Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
James Murdoch was accused of being a “mafia boss” as he gave further evidence today to the Commons culture, media and sport select committee about the phone hacking scandal.
During the two-and-a-half hours of questioning, Murdoch trod a fine line between appearing blissfully unaware of the extent of phone-hacking at the News of the World, and attempting to convince the committee that he supervised his company appropriately.
He also explicitly blamed the paper’s legal adviser Tom Crone and former editor Colin Myler for misleading the select committee, noting that their previous testimony was “economical”, “inconsistent” and full of “supposition”.
Murdoch repeated his previous claim that he had not received “evidence of widespread criminality” at the News of the World in meetings in May and June 2008 with Crone and Myler.
However, this contradicts evidence given by the pair, who told the committee in September that they had discussed with Murdoch the infamous “for Neville” email during said meetings. The email contained transcripts of hacked voicemails on the phone of Gordon Taylor, who was then suing the paper for breach of privacy. It is seen as a key indicator that hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman, the paper’s Royal correspondent who had been jailed in 2007 for hacking the phones of members of the Royal family.
He also maintained the pair had never discussed with him the significance of Michael Silverleaf QC’s legal opinion from 3 June 2008, which warned of “a culture of illegal information access” at News International that involved “at least three” of its reporters.
The News Corp boss was scrutinised in light of Silverleaf’s opinion, which also advised the newspaper to settle its case against Taylor. Murdoch insisted that he had no knowledge of the memo prior to his authorising a £750,000 payout made to Taylor in August of the same year. Again, he blamed Crone and Myler, arguing they “should have told me the whole story”.
Yet why Murdoch did not scrutinise the details of the Taylor payout, as well as his apparent ignorance of the scale of criminal activity at News International, raised issues of his competence as an executive. The committee asked, “which is worse? Willful blindness or incompetence by not knowing what was going on?”
Murdoch responded that News International was a “small piece of the News Corporation cake” and that it was “impossible” to manage every detail.
“I can’t believe your organisation has been so successful by being so cavalier with money,” Philip Davies MP added later.
Paul Farrelly said,
The one thing that shows us and any 10-year-old that the News of the World did not stack up is that Gordon Taylor was not a royal or a member of the royal household.”
Did [Murdoch] not ask “how come this man [Mulcaire] had hacked this phone when he [Taylor] is not royal?”
Did you not ask “Who the hell else had Mulcaire been hacking?”
Murdoch promised that lessons had been learnt, claiming his intention was for News Corp to be “as transparent as possible” in the future.
The riveting moment came when Labour MP Tom Watson revealed he had met former News of the World chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck immediately prior to the committee hearing. Watson said Thurlbeck told him that Crone had intended to show Murdoch the “for Neville” email in May 2008.
Watson quoted Thurlbeck as saying:
This is not some vague memory, I was absolutely on a knife edge. Tom [Crone] took it to him. The following week I said “did you show him the email?” He said “yes I did”. Now he can’t remember whether he showed it to Mr Murdoch or not. He said “it’s alright, it’s fine, it’s settled.”
Murdoch again denied all knowledge of the email, after which Watson accused the News Corp executive of being “the first mafia boss in history who didn’t know he was running a criminal enterprise.”
Murdoch told Watson his comment was “inappropriate”.
Reasserting his executive position, Murdoch also refused to rule out closing The Sun if evidence of phone hacking at the paper were to emerge. He said the recent arrest of Sun reporter Jamie Pyatt in connection with payments made to police officers was a “matter of great concern”, while Steve Rotheram MP told the committee that the words “the Sun” appeared in notes seized from the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.
Murdoch also condemned the revelations this week of surveillance of hacking victims’ lawyers, calling it “appalling” and “unacceptable.”
Wrapping up the hearing, John Whittingdale MP said it was “unlikely” there would be future sessions.
The challenge now is for the committee to weigh up the contradictions between Murdoch’s account and those of Crone, Myler and Thurlbeck.
Insanity, as someone once said (Einstein, or Orwell, or Benjamin Franklin, or Oscar Wilde, or Dorothy Parker. One of those people that gets quoted), is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.
By this criterion (and, let me be clear, by this criterion alone), the UK Home Office’s ban on Muslims Against Crusades marks it as quite clearly more insane than Al Muhajiroun, the band of Islamist ne’er-do-wells that formed around “Tottenham Ayatollah” Omar Bakri Mohamed in the 1980s.
Al Muhajiroun has gone through a series of names since it was originally proscribed in 2006, either being banned or disbanding before being banned. And it keeps cropping up again. (See here, par example)
Today saw the latest in this silly cat and mouse game. Current Muslims Against Crusades leader Anjem Choudary announced that the group would burn poppies on Rememberance Day (11 November) tomorrow in “protest” against UK soldiers operating in “Muslim lands”. The Home Secretary, Theresa May, said the group would be proscribed as of 00.00 on 11 November. Choudary responded by saying the organisation was to be stood down.
But is there something slightly different happening today? Theresa May’s statement said:
“‘I am satisfied Muslims Against Crusades is simply another name for an organisation already proscribed under a number of names including Al Ghurabaa, The Saved Sect, Al Muhajiroun and Islam4UK. The organisation was proscribed in 2006 for glorifying terrorism and we are clear it should not be able to continue these activities by simply changing its name.'”
This seems a partial acknowledgment that the previous tactic hasn’t worked. But what happens next is interesting. What usually happens is that after a few weeks, a bit of a brainstorming session about a new name and the purchase of a new domain name, the group re-emerges. Should this happen, how can May guarantee that it does not continue its activities “simply by changing its name”?
Louise Mensch MP has a lot on her plate today. Not only will she be at the heart of one of the biggest news stories of the day — the interrogation of James Murdoch by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee — she’s also had to find the time to get very, very offended by a comedian, even calling for him to be sacked.
The comedian in question is Brian Limond, known as Limmy (@DaftLimmy) on Twitter.
Limmy first found fame on the web with YouTube videos and podcasts, before getting a series on BBC Scotland (allegedly, the show was never transferred to UK-wide transmission as it was seen as too “parochial”. Anyone who’s ever sat through a Radio 4 comedy slot, seemingly created with only Home Counties Oxbridge graduates in mind, will know how absurd this is).
I should admit I’m a bit of a fan. As well as his brilliant sketches, Limmy is very funny on Twitter, veering between sincerity and absurdity, engaging with fans, creating running themes (such as his excellent bedtime stories) and sometimes plain trolling.
As I went to bed last night, Limmy had changed his avatar to a portrait of Stalin and was boasting of his hatred for Tories.
When I looked at Twitter this morning, Limmy was back to normal, but Louise Mensch was outraged. Limmy had apparently put up an avatar of former Tory PM Margaret Thatcher, with red lines across her throat and eyes and the words “DIE NOW” scrawled across the picture.
Mensch was shocked, apparently.
She didn’t appear to know who Limmy was, or how he operated, but she was still appalled by him, and tweeted that he should sacked (though she didn’t seem to know who he worked for).
She also (and this is where Index comes in) tweeted that Limmy’s joke had “nothing to do with free speech”.
This is wrong. Offensive jokes have absolutely everything to do with free speech. Things that some people may dislike are at the very core of any discussion of free speech. Otherwise free speech is entirely meaningless.
Mensch does have some previous on this type of thing, having supported the idea that social networks could be shut down during times of civil unrest.
So we have perhaps forming here the Menschevik* view: “Free speech is fine as long as nothing that I find disagreeable ever happens.”
I do not ask that Louise Mensch be a free speech zealot (that, literally, is my job). But I would hope that a UK parliamentarian would have a slightly better understanding of liberty.
Limmy, meanwhile, seems to have deleted the Thatcher tweets, though one senses that this his apology is just part of a game he’s quite enjoying.
*Apologies to any surviving Menshiviks. Louise Mensch is clearly more of a Bolshevik when it comes to people who disagree with her, but sometime one must go where the wordplay takes you.
UPDATE: A friend tells me Limmy has left Twitter once before, after a joke went wrong