News of the World phone hacking scandal

IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
Still following this all the time. Fucking typical that Yates has involved Carter-Ruck - are they the evillest group of people in the world? They're always to be found on the wrong side of an argument defending the indefensible, the rich against the poor. Bullying the little guy with all the weapons and threats at their disposal to prevent the truth coming out. It's a cliche but I honestly wonder how they sleep at night.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
Just in the last few years they've acted for Yates, Trafigura, The Church of Scientology and, worst of all, Simon Cowell.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
A super-injunction as well, wasn't it? What's he trying to suppress exactly? It's already come out that the DPP has criticised him for misinterpreting his statement on the law re. phone-hacking (ie Yates claimed it wasn't illegal if the victim had already heard the message).

He obviously saw this as his route to the top - much more like this and he'll be lucky to have a job in a year's time.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
I reckon his days are numbered - it seems that he deliberately pretended to misunderstand what constituted a crime of hacking (the thing about not hearing it first) and misled parliament over the number of victims. As I understand it he was asked the number and he replied "we can prove a crime against twelve" even though he knew full well that there were loads of extra ones where the crime hadn't actually been proven. Carter-Fuck (copyright Private Eye) are arguing that he didn't mislead because he wasn't actually saying that the number of victims was twelve, just the number of provable ones. To my mind, even if you accept that that was what he meant, that's still misleading the questioners because he answered a different question and allowed them to think it was the one they were asking.
Has it been cleared up for definite if the tax payer is paying for his solicitors yet? Would a freedom of information request get that? If he's getting that paid by the tax payer then it's shocking that such large sums of money should be paid to work directly against our interest. Not for the first time obviously.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
Private Eye reports

We asked the Metropolitan Police Authority, which eventually came back with a brief statement: “The Authority can approve expenditure on legal advice under strict criteria, subject to limits on the amount to be disbursed, for cases which have the potential to bring the organisation as a whole into disrepute.”
Click to expand...
Which they interpret as meaning that the taxpayer is paying. Something they find particularly cheeky as Carter-Ruck are claiming that the Graun caused Yates “considerable personal and professional distress and embarrassment”. Their point being - why the fuck should the public care about his personal embarrassment?

More to the point, I'm amazed that any "strict criteria, subject to limits on the amount" would be met by an officer paying the most famous (and expensive?) libel solicitors in the land to bully people into pretending that he didn't say precisely what he did say.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=street_of_shame
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
The last bit is pretty damning I'd say - a lot of it boils down to one's word against the other's but when it's clear that the original prosecution involved the wider interpretation of the law and the police went with it it's pretty much impossible for them to argue that they understood it the other way. In other words it looks very bad for Yates. Good.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
This paragraph is interesting, given how close Blunkett and Wade were.


Nevertheless, as a result of her evidence to the select committee, Brooks also became a target for the police. The Home Office warrant to intercept her phone calls is likely to have been signed by the then home secretary David Blunkett, whose own voicemail messages were then intercepted by the News of the World, according to journalists who worked there. It is understood that Brooks was warned that her phone was being tapped but she believed it was related to the leaking of the Hutton report to the Sun.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/11/rebekah-brooks-phone-hacking
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top