Tabloid phone hacking scandal involving kidnapped girl roils Britain

[Malthus]

Murdoch is hated by the British left. A large part of the public is fairly disgusted with tabloid journalism in general. When one of his papers was revealed to have systematically broken the law and also hacked in to a murdered girl's voicemail, then there is nobody who will choose to defend him from his detractors.

First they came for the corrupt politicos involved in sex scandals,
And I didn't speak out because I wasn't  a corrupt politico involved in sex scandals.

Then they came for asshole Internet trolls and phone hackers,
And I didn't speak out because I wasn't an asshole Internet troll or phone hacker.

Then they came for the scumbag media moguls,
And I didn't speak out because I wasn't a scumbag media mogul.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Neil]

Is Murdoch reviled that much in the UK?

Imagine if Fox News was caught hacking into a dead white girl's phone.  Enough people would be repulsed that they would be less inclined to come to their defence when the political left showed up to legislate them out of existance and punish anyone who had anything to do with stories that they didn't like.

So they hate him, then?

Absolutely.  They'll stop at nothing to bring him down.  After all, the British left just lost an election, and I'm sure they'd like to see that overturned if possible.

[mongers]

Rubbish there's plenty of people on the right, like me (one-nation tory*), who detest the murdoch empire.



edit:
* my bad, that makes me left wing doesn't it ?

[jimmy olsen]

I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion.  Am I missing something?

Bribery of Police Officers?

[Razgovory]

I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion.  Am I missing something?

Bribery of Police Officers?

Justified in spreading the Conservative gospel.

[Neil]

I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion.  Am I missing something?

Bribery of Police Officers?

Justified in spreading the Conservative gospel.

I don't think the two are related.

[jimmy olsen]

Not looking good for James Murdoch

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/james-murdoch-select-committee-evidence

James Murdoch misled MPs, say former NoW editor and lawyer

Colin Myler and Tom Crone challenge News Corp executive's statement to MPs at phone-hacking hearing


    * Lisa O'Carroll and Patrick Wintour
    * guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 20.02 BST

James Murdoch has been accused of misleading the parliamentary select committee this week in relation to phone hacking, igniting yet another fire for the embattled News International boss to extinguish.

In a highly damaging broadside, two former News of the World senior executives claimed the evidence Murdoch gave to the committee on Tuesday in relation to an out-of-court settlement to Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association, was "mistaken".

The statement came as something of a bombshell to the culture, sport and media select committee, which immediately announced it would be asking Murdoch to explain the contradiction.

Colin Myler, editor of the paper until it was shut down two weeks ago, and Tom Crone, the paper's former head of legal affairs, said they had expressly told Murdoch of an email that would have blown a hole in its defence that only one "rogue reporter" was involved in the phone-hacking scandal.

This contradicts what Murdoch told the committee when questioned on Tuesday.

The existence of the email, known as the "for Neville" email because of its link to the paper's former chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck, is thought to have been critical in News International's decision to pay out around £700,000 to Taylor in an out-of-court settlement after he threatened to sue the paper.

James Murdoch is standing by his version of events. A statement issued by News Corporation said: "James Murdoch stands by his testimony to the select committee."

In their statement, Myler and Crone challenged this: "Just by way of clarification relating to Tuesday's Culture, Media Select Committee hearing, we would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken.

"In fact, we did inform him of the 'for Neville' email which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor's lawyers."

John Whittingdale, the chairman of the culture, sport and media select committee, said: "We as a committee regarded the 'for Neville' email as one of the most critical pieces of evidence in the whole inquiry. We will be asking James Murdoch to respond and ask him to clarify."

He added that "it was seen as one of the few available pieces of evidence showing that this activity was not confined just to Clive Goodman", the only journalist on the paper to have been prosecuted – and jailed – in relation to phone hacking so far.

The email is believed to have been critical in News International's decision to pay Taylor such a large sum of money.

If it had got out in a full-blown court case brought by the Profession Footballers' Association chief executive it would have blown a hole in News International's claim that only one reporter was involved in hacking.

James Murdoch claimed to the MPs that this email had been concealed from him by two company executives, Crone and Myler, when he was persuaded to sign off the secret deal with Taylor.

Earlier this month James Murdoch acknowledged he was wrong to settle the suit, saying he did not "have a complete picture of the case" at the time.

He repeated this on Tuesday at the select committee when he was asked by Labour MP Tom Watson: "When you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the full Neville email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?"

To this James Murdoch answered: "No, I was not aware of that at the time."

Watson went on to ask him why then had he paid an "astronomical sum" to Taylor.

James Murdoch replied: "There was every reason to settle the case, given the likelihood of losing the case and given the damages – we had received counsel – that would be levied."

With parliament in recess, it is unlikely but not unprecedented for a select committee to hold a special evidence session to clarify the issue.

Witnesses in the case have been given very strict instructions before giving evidence to tell the truth, although witnesses do not give evidence under a specific oath.

James Murdoch told the committee that his advisers had urged him to adopt a strategy of telling the truth when he spoke to the committee.

In its 2010 report the culture, sport and media select committee, in discussing the Gordon Taylor settlement, wrote: "The settlements were authorised by James Murdoch, executive chairman of News International, following discussions with Colin Myler and Tom Crone".

It did not specifically state whether Murdoch had been shown the "for Neville" email before making the settlement, but does state Murdoch was authorised to make the payment without bringing the issue to the News International board.

[Razgovory]

I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion.  Am I missing something?

Bribery of Police Officers?

Justified in spreading the Conservative gospel.

I don't think the two are related.

American conservatives view money as a form of free speech.  Bribery is simply their way of communicating with people.

[Neil]

I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion.  Am I missing something?

Bribery of Police Officers?

Justified in spreading the Conservative gospel.

I don't think the two are related.

American conservatives view money as a form of free speech.  Bribery is simply their way of communicating with people.

Since this is the UK, I don't think your point is relevant.

[Razgovory]

When are my points ever relevant?

[jimmy olsen]

These background checks sound so intense they're creepy. I understand why they do them, but I'd never want a job where I have to go through that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/andy-coulson-security-clearance-vetting

Andy Coulson's limited security clearance at No 10 'breathtaking'

Tony Blair's deputy political spokesman says it would have been extremely difficult to operate with Coulson's clearance level

    * Robert Booth, Patrick Wintour and James Ball
    * guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 20.20 BST

It was the £140,000-a-year job that placed Andy Coulson at the heart of British power. But the former News of the World editor's predecessors as prime ministerial spin doctor were stumped as to how he could have done the job with only limited security clearance befitting a far more junior civil servant.

As the Cabinet Office faced growing pressure to explain why Coulson had not been cleared to the same security level as other recent Downing Street advisers, former No 10 staff told how they could not have operated on issues ranging from Afghanistan to the economy without the rigorous "developed vetting" process they underwent. This was aimed at uncovering lies and anything that could make an official susceptible to blackmail.

Lance Price, Tony Blair's former deputy political spokesman, said Coulson's lower level of security clearance would have made it almost impossible to advise on issues including Nato,European security, Afghanistan, the terror threat to the UK and the situation in Northern Ireland.

"I find it breathtaking that the director of communications would have anything less than the full level of security, because in that kind of job you have to be able to see and assess just about everything that passed the prime minister's desk in terms of communications strategy and how it might impact," Price said.

"I would see papers relating to negotiations in Northern Ireland which were pretty sensitive, I attended private meetings with Tony Blair in Washington with Bill Clinton and the secretary of state for defence. The implication of him not having the highest level of vetting is that there would have been quite a lot of papers he wouldn't have been able to see. Even in my work, it would have been extremely difficult to have done the job properly and I was in a less senior position than Coulson."

Alastair Campbell, Blair's former press secretary, said it was "quite odd" that Coulson was not vetted at a higher level, explaining how he was only able to read some of the most sensitive material passing through No 10 because of rigorous vetting that Coulson did not undertake.

"Essentially it was understood that Jonathan Powell [Blair's chief of staff] and I, in addition to other senior civil servants, were able to attend any meeting and see any papers that went to the prime minister. It is very hard to see how you could do the press and strategy job, particularly on foreign affairs, without being fully in the picture. You had to be trusted with all the information and then know how much you were entitled to divulge.

"For example, I don't see how Coulson could have attended Cameron's meeting with President Obama in Washington in 2010, when they discussed Afghanistan, the Middle East, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the economy, without developed vetting. A lot of the material about the economy, one of the biggest issues of the day, also required developed vetting."

Coulson was cleared to "security check" level, a standard that grants regular access to material classified as secret, but only "occasional, controlled access" to top-secret documents. Roles involving unsupervised access to top-secret material require higher-level developed vetting, according to official guidance. It involves an extra questionnaire, criminal record, security services and credit reference checks, and an extended, typically three-hour interview, plus reference checks by phone or in person.

"We have to look at your loyalty, honesty and reliability, and whether you could be particularly vulnerable to bribery or blackmail," the guidance states. "We will question you about your wider family background (relationships and influences), past experiences (if any) of drug taking, financial affairs, general political views (though not which party you support), hobbies, foreign travel and so on."

A senior former Downing Street official said: "The grilling you receive is intense, highly detailed and incredibly personal – for example, going through a very long list of sexual practices and being asked what you had and hadn't done. Answer yes to any one of them and you'd be required to give full details: when, with whom, how recently, and so on.

"If one incident stands out on your employment or financial or family record, you could spend up to an hour under intense scrutiny about that one thing. They then go and interview at least one of your closest friends to see if their answers tally up with yours. It's impossible to 'prep' your friends for their interviews because you can't remember everything you said. Your only option is to tell the complete truth to the interviewer and tell your friends to do the same."

John McTernan, Blair's former political secretary, said that when he was subject to developed vetting, investigators asked his friend: "Have you seen Mr McTernan drunk? How do you think he manages his money? Does he gamble? And when he's drunk, what's he like with his children?"

McTernan wrote in the Daily Telegraph: "Did they really not probe the possibility that Coulson's past might impact on his proposed role? It seems so unlikely. Did the PM, or his team, do no due diligence on Coulson?"
Vetting levels

Strap' classification

Used for particularly sensitive information, and is sub-divided into three levels of access: documents have a cover sheet that must be signed each time they are accessed.

Developed vetting (DV)

Required for any officials with routine or unsupervised access to top-secret material. To receive this level of clearance, applicants must complete a 53-page assessment form. That is then verified with a three-hour interview, and references are cross-checked. The process can be expedited to a few weeks, but can take up to six months.

Security check (SC)

Grants routine access to secret material, but only occasional supervised access to top-secret documents. Applicants fill out a 29-page form and are subject to security and credit reference checks. The process typically takes just a few weeks, but can be completed faster.

Counter-terrorism check (CTC)

Basic security check for people in close proximity to public figures, or with access to low-level sensitive information. Applicants have their criminal records and other security information checked.

[Warspite]

The security checks aren't that creepy; it's all clearly explained at the start and the candidate knows what they're getting into.

That said, it was annoying when I had to start unearthing long-lost family information for my brother's DV application. 

[grumbler]

Background Investigations (as they are called in the US) are a pain for the investigators, but not for the person being investigated (once past the initial paperwork and interview).

[derspiess]

Background Investigations (as they are called in the US) are a pain for the investigators, but not for the person being investigated (once past the initial paperwork and interview).

It can be an odd experience for your friends & former co-workers, but yeah otherwise pretty painless unless you're worried about them finding something.

[Martinus]

Background Investigations (as they are called in the US) are a pain for the investigators, but not for the person being investigated (once past the initial paperwork and interview).

It can be an odd experience for your friends & former co-workers, but yeah otherwise pretty painless unless you're worried about them finding something.

Well it depends what you mean by being worried. I wouldn't want someone interviewing the guys whose toes I sucked, for example, even if it is not something I would "worry about being found".