Phone-hacking scandal: Tuesday's key quotes - The Guardian

Gordon Brown said he was 'genuinely shocked' by recent News International allegations. Photograph: David Gadd/Allstar/Sportsphoto Ltd./Allstar(router,verizon wireless,wireless network,wireless internet,i phone,i phone verizon,my verizon wireless,wireless adapter,att wireless)

Allegations that the former prime minister Gordon Brown was the victim of systematic hacking and "blagging" have upped the stakes in the News International scandal still further. Here are some of Tuesday's key quotes:
• "I'm shocked, I'm genuinely shocked, (router,verizon wireless,wireless network,wireless internet,i phone,i phone verizon,my verizon wireless,wireless adapter,att wireless)
to find that this happened because of their links with criminals, known criminals, who were undertaking this activity, hired by investigators with the Sunday Times. I just can't understand this – if I, with all the protection and all the defences and all the security that a chancellor of the exchequer or a prime minister, am so vulnerable to unscrupulous tactics, to unlawful tactics, methods that have been used in the way we have found, what about the ordinary citizen? What about the person, like the family of Milly Dowler, who are in the most desperate of circumstances, the most difficult occasions in their lives, in huge grief and then they find that they are totally defenceless in this moment of greatest grief from people who are employing these ruthless tactics with links to known criminals." – Gordon Brown reacts to allegations that his family were targeted by News International journalists.
• "In tears. Your son is now going to be broadcast across the media. Sarah and I were incredibly upset about it. We were thinking about his long-term future. We were thinking about our family. But there's nothing that you can do about it. You're in public life. And this story appears. You don't know how it's appeared. I've not questioned how it's appeared. I've not made any allegations about how it's appeared. I've not made any claims about [how it appeared]. But the fact is it did appear. And it did appear in the Sun newspaper." – Brown on how he and his wife reacted to the news that the Sun had obtained his son's medical records.
• "I find it quite incredible that a supposedly reputable organisation made its money, produced its commercial results, at the expense of ordinary people by using known criminals. That is now what has got to be investigated." – Brown on what must happen next.
• "When the record of my time as prime minister is looked at – and all the papers will be there for people to see – they will show that we stood up to News International, that we refused to support their commercial ambitions when we thought they were against the public interest." – Brown on suggestions that his government was too close to News International.
"From the methods I know that are used, and the impact it has on your phone, your pin number, I am 99% certain my phone was hacked during a period of 2005-06. Who by, I don't know. The records don't exist any more." – Metropolitan police assistant commissioner John Yates, who decided not to reopen investigations into hacking in 2009, giving evidence to the Commons home affairs select committee.
"I can assure you all that I have never lied and all the information that I've provided to this committee has been given in good faith," Yates told the MPs. He added that his decision not to pursue hacking allegations in 2009 was a "poor decision", saying: "We didn't have the information we should have done."
• "I think it's terrible what happened to Gordon. I think it's disgusting, and I think it just adds to the long list of outrages that we've seen practised by certain newspapers and I think it reinforces the need for comprehensive action to be taken. There can be nothing good about this crisis but one thing that can come out of it is a determination among politicians, journalists and others to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again." – the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, gives Sky News his reaction to the situation.
• "John Yates is in charge of counter-terrorism. He is doing a very good job in that role. I have confidence in John Yates." – the home secretary, Theresa May.
• "If I'd have ordered a public inquiry at the time, I'd have probably been castigated because in the runup to a general election people would have said it was an attempt to get at Andy Coulson who'd been appointed by Cameron. So you can't take today's knowledge and just apply it retrospectively. You have to look at the information that was available at the time." – the former Labour home secretary Alan Johnson tells Sky News why he did not set up an inquiry into phone hacking.
• "We note the allegations made today concerning the reporting of matters relating to Gordon Brown. So that we can investigate these matters further, we ask that all information concerning these allegations is provided to us." – News International reacts to the Brown allegations.
• "The latest revelations that the details, personal details of a former prime minister, were obtained, the fact that police officers may have been involved in protecting members of the royal family and then selling that information on to journalists – these are all very serious allegations, the most serious allegations, certainly this committee has seen over the last few years." – Keith Vaz, chair of the Commons home affairs committee.
"Unconvincing." – Vaz describes the view of the committee on Yates's evidence.
View the original article here

Petrol bombs thrown at police in Belfast riot - The Guardian

Police under attack during riots in west Belfast on Monday night. Photograph: Stephen Wilson/AFP/Getty
The first leg of the most controversial Orange parade of the Ulster loyalist marching season passed off peacefully on Tuesday morning.(router,verizon wireless,wireless network,wireless internet,i phone,i phone verizon,my verizon wireless,wireless adapter,att wireless)

After violence on Monday night, there was a heavy police presence on Belfast's Crumlin Road as officers separated loyalist marchers and nationalist demonstrators as the parade passed by the Ardoyne shops.
Amid driving rain and the drone of a police helicopter overhead the Orangemen and two loyalist bands were accompanied by two rows of protesters shortly before 8.30am on Tuesday. As marchers reached the nearby Protestant Twaddell Avenue they were given a heroes' reception by local loyalists.(router,verizon wireless,wireless network,wireless internet,i phone,i phone verizon,my verizon wireless,wireless adapter,att wireless)

Attention now turns to Tuesday evening, when the parade will return up the Crumlin Road past the nationalist area. A rally has been organised for Tuesday afternoon in Ardoyne with some demonstrators vowing to block the Crumlin Road to prevent the Orangemen's return.
Violence overnight in Belfast saw 22 police officers injured as nationalist youths attacked the security forces hours before the biggest day in the Orange Order's calendar.
Plastic bullets were fired and water cannon was deployed to deal with a mob of up to 200 youths in the Broadway area in the west of the city. The rioters attacked police lines separating the area from the loyalist Village district close to the M1 motorway.
Baton rounds were also fired during street disturbances in the Oldpark area of north Belfast close to a so-called peaceline separating nationalist and loyalist communities.
Police were also investigating reports that gunshots were fired in the area but there are no reports of any injuries.
A bus was hijacked on the Falls Road with the driver dragged from the vehicle and passengers ordered off it. It was then driven at police lines on the Donegall Road, but crashed a short distance away. A van was also set alight on the Donegall Road.
About 40 people gathered in North Queen Street near the city centre and petrol bombs have been thrown at police.
There was a minor disturbance on the Shore Road after a barricade was erected across the road at Greencastle Station.
Up to a quarter of a million people are expected to attend or watch the annual 12 July parades across Northern Ireland, the biggest of which will take place through Belfast.
View the original article here

Church of England General Synod live blog - The Guardian (blog)

2.05pm: I am momentarily stepping away from the Church of England's cunning plan to dominate, sorry "position itself even more centrally in the education system of England and Wales" to bring you reaction to the Equality and Human Rights Commission application to intervene in the case of four Christians.
Ben Summerskill, from Stonewall, has issued this response:(router,verizon wireless,wireless network,wireless internet,i phone,i phone verizon,my verizon wireless,wireless adapter,att wireless)

Stonewall is deeply disturbed at the EHRC's statement announcing applications to intervene in European Court cases of claimed discrimination against Christians in the workplace. The case features two individuals, Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane, who have refused to provide public services to gay people.(router,verizon wireless,wireless network,wireless internet,i phone,i phone verizon,my verizon wireless,wireless adapter,att wireless)

The Commission should be crystal clear that if it seeks to defend the claimed right of any public servant to turn away any user of a public service, it will face strong opposition. Gay taxpayers currently contribute £40 billion a year to the cost of Britain's public services and no lesbian and gay person should ever be deprived of access to them.
The EHRC's announcement, which has apparently been made by officers without consulting its board, confuses a settled legal situation that is currently clear. If employees are allowed to discriminate against gay people in the delivery of publicly-funded services, using the cloak of religion as justification, then we risk seeing a situation where Muslims may start refusing to treat alcoholics in hospital or social workers might decline to assist single mothers.
Recent research has demonstrated that the majority of religious people in Britain are proud of our progress toward gay equality. They understand that religious beliefs do not mean individuals have a right to treat lesbian, gay and bisexual people unfairly. We regret that the EHRC does not appear to support this sentiment. We hope it will now offer an unambiguous clarification of its position.

The National Secular Society has a statement on its website:

The cases that have been referred to Europe are not as straightforward as we are led to believe by the campaigners running them. Some of them have been tested in court and repeatedly found to be groundless (for example, Nadia Eweida, the BA employee) and the others have been settled by employment tribunals or through workplace negotiation. The fact that in every case where they have been brought to court they have been dismissed illustrates the emptiness of the claims being made by the likes of the Christian Legal Centre.
Mr Phillips should realise that by encouraging these worthless cases he is putting at risk the rights of gay people and others to live free from discrimination and injustice. For every privilege granted to religious people, someone else's rights are diminished. The fight for equality for gays has been long and hard, and now we see this campaign putting them at risk as religious believers fight for the right to legally enforce their prejudices against LGBT people.

The British Humanist Association is also joining the fray:

All reasonable people will agree both that equality law in this area must be clear and also that there is scope in a secular democracy for reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs when that accommodation does not affect the rights and freedoms of others. But it is one thing to make the case for reasonable accommodation in matters such as religious holidays, and quite another if the accommodation sought is to allow the believer to discriminate against others in the provision of a service.
In spite of our own work on the government steering group that first established it, ever since the EHRC opened for business our attempts to work with it have run aground on the constant priority it gives to religion. The EHRC has covered itself with shame on "religion or belief" issues since its doors first opened and this latest action is wholly disproportionate.

1.31pm: Here are some extracts from the opening speech of the bishop of Oxford about education. Audio for the debate can be found here and audio files for the whole of Synod - I know I spoil you - are also available for the Church of England website.

The changes are just tumbling out of government at a bewildering pace and the whole educational world is scrambling to keep up.
[The 200th anniversary of the National Society] has given us the opportunity to revisit those core values and ask the crucial question about the purpose of church schools at the start of the 21st century. The question is being asked quite sharply of us by the increasingly vociferous band of secularists. It is important we are clear about the purpose, the rationale, the justification for our church schools. We need to stay on the front foot and be confident in the importance of these church schools in the mixed educational economy.
Seismic movements are afoot in education. We've focused on three - academies, RE and admissions. The educational marketplace is opening up, free of local authority control. Local education authorities make out for very little in this context having few roles and fewer funds. Independent service providers will be needed for school improvement, HR, legal expertise and so on. Who's going to provide that experience skill and knowledge now that the LEA has withered on the vine? Enter the Church. This is a great opportunity for diocesan boards of education if we can hold our nerve and be quick on our feet.
Non-church schools will be looking for experienced, wise, skilled friends who they can trust. We've been in the business a long time and we can provide or broker or benchmark the services they need.
The second major concern is about RE. All is still not lost although it's a close run thing. Discussions continue at a very high level. Can we all do our bit to commend the idea of RE teaching as Christian vocation?
The third issue is admissions, this isn't one of the googlies bowled to us by government. Not much has changed. Out of nearly 5000 schools only a very small number allocate more than half their places to Christian families. There's no tension between serving the whole community and nurturing the faith of children from Christian families.
We could lose much of what we have built up over the last 200 years if governors, bishops, clergy don't rise to the challenge of a new era. The changes are momentous the opportunities are huge.

12.20pm: More on the Church of England's stake in News Corporation. First Estates Church Commissioner Andreas Whittam Smith has warned (there's a lot of that going on) this morning against a premature purge of the Church of England's £3.76m News Corporation investment as it was possible that Murdoch might dump his British papers leading to a rise in share price. Canny.
He told Synod:

I feel that a premature sale of News Corp and BSkyB might just be simply very bad timing.
I don't argue with anything that anybody is saying about them but I think it must be possible that News Corp will get rid of its entire British holdings, of newspapers that is, and that if it is to do so, first of all the problem would have vanished if you like from the point of view of the parent company and for us as investors, and the shares will certainly bounce up again, and so it is a ticklish area.
I do wish them the best of luck in talking to Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch and Rebekah wotsit, it won't be easy, and I do not volunteer to be part of the team.

11.53am: Morning all! Welcome to the final General Synod live blog.
This morning is about education, education, education. There has been lots of coverage about this debate - with a leading bishop warning the Church of England must act now to secure its role amid policy change; the same bishop warning that church schools are under threat and again that middle-class parents will lose their monopoly on school places.
The advice on admissions and comment from the leading bishop in question - John Pritchard - can be found here.
While the debate is going on I'll do a round-up of news and blogs emerging from yesterday's business.
The Daily Telegraph has a story on how Christians should learn how to be a minority from Muslims, drawn from comments made by the bishop of Bradford, Nick Baines. Baines has written about race and the Church of England on his own blog:

One of the major challenges facing Muslims in this country is how to be a minority community and faith. Islam assumes majority status, so the learning is not an easy exercise. Where Christians find themselves a minority presence in a parish here, it has to ask what sort of a community it should be, how it should shape its life, how it can best witness to Jesus Christ, what sort of language it needs to enable its voice to be heard and its life to be understood.
We could pretend that the situation didn't exist. We might wish the situation were different. But that would simply be to 'do a Daily Mail' and live with a rather unpleasant fantasy. It is always better to live in the real world and embrace the questions and challenges we might otherwise ignore.

The Telegraph also has a story about the curious incident involving the bishop of Dover and the chair of the business committee. The bishop of Dover was due to be confirmed as that position holder, but whisperings and grumblings meant he chose not to take on the role. It led to the archbishop of Canterbury's intervention, a blog post from another bishop and mildly feverish activity on Twitter.
A transcript of the bishop's statement (Dover, not Willesden) is here (via Titus One Nine) and it's rather astonishing.

Trevor Willmott, Bishop of Dover, number 45 – Chairman, I am grateful for this unusual opportunity to speak. I ask Synod's forgiveness if what I am about to say strikes hard. It is not intended to do so. Throughout my time on Synod in many different ways, I have tried to be of assistance to our working, and I will continue so to act in the future.
I understand however, that there are some who question the appropriateness of a member of the House of Bishops chairing the Business Committee of this Synod and perhaps, dare I say, even this bishop in particular.
I want to say it is a role which I have not sought. I will not speculate on the reasoning behind these views, partly because I am ashamed to say, many of them have been spoken in the darkness!
I just want to say that I am deeply saddened at the thought that a member of any house of this Synod is somehow disqualified from holding a particular office, merely because he or she belongs to that particular house. Even more so, the thought that somehow belonging to that house, cuts across personal integrity and the loyalty to carry forward a shared task.
Members of Synod, I do not intend to embarrass you any further this morning. I therefore ask the Archbishops' Council, not to consider me for nomination as Chairman of the Business Committee. If such a nomination cannot gain the consent and confidence of the Synod, I do not believe that this office or any office is worth holding. I would suggest however, that very urgent consideration now be given to the amending of the standing orders of this Synod, so as to find a better and more transparent way of appointing the Chair of the Business Committee, and somehow preventing others finding themselves in that unenviable place in which I now find myself.

Hmm.
View the original article here

News of the World: Prince Charles and Camilla warned over phone hacking - The Guardian

The Duchess Of Cornwall and Prince Charles are among at least 10 members of the royal family who have been warned they were targeted for hacking. Photograph: Tim Graham/Getty Images(router,verizon wireless,wireless network,wireless internet,i phone,i phone verizon,my verizon wireless,wireless adapter,att wireless)

Police have warned Buckingham Palace that they have found evidence that the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall may have had their voicemail hacked by the News of the World.
The heir to the throne and his wife are among at least 10 members of the royal household who have now been warned they were targeted for hacking, according to police records obtained by the Guardian. Only five had previously been identified.(router,verizon wireless,wireless network,wireless internet,i phone,i phone verizon,my verizon wireless,wireless adapter,att wireless)

A palace source on Monday confirmed to the Guardian that the prince and the duchess had been approached by police recently to be warned that they had been identified as likely targets of the News of the World's specialist phone-hacker, Glenn Mulcaire.
The revelation comes as the BBC disclosed that the emails which News International handed to Scotland Yard in June include evidence that the paper had paid bribes to a royal protection officer in order to obtain private phone numbers for the royal household.
It is believed that personal phone details for Prince Charles and Camilla have been found among the 11,000 pages of handwritten notes that were kept by Mulcaire and which were seized by the original Scotland Yard inquiry in August 2006.
The palace source said: "The question that has to be answered is: if somebody had access to this evidence back then, why didn't they do something about it?"
Previous statements by police have identified only five royal victims – Prince William, Prince Harry and three members of staff who were named in the trial of the News of the World's royal correspondent, Clive Goodman, in January 2007.
In response to a Freedom of Information request from the Guardian, Scotland Yard has now revealed that it warned a total of 10 royal victims. Eight were warned at the time of the original police inquiry in 2006. Two others were warned only after the Guardian revived the story in July 2009.
It is not clear whether Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, are among the 10 victims to which its records referred. The palace source suggested that they had been warned only recently.
The remaining unidentified victims are thought to be members of the royal family, not staff. The prosecution strategy at the time of the trial was to name staff but not family.
Paperwork held by the Crown Prosecution Service reveals that police and prosecutors adopted a deliberate strategy to "ringfence" the evidence they presented in court in order to suppress the names of particularly prominent victims, including members of the royal family.
Scotland Yard took more than 14 months to provide the information, which was originally requested under the Freedom of Information Act in April 2010.
View the original article here

Southern Cross landlords to take over all homes - The Guardian

All Southern Cross's 750 homes will be taken over by their landlords. Photograph: Tim Ireland/PA
Stricken care home chain Southern Cross is being broken up after attempts to rescue the company floundered.(router,verizon wireless,wireless network,wireless internet,i phone,i phone verizon,my verizon wireless,wireless adapter,att wireless)

Britain's largest operator of care homes told the City that its 750 homes are being taken over by its landlords, a move which brings more uncertainty for some of its residents. The decision also means that shareholders in the company will be wiped out.(router,verizon wireless,wireless network,wireless internet,i phone,i phone verizon,my verizon wireless,wireless adapter,att wireless)

Under this plan, 250 of Southern Cross's homes will be transferred to landlords who are either care operators already or who have "strong links" to firms who provide such services. The owners of the remaining 500 homes, though, are still "finalising their plans", which could involve homes being sold.
"My objective, and that of my team, is to continue to provide excellent care to every resident and to manage the programme of transition professionally," said chief executive Jamie Buchan.
Southern Cross had hoped to hammer out a deal with its landlords that would have allowed the company to keep operating but admitted on Monday that all landlords had said they would leave the group – as predicted last month. Southern Cross itself will therefore cease to be a care provider once the handover has been completed.
"As part of the plan, in addition to ensuring continuity of care to residents, all payments to trade creditors are to be maintained and all home-based staff transferred on their current terms," the group said.
Southern Cross's future has been hanging in the balance since March, when it warned that its rental bill was unsustainable. The crisis escalated when the company, which has been hit by cutbacks by local authorities and rising operating costs, cut rent payments to its landlords by 30%.
Controversially, Southern Cross had followed a policy of buying homes, then selling them on to landlords and leasing them back again.
Trading in Southern Cross shares have been suspended. They had already fallen to just 6.25p, having been worth £6 in late 2007.
View the original article here

Japan nuclear reactors 'must pass tsunami test before reopening' - The Guardian

Japanese prime minister Naoto Kan has ordered nuclear power plants to undergo more stringent safety tests before restarting reactors. Photograph: Everett Kennedy Brown/EPA

Japan's idle nuclear reactors will not be allowed to restart unless it is proven they can survive giant tsunamis and other extreme events, the country's government has said.

But with no timetable decided for two rounds of "stress tests" and electricity demand soon to reach its summer peak, concern is growing that Japan may experience power shortages at the hottest time of year.

The first round of tests will focus on reactors that have completed routine safety checks and would have already restarted had the accident at Fukushima Daiichi power plant not plunged Japan's nuclear industry into crisis.

The tests will examine the reactors' ability to withstand natural onslaughts of far greater force than previously factored into safety checks.

They will, for example, examine their ability to withstand an unusually severe event similar to the magnitude-9 earthquake and 15m tsunami that knocked out back-up generators at Fukushima Daiichi, leading to core meltdowns in three reactors.

In the second stage, all of Japan's nuclear power facilities will undergo a general safety assessment.

Only 19 of the country's 54 nuclear reactors are in operation due to delays in restarting those that have undergone maintenance checks or were shut down after the 11 March tsunami.

In addition, reactors that are operating could be forced to close immediately if they fail the first round of tests, the government has said in a statement.

As it attempts to calm public fears over safety, the government must contemplate a worst-case scenario in which every last nuclear reactor will be idle by next April as more come offline for regular inspections.

That would seriously compromise the country's ability to produce enough electricity and could result in power shortages lasting into the summer of 2012.

Major users of electricity have already been told they must cut peak power use by 15% from this month to avoid blackouts this summer.

Nuclear provided about 30% of Japan's energy before the crisis. Plans to increase supply to more than 50% by 2030 were ditched after the prime minister, Naoto Kan, ordered a review of energy policy and promised a much bigger post-Fukushima role for renewables.

"Safety and a sense of security are the top priority," said Yukio Edano, the chief cabinet secretary. "One the other hand the government must fulfil its responsibility to provide a stable supply of electricity … we will make every effort to secure that in the medium and long term."

Edano could not say when the first round of tests would begin, only that they would happen "soon" and be overseen by Japan's nuclear safety commission, which is considered more independent of the government than the nuclear safety agency.

Last week's surprise decision to conduct stress tests has caused confusion among the public and angered industry officials who want idle reactors restarted as soon as possible.

In June government officials, citing reviews by the nuclear safety agency, said reactors that had been shut down for regular checks were safe to restart.

At the time the economy minister, Banri Kaieda, said: "There is no problem regarding safety concerning the continued operation and restart of nuclear power stations."

On Friday Kan apologised for dithering over the tests, which will be modelled on those being conducted on reactors in European Union member states. "My instructions were inadequate and came too late," he said. "I take responsibility for that."

Officials in Fukushima prefecture said they had detected high levels of radioactive caesium in straw fed to cattle at a farm in Minamisoma, a town near the Fukushima Daiichi power plant.

Tests were carried out on feed and water samples from the farm after caesium at levels three to six times higher than the provisional legal limit of 500 becquerels per kilogram were found in 11 cows, according to the Tokyo metropolitan government.

The cows had been shipped to a meat packing plant in Tokyo and slaughtered but their meat did not go on sale, Kyodo news agency said.

View the original article here

Tony Blair: New Labour died when I handed over to Gordon Brown - The Guardian

Former prime minister Tony Blair at his home office in Grosvenor Square, London. Photograph: Rex Features

Tony Blair has delivered his most damning verdict on Gordon Brown's government to date, claiming New Labour died when he left office in 2007 and that the party "lost its driving rhythm".

The former prime minister said the 13-year Labour government should be remembered in two phases – his and Brown's – and there was "no continuity" between the two.

In a speech in London to the New Labour thinktank Progress, Blair also advocated a "pick and mix" of policy that did not adhere to old narratives of left and right. He urged the party to let go of some of its old ideologies in order to arrive at the "right" policy decisions.

He said: "I remain unremittingly an advocate of third-way, centre-ground, progressive politics that came to be called New Labour. From 1997 to 2007 we were New Labour. In June 2007 we stopped.

"We didn't become old Labour exactly. But we lost the driving rhythm that made us different and successful. It was not a government of continuity from 1997 to 2010 pursing the same politics. It was 10 plus three."

It is the most comprehensive analysis Blair has made distinguishing between his and Brown's premiership. He also stressed his support for the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, but warned that the party could not indulge in the "politics of protest".

He said: "Parties of the left have a genetic tendency to cling to an analysis that they lose because the leadership is insufficiently committed to being left, defined in a very traditional sense. There's always a slightly curious problem with this analysis since usually they have lost to a rightwing party. But somehow that inconvenient truth is put to the side.

"This analysis is grasped with relief. People are then asked to unify around it. Anything else is distraction, even an act of disloyalty. This strategy never works."

Recalling his government's policies to introduce academies, more patient choice in the NHS, asbos and university top-up fees, plus its pro-business stance – all of which were controversial on the left of the party – he said: "Some of these policies could be supported by people who don't vote Labour. That's not a bad thing.

"In the real world of the 21st century there will be some pick and mix of policy. Sometimes it will be less left v right than right v wrong. Above all today, efficacy – effective delivery, motivated of course by values – matters as much if not more than ideology. Don't fear it. Embrace it. It liberates us to get the correct policy."

He argued that Labour should make the economy its priority. "I still think we need to focus a lot on the micro side: targeted policies that support business, jobs, that allow that large amount of cumulative reserves in business to be invested and that also gives us an opportunity to regain, which I think is very important to us, our relationship with business."

View the original article here

Phone hacking – a Q&A session - The Guardian

Two years on from the Guardian's first story on the extent of phone hacking, the full truth of what was going on at the News of the World is being stripped bare. Photograph: Matt Dunham/AP

• The Q&A is now closed. Thanks to all who took part. We've collected Alan's answers to your questions at the bottom of this article

Sometimes the forward momentum of newspaper investigations is virtually invisible to the naked eye. It's lucky that Nick Davies is an exceptionally patient reporter because there must have been times during the past two years when he felt no one wanted to hear what he was so clearly saying.

Nick's first story on the full extent of the phone-hacking scandal was published almost exactly two years ago – on 8 July 2009. It was – or should have been – explosive. It reported that a major global media company – News International – had paid out £1m secretly to settle legal cases which revealed criminality within their business.

Instead of going back to parliament or the regulator to admit that they had been misled, the company's chairman, James Murdoch, signed a large cheque to stop the truth coming out.

With any non-media company this revelation would have led to blanket coverage, calls for resignations, immediate action by the regulator etc. Instead there was a kind of ghostly silence.

The Metropolitan police – led by Assistant Commissioner John Yates – announced an inquiry. And then, within the space of a few hours, he announced the inquiry was over and there was nothing to inquire into.

News International, doubtless pleased by this clean bill of health, came out all guns blazing, denouncing the Guardian's deliberate attempts to mislead the public. Most of the press decided it wasn't much of a story. The regulator decided there was nothing wrong. And many MPs were sympathetic in private, but indicated there was little in it for them in sticking their heads above any public parapet.

And so we settled in for the long haul. Week by week, story by story, column by column, doorstep by doorstep, Nick Davies prised open the truth. There were some other heroes: a handful of lawyers and MPs and a few journalists – on the New York Times, Independent, FT, BBC and Channel 4. But it was pretty lonely work for those at the heart of it. And there were plenty of people yawning from the sidelines, claiming it was all a bit obsessive.

But investigative journalism is a bit obsessive. Sometimes it works by small, incremental, barely perceptible steps.

Scroll forward two years and the full truth of what was going on at the News of the World is dramatically being stripped bare. Some kind of mental dam has been broken. MPs, journalists, regulators and police are speaking confidently again as they should. The palpably intimidating spectre of an apparently untouchable media player has been burst.

But what now? How can we make sure that we never again have this kind of dominant force in British public life?

One positive step yesterday was the announcement that there would be at least one public inquiry into what on earth was going on within the Metropolitan police.

There are two outstanding issues that will affect the future of the media in this country. One is the threatened imminent decision to wave through the deal which would give Rupert Murdoch total control over the biggest commercial broadcaster as well as 40% of the national press.

Anyone who reads into the story of the last two years can see that's a terrible idea. But – on the narrow grounds on which Jeremy Hunt and David Cameron are fighting – it's a complex issue mixing competition law, Ofcom, plurality and politics.

And then there's the question of how the press should be regulated. There will be plenty of calls for statutory regulation in the days and weeks to come.

I don't like the idea. I resist the notion of state licensing of journalists – and I struggle to see how there is any easy definition of "journalist" in 2011. So I would like to see self-regulation continue.

But I admit this is shaky ground. When the PCC came out with its laughable report into phone hacking in November 2009 (which, to its credit, it finally retracted yesterday) I warned that this was going to be dangerous for the cause of self regulation and I quit the PCC's code committee in protest.

The PCC's weakness is that it doesn't have the powers of a regulator. So it should either abandon the claim to be a regulator – and carry on doing its valuable work of mediation and adjudication – or else it has to acquire powers of compelling witnesses, calling evidence etc. But how does it do that without becoming laboriously legalistic and horrendously expensive to run?

These are some of the issues now coming down the slipway and I look forward to discussing them.

Comments will be off on this article until 2.30pm on Thursday when Alan Rusbridger will be answering questions live online for two hours.

Oborne goes on to allege you also warned Nick Clegg about Coulson's activities.

Is this true? If so, what were Cameron and Clegg told that is now in the public domain? What have they known all along?

Peter Oborne is right. Before the election it was common knowledge in Fleet Street that an investigator used by the NoW during Andy Coulson's editorship was on remand for conspiracy to murder. We couldn't report that due to contempt of court restrictions, but I thought it right that Cameron should know before he took any decisions about taking Andy Coulson into Number 10. So I sent word via an intermediary close to Cameron. And I also told Clegg personally.

Does the Guardian have any evidence of phone hacking happening at other British newspapers ? If so, once the dust settles over NotW, will the Guardian widen its continuing investigation to these papers too?

I think the bulk of Nick Davies's evidence relates to the NotW. He did write a more general chapter on the so-called dark arts of Fleet Street in his book, Flat Earth News.

To be frank, it's taken him all this time to land this one, so he's hardly had time to look elsewhere so far

The past few days have had me genuinely wondering about what, if any, licensing requirements there are on running a newspaper.

If a broadcaster had been up to what the NoW were doing it would quite rightly have been pulled off the air. So what exactly does a newspaper have to do to lose its right to publish in the UK?

I'm anxious about the notion of state licensing for the press. We got rid of that more than 150 years ago (date, someone?) and I wouldn't want to see it back. In an age when anyone can call thsemselves a journalist I see difficulties of definition. Would Huffington Post have to get a licence? So, I think it's probably unworkable as well as undesirable. But I'd be interested to hear other views.

Do you agree with Oborne that this renders Cameron's position questionable?

No - but I do think it showed lousy judgement. I don't think I was the only person to warn Cameron in advance about Coulson, incidentally.

Many congratulations on your determined coverage of this story. Also, do you ever fear retribution from Mr Murdoch, as many people apparently do?

Thank you. But Nick Davies is the hero of the hour. I honestly don't think Murdoch would win much public sympathy if he started going after the people who have been criticising him or the NoW this week.

Media regulation. I don't like the idea of state regulation either, but we've seen that self-regulation in its current form just doesn't work. Do you see a future role for, e.g. Ofcom in providing or overseeing independent press regulation?

I agree that this hasn't been a wonderful advertisement for self-regulation. The short answer is that, no, the PCC can't go on as it is. Its credibility is hanging by a thread.

We did say this back in November 2009 when the PCC came out with its laughable report into phone-hacking. We said in an editorial that this was a dangerous day for press regulation - and so it's turned out.

The PCC has this week withdrawn that report and has a team looking at the issues and at the mistakes it's made in the past.

I don't know how Ofcom could do the job without falling into the category of statutory regulation. Does anyone else?

It suggests to me that, despite the strong words in the Commons yesterday, most politicians and media outlets are still frightened of hitting Rupert where it hurts. What do you think?

All credit to Ed Miliband, who was pretty forthright I thought. And I don't think anyone could say that Tom Watson, Paul Farrelly, Chris Bryant, Nicholas Soames or Simon Hughes pulled their punches (I didn't see all of the debate). I don't think that would have happened two years ago. And, this week, the Telegraph, Mail, Independent and FT have all been full-throated. Even the Times has written a leader being critical of its sister paper. So I do see a sea-change.

Do you worry that the consequence of all this, after the inquiries, and any possible prosecutions, will be legislation that, might hinder legitimate journalism?

Well, I really hope not. That's been my fear all along: that, by being so feeble back in 2009, the PCC was inviting politicians to go for something more restrictive. So - for the sake of all reporters engaged in legitimate journalism - it's really important that we find a way of re-making the PCC into something that has credibility.

What do you think, David?

General question on what rules we have at the Guardian.

We don't pay for stories. Reporters are told not to use private investigators without my permission. A very rare example: I agreed to use someone outside the paper, and that was over evidence of corrupt dealings by a global corporation. The Guardian did not feature on the list of newspapers exposed by the Information Commissioner in 2006.

Generally, I think the greater the possible intrusion by journalists the higher the public interest hurdle has to be.

I like the guidelines suggested by former spook Sr David Omand for his trade. I think they're good questions for any news organisation.

• There must be sufficient cause – the intrusion needs to be justified by the scale of potential harm, which might be result from it.

• There must be integrity of motive - the intrusion must be justified in terms of the public good which would follow from publication.

• The methods used must be in proportion to the seriousness of story and its public interest, using the minimum possible intrusion.

• There must be proper authority – any intrusion must be authorised at a sufficiently senior level and with appropriate oversight.

• There must be a reasonable prospect of success: fishing expeditions are not justified.

I did, incidentally, suggest that the PCC might incorporate those guidelines into the PCC's editorial codebook, but got a polite rejection.

Celebrities and sports stars have long complained about a lack of privacy in this country - with some formula 1 drivers emigrating purely to get peace and quiet elsewhere. Do we need new privacy laws to match the much stronger ones found in many parts of Europe? In your opinion what form should they take?

View the original article here