Listing Details
| ID: | 130 |
| Title: | Guardian News Blog |
| URL: | http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/ |
| Category: | News & Media: News Blogs |
| Description: | The British newspaper's global news team update this blog with the latest developments. |
| Rebekah Brooks at the Leveson inquiry - as it happened - Fri, 11 May 2012 16:54:00 GMT2012-05-11 16:56:19 |
• Defends 'Sarah's law' campaign but says she has some regrets Good morning and welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog. Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive, will give evidence in a full-day hearing. It will be the first time Brooks has made any public statement since 19 July 2011, when she gave evidence to the Commons culture, media and sport select committee on phone hacking. Brooks, the ex-editor of both the Sun and the News of the World, will face a series of questions about her relationship with former prime ministersTony BlairandGordon Brown, but the inquiry is likely to place extra scrutiny on her dealings withDavid Cameron. The prime minister was reported to have offered his personal support to Brooks after she resigned from News International at the height of the phone-hacking scandal in July last year. Brooks is unlikely to be asked about the ongoing police investigations into phone hacking or payments to police officers. She is currently on police bail after being arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept voicemail messages and of corruption on 17 July last year, andseparately held on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justiceon 13 March this year. A close confidante ofRupert Murdoch, Brooks declined four times to give evidence to MPs on phone hacking between July 2009 and May 2011, according tothe select committee report published last week. The 43-year-old, who edited the News of the World from 2000 to 2003, was criticised by the Commons cross-party select committee earlier in May for overseeing a culture at the Sunday tabloid in which reporters acted unethically in their dogged coverage of theMilly Dowlermurder investigation. "The attempts by the News of the World to get a scoop on Milly Dowler led to a considerable amount of valuable police resource being redirected to the pursuit of false leads," the committeesaid in its phone-hacking report.
Please note that comments have been switched off for legal reasons. Brooks arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice just before 9.15am in a black Land Rover,according to ITV News cameras. She was greeted by this pantomime horse, a reference to the "Horsegate" saga afterit emerged earlier this yearthat David Cameron rode a retired police horse that had been lent to Brooks by Scotland Yard. Rich Peppiatt, the ex-Daily Star reporter turned tabloid mischief maker, is one of the people underneath the pantomime horse. The inquiry has begun andRebekah Brookshas taken the witness stand. Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, is doing the questioning. Brooks joined the Sunday magazine on the News of the World in 1989; she was appointed deputy editor of the News of the World in 1996; and was made deputy editor of the Sun in 1998. In May 2000 she became editor of the News of the World aged 31. She became editor of the Sun in January 2003 and chief executive of News International from 2 September 2009. Brooks says she has not been able to get "the complete picture" about her various meetings, but has given "a flavour" based on the documents she has been able to retrieve. Jay mentions a diary kept by Brooks's former PA. "Definitely not an Alastair Campbell-style diary," says Brooks. Brooks's BlackBerry was held by Scotland Yard for about three weeks in July 2011, she says. Her BlackBerry was imaged by her legal team, and contained about six weeks of emails and about a month of texts. "We had to image them ... had some problems with that," she adds. It contained emails and texts from the beginning of June 2011 to 17 July 2011, she confirms. One email was from David Cameron. "One from Mr Cameron that was compressed in June, but there's no content in it," she says. Brooks says she had a number of indirect messages of support from "some politicians, some Tories … very few Labour MPs". When pressed, she says she received messages of support from "No 10, No 11, Home Office, Foreign Office". Former prime minister Tony Blair sent her a message of support, she says. Brooks is asked about messages from David Cameron. She confirms she received a message from Cameron apologising for his lack of support. "Very indirectly," she says, confirming that the message was along those lines. Jay asks if Cameron and George Osborne sent her these messages. "And also people who worked in those offices," says Brooks. "Very few Labour politicians." Mr Blair? "Yes." Probably not Mr Brown? "No. He was probably getting the bunting out." Did Mr Cameron indirectly say keep your head up? "Along those lines, I don't think they were the exact words." Is the gist right? "Yes. It was indirect. It wasn't a direct text message." Jay then asks about the "keep your head up" message, reported to have come from Cameron. "It was similar but not direct," says Brooks. Broadly speaking, that message was delivered to you? "Yes." How do these messages come into the public domain? "Journalists doing their job," says Brooks. Jay turns to Rupert Murdoch. Brooks says that Murdoch is more interested in the Sun over political issues. "Less so," when she was editor of the News of the World, she adds. "We disagreed about quite a few things. More in the margins of it than the principle … so the environment, the DNA database … the amount of celebrity in the paper rather than serious issues," Brooks says. "But in the main, on the big issues, we had similarities." She says Murdoch wanted more serious issues in the Sun whereas Brooks wanted more celebrity content "although he liked The X Factor". Brooks is asked about being appointed editor of the News of the World in 2000. She believes the appointment was down to Les Hinton's "strong recommendation" but she did not speak to Rupert Murdoch until after she took the job. Jay asks if the Sun's editorial line reflected Murdoch's thinking. Brooks says "the readers' views were always reflected" in the Sun's stance on politics. She adds that she does not believe Murdoch was speaking literally when he told the inquiry politicians should read the leaders in the Sun if they wanted to know what he thought on an issue. Jay suggests Murdoch was talking about the big issues. "I accept that," says Brooks. Jay asks why Brooks believes the Sun reflects the mood of the nation. Brooks says:
Jay describes newspaper proprietors as "unelected forces". Brooks contests that. He asks what she views them as. "Journalists," she replies.
Brooks agrees that editors can "present issues to the readership", but does not agree with the suggestion that they enjoy a unique power. Jay: "You can present issues with a certain attitude?" Brooks: "OK." Murdoch's contact with the News of the World was "much more limited" than with the Sun or other newspapers, Brooks says. She says Murdoch was "instrumental" in her appointment as editor of the Sun in 2003. Jay asks how often Brooks spoke to him as editor of the Sun. "Very frequently. It wasn't a regular pattern. Sometimes every day ... very frequently. Mainly when he wasn't in the country." Brooks denies the rumour that she used to swim with Murdoch when he was in London. She also knocks down a rumour that Murdoch sent her a dress to the police station after she was arrested from an alleged assault on former husband Ross Kemp. Where is this from, asks Brooks. "Various sources," says Jay, to laughter. "You need better sources," says Brooks. Brooks confirms Murdoch hosted a party for her 40th birthday at which politicians including Tony Blair were present. Jay turns to Brooks's appointment as News International chief executive in 2009. Brooks discussed this with James and Rupert Murdoch. She says the decision to appoint her was "both of their ideas". She says:
Jay asks if Dominic Mohan was her choice as editor of the Sun. "Yes, he had been my deputy for several years," she replies. She says she liked the paper he produced in her absence: "I thought he was doing a very good job." Brooks is asked whether she was embarrassed when Rupert Murdoch said in July last year that he was her top priority, when asked by reporters in the street. "I took that to mean this issue … so I wasn't embarrassed at the time," she says. Jay turns to Brooks's relationship with Tony Blair. She says Blair did not have a mobile phone or a computer when he was prime minister. On her meetings with Tony Blair, Brooks says: "I think it became more frequent when I became editor of the Sun but that would probably go for most politicians. As you heard from Mr Murdoch, Mr Blair flew out to News Corp conference in around 1995 I probably met him shortly after that and they were in power for 10 years. It's over a very long period of time." Did her meetings with politicians increase after you became editor of the Sun? "Yes." Brooks says that New Labour had "a very big story to tell" and Alastair Campbell "put a huge store on certain newspapers". She adds that Blair and his aides "were a constant presence in my life for many years". Jay asks what steps Brooks took to counter spin by the New Labour government. She replies: "Gordon Brown and Charlie Whelan were masters of spin, more than Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair." She says:
She does not believe any journalist would report verbatim a line or story given to them by a politician. Brooks is asked about her relationship with Blair and Brown. She says that hostilities between Brown and Blair became "increasingly worse" in the latter years of Blair's premiership. But whose side was she on? "Neither. On the side of the readers. It was our job to judge and analyse." You've told us you were friends with Mr Blair. Friends with Brown? "I was friends with Sarah Brown, an amazing lady. So probably not." She concedes taking Blair's side over the famous "curry house coup" in which the then prime minister and Brown struck a deal over who would be his successor. "In the end, particularly, we were on the side of Mr Blair," she says.
Rebekah Brooks's two witness statementshave now been publishedon the Leveson inquiry website. Jay asks whether Brooks's dinners with Blair between 2003 and 2007 were always one to one or if someone else was present. "From memory I had about three dinners with Mr Blair on my own," she says. How often was Blair at home of Matthew Freud and Elisabeth Murdoch when he was prime minister? "Very few." A handful? "Maximum, yes." Was the support of your paper at election time the subject of prior discussion with Mr Blair or his advisors? Brooks: "Not in 2001 that I can remember. In 2005 it was a very difficult time for the Labour party. I'm pretty sure it was Michael Howard who was leader of the opposition. The Sun under my editorship we were very even handed during that election process." Was the fact of the Sun's support discussed with Blair or his advisers? Brooks: "Not that I can remember. It wouldn't be that way. I think in 2005 the Sun, we left it right to the day. We erected in a Vatican-style chimney on the roof of Wapping, whatever coloured smoke – sorry, it was funny at the time, clearly lost in translation – whatever smoke came up. We had red smoke and blue smoke ... I'm not sure we could find any yellow smoke at the time. I remember being on the roof of Wapping and looking down and seeing all the press guys. I didn't see Mr Blair with them waiting." Jay asks again. Brooks: "No, I don't remember having a prior discussion with them about it. In 2005 we didn't tell anyone until we got to the roof of Wapping." Jay turns to a particular Sun article, from 2005, which said there had been a crushing blow to Brown's hopes as PM. It said Blair had told close allies intends to lead Labour for five more years. Where did that come from, asks Jay. Was it Blair, did he plant it? "I can't tell you that at all." Jay says it has been suggested Brooks passed on material gained from Gordon Brown to Tony Blair – is that true? "No it isn't. And I think your source might be John Prescott. It's not true." Jay asks if Brooks had much less contact with Brown as PM than Blair. "He wasn't prime minister for very long, in 2009 the Sun came out for the Tories and contact was very limited after that," says Brooks. Jay asks Brooks about the deteriorating relationship with Brown. He says that by March 2009 the Sun was moving inexorably towards supporting the Conservative party. "Not quite the way I would describe it," Brooks replies. She says it was around March 2009, maybe a bit later, when Brown announced the referendum on the European constitution, they were going to renege on that. The Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and the Sun called for a snap election in the autumn of 2009. Brooks says that the Sun was considered a "very pro-armed forces" newspaper so received a lot of feedback from readers about the government's Afghanistan campaign. Brooks is asked about her social circle. Is it true there was a circle of friends including her, Wendi Murdoch, Elisabeth Murdoch and, at one stage, Sarah Brown? "We all knew each other, we didn't meet as a group like that very often, probably only once," she says. The inquiry is now taking a short break. Here are Brooks's meetings with prime ministers from 2005 to 2010, according to notes taken by the Guardian's Dan Sabbagh at the inquiry. 21 April 2005 – Tony Blair meeting No 10 Here is a brief summary of Brooks's evidence so far: • Brooks received direct or indirect messages of support from politicians including Cameron, Osborne and former prime minister Tony Blair when left she left News International in July 2011 • Tony Blair and his aides described by Brooks as "constant presence in my life for years" • Witness statement reveals Brooks discussed News Corp bid for BSkyB with David Cameron and George Osborne in December 2010 "but no inappropriate conversations" The inquiry has resumed and Jay asks about the Tory leadership election. Brooks says: "I don't remember having a particular line in the paper about the leadership." Did you have any involvement in Andy Coulson's appointment as director of communications for the Conservative party? Brooks replies, "No." She adds that she heard about it from Andy Coulson. What was her reaction? "I probably said 'well done' ... he had had to resign from the News of the World and he had found a good job; as a friend I was pleased for him." Was she surprised that the Tory party wanted to appoint Coulson?
Brooks met Cameron in Greece while she was there for Elisabeth Murdoch's birthday. He was only there for an afternoon and an evening, she says. Jay asks whether Brooks was pleased with this occasion. "Well, it was very cordial, it went well," she says. Cameron also attended a New Year's Eve party at the home of a Brooks family member, Jay says. Jay turns to the Sun's support for the Tories, which James Murdoch told David Cameron about at an informal meeting on 9 September 2009 at the George in London. In June 2009, Brooks, Sun political editor Trevor Kavanagh and the Murdochs "did start to have discussions", she says. Brooks says that by that time the Sun had "lost things to support Gordon Brown on" so began to consider a change in political allegiance. Was the decision based on who was likely to win the election? Brooks says it was about the Sun's readership: "There were lots of issues that our readers were concerned about." She adds that that summer the Sun had not written one editorial in support of Labour. Jay asks again if any part of this decision was based on who was likely to win the election. "In general terms it would have been, but only a part of it because I can't remember the polls at the time. The Tories were in the lead back then, but polls are polls." She says the floating voter is important for the Sun. The "overwhelming feedback" from readers was that they were unhappy with Labour, she adds. Brooks maintains that no one outside of Wapping knew the exact timing of when the Sun would switch its support to the Tories. She describes herself as "instrumental" in the decision on the timing: the Sun pronounced its support for the Tories after Gordon Brown's speech at the Labour party conference in 2009. Brooks says she felt it "unfair to cloud a party conference" by announcing the switch before the Labour conference, rather than after. "The reason for that night is because Mr Brown's speech … the key was that he spent less than two minutes on Afghanistan. We felt that was the right timing in order to distance ourselves," she explains. Brooks accepts she knew the Sun's switch in allegiance would anger Labour figures. Was this a show of strength from the Sun? "I don't think we've ever seen it in those terms," she says. "My main responsibility was to a readership." Brooks told the inquiry that the Sun had a very close relationship with its readers. How close? Brooks and all her staff, including big name columnists, would make an annual trip to what she described as a "£9.50 holiday camp" where they would meet the readers and take part in all sorts of fun and games including, back in 2007, "Strictly Sun dancing". Page 3 girls, writers Ally Ross and Jane Moore and royal snapper Arthur Edwards were also at the 2007 weekend shindig at a former Butlin's holiday camp (Brooks, we hasten to add, didn't go into this much detail at Leveson). A thinktank comparing the paper's royal coverage with its rivals was codenamed "Windsor" (what else?). Butby the looks of these pictures, the weather wasn't much of a scorcher. Brooks says she tried to contact Gordon Brown, Sarah Brown and Peter Mandelson to speak to her before the Sun published its front-page switch in support. She says that Mandelson "seemed quite angry, but not surprised". Brooks eventually spoke to Brown in October 2009, a few weeks after the Sun announcement, she says. Why did she not speak to Brooks sooner? "It was clear that there was nothing more to say at that point. I don't think he wanted to talk to me." Brown telephoned Brooks in October after the Sun attacked the then prime minister of an apparently illegible letter he sent to the bereaved mother of a dead soldier. Brooks, who was then News International chief executive, says Brown was "very aggressive" but she understood his concern over what she admits was an overly personal attack. She spoke to Sun editor Dominic Mohan on the morning of the headline and said it should not happen again. "The tone of it was very aggressive and quite rightly he was hurt by the projection and headline that had been put on the story. He suspected or thought that this may be a way in which the Sun was going to behave. I assured him it wasn't, that it was a mistake, and that this wasn't how the Sun was going to behave." Doesn't the Sun quite often indulge in a personal attack? "No. The fact it resulted in such an extraordinarily aggressive conversation between me and Mr Brown suggests it doesn't happen, I don't accept that." Jay asks if politicians fear personal attacks by the Sun. Brooks says: "Neil Kinnock might think that [but] I'm not sure the paper has been like that for a while. Occasionally, obviously, depending on the story that would happen in the main the Sun concentrated on the issues rather than just attacking for the sake of personal attacks." Jay suggests prying intrusively and personal attacks has been part of the metier of the Sun. Brooks says: "Holding politicians to account has occasionally been found to be intrusive but these are not the policy. When a newspaper oversteps the line I have heard criticism of papers that I have edited, that privacy is a hugely debated topic in every newsroom, your premise was 'this was the culture', I was disputing that." Jay says politicians fear if they depart from what the paper wants there may be a personal attack. Brooks: "It's not fair to say politicians live in fear of newspapers ... MPs don't scare easily." Here are Brooks's meetings with opposition leaders from 1997 to 2011, according to notes taken by the Guardian's Dan Sabbagh at the inquiry. 27 March 1997 – Tony Blair meeting Brooks says that there was a negative reaction from Sun readers to its front-page criticism of Brown's letter to the bereaved mother. "And I think that was probably fair," she says. Murdoch told Brooks that Brown had declared war on News Corp, she says. "Mr Brown was very angry, I'm not sure there was anything particularly relevant to this inquiry. Mr Murdoch told me the same story that he told you," says Brooks. Brown had made "similar comments made about the Sun and abandoning Labour after 12 years, hostile comments," she adds. "When Mr Murdoch told me his conversation it didn't surprise me. He told me exactly what he told the inquiry." Brooks received insinuations from others "close to Brown" about threats to News Corp, she says, repeating that the then-prime minister was "incredibly aggressive and angry" towards her. Jay asks: were you fearful if he did win the election he had it in his power to harm News International? Brooks: "I didn't think that. At not any point in the conversation with Mr Brown if he wins he will go against the commercial interests of the company. He was just incredibly aggressive and angry." Jay turns back to David Cameron. There is an absence of text messages that might have existed, isn't there? "Yes, that is correct," she says. Brooks says it is "preposterous" and not true that Cameron text her a dozen times a day. "I would text Mr Cameron, and vice versa, on occasion," she says. "Between January 2010, during election campaign ... on average, once a week." Sometimes she would text him twice a week. What were these text messages about? "Some if not the majority were to do with organisation, meeting up or arranging to speak, some were about a social occasion and occasionally would be my own personal comment about a TV debate, something like that." Jay asks how often Brooks met Cameron in the first five months of 2010, in runup to the general election. "Three or four times," says Brooks. What comments did Brooks make about the politicians' TV debates in the 2010 election? "I felt the first one wasn't very good," she says. Did she text the other two party leaders? "I didn't text Gordon Brown no." Nick Clegg? "No." "How were these texts signed off? Everyone wants to know," says Jay. Leveson asks: "Do I?" "He would sign them off 'DC' in the main," says Brooks. Anything else? "Occasionally he would sign them off LOL, 'lots of love', until I told him it meant 'laugh out loud' and he didn't sign them that anymore. In the main DC I'd have thought." Leveson says: "Right, done that. Move on." Brooks is asked about a meeting with Cameron at a point-to-point horse race. She says she did not meet Cameron, although he may have seen her husband, and did not text the PM beforehand. Brooks is asked if she discussed the phone-hacking allegations with Cameron between the July 2009 Guardian story and 2011? "Yes I did," she answers. "On occasion … not very often, once or twice, because of the phone-hacking story was a constant, it kept coming up, so we would bring it up, maybe in 2010 we had a more specific conversation with it," she says. "It was one I remember rather than the story being around." She adds that Cameron was "interested in the latest developments … it was about the amount of civil cases coming in around the end of 2010". Was he concerned that phone hacking went beyond Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire? "Probably yes. It was a general conversation about the increase in the civil cases." Jay presses Brooks on this conversation. Brooks says she "explained the story behind the news … just a general update." Jay says he is interested in what Cameron said to her, not the other way round. Cameron asked her about a civil case that came out, she says. Was it, asks Jay, related to his hiring of Coulson? "Not on that instance, no." On any other instance? "No." Is she sure about that? "Yes." Jay moves on to Elisabeth Murdoch and her husband, Matthew Freud. He asks: how often have you been to the Freuds' home, your home, or the Camerons' home, in the company of other politicians? Never at Cameron's home, Brooks says. "Once George Osborne at a dinner at my own. The only time at Elisabeth Murdoch's house, her 40th, a couple of years ago." Jay turns to Murdoch's 40th, at the Burford Priory which he says "I detect may be in Oxfordshire". "Well done," says Leveson, drily. When were you made aware the News Corp bid would be made for the rest of BSkyB? "Before the public announcement, shortly before." Before the general election or after? "I think it was before." She adds: "I played no formal role in the BSkyB transaction. I was made aware that it was on the cards before the public announcement. Maybe six weeks, a couple of months beforehand." Brooks says she probably did get involved in lobbying politicians for News Corp over the BSkyB deal. She says:
Brooks adds that she would "waste no time" putting News Corp's case for the deal as "a counter-voice in a very large opposition". Brooks is asked when she was first made aware of "Rubicon", the News Corp codename for the BSkyB bid. "Around the same time, maybe a couple of months before," she says. Do you know who chose that codename? "I think it might have been James Murdoch," she says, but adds she doesn't know. Did anyone in government know the codename, such as George Osborne or Jeremy Hunt? "I never heard them acknowledge that name." Jay asks if Brooks raised the takeover with Cameron, for example discussed at dinner with him in December 2010. "It was mentioned but not widely discussed. It was mentioned because it was in the news because Dr [Vince] Cable had resigned from that role." Brooks says it was "disappointing" when it emerged that Vince Cable had "some personal prejudice" over the deal. How well did she know Jeremy Hunt? "Not as well as others, no. Not particularly." Was she putting out feelers to find out if Hunt would be on side? "I think he had posted something on his website saying he was quite favourable, before the decision went to him. But not from a direct conversation with Mr Hunt." What about the Boxing Day 2010 meeting with Cameron? "Mr Cameron attended a Boxing Day mulled wine mince pie party at my sister-in-law's. I popped in on my way to another dinner. I don't have any memory – I don't think I did speak to him or Samantha. I would have seen them but not even to have a proper conversation." Ian Katz, deputy editor of the Guardian, has just tweeted:
Jay turns to more general conversations between Brooks and politicians. She says she "never really" had a conversation with a politician about the BBC and "not enough" about self-regulation of the press. Cherie Blair discussed the Daily Mail's hostile coverage of Tony with Brooks, she says. "Cherie Blair was concerned that she felt a lot of her coverage was quite sexist. But she's not the first high-profile female to think that about the UK media," she says. "She sometimes felt it was quite cruel about her weight." "I was quite surprised when he said that," she says, adding that Blair did not communicate those concerns to her. Politicians would occasionally complain about coverage of them in the Sun, Brooks says. She adds that Blair would "often" complain about the Sun's attitude to Europe. Brooks agrees that she was close to Rupert Murdoch. In order to get close to Murdoch they had to get close to you? "No … not true," she says. Jays asks whether Brooks believes that British politicians thought she had influence over Murdoch. "No. Politicians did want to get access to the editor of the Sun and his or her team as much as possible. But I don't think people thought to get to Mr Murdoch they had to get through me," she says. "I always examined the ulterior motives of politicians. I thought it was pretty obvious – I don't know a politician who would turn down a meeting with a senior journalist from any broadcaster or newspaper ... it's been the same case for decades." Politicians were keen to put their case to Sun executives because of the large readership of the paper, she says. Jay asks if it was important for Brooks to build friendships with senior politicians. Brooks says that "some friendships were made" but politicians never forgot she was a journalist and she never forgot they were a politician. Did she feel you had personal power over politicians? "I just didn't see it like that. I saw my role as editor of the Sun as a very responsible one." Jay suggests that she was aware of her ability to be empathetic with people. "I hope to be empathetic, yes," she says, after Jay reassures her that he is not suggesting anything sinister. Brooks is asked about the serialisation in the Sunday Times and the Sun of a book by Kate McCann, the mother of Madeleine. Gerry McCann told the inquiry that they were initially "horrified" about the serialisation, but were later convinced after News International pledged to back their campaign if they agreed to the serialisation. Brooks can't remember how much News International paid for the book serialisation. "Hundreds of thousands. It wasn't £1m. Half a million maybe?" She adds: "I had always got on very well with Gerry and Kate McCann. I think if asked they would be very positive about the Sun. In this case I thought Dominic Mohan's idea to run the campaign, this review of Madeleine's case by the home secretary, was the right thing to do … I don't think I spoke to Theresa May directly. Dominic [Mohan] may have done." Brooks says she did not take the McCann issue up with Downing Street. Editor Dominic Mohan or Tom Newton-Dunn, the Sun's political editor, will have spoken to No 10 or the Home Office about reopening the Madeleine investigation after the Sun's campaign, she says. Was there an ultimatum or threat to the home secretary? "I'm pretty sure there will not have been a threat, but you will have to ask Dominic Mohan," she says. Jay says he has been told that Brooks intervened personally with the prime minister and said the Sun would put Theresa May on the front page every day until the paper's demands were met. Brooks says that is not true. "I did not say to the prime minister we would put Theresa May on the front page every day. If I'd had any conversations with No 10 directly they would not have been particularly about that," she adds. Lord Justice Leveson intervenes. He asks whether Brooks was involved in a strategy to threaten No 10 in order to obtain a review of the Madeleine investigation. "I was certainly part of a strategy to launch a campaign in order to get a review for the McCanns," Brooks says, disputing that it was a "threat". Leveson: "Give me another word for it, would you?" Brooks: "Persuade?" Leveson appears unconvinced. Jay suggests the government yielded to Brooks's pressure to reopen the McCann investigation. "It only took about a day," he notes, drily. Brooks insists that this was a worthwhile campaign. Jay asks about Dominic Grieve, the former shadow home secretary. Over dinner, Brooks once spoke to him about the Human Rights Act (HRA). He was in favour of it and she was not, Jay says. Brooks says Grieve believed the Tory pledge to replace the HRA with a British bill of rights "should not be so easily promised". The dinner conversation was "quite heated" as he did not toe the party line on the future of the act, she says. "I did not tell Mr Cameron to move him," Brooks says, pressed by Jay. "They [Grieve's shadow cabinet colleagues] were concerned that his view was not to be taken seriously." Brooks maintains she did not give Cameron any advice on Grieve. Cameron and Osborne were "at pains" to tell Brooks that Grieve was mistaken and that he did not share that view, she adds. The inquiry has now broken for lunch and will resume at 2pm with more evidence from Brooks. Here is a lunchtime summary of Rebekah Brooks's evidence so far: • Brooks met David Cameron on at least three occasions over Christmas 2010 • Some of Cameron's texts to Brooks were signed off "LOL" until she told him it did not mean "lots of love" • Cameron phoned Brooks in October 2010 to ask about phone-hacking allagations • Brooks knew about News Corp's BSkyB bid two months before publicly announced • Brooks: Gordon Brown was "very aggressive" after Sun criticised his letter to bereaved mother of army soldier • Sun planned to switch support to Tories in June 2009 The Guardian'sHadley Freemanhas compileda handy guide to text speakfor David Cameron: David Cameron has been revealed by Rebekah Brooks to sign off some of his texts LOL, in the belief the acronym means "Lots Of Love". She told the Leveson Inquiry she has explained to him it actually means "Laughing Out Loud". In fact, they're both right and they're both wrong, as it means both. Here, to help both of them, is a list of other popular acronyms and what they absolutely don't mean, tempting though it might be for them to believe otherwise if Cameron happened to use them: FFS:Freud Fixed Shenanigans FFS:Fuck! Farewell Sky WTF:Was Tony Funnier? OMG:Oh, Murdoch's Gorgeous The inquiry has resumed andRebekah Brooksis continuing her evidence. Robert Jay QC turns to Labour MPs. He raises critical comments by Labour MP Chris Bryant in 2004. Bryant claimed that Brooks told him he should be "out on Clapham Common" after the MP made comments critical of Rupert Murdoch. Brooks says she does not recall making those comments. Jay asks if Brooks forced Sun journalists to write stories critical or untrue about Tom Watson MP. "No," says Brooks. She says that she might have said "What are we going to do about Mr Watson?" in a conversation with Nick Robinson, the political editor of the BBC. Brooks denies using the Sun to criticise politicians who she personally does not like. Jay returns to News Corp's bid for BSkyB. Brooks says she has defended the bid. "I think the anti-Sky bid alliance had so many members … and that they I knew were seeing politicians, I think Dr Cable had a dinner with them early on in 2010, if I met people and I had the chance to put our side of the story I would." Didn't she raise it with David Cameron and George Osborne? She says her remarks to Cameron "are not to be dwelled on" because it was in passing, but she did have a conversation with Osborne in 2010. "The BSkyB bid was mentioned at the dinner at our home in December, but I don't remember having a particularly forceful discussion with Mr Cameron on it," she says. "Mr Cameron always made it very clear that he turned it into, or it was a quasi-judicial decision and it wasn't up to him … He was always very even-handed of it." Jay: Was Cameron particularly supportive of the BSkyB bid? Brooks: "No." Jay: Was Osborne particularly supportive of the BSkyB bid? Brooks: "He never explicity said so. He was interested in our arguments, I think that's probably at its best." Jay asks whether Brooks was aware of the role of News Corp's Fred Michel in the BSkyB bid. Michel is the News Corp lobbyist at the heart of the row over Jeremy Hunt's conduct in the controversial bid. Brooks says she was not aware of the emails until recently. "I often felt Mr Michel over-egged his position," she says, adding that his "level of access that seemed to come out was pretty good really". Jay asks aboutan email from Brooks to Michel. Brooks had met George Osborne the previous night and "part of the dinner I would have discussed our frustration at what was going on. Not at any great length". She told Michel that Osborne's response to Ofcom's issues letter was "total bafflement". Brooks says she cannot remember who brought the BSkyB deal up over dinner with Osborne, but she reluctantly accepts it may have been her. Jay asks if this was appropriate. "For one three-minute conversation at the beginning of dinner I got the opportunity to give our view. I don't think that is inappropriate," Brooks says. Brooks says she had conversations with James and Rupert Murdoch about "the latest moves" of the anti-Sky bid alliance. The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
Brooks says she may have been "naive" to believe the Sky bid would be dealt with properly by ministers. Jay turns to an email disclosed to the inquiry by Brooks. He asks why only one email was disclosed. Brooks says: "Between June and 17 July, when my BlackBerry was imaged there was some emails and some text messages, legal team went through all those … this was the only email I had in that period that was relevant to the BSkyB questions I had been asked." Jay says the email shows that Michel had been told what Hunt planned to say to parliament about the BSkyB bid in the coming week. The email text, as read by Jay, says:
She says: "I think it was news to me and therefore could be surprising." Jay reads the next paragraph of the email from Michel to Brooks:
Jay turns to Brooks's meetings with senior police officers. Did she discuss phone hacking with John Yates? Brooks says she is not sure but that she may have discussed it with him at the Police Bravery Awards in July 2009. She says she did not have a detailed conversation about hacking with Yates as far she can remember. Brooks is asked about hospitality. Did she view hospitality towards police officers in the same way as to politicians? Police officers wanted to go to a "neutral venue" like a restaurant, whereas politicians would meet at a convenient venue, such as Wapping, she says. Brooks says there was "absolutely not" any trade between the retired police horse Raiza and the work experience at News International given to the son of Dick Fedorcio, Scotland Yard's ex-head of public affairs. Brooks is asked about the Sun story on Gordon Brown's son, Fraser, having cystic fibrosis in 2006. The Sun published a story on 13 July 2011 apparently debunking allegations by Gordon Brown that the story was obtained via illicit newsgathering methods. Brooks says she had no involvement in the 2011 story. She says the Sun has a written affadavit from a man whose son also has cystic fibrosis. Jay presses Brooks on where this man got information about Brown's son. "He'd got the information because his own son had cystic fibrosis and through a very small charity … he got it slightly by involvement through that," she says, before refusing to say any more for fear of identifying the man. Lord Justice Leveson says that Brown was concerned that the Sun had obtained the story through illegitimate means. "It's not unreasonable to believe if private details of your child's condition are being put into the public domain they can only have come from medical records," he says. Brooks: "It wasn't something that he felt at the time … he came to the wrong assumption in 2011." Leveson points out that the tone of the 2011 Sun article was to go on the attack, rather than simply state that Brown was mistaken. Brooks replies that Brown has twice attacked the Sun in parliament and "the Sun felt that it was a smear and that he was doing it five years later for a particular reason". Here is the full text of the Fred Michel emails, as seen by our reporters at the Leveson inquiry:
Jay again presses Brooks on the source of the story about Gordon Brown's son. Brooks refuses to go into more detail, but Jay perseveres. Brooks says the man did not gain the information via subterfuge or via the Browns. Jay asks if it was from a third party. "I suppose you could describe it as that," says Brooks. Was that third party an employee of the NHS? "No." Did they have a duty of confidence? "I don't think so." Brooks says the Sun "entirely" had the permission of the Browns to publish this story in November 2006. Brooks says if the Browns had asked her not to run the story she would not have done. She says the only reason they ran it was because they felt they had the permission of the Browns. Did she get consent from Sarah or Gordon Brown? "I spoke to the Browns, I will have spoken to people around them, I probably discussed it with Sarah more as she was my friend," she says. Jay asks whether Brooks told Sarah Brown they were determined to publish the story but in a responsible way. "Absolutely not," says Brooks. "I was very friendly with Mrs Brown she had been through a hell of a lot. First thing I would have said would have been much more considerate and caring. I was very sad for them." Brooks maintains that Sarah and Gordon Brown remained friendly after the original Sun story was published in 2006. She says:
Brooks is asked about the Sun's campaign against the Haringey social workers, including Sharon Shoesmith, involved in the Baby P case in 2007. Shoesmith was sacked by Ed Balls, then a secretary of state, in 2008. The Sun launched an e-petition calling for people to be sacked. Jay asks whether Brooks telephoned Balls calling for Shoesmith to be sacked in November 2008 "or we will turn this thing on him". "No," says Brooks. She adds that she did have conversations with Balls and that he was aware of the Sun's e-petition. She confirms that the pair did discuss the issue in a telephone call. Did you indicate that you wanted Balls to sack Shoesmith? "Mr Jay, I didn't tell Ed Balls to fire Sharon Shoesmith. Yes I had conversations with Mr Balls; I also spoke to the shadow minister, who I think was Michael Gove." Brooks and Jay dispute the meaning of this conversation. Brooks: "The premise of your questioning is, did I tell Ed Balls to sack Sharon Shoesmith? In fact in the newspaper it was very clear that was the Sun's editorial line. Mr Balls was under no illusion that was the point of our campaign." Jay asks if this was the point of Brooks's phone call. She says it was in part petition "and we ourselves at the Sun were very surprised by the level – 1.5 million is a huge reaction and it will have been to feed back that." The inquiry is now taking a short break. Patrick Wintour, the Guardian's political editor, has just tweeted:
The inquiry has resumed and Brooks is continuing her evidence. Jay turns to general points to conclude Brooks's evidence. Do editors have sole discretion of what constitutes the public good? "No," says Brooks. "There's a huge team at newspapers who all contribute," she says, adding that readers make up their own minds on issues put to them by newspapers. "Ultimately, everything that is published in the newspapers is the editor's responsibility, yes." Jay asks whether the public good means exposing the private weaknesses of public figures. "When it would not be in the public interest?" answers Brooks. "If there had been no trust broken between them and their constituents." "Each editor's judgment is their own," she adds. Jay turns to the News of the World's campaign for a "Sarah's law" that would name sex offenders. What does she say to a chief constable's accusation that it was "grossly irresponsible"? "I disagreed with [the comment] at the time," she says. But why did the News of the World need to name and picture known sex offenders? She says:
She adds that in 2000, during the campaign, it was "a way of highlighting the central issue of the campaign, the huge gap between what the readers thought was the situation and really was the situation". Brooks says she did not predict reprisals as a result of the News of the World's campaign. Two people suffered vigilante attacks, including a paediatrician, asthe Guardian reported at the time. "I don't think anyone could have predicted the paediatrician situation. I didn't predict the outcome," she says. Jay says that in general terms it would have been "plain as a pikestaff" to Brooks that some people could suffer reprisals as a result of this campaign. "No I won't agree," says Brooks. "I did not predict there was going to be a riot in Paulsgrove or that a member of the public would mistake a paedophile for a paediatrician." It was not just bold but designed to inflame, says Jay. "It is not my opinion and I'm not going to agree with you," says Brooks. Brooks admits she does have some regrets about the News of the World's naming of sex offenders.
Former News of the World journalist Tom Latchem has just tweeted:
and
Jay says it is ironic that Brooks has repeatedly complained about the sourcing of various claims put to her today. Brooks describes them as "gossipy items" and says they are a "systematic issue that I think is gender-based". She says if she was a "grumpy old man" no one would write about her relationship with Rupert Murdoch. She says:
Brooks says it would be the "height of hypocrisy" for her to complain about "trivial" questions put to her by Robert Jay QC. However, she questions why Jay asked her about swimming with Murdoch and the suit he was wrongly reported to have bought her. "I wasn't asking you to complain," says Leveson. Brooks says "much has been made" of informal contact between journalists and politicians. "I believe if journalists meet politicians it's going to be incredibly hard for the journalist to be transparent or forced to be transparent about that," she says, adding that that is how journalists get information. "I have never compromised my position as a journalist by having a friendly relationship with a politician and never known a politician comprise their position." Brooks says that it is "ordinary people's views that make newspapers powerful". She refers to Piers Morgan's Daily Mirror "very good" campaign against the Iraq war titled "Not in my name". The Sun was supportive of the Iraq war and ran an article headed "Why Mirror readers are wrong", Brooks says. She adds: "The Sun being pro-military always stayed very supportive. The circulation of the Mirror plummeted. He continued to drive an editorial line in the paper which was against the readership and they reacted pretty swiftly." So, Leveson asks, is it responsiveness or leadership? "It is a bit of both," says Brooks. Brooks has now completed her evidence. Antony White, QC for News Corporation, asks if he can make an opening for the third module on Monday, in order to reply to Jay's opening speech. Leveson says he is reluctant as this may encourage others to make statements, but grants his request. Sandra Laville, the Guardian's crime correspondent, has just tweeted:
White turns to the request by David Sherborne, counsel to victims of press intrusion, that core participants should answer two questions in relation to Operation Motorman data. He asks that Leveson dismiss Sherborne's application, saying that the data is now "historical" and it will require "disproportionate effort" to assess what happened to what is "low grade" information. Counsel for Associated Newspapers adds that Sherborne's application comes "far, far too late in the day". Trinity Mirror's counsel also opposes Sherborne's request. Sky News has just tweeted:
Patrick Wintour, the Guardian's political editor, has just tweeted:
Leveson says he will allow Sherborne to respond on the issue of the Operation Motorman data. The inquiry has now finished for the day. Here is a summary of Brooks's evidence this afternoon: • An email from News Corp lobbyist Frédéric Michel to Rebekah Brooks claimed culture secretary Jeremy Hunt wanted advice 'to guide his and No 10's positioning' • Brooks defended 'Sarah's law' campaign to name sex offenders but said she has some regrets • She denied she asked then secretary of state Ed Balls to sack social worker Sharon Shoesmith over the Baby P case • Brooks rejected claims she made threats to MPs Chris Bryand and Tom Watson Sandra Laville, the Guardian's crime correspondent, has just tweeted:
We are now winding up the live blog for today, but we will be back at 10am on Monday. In the meantime, you can read the latest developments on theMediaGuardian homepageand ourLeveson inquiry page. guardian.co.uk© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to ourTerms&Conditions|More Feeds |
| Leveson inquiry: Alastair Campbell, Lord O'Donnell appear - Mon, 14 May 2012 17:37:00 GMT2012-05-14 17:38:27 |
• Campbell: 'no express deal' between Blair and Murdoch Welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog. TodayAlastair Campbell, former director of communications and strategy for Tony Blair, gives evidence for a second time. In November, Campbell typically pulled no punches at the inquiry, describing a "frankly putrid" press with some sections "barely worth defending". His targets included Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre and his former employer the Daily Mirror, which he accused of hiring private eyes to investigate him and Peter Mandelson. He is expected to be similarly forthright today as he is questioned about his relationship with journalists as Tony Blair's press chief and his role in persuading Rupert Murdoch's Sun to back Labour at the 1997 general election. Also giving evidence isLord O'Donnell, who as Sir Gus O'Donnell was cabinet secretary for three prime ministers from 2005 to 2011. In No 10, O'Donnell was responsible for ensuring ministers' advisers had the correct security clearance, and he is likely to be asked why former News of the World editor Andy Coulson was only given mid-level SC clearance and whether he had access to top secret papers. O'Donnell is also expected to be asked whether he persuaded Gordon Brown not to set up a phone-hacking inquiry before the last general election. Please note that comments have been switched off for legal reasons. Here's how the Guardian's Stephen Bates described Campbell's evidencebefore the Leveson inquiry in November:
You canread the full article here. The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
The inquiry has begun. Lord Justice Leveson opens by turning to the Independent on Sunday's story about Andy Coulson on 6 May. Leveson says he will publish later today a detailed ruling in relation to this incident. He will not take action under section 36 of the Inquiries Act. However, he warns anyone considering publishing material not yet heard by the inquiry to read the judgment very carefully. News International is making an opening statement about module three, the inquiry probe into relations between press and police. Rhodri Davies, the News International counsel, is on his feet. Davies criticises the inquiry's lead counsel, Robert Jay QC, for implyingin his statementthat there was a "sinister" relationship between News International and politicians. He says this is "quite wrong" and newspapers are perfectly entitled to support politicians if they agree with them. "The problem comes when proprietors prostitute their papers," he adds. Davies says it seemed at times from Jay's opening statement that it was "discreditable to own or edit the Sun". Davies says that Jay claimed deals were done using "finely tuned antennae" and "this is the stuff of fantasy". "Documentary evidence does not support any thesis that the rules were bent … Deals cannot be done on telepathy," he says. Murdoch did not ask Thatcher to cut any corners for him over the Times deal, he adds. Davies says there was "no express deal, no implied deal either" for the Times takeover. "To call this thesis speculation is to use too dignified a term," he says. Davies adds that it is "against the rules" for Jay to accuse Murdoch of selective amnesia after – and not during – the News Corp boss had given evidence. "There is no basis for Mr Jay's delayed airing of doubts over [Murdoch's] credibility," he says. Davies has now finished the News International statement. Lord O'Donnell, the former cabinet secretary, has taken the witness stand. Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, is doing the questioning. Jay asks about Lord O'Donnell's time as press secretary for John Major during his prime ministership, between 1990 and 1997. O'Donnell says his job was to make sure all newspapers were represented in the lobby system, following the Guardian and Independent's exit under his predecessor Sir Bernard Ingham. He was the impartial explainer of government policy he says, adding that he does not believe the election of John Major in 1992 was influenced by the press. Jay asks if Major was obsessed with press coverage. Major felt "quite strongly that it was important that the press should be accurate," O'Donnell says. "He took a keen interest". O'Donnell adds that Major "got particularly upset" when subject to criticism of a personal nature and once sued the New Statesman over "incorrect statements," he says. O'Donnell opposed televising lobby briefings because he believed that would turn the press secretary into a public figure. He describes "the dark arts" as when politicians would spin policies to suit a particular newspapers. He says the lobby briefing was meant to be a "definitive guide" to policies to "keep the system honest". O'Donnell is asked about the perceived closeness between newspaper proprietors and top politicians. "The degree of relationships increased through time, there's no doubt about that," he says. "But I am not aware of anything … where I think something happened that shouldn't have done." O'Donnell says it is in politicians' "strong interests" to talk to editors and proprietors to explain policies and attempt to win their support. "As long as you have newspapers which are allowed to strongly support political parties … that relationship is going to continue." O'Donnell says he would like to see a shift to a US model for newspapers, which largely separate "pretty straight" news stories from editorial opinion. O'Donnell asks for the inquiry to explore the potential for separating news and comment in newspapers; he says these two are "much more mixed up than I think it should be". Lord Justice Leveson asks whether it is tenable for broadcasters to remain impartial. O'Donnell says any regulation of the media should "look at" all media, including broadcasters and newspapers, because to do otherwise would "create incentives" for the different mediums. "Do the readers understand that they are actually subject to different sets of regulation?" asks O'Donnell. He is worried that specific legislation to cover the media would cover today's technology, but adds that it is very complex "which is why we have such an eminent inquiry..." "Don't start," interrupts Leveson, to laughter. O'Donnell says he agrees with David Cameron that relationships between proprietors and top politicians got too close. He is asked about special advisers. O'Donnell says that special advisers often have a media or PR background and he believes some of them may leak or spin stories to newspapers. O'Donnell is asked about self-regulation of the press. He says phone hacking has "dented the public perception" of self-regulation and that the PCC "didn't solve the problems; didn't foresee them" and "in a sense, there was no regulator" because it did not see itself as one. Jay turns to the ministerial code, which O'Donnell agrees is "a series of high-level principles rather than strict rules". O'Donnell says ministers take the code very seriously. He says, over history, "amazing conflicts" have been allowed to place. Here is the ministerial codethat O'Donnell is discussing. O'Donnell says he recommended changes to the code in a bid for transparency over ministers' meetings with media proprietors and editors. "The whole principle behind this was err on the side of caution," he says. O'Donnell says it would be "disproportionate" to record all details of meetings between politicians and journalists – these conversations are the "basic lifeblood" of media and politics, he says – so he sets the bar at editors and proprietors. "These should be noted in a transparent way, but they shouldn't be stopped," he adds. O'Donnell says that if a minister is personal friends with an editor he would urge transparency over their meetings and caution over what they discuss. BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins has just tweeted:
O'Donnell is asked about an amendment to the ministerial code on meetings with the media he recommended in July 2011. Does this include social interactions? Yes, O'Donnell says, lunches should be included. "It goes back to not just the reality but the perceptions," he says. Leveson asks if there needs to be further clarity about the category of these meetings, ie is "general discussion" transparent? O'Donnell suggests there should be greater disclosure of the detail of these meetings, but warns that this throws up questions of whether notes from these meetings are subject to freedom of information requests. O'Donnell is asked about the role of special advisers. He suggests that a rule requiring special advisers to work in the coalition government's interest will become strained towards the end of parliament. Special advisers are able to represent ministers' views to the media, according to the special advisers' code as read by Robert Jay QC. O'Donnell says in his witness statement that when special advisers have to resign it is usually because they became a bigger story than the minister they represent. The inquiry is now taking a short break. The inquiry has resumed and O'Donnell is asked about the appointment of Alastair Campbell as Tony Blair's director of communications in 1997. Campbell was given the power to direct civil servants below him, according the Robert Jay QC. O'Donnell says: "I didn't think this was a good idea and I was glad when it was abandoned" because it gave the perception that impartial civil servants could be influenced politically. Now, the prime minister's director of communications has no power to direct civil servants. O'Donnell explains that the prime minister has a number of press secretaries and advisers in No 10, but most are senior civil servants. Only Craig Oliver, the prime minister's current director of communications, is technically a special adviser on the media. He says that the shift to special advisers with a media rather than a policy background is regrettable. He cites Ed Balls as a former special adviser who was a trained economist and so on top of his subject. O'Donnell gave the green light for Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, to be given responsibility for the News Corp-BSkyB bid when it was removed from Vince Cable, the business secretary, following his comments about Rupert Murdoch. The prime minister asked O'Donnell whether there was "any legal impediment to moving it to Mr Hunt", says Robert Jay QC. O'Donnell says he received legal advice and told the prime minister he was "satisfied those statements [on Hunt's personal website in support of Murdoch] do not amount to a pre-judgment of the case in question". O'Donnell says elected politicians are best placed to rule on big business transactions, including media mergers, rather than a judge. He says ministers should be entirely open about how they dealt with the bid and why they made decisions at every step. The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:
O'Donnell says there is a "need in the whole process to show absence of bias or perception of bias". Ministers must be subject to "very careful rules about process" when ruling on business deals, he says. Jay turns to Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor and director of communications to David Cameron until July 2011. On the vetting process, O'Donnell says Coulson was cleared to SC (or "security clearance") level, which allowed him access to secret papers but not to the higher DV (or "developed vetting") level, which was necessary for regular access to top-secret documents. He says only a small number of people in No 10 were vetted to DV level. However, he says that Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's director of communications, probably was cleared to this level. O'Donnell says that up to the airline bomb plot the vetting of Coulson "hadn't been an issue" because he was not heavily involved in security issues. Developed vetting takes a while, O'Donnell says, and it was felt "given Mr Coulson's interests" that general security clearance was sufficient. O'Donnell says that developed vetting is whether you are "blackmailable" and personal finance issues. He adds:
He says he is aware of the danger of leaks, adding:
Andy Coulson did not disclose his shareholding in News Corp on his entry into No 10 when he should have done, says O'Donnell. Coulson signed a disclosure form in May 2010 but did not reveal his shares in News Corp. He told the inquiry last week that he should have declared the shareholding.
O'Donnell is asked whether he gave any advice to Gordon Brown about his former press secretary Damian McBride when the former Labour leader was prime minister. He says:
O'Donnell repeats that it is crucial for the prime minister's press spokesperson to be a civil servant, because they speak on behalf of the government without party political influence. He says:
The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:
and
and
and
and
and
and
Lord Justice Leveson turns to the relationship between Jeremy Hunt's special adviser, Adam Smith, and the News Corp lobbyist Fred Michel over the BSkyB bid.
O'Donnell is asked about the relationship between the press and police. He says a number of senior police officers were "too close" to members of the media. "I happen to think it's not the right way to operate".
O'Donnell is asked about the future of press regulation. He says that the new regulatory body should be chaired by someone independent of the press and with no media background. Newspaper journalists should use the civil servants' code – emphasising impartiality – when reporting news, he suggests. The information commissioner could undertake the role of a regulator but would have to be "very significantly enhanced". He says the Information Commissioner's Office is clearly independent and perceived as such. Jay asks whether there should be further enhancements to the ministerial code in relation to social interactions between ministers and the media. O'Donnell says his advice to the prime minister was that "the social side does have to be there". "I would strongly recommend to my successors that in the light of this inquiry whether that requires any amendments to the ministerial code," he adds. He says that the current cabinet secretary should consider the outcome of the Leveson inquiry and whether to make relevant amendments to the ministerial code. O'Donnell is asked about the advice he gave to former prime minister Gordon Brown just before the May 2010 general election on whether there should be an inquiry into phone hacking. O'Donnell's advice to Brown setting out the options, which was sent to Brown's principal private secretary, Jeremy Heywood, in March 2010, read:
You canread the Guardian's full story on the advice here. O'Donnell says at that time evidence of widespread phone hacking was limited, there was no all-party support, and the timing, just before a general election, was not ideal. In addition, any such inquiry could have been subject to a judicial review. He adds:
O'Donnell warns that it would be "very dangerous" to cover social networks such as Twitter and Facebook with regulation that also applied to newspapers. However, he suggests that blogs may be covered if they have a relatively high readership. Lord Justice Leveson says that the future of regulation will be covered in the next module of the inquiry, starting in July. O'Donnell has now completed his evidence. The inquiry has broken for lunch and will resume with evidence from Alastair Campbell at 2pm. Here is a lunchtime summary of the key points from this morning's evidence: • The former cabinet secretary, Lord O'Donnell, said Andy Coulson should have disclosed News Corp shares when he entered No 10. • Coulson was not given top security clearance despite it applying to other former No 10 spin doctors. • Jeremy Hunt's ex-special adviser, Adam Smith, should have treated News Corp's BSkyB bid process fairly, said O'Donnell. • O'Donnell suggested that the information commissioner could take over press regulation. • Some senior police officers were too close to the media, O'Donnell told the inquiry. Lord Justice Leveson has published his rulingon the Independent on Sunday's publication of Andy Coulson's shareholdings. The judge confirms that he will take no further action against the newspaper, after its editor, John Mullin, was summoned to give evidence last Thursday. However, Leveson warns that he will "unhesitatingly" refer the source of any future leaks from the inquiry to the high court for breach of an order. In the light of News International's denial that Rupert Murdoch has "selective amnesia" about his 1981 meeting with Margaret Thatcher, it is worth re-readingBernard Ingham's notes of the meeting, and Rupert Murdoch's "thank you" letter (at the end of the document linked here). Alastair Campbellhas taken the witness stand. Campbell was Tony Blair's press secretary from 1997 to 2000 and then the No 10 director of communications and strategy until 2003. Campbell was hired by Blair in 1994. Blair told Campbell he wanted someone who was strategic and who understood the press but "not particularly someone from the tabloids". Campbell was previously political editor of the Daily Mirror. Campbell believes he had to be "pretty robust and not shy of engaging in difficult debate" with the press as it was developing at the time. He says there was a sense that Gordon Brown "had his own team" which Campbell wanted to lead, and that Peter Mandelson would also attempt to do Campbell's job. Jay reads from Blair's book A Journey, which says:
Jay reads on "… he had great clanking balls as well". Campbell says: "Ah, right." Leveson comments: "Let's move on." Campbell says he was vetted to the DV level when he entered No 10. He cannot recall whether he signed a confidentiality agreement in opposition.. He was covered by the Official Secrets Act when in government. Campbell says it was always assumed that he would be involved in "sensitive" areas that Blair had to deal with, citing Nato issues and Northern Ireland. The Sun was a "significant player" and there was a sense of hierarchy of the importance of newspapers, Campbell says. Dealing with "the Murdoch press", as Robert Jay QC puts it, was part of the job and Murdoch was the most powerful proprietor in Britain. Campbell says he "felt a little uneasy at times" about dealing with the Sun, but that it was part of his job. His remark about feeling uneasy was in the context of the Sun asking for an article about Europe from a government minister, he says: "We didn't change policy, but we knew what they wanted rhetoric-wise". Campbell says he was never in any doubt whether to fly Tony Blair out for a Hayman island conference at which Rupert Murdoch attended. He says it was his idea to "use that event as a broader public platform and set out for a huge number of editors and executives what New Labour was about". Campbell contrasts Murdoch's hands-off attitude when he was at Today with Robert Maxwell, the former Mirror Group proprietor, who he says had a "fairly interfering" approach at the Daily Mirror. Murdoch was "certainly the most important media player, without a doubt," says Campbell, adding that Murdoch backed New Labour because it was going to win the election; New Labour did not win because Murdoch backed the party. Campbell is asked whether a deal was made between Rupert Murdoch and Tony Blair to support New Labour "I don't think there ever was such a deal," he answers. Do you have any evidence to support any idea that there was a deal? "No, absolutely not," he says. Jay reads out former Australian prime minister Paul Keating's reported advice to Blair on dealing with Murdoch:
Campbell repeats that no deal was done, adding there are lots of areas of media policy where one would struggle to say the Murdochs got a good deal out of the Labour government. He says:
Jay asks Campbell about an "implied trade-off" between Labour and Murdoch, as suggested by former special adviser Lance Price. Campbell denies Blair's thinking on cross-media ownership policies was influenced by Murdoch. Campbell repeats that there was no deal between Labour and News International. Jay cites a half-page article the Sun offered Blair during the 1997 election that was headlined "Why I love the pound", when Labour's policy was to join the euro. Campbell admits that he felt "a little bit queasy" about the headline, but insists that the article was merely repeating existing Labour policy on Europe. Campbell is asked about the row in 1998 over Tony Blair being accused of intervening on behalf of Rupert Murdoch to help him buy the Italian TV firm, Mediaset. He maintains that this was not an intervention, despite Murdoch saying in an interview he had asked Blair to contact the Italian prime minister about the planned deal. Hacked Off campaigner Natalie Peck is at the high court and has just tweeted:
The PoliticsHome.com editor, Paul Waugh, has just tweeted:
Campbell says it became apparent there was a problem with the press, but Blair took the view it was not politically sensible to take them on. He says the cultural issues of the press have been ongoing for some time and both politics and the media "have not faced up to that". Jay asks if there is an appetite now. "No, if I'm being frank," Campbell answers. He adds that he believes David Cameron is reluctant to take on this issue and that a recent speech by Michael Gove in which the education secretary warned that the inquiry could have a "chilling effect" on the press was part of a "political strategy. Campbell says it would very difficult for Cameron not to go along with the majority of the recommendations the Leveson inquiry produces, but he doesn't think there's much appetite for change. There was no appetite within the Labour government for a public inquiry into the standards and ethics of the press, Campbell tells the inquiry. He says it is not unreasonably for politicians to "take account of political factors" when taking these decisions, including whether to wage war on the press. Campbell says when Tesssa Jowell took over as culture secretary she made it clear to Blair and Campbell that she wanted to take the job without any pacts or deals having been made on media policy. He says Blair gave her that assurance. Campbell says he was "not too involved" in government discussions over media policy and the Communications Act 2003. He says he was much more engaged with foreign policy at the time. Campbell is asked about Blair's three phone calls with Murdoch in the runup to the Iraq war in March 2003. Leveson asks what Blair was attempting to achieve with the phone calls. Campbell explains that most non-Murdoch papers were against the war and Blair would have "appreciated the support" of Murdoch's titles. He says: "I wouldn't overstate the significance of a couple of phone calls with Rupert Murdoch." Campbell reiterates that the phone calls between Murdoch and Blair did not strike him as odd. "Even at times like this he would have spoken to all sorts of people. No, I wouldn't read too much into it, to be absolutely frank." The inquiry is now taking a short break. Here is a summary of Campbell's evidence so far: • Alastair Campbell has denied there was an "express or implied" deal between Tony Blair government and Rupert Murdoch before 1997 election • Campbell played down three phone calls between Murdoch and Blair in runup to Iraq war in 2003 • Michael Gove speech critical of Leveson inquiry was part of Tory political strategy, claimed Campbell The inquiry has resumed. Campbell is asked about media proprietors using the back door of No 10 to avoid being seen. He says that Rupert Murdoch – who famously used the back door to visit the Tories – was seen as "uniquely neuralgic" and would spark a flurry of media interest if seen entering Downing Street. Campbell is asked about Rebekah Brooks. He attended Brooks's first wedding and her later marriage to Charlie Brooks. "We were friendly, very friendly, and I liked Rebekah, but I think 'friendship' overstates it," he says, adding that he was "independently friendly" with her husband. Campbell says he always had a sense that Rupert Murdoch really liked Rebekah and that she was "a rising star". He adds that Brooks "overstated it" when she told the inquiry that Blair and his cabinet were a "constant presence" in her life for a number of years. The BBC's Rebecca Keating has just tweeted:
Paul Waugh of PoliticsHome has just tweeted:
The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:
Jay asks if Rebekah Brooks amplified the fractious relationship between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. Campbell says not, but that Brown's people might have said things to her that they would not have said to Blair's people. Jay asks if Campbell ever fed stories to the Sun. "Yeah, so were other papers," he says. Every newspaper felt rivals were better treated by the Labour government, he adds. Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman has just tweeted:
Politicians have done a "very very bad job standing up for themselves" in explaining why they need to maintain frequent contact with the media, Campbell says. He adds that there must be a "proper reckoning" of power and status between media and politicians. Campbell does not believe newspapers derive power from their readers, as argued by Paul Dacre, Rebekah Brooks and others. He says that any newspaper can launch an effective campaign and argues that some of the small circulation titles are among the most influential. He adds that national newspapers can set the terms of debate, referring to the Daily Mail's present campaign against online pornography, but that this will not regularly dictate a policy response. Newspapers were given a sense of power under Margaret Thatcher, says Campbell, but that changed under John Major. He admits that New Labour may have given the media "too much of a sense of their own power and we should have challenged that more". Campbell does not believe newspapers have power – "politicians have real power" – and hopes that the Leveson inquiry will result in a recasting of where power really does lie. "Newspapers can influence all of those debates," he says, referring to current policy matters. "I don't think that is real power." Lord Justice Leveson says that newspapers have "longevity", whereas politicians do not. "Rupert Murdoch has been there or thereabouts for 40 years, which is a very very long time," he adds. Leveson asks if that gives Murdoch more influence. "Yeah, in Rupert Murdoch's case it would be," agrees Campbell. He says that George Bush once asking him what Rupert Murdoch was like "because he'd never met him, which I found rather surprising". Overon his Politics blog, Andrew Sparrow explainswhat happened in the Commons regarding Jeremy Hunt just now. John Bercow, the Speaker, has effectively ordered Hunt to answer questions tabled by MPs about his dealings with News Corporation. He was responding to Harriet Harman, the Labour deputy leader and shadow culture secretary, who asked Bercow whether it was acceptable for a minister to refuse to answer parliamentary questions on the grounds that he would be giving evidence in due course to an inquiry. Hunt is refusing to answer questions about what he knew about the contacts between his special adviser and News Corporation because he says he will address this in his evidence to Leveson. This is how Bercow replied:
This raises the possibility of an interesting clash between Leveson and parliament, because Lord Justice Leveson has said that witnesses to his inquiry should not reveal the contents of their witness statements to the public until they are published by the inquiry. Campbell says his New Labour media strategy was at times "too controlling" and that it "did hang on to some of the techniques of opposition when we should have dumped them at the door of No 10". He adds" "Was I robust? Yes. If a newspaper wrote something I wanted to refute would I do it? Yes. But this bullying thing is nonsense." Campbell says he did have "complete and utter contempt" for some reporters but never kicked them out of briefings. He adds that he dealt with thousands of stories and handled thousands of press briefings and he would defend their honesty and integrity. Meanwhile, Twitter is abuzz with reports that the Leveson inquiry website has been attacked by the "hacktivist" group Anonymous. The attack is not yet confirmed, but the site is proving difficult to access for a number of users. The Guardian's James Ball has just tweeted:
Campbell says he believes David Cameron and Nick Clegg are getting "disproportionately whacked" by the media for setting up the Leveson inquiry. Campbell says that politicians need to step back from day-to-day media work – such as commenting on news stories – because their job is to govern. Asked about special advisers such as in the Jeremy Hunt row, Campbell says that advisers "even as senior as I" would not have done anything without specifically checking with their employer. They are "a very personal appointment," he adds. Campbell is asked about a row over a story in the Mail on Sunday about Blair's plans to meet the Queen Mother's coffin in April 2002. Campbell complained to the PCC, but his stance was undermined by a letter from parliamentary usher Black Rod. The PCC said it could not adjudicate on a matter of fact, and the press attacked Blair, saying the complaints body had not supported the prime minister. He repeatedly insists the story was untrue, alleging that Black Rod himself later joined the PCC. Jay asks Campbell about the rumours that he leaked the 2001 general election date to the Sun. He denies having leaked it to the Sun's Trevor Kavanagh, but says he did speak to the Sun's former political editor almost every day as it was the runup to the election. The Leveson inquiry website was taken offline as Alastair Campbell was giving evidence, with social media users blaming an attack by hacking group Anonymous for the disruption, reports the Guardian's James Ball.
Campbell believes the successor to the Press Complaints Commission should examine trends and not just deal with complaints. The PCC code is a good basis for this reconstituted regulator, he says. He says that an outside body should make media groups be more open about "what the motives of its owners are", and that readers should be given the context around their news. Campbell says new press regulator will end up with a "redefinition of what a journalist is" in relation to tweeting, blogging and broadcasting. "The new PCC … will have a big impact on the blogosphere," he adds. Campbell says he fears that many politicians, including Michael Gove, hope the Leveson inquiry will go away. Campbell has now completed his evidence. A spokesman for the Leveson inquiry says it is looking into reports its website has been taken offline. Lord O'Donnell's witness statementhas now been publishedon the Leveson inquiry website, which seems to be back up. Alastair Campbell's second witness statementhas now been publishedon the Leveson inquiry website. The Leveson inquiry has published a batch of witness statements from core participants, including JK Rowling and the Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre. JK Rowling has written to the inquiryraising a number of what she describes as "factual inaccuracies" from the evidence of Darryn Lyons, founder of the paparazzi agency Big Pictures. In her second witness statement, Rowling takes issue with a number of points made by Lyons in his appearance before the inquiry on 9 February. The Harry Potter author has also instructed her solicitors to write to Big Pictures so that she be placed on their "no shoot" list. A small splinter group calling itself the "Anon A-Team" has claimed responsibility for an attack which took the Leveson inquiry website offline for several hours during Alastair Campbell's testimony, reports the Guardian's James Ball. In a statement on a Tumblr blog, the group said it had launched the attack as the inquiry was a "farce", due to its reporting to Jeremy Hunt: "The Leveson inquiry has become a farce, with the Lord Justice Leveson reporting to a member of cabinet Jeremy Hunt who has already been identified as having engaged in Malfeasance in Office via fraudulent release of data to Newscorp (Rubicon). "Instead of Jeremy Hunt appearing before a criminal court we have a show trial along with the minister and his boss, Prime Minister David Cameron also exposed as having engaged in Malfeasance in Office." The full statement can be read here. The group's Twitter accounts have a few hundred followers – against about 270,000 for the most established one – and is not regarded as one of the "usual" channels for operations by longstanding members of Anonymous. Elsewhere,bloggers have suggested the site was attacked through a security weakness in its setup. The Leveson inquiry uses a free blogging platform known as WordPress, which can be vulnerable to attack if not kept to date, or if default passwords are not modified. We are now winding up the live blog for today, but we will be back at 10am tomorrow for evidence from Sky'sAdam BoultonandLord Wakeham. In the meantime, you can read the latest developments on theMediaGuardian homepageand ourLeveson inquiry page. guardian.co.uk© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to ourTerms&Conditions|More Feeds |
| Your views on the news: Heathrow queues, Sony losses, and elderly care - Fri, 11 May 2012 08:52:32 GMT2012-05-11 08:52:32 |
Your views this week on elderly care funding, losses at Sony and the queues and delays at London Heathrow airport Heathrow chaos reportsPassengers and frequent flyers were keen to tell us their experiences of passing through border control on return flights to London Heathrow airportfollowing news more delays were expected. A good debate ensued about passport control technology in airports. FromMarloManners:
FromMizozborn:
FromAdvancedDriver:
FromHelen121:
Fromrichardofbirmingham:
FromIskra1903:
FromMverita:
Fromstaralfur:
FromiMark:
FromEledhwen:
Sony lossesMuch chatter in comments about the brand and legacy ofSony following their reported losses. FromFrankPoster:
FromIkonoclastwho responds:
Fromtri2002:
Fromgazmx:
IDS on elderly care fundingUsers shared their thoughts on elderly care funding and if it should focus on the poorest followingcomments made by an Ian Duncan Smith thinktank. FromNorthe1rn:
FromCongestionCharge:
FromTigW50:
guardian.co.uk© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to ourTerms&Conditions|More Feeds |