More Leveson

jd16 wrote:

Panda wrote:

jd16 wrote:

Panda wrote:Tina Weaver, editor of the Sunday Mirror, said: "I feel as if I've been mentally raped."........isn"t this what Kate said.?????

This is what the Leveson Inquiry is all about...kates mental rape of an extract of her diary being published

I read it that Tina Weaver was claiming it as well because the Press
have been under the cosh.

Im sure there is a cryptic clue from Tina Weaver using these particular words!!

So we have this, plus The mail using the word murder......are finally the press going to do something good???

Probably a bit of p888 taking by Tina.

Panda wrote:

Probably a bit of p888 taking by Tina.

Yes but its good she is doing it!

jd16 wrote:

Panda wrote:

Probably a bit of p888 taking by Tina.

Yes but its good she is doing it!

There is definitely a feeling that the McCanns have blotted their copybook by taking yet more legal action and holding on to the profit from Kate's
book. Had the McCanns offered to donate the £200,000 received from The Sun to SY towards their expenses they would have been respected. One also
has to wonder just how SY have managed to spend so much in such a short time.......do they have to study every single file???

Just basic Employment costs (Salary, Employers NI, Pension Contributions, Office Overheads etc.) for 30 plod will carve into the first million quite easily - and that is before any others costs such as Travel, Subsistence, Translation Fees.

eg Assume one plod is Salaried at 40 grand, then the overall cost of employing him/her would probably exceed 50 grand.

Multiply that by 30 and apportion it to the time elapsed so far ..............


And it would not surprise me if there is no mechanism for privately part-funding the Enquiry. Apart from which it would be seen as "undue influence" for a no-hold barred enquiry which might unearth evidence (as opposed to mere intelligence) that implicates Trustees/Directors of the fund in Criminal acts to accept money.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Just basic Employment costs (Salary, Employers NI, Pension Contributions, Office Overheads etc.) for 30 plod will carve into the first million quite easily - and that is before any others costs such as Travel, Subsistence, Translation Fees.

eg Assume one plod is Salaried at 40 grand, then the overall cost of employing him/her would probably exceed 50 grand.

Multiply that by 30 and apportion it to the time elapsed so far ..............


And it would not surprise me if there is no mechanism for privately part-funding the Enquiry. Apart from which it would be seen as "undue influence" for a no-hold barred enquiry which might unearth evidence (as opposed to mere intelligence) that implicates Trustees/Directors of the fund in Criminal acts to accept money.

Hi TEIN,

I doubt that every Officer would be receiving £40,000, most of the Work involves sifting through files, nothing very complicated and there was talk that most of the Police would be nearing retirement age. I take your point about the McCanns donating, but they could have donated to the Police
Benevolent fund .There is definitely a backlash from the Press at the escalating cost of this review.I suspect most of it is Political.

Panda wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Just basic Employment costs (Salary, Employers NI, Pension Contributions, Office Overheads etc.) for 30 plod will carve into the first million quite easily - and that is before any others costs such as Travel, Subsistence, Translation Fees.

eg Assume one plod is Salaried at 40 grand, then the overall cost of employing him/her would probably exceed 50 grand.

Multiply that by 30 and apportion it to the time elapsed so far ..............


And it would not surprise me if there is no mechanism for privately part-funding the Enquiry. Apart from which it would be seen as "undue influence" for a no-hold barred enquiry which might unearth evidence (as opposed to mere intelligence) that implicates Trustees/Directors of the fund in Criminal acts to accept money.

Hi TEIN,

I doubt that every Officer would be receiving £40,000, most of the Work involves sifting through files, nothing very complicated and there was talk that most of the Police would be nearing retirement age. I take your point about the McCanns donating, but they could have donated to the Police
Benevolent fund .There is definitely a backlash from the Press at the escalating cost of this review.I suspect most of it is Political.

A police constable with 10 years service and London weighting will be on a couple of hundred shy of 40K. (2010 figures).

Chris wrote:

Panda wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Just basic Employment costs (Salary, Employers NI, Pension Contributions, Office Overheads etc.) for 30 plod will carve into the first million quite easily - and that is before any others costs such as Travel, Subsistence, Translation Fees.

eg Assume one plod is Salaried at 40 grand, then the overall cost of employing him/her would probably exceed 50 grand.

Multiply that by 30 and apportion it to the time elapsed so far ..............


And it would not surprise me if there is no mechanism for privately part-funding the Enquiry. Apart from which it would be seen as "undue influence" for a no-hold barred enquiry which might unearth evidence (as opposed to mere intelligence) that implicates Trustees/Directors of the fund in Criminal acts to accept money.

Hi TEIN,

I doubt that every Officer would be receiving £40,000, most of the Work involves sifting through files, nothing very complicated and there was talk that


most of the Police would be nearing retirement age. I take your point about the McCanns donating, but they could have donated to the Police
Benevolent fund .There is definitely a backlash from the Press at the escalating cost of this review.I suspect most of it is Political.

A police constable with 10 years service and London weighting will be on a couple of hundred shy of 40K. (2010 figures).

Thanks Chris......well at this rate, the estimated £3.5 million will soon be used up so what happens then? The Police surely can't be going through every single file, I would have volunteered to go through them for nothing.

jd16 wrote:Yes but although they might have a lot to lose in libel re CR.... they have everything to gain. If they use their position and powers that they have in the right way to bring justice to maddie, expose the scam and help keep freedom of speech they will have the whole public of the UK behind them and this is more powerful than anything. The press's credit ratings will shoot up through the roof and it will make up for the hacking scandals. The press know what happened they are too scared to print it and fight them...be brave and the rewards will be huge! The country will be right behind them

- and the pondlice have lots to catch up on in the popularity stakes as well. I agree its the best way for both to counter 'political' interference would be to overwhelm the public with a really big story and a 'catch a baddie nab' that would bring ordinary folk back on their side. But is this the story that would blow too much else thats too strong to breakincluding 'political' power and control?

Dacre says that the McCanns complaining to the PCC would have "nipped things in the bud" earlier.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/06/leveson-inquiry-sue-akers-paul-dacre-live

"The Mail's reporting of the McCan story was much more responsible that most papers. I can't say any more than that," he adds.


Leveson enquiry today ( from the guardian). Dacre

"4.20 Newspapers felt they had the "green light" to write what they liked about the McCanns after the couple employed a public relations adviser, Dacre says.

The McCann story was one of the few examples of a story that boosted sales, says Dacre. He says, with hindsight, he is glad the Mail didn't splash on it too much.

4.25pm: Jay asks Dacre about the Daily Mail's coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Dacre is asked if the Daily Mail refused to publish an apology because supportive articles outnumbered the harmful ones. Dacre says he does not know.

Jonathan Caplan QC, counsel for Associated Newspapers, intervenes to say that the legal settlement was agreed between the McCanns and the publisher."

I like this little snippet from Dacre;- "Mr Grant has spent his life invading his own privacy,"

A bit like Kate then in sections of her booik??

At least Hugh Grant did not make any claim, or receive , any payment for being hacked. He said it gave him the freedom to speak freely on the matter.

Heather Mills Faces Media Ethics Inquiry

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Heather Mills has denied leaking a voicemail from Sir Paul
McCartney to the Daily Mirror


6:21am UK, Thursday February 09, 2012

Mark White, home affairs editor


Heather Mills is due to give evidence to the inquiry into media ethics
today, where she is likely to turn the spotlight on former Daily Mirror editor
Piers Morgan.


Sir Paul McCartney's ex-wife asked to testify at the
Leveson
Inquiry to refute the evidence of Mr Morgan, who appeared
before the hearing in December.

In his testimony, Mr Morgan said he would not disclose a source who played
him the tape recording of a voice message left on Ms Mills' phone by Sir Paul at
a time when the couple were experiencing marital problems.

He said: "I am not going to discuss where I heard it or who played it to me.
I don't think it's right. In fact, the inquiry has already stated to me you
don't expect me to identify sources."

Lord Justice Leveson told Mr Morgan the only person who would be able to
lawfully listen to the message was Ms Mills or somebody authorised on her
behalf.


Piers Morgan declined to tell the inquiry the source of
the leak



He said: "I am perfectly happy to call Lady McCartney to give evidence as to
whether she authorised you to listen to her voicemails.

"She may say she did, in which case you're not compromising anybody, but if
she didn't, then we can proceed on the premise that it's somebody else, can't
we?"

Just hours after his evidence, Ms Mills issued a strongly-worded statement denying she
was the source of the leak.

She said: "For the avoidance of doubt, I can categorically state that I have
never ever played Piers Morgan a tape of any kind, never mind a voice message
from my ex-husband.

"Piers Morgan is doing all he can to deter the Leveson inquiry from finishing
their important job."

She added: "Morgan is using me as his scapegoat and I would be more than
happy to answer any questions that the inquiry would like to put to me.

"As stated in a press release by my ex-husband, he has never insinuated that
I have leaked tapes of him to the media."


Associated Newspapers' Paul Dacre will return to the
inquiry on Thursday



Mr Morgan was editor of the Daily Mirror from 1995 to
2004, when he was sacked after the paper published fake photographs which
claimed to show British soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees.

He now works as an interviewer for the US news channel CNN.

If Ms Mills confirms to Lord Justice Leveson that she never authorised Mr
Morgan to listen to the voice mail messages, the inquiry could decide to recall
the former tabloid editor to reveal who played him the recordings.

Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers,
which publishes the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, is also due at the
inquiry today.

He has been recalled to answer more questions about
accusations made by actor Hugh Grant.

On Monday, Mr Dacre defended accusing Mr Grant of "mendacious smears" after
the actor claimed a Mail on Sunday story about his relationship with socialite
Jemima Khan was likely to have come from illicit eavesdropping.

After Mr Grant's claims during his evidence at the start of the
inquiry, Associated Newspapers issued a statement branding his claims
"mendacious smears driven by his hatred of the media".

Mr Dacre told the inquiry he was off work the day the claims were made but
heard reports of them on BBC radio.

"It was a terrible smear on a company I love," he said. "We had to do
something about it."

He said the comments were an attempt by Grant, the
Hacked
Off campaign and the Media Standards Trust, to "hijack" the
inquiry and that if Associated had not instantly strongly rebutted the
allegations, it would have been "too late".

This Panda is going to be big trouble for Piers Morgan, he is the one person in the media, apart from Tony Parsons that I hate, imo he is one nasty piece of work, and the vultures are flying quite low over Morgans head, we have had Scot Yard arrests from NOTW, THE SUN well lets just stand back and wait the the arrests of THE DAILY MIRROR top dogs also

Lillyofthevalley wrote:This Panda is going to be big trouble for Piers Morgan, he is the one person in the media, apart from Tony Parsons that I hate, imo he is one nasty piece of work, and the vultures are flying quite low over Morgans head, we have had Scot Yard arrests from NOTW, THE SUN well lets just stand back and wait the the arrests of THE DAILY MIRROR top dogs also

Morning Lilyofthevalley.........no Iv'e never liked Piers Morgan either. He has that smug look about him and no doubt will be hauled before the enquiry
again.

If you havn't checked out the Armageddon thread lately on World News....Newscorp , parent Company of News Intl have already paid out £78 to people
have been hacked and still not come to the end!!! Shareholders are furious and I bet Rupert Murdoch is asked to stand down and sell shares so that he doesn't have the 70% majority.

Hmmm!! looks like Piers Morgen has some explaining to do : Heather Mills has testified that NO-ONE absolutely NO-ONE was given permission to listen to her voicemails - Heather is very angry - oooops!

Karen wrote:Hmmm!! looks like Piers Morgen has some explaining to do : Heather Mills has testified that NO-ONE absolutely NO-ONE was given permission to listen to her voicemails - Heather is very angry - oooops!

Yes, Karen, he will be like James Murdoch and not find the phone conversation where Heather agrees , or blame someone else for telling him a lie.

I seem to recall Leveson telling another journalist (Mullen?) that they were not seeking journalists' sources. I would have thought now Mills has denied being the source SY should be demanding answers on who hacked her voicemail not Leveson.

Is Mills a reliable witness?

Some of her "performances" in relation to her split form Paul McCartney were less than endearing and had the ring of "poor me" about them.

I think they will be as bad as each other and now it is up to Piers to have proof, like a tape recording to prove who is right.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Is Mills a reliable witness?

Some of her "performances" in relation to her split form Paul McCartney were less than endearing and had the ring of "poor me" about them.

I was always sceptical about Mills but ive come to the conclusion, the media just enjoyed knocking her, and like sucking upto Paul, I really dont thing she was all bad, she can't have been that awful McCartney married her.
Imo if Mills did have mental problems of any kind the media and papers probably didn't help that.
We kno the media/papers like to take sides, eg with the Mcs how they have never ever questioned the simple neglect issue (leaving those kids all under the age of 3 night after night was neglect end of) or dare to even repeat what is in the official police files,(they dare to bug phones and print lies)
They just happy to be loved up with the McCanns.......for now!!!

Panda wrote:I think they will be as bad as each other and now it is up to Piers to have proof, like a tape recording to prove who is right.

Wouldnt the Pink Ponce perhaps also be questioned as to where the extracts from KM diary came from?? that still needs to be answered.??

Leveson inquiry: Ian Edmondson contradicts Colin Myler evidence

Former News of the World news editor gives different version of events surrounding the publishing of Kate McCann's diaries


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/09/leveson-inquiry-edmondson-contradicts-myler-evidence?newsfeed=true

11.16am: Jay asks about the News of the World's publication of Kate McCann's diary without her permission.

Edmondson says he was instructed by Myler to record a call with the McCanns' press adviser at the time, Clarence Mitchell, regarding the diary. He adds that recording such calls was standard practice.

He says that, on the instruction of Myler, he did not make it clear in the call that the paper had a copy of the diary.

He says he was uncomfortable about this, as he was friends with Mitchell. "I liked Mitchell a lot. I felt uneasy, but I did what I was told."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/09/leveson-inquiry-dacre-mills-clifford-live?newsfeed=true

almostgothic wrote:11.16am: Jay asks about the News of the World's publication of Kate McCann's diary without her permission.

Edmondson says as he was friends with Mitchell. "I liked Mitchell a lot. I felt uneasy, but I did what I was told."

Brave man, admitting being friends with CM. Credibility sinks to zero.

quote from Guardian: A week later, the News of the World printed an apology for publishing the diaries, and it subsequently emerged that the Murdoch-owned title paid £125,000 to the fund for finding Madeleine.

Did this amount ever show up in accounts for the 'fund' dont remember seeing it. And why do they refer to it as the fund for finding Madeleine as very little of it has gone into looking for her.