Murdoch: Ouf! Is this meltdown?

[scottycelt]

I don't think we learned anything new, apart from the fact that Rupert's wife doesn't half pack a punch. She was up like a shot to protect her husband against the idiot while others (mostly men) just seemed to remain motionless with their big political mouths open even wider than usual.

Most of the politicians' questions were wearingly predictable and similar to those already asked. There was no way that Rupert and Son were going to admit they knew anything and that's exactly how it panned out.

For myself, the main revelation of the day was the way that at Stephenson's separate hearing, Chaiman Vaz grandly announced he accepted his 'explanation' of accepting that huge free hospitality at the health farm, and didn't see there was much of an issue over this matter. Apparently it was okay because it was 'recorded' in the appropriate 'hospitality registry ... for senior staff only presumably.

Vaz completely misses the point. That is the sheer stupidity and naivety of a man in Stephenson's position accepting a gift of possibly greater value that some junior office workers might earn in a year in the Police Force, and then apparently thinking he can then lecture these same people and junior officers that they face dismissal if they accept free gifts from outsiders that could compromise their positions.

No policeman/woman senior or junior should be accepting hospitality from anyone or any organisation in the course of their work .. full stop. Stephenson got the freebie because he was head of The Metropolitan Police, not because he had one wonderfully generous friend who simply loved to throw around gifts to the value of £12,000 to some of his best mates!

[Lateralthinking1]

Totally agree.

[hackneyvi]

I think it is essential that all major figures in the largest media organisations here are brought regularly before the Committee. Perhaps every 18 months. This would be a meaningful reform.

Agreed. Good idea.

Dear Lat, I wasn't meaning the tone of my post to suggest I had anything to offer except a confession. I think we've given credit where it isn't due but I think that I can see how I've been fooled.

[Stunsworth]

I thought the most revealing part of the interview with the Murdoch's was that while Murdoch Snr visits the Dowlers telling them how ashamed he is that their child's voicemail was hacked, the company he is responsible for is still paying the legal fees of the man who did the hacking.

[PJPJ]

I think it is essential that all major figures in the largest media organisations here are brought regularly before the Committee. Perhaps every 18 months. This would be a meaningful reform.

And before which committee will the Committee appear? I really do regret saying that any committee with the calibre of Keith Vaz does not get my confidence. It's all very grubby.

[Lateralthinking1]

Hackneyvi - Sure. I wasn't being critical of you at all. Just another cynical life observation from me really.

PJPJ - I agree with you on Vaz.

[Stillhomewardbound]

Well, Rupe, NOTW represented just 1 per cent of your empire, but with all the 'talent' beneath you, did you really have no one one to tell you how, unaddressed, that 1 percent would become your 99 percent headache. You don't build an empire on that scale by being stupid, and indeed, the man and his behemoth are not in the least bit stupid. Newscorp simply though they could get away with it.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Those interviewed must have done quite a good job. Otherwise the share price would not have risen. But even the Stock Market is gullible.

[mercia]

I have been trying very hard to follow the twists and turns of this affair but some elements seem to have passed me by. Ex-assistant commissioner Yates keeps saying that he received no co-operation from News International when he wanted to investigate them, this seems to produce ridicule from the MPs, saying, well you wouldn't expect to receive co-operation from people with something to hide. Now I know that if the police want to investigate an individual they just bash the door down and walk in and seize what they like. Is it different with a company? Yates says he kept coming up against the legal department of NI. So I want to know what are the police allowed to do with a company, do they have to seek permission from it's legal department to search a building or ask questions of employees?

The other thing I've obviously missed is the importance of this Harbottle & Lewis file of emails. Would anyone like to explain this to me? I think the emails show that more people at NI were involved in phone-hacking than was previously thought but I don't understand who the emails were from and whom to.

Another thing I'm not sure about is the large payments to Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford as out-of-court settlements. The implication is that the payments included gagging orders preventing Taylor and Clifford exposing widespread phone-hacking, is that right? What would happen if Taylor and Clifford broke these gagging orders - would they be sued by NI? Is the information Taylor and Clifford know now in the public domain? are they forever gagged?

I thought the questionning of Rupert was a complete waste of time. From my inexpert perspective I would say he's a little bit ga-ga. (It didn't look like acting-senile or was I taken in?). I'm not convinced he either really heard or understood what he was being asked. But if all the MPs wanted from him were apologies and eating humble-pie, that's what he gave them. EDIT - Oh well apparently I've got this all wrong because Trevor Cavanagh (the Sun), on the radio just now, says that Rupert is not at all doddery and has always made disconcertingly long pauses before answering questions because he is carefully thinking about the best reply.

They've just been replaying the opening question to Rupert on the radio : "at what point did you realise that criminality was endemic at News International?". I don't know what possible answer there could be to that - erm "just now", "yesterday", "last week", "ten years ago", "I don't think criminality is endemic at NI". Perhaps it was a rhetorical question, or one of those "when did you stop beating your wife?"-type questions.

Oh and the other thing I want to know is, is phone-hacking more difficult or even impossible these days (I've heard suggestions that it is more difficult now)? i.e. has the technology moved on?

[MrGongGong]

Oh and the other thing I want to know is, is phone-hacking more difficult or even impossible these days? i.e. has the technology moved on?

The technology to prevent phone-hacking was developed in Egypt thousands of years ago !
or as some would say

RTFM :erm:

[Stunsworth]

Those interviewed must have done quite a good job. Otherwise the share price would not have risen. But even the Stock Market is gullible.

The share price rose because there were rumours that Murdoch Snr was going to be replaced.

[DracoM]

Totally agree.

This was as carefully calculated, and odiously contrived and deeply unpleasant a cynical family show as you'd get on Fox networks: Murdoch Snr's faux 'I'm above it all' old man in a rocking chair and pontificating thing, and James Murdoch's vacuous garrulity, selective ignorance and false humility amnesia, and dominating all, the 'wilful blindness', followed by Rebekah Brooks's 'I'm only a little girl lost in the jungle surrounded by these nasty men' schtick. She looked exactly like Tenniel's portraits of Alice in the Carroll classic - all wide-eyes and tumbling carefully careless locks. That any half way sane / intelligent politician, let alone prime ministers, could be made to kneel at the shrine of this toxic family, I do not know. Scary for all of us to think that Blair, Brown, Cameron have successively brown-nosed this egregious clan......and our votes? Our nation? Or are we talking politician's merest self-interest? Of course we are.

Cameron and 'his people' will be breathing a massive sigh of relief as those hearings unfolded since the misery got no closer to him than before. But we need to look even harder at George Osborne - the referee to Cameron on behalf of Andy Coulson apparently? When the court cases start, and the judicial inquiry, it'll be a very, very different thing: lying to a Select Cttee is one thing, but being cross-examined by super slick QC's , and trying to lie in court to keep yourself out of jail is a bit different. At least I hope so. We don't want another 'Hutton'.

[Lateralthinking1]

I wish I could answer mercia's excellent questions and hope that someone will.

Not sure about the context of the Yates comment but he didn't seem persistent, given the short time he spent reconsidering. Sounds a bit like a red herring to me.

This in the Telegraph sort of explains H & L. They are gagged too because of a confidentiality clause!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8649058/Phone-hacking-we-want-to-speak-out-over-hacking-but-cannot-say-lawyers.html

As for Max Clifford, he has one or two things to say:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8644270/Phone-hacking-Max-Clifford-says-scandal-is-damaging-David-Cameron.html

I have a question. Parliamentary Select Committees can order the attendance of witnesses and production of evidence. Do they have the powers to enable or force people who are signed up to confidentiality clauses and gagging orders to talk?

[mercia]

thanks Lat. I will get around to reading those links sometime. Needless to say I can't answer your question. I've just been looking again at Rebekah's "performance" from yesterday, not sure what to think, she's obviously very clever, I can't tell if she is lying (which would be serious contempt of parliament of course) or genuinely trying to be helpful. Don't know what I'm worried about, it will all come out in the police and judicial investigations (hopefully/presumably).

[eighthobstruction]

The cross examination was so bad, it was easy for all witnesses to prevaricate....long rambling nuanced questions, somewhat obtuse....there was no problem avoiding, and delivering obtuse answers full of waffle....very poor....I don't think Wittingdale (?) did a good job in getting the committee to be incisive and brief in their questioning....in the 4 or 5 hours there were only 4-5 questions worthy of a QC....

I do think there is bound to be a Utube compilation soon of James Murdochs stammering and stutterings....linked to a rock/rap track.....