondering about what happened to Madeleine. Her career was too important.

It's unbelievable isn't it. I listened to it all and couldn't believe what I was hearing. A government pushed into a review by a newspaper!! I hope they get this Dominic Mohan (spelling?) in to the Leveson inquiry to see what he says. Jay seems to have got his info from somewhere about the threats of putting the Home Sec. on the front page every day for a week. She mentioned him on a couple of occasions as the one of those who was in touch with No.10 and Home Sec. The whole thing stinks.

Jay did mention in the 3 hours I sat through, can't remember who they were talking about, that he was not going to reveal his source of where he gets his information from, and I think RB retorted with more or less the same thing.

P.S. I got up early this morning to do some housework, I still haven't started and it's 2.40 p.m. Oops!

For jay to grill her like that along those lines his must have a v reliable source. RB is playing with fire playing with words.

She is trying to push everything onto Dominic Mohan. At the end of the day, she's Mohan boss, and he must have been sent by her to do the dirty work for her then she comes in for the kill. I hope LI summons all those names she run off. She's dragged them into the mud, let's hope they have something juicy to offer.

by tiny 12.05.12 10:58

I wonder what brooks has got on Tersa May to threaten to put her on the front pages,

as i have noted else where on the net some one has put,Vote cameron get murdoch.

by jd 12.05.12 13:50

There would have been many people yesterday shouting at the TV screen knowing what a total evil, b**tch Brooks is.....knowing the "I'm whiter than snow" face she put on yesterday is nothing like the real Brooks and truth of her...she is the true meaning of the word nasty and vile

News International namely the sun/NOTW used a tactic they called leverage. In english this means blackmail. They get private info which they threaten to expose in their comics, I know of some who were under this 'leverage'. Of course Brooks threatened to put Theresa May on the front page, this was the leverage, Theresa May didn't want the review so had to be dealt with so to speak, what Rebekah wants Rebekah gets, she is pure evil and has the power of leverage to use. Someone said on here yesterday that Murdoch and Brooks were effectively running the country, yep this is the reality of it....

by Gillyspot 12.05.12 13:58

Well said JD.

I would have expected after Brooks revelations at Leveson for the media tone to have changed (at least in NON Murdoch papers) but in the Guardian regarding her testimony at Leveson - NOTHING at all about the McCann revelations.

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

I am not sharing the full article as am disgusted with them TBH.

by MaryB 12.05.12 15:24

I am trying hard to make sense of all this. People have been wondering for ages why the government ordered a review of the McCann case when there are a lot of other missing people. Now we know. They were 'persuaded' to. Now why would they give in to such pressure. By a newspaper. And why would a newspaper want to put this kind of 'persuasion' for a single case. Just to sell more copies. Or is there another reason. Is it too much to hope that the truth will come out eventually.

by Gillyspot 12.05.12 15:26

Some media are saying that it is Brooks who ordered it as was sympathetic & ran a campaign for Sara Payne. The big difference is clearly Brooks didn't interfere in the same manner in Payne case (10 years) as in McCann case (24 hours).

by justme3 12.05.12 15:36

Of course it's blackmail. What we have is RB trying to be the lady, who complains about sexist remarks, but uses it to the full, when it was to her advantage.

As for the "blackmail", I used this word about 2 hours into RB's inquiry. What we have, in a nutshell, is someone who held "democratically" elected governments to ransom if they didn't do as ask, BUT the crux is, who do you blame? We know that newspapers - especially tabloids - are there to sell papers through gossip and innuendos. What we need to do is look at our politicians. I would like to see a complete cleansing of the whole political system and get this filthy lot out. But I won't hold my breath

by Guest 12.05.12 15:44

Did they really think this would stay buried forever? I bet Cameron regrets ordering this Leveson inquiry, did he really think none of this wouldn't come out, and probably a lot more yet.

by Gillyspot 12.05.12 15:59

justme3 wrote:Of course it's blackmail. What we have is RB trying to be the lady, who complains about sexist remarks, but uses it to the full, when it was to her advantage.

As for the "blackmail", I used this word about 2 hours into RB's inquiry. What we have, in a nutshell, is someone who held "democratically" elected governments to ransom if they didn't do as ask, BUT the crux is, who do you blame? We know that newspapers - especially tabloids - are there to sell papers through gossip and innuendos. What we need to do is look at our politicians. I would like to see a complete cleansing of the whole political system and get this filthy lot out. But I won't hold my breath

suc
Agreed it seems that Brooks & Murdoch have run the country for at least 7 years so successive Lab then Con/Lib are all guilty of doing their bidding. I am sure this Mccann "review" is the tip of the iceberg. David Kelly, Daniel Morgan how many more are to be denied a public inquiry and justice

by espeland 12.05.12 16:22

Of course it's blackmail

What concerns me is that now the blackmail story is out perhaps moves will be made to stop the review: Redwood has only made public his endorsement of the adbuction story; SY are apparantly only a quarter the way through reviewing the PJ reports (does that mean it would take another three times the time and cost to complete?); are making comments available in facebook a way of guaging public opinion? If so, there are too many comments by just a few - Pam Gurney seems to have been very active for the pro-McCanns.

by Guest 12.05.12 16:34

Some light relief courtesy of the Missing Madeleine site.

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

by Gillyspot 12.05.12 16:37

I wish Jay had asked Brooks whether she had ordered the remit of the review as well. Mind she would probably say "I can't recall".

by jd 12.05.12 17:20

Gillyspot wrote:I wish Jay had asked Brooks whether she had ordered the remit of the review as well. Mind she would probably say "I can't recall".

This is how they have manufactured to getting away with it in the LI. While there is a police investigation with Brooks/Coulson part of it, the LI cannot ask them the questions the public and everyone wants to ask, and should be asking. It again is totally corrupt and they are all in bed together

by aiyoyo 12.05.12 19:37

RB tried and pushed the blame onto her 2 editors Dominic Mohan and Tom ?

But Jay said let’s see whether we can agree or disagree on what might have happened

J ay : when you were discussing the arrangements with the mccanns you asked : is there any thing more they wanted, do you recall that?”

RB: Yes

Jay: And GM said that he wanted a UK Police review of the case, do you remembering him saying that?

RB: I do, yes

Jay: And, do you remember your answer being “ is that ALL?”

Her “Is that all” remark can only mean it was easily within her power to get it done. Otherwise she would have said that it was beyond her to meet Gerry’s request.

Jay is not fooled by RB selective recollection. Jay must have a credible source within NI who provided him with the dialogues of the meeting between RB and mccanns, else how did he know about the dialogues?

by Ashwarya 12.05.12 22:36

Brooks' memory lapses did not convince Jay or Leveson. Fortunately this part of yesterday's proceedings is being held back from the great British public by the great British press, otherwise even more of us might begin to wonder what is going on. We now have evidence of where the Review is heading, and it sure isn't in the direction of truth and justice for little Madeleine McCann.

by friedtomatoes 13.05.12 1:11

Ashwarya wrote:Brooks' memory lapses did not convince Jay or Leveson. Fortunately this part of yesterday's proceedings is being held back from the great British public by the great British press, otherwise even more of us might begin to wonder what is going on. We now have evidence of where the Review is heading, and it sure isn't in the direction of truth and justice for little Madeleine McCann.

Good I am glad they have her number, she even tried playing stupid in not understanding the questions...actually perhaps she is, not stupid but pretending to be, basta! Shes a pretendy lying madam and no doubt her karma is up very soon IMO. She pushed her luck and most definitely lied under oath.

by Guest 14.05.12 15:26

Murdoch empire strikes back at ‘fantasy’ claim of secret deals

Nicholas Cecil
14 May 2012

Rupert Murdoch’s media empire hit back at the Leveson inquiry today, dismissing claims of secret deals with government as “the stuff of fantasy”.

Rhodri Davies QC, representing News International, launched a withering attack on Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry who questioned the media tycoon last month.

Mr Davies said Mr Murdoch’s purchase of The Times and Sunday Times in 1981 had been portrayed as the “original sin” of dodgy deals between the media baron and government. But “the documentary evidence did not support the thesis that in 1981 any deal was made — let alone any rules were bent ... Mr Jay opened up instead what one can only describe, with respect, as a science fiction theory.”

He branded as a “flight from reality” suggestions that an agreement was reached through messages “transmitted by and to finely tuned antennae without anything actually being said”. The inquiry was being invited, he added, to ignore facts and speculate about “wordless meetings of minds ... This is the stuff of fantasy. Deals cannot be done by telepathy.”

Mr Davies also accused Mr Jay of making The Sun’s huge readership, and the fact it includes many floating voters, and has switched sides at elections, “sound sinister”.

Separately, one of Mr Murdoch’s closest lieutenants criticised a damning report on phone hacking by MPs. Members of the culture, media and sport committee had accused Les Hinton, former chairman of News International, of “selective amnesia” in evidence he gave to its hearings.

They claimed he misled Parliament and was “complicit” in a cover-up of the extent of phone hacking at the News of the World, which was initially blamed on a single rogue reporter.

Mr Hinton said the committee’s findings were “based on a misreading of evidence, and on a selective and misleading analysis of my testimonies” and “rest on ... unsupportable leaps in logic and inference”. He insisted: “There is nothing credible ... to suggest that I was anything but candid.”

At the Leveson inquiry today Lord

O’Donnell, the former Cabinet secretary, said ex-prime minister John Major was hurt by personal attacks on him. Alastair Campbell, spin chief in Tony Blair’s government, was also giving evidence today

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

by Guest 14.05.12 20:37

14 May 2012 Last updated at 18:15

Phone hacking: Rebekah Brooks charge decision due

Rebekah Brooks and her husband, Charlie, will be told on Tuesday if they are to be charged with perverting the course of justice.

A solicitor for the couple said they would be informed shortly before 10:00 BST, when they answer police bail.

An announcement on the former News International chief executive and her husband would then be made public.

The BBC understands five others will also be told whether they are to face charges over the phone-hacking scandal.

Mrs Brooks appeared before Lord Justice Leveson at his inquiry into media ethics on Friday.

The former Sun and News of the World (NoW) editor was questioned for more than five hours - about her relationship with politicians including David Cameron and former prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - as well as decisions taken by her papers when she was editor.

Mrs Brooks was the NoW editor when voicemails on murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler's mobile phone were intercepted.

She was arrested on 13 March on suspicion of conspiring to pervert the course of justice as part of Operation Weeting, the Metropolitan Police's investigation into phone-hacking.

Mrs Brooks had first been arrested last July on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications and corruption, before being released on police bail.

NoW phone hacking

The hacking of phones by the NoW first came to light in 2006 when the tabloid's then royal editor Clive Goodman, and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were accused of illegally accessing the voicemails of royal aides.

They were jailed in 2007 - for four months and seven months respectively - after admitting the practice.

The NoW was closed in July 2011 after mounting evidence that phone hacking to find stories was more widespread. At least 50 claims against the NoW have now been settled.

Scotland Yard is conducting three investigations relating to the phone-hacking scandal.

Operation Weeting is looking into allegations of hacking by the NoW into private voicemails, Operation Elveden is examining allegations that journalists from News International made "inappropriate" payments to police, and Operation Tuleta is investigating computer hacking.

Meanwhile, Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry has been examining relations between the press, politicians and police, and the conduct of each.

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

by friedtomatoes 15.05.12 2:44

fingers crossed broomstick witch wil be charged nite alll

by aiyoyo 15.05.12 5:18

If broomstick witch being chief mafia who sanctioned the hacking isn't charged, then Leveson Inquiry is a national joke!

by jd 15.05.12 5:30

I think at 10am tomorrow morning we will find out just how proper this police investigation into phone hacking really is. I do have faith in Sue Ackers being honest & responsible and hope she doesn't let us down

by Guest 15.05.12 12:23

15 May 2012 Last updated at 10:20

Phone-hacking police charge Rebekah Brooks Rebekah Brooks

Rebekah Brooks and her husband, Charlie, have been charged with perverting the course of justice as part of the phone hacking inquiry.

She was arrested on 13 March as part of the Met Police's Operation Weeting.

In a statement, they accused the CPS of "posturing" and said: "We deplore this weak and unjust decision."

The couple will become the first suspects to be charged in an inquiry lasting 18 months and involving 185 police officers and staff.

Mrs Brooks's PA, Cheryl Carter, her chauffeur, Paul Edwards, security staff member Daryl Jorsling and News International security head Mark Hanna are charged with the same offence.

Mrs Brooks is facing three charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice while her husband faces two.

Revealing the charges ahead of a CPS announcement, the couple said: "We have this morning been informed by the Office of the Department of Public Prosecutions that we are to be charged with perverting the course of justice."

They added: "We deplore this weak and unjust decision.

"After the further unprecedented posturing of the CPS we will respond later today after our return from the police station."

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

VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Rebekah Brookes and Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

An aged enhanced image of Rebekah Brooks

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Re: VIDEO Added - Rebekah Brookes on Madeleine McCann review and front page letter to David Cameron

Latest topics