Phone hacking: Six more arrests in Weeting inquiry

[dipsydoodle]

Six people have been arrested by detectives investigating phone-hacking allegations against journalists, Scotland Yard has said.

The arrests took place at addresses in London, Oxfordshire, Hampshire and Hertfordshire.

Police said five men and one woman were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Officers from the Operation Weeting phone-hacking inquiry are searching addresses connected to the arrests.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17349578

Police hold six in new hacking arrests

>

The arrested woman was described as aged 43 with a home in Oxfordshire. Rebekah Brooks, a former editor of the News of the World tabloid and a close friend of Murdoch, is 43 and has a home in Oxfordshire.

She has previously been arrested as part of the hacking investigation. Her spokesman said he did not immediately know whether she had been detained.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/13/uk-britain-hacking-arrests-idUKBRE82C0G420120313

[Firebrand Gary]

1. Let's hope this is just the beginning.

Rupert and James also deserve to be in those handcuffs as well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Yes, it is Rebekah - and her husband Charlie was also arrested

Analysis: Brooks Arrest Embarrasses Cameron

The arrest of Charlie Brooks is hugely embarrassing for David Cameron and calls into question, once again, his judgment and his choice of friends.

The Prime Minister says he has been friends with Mr Brooks "for years and years" - the two were at Eton together.

Although Downing Street has tried to laugh off the matter, it emerged that Mr Cameron did ride a retired Met Police horse lent to Mr Brooks' wife Rebekah, former chief executive of News International, who was also arrested this morning.
...
But these latest arrests give the impression of the waters of the phone-hacking scandal lapping ever closer to the door of No 10.

http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16187797

And that's from Murdoch's TV channel. Ouch ...

[dipsydoodle]

3. Be interesting to know what her husband has got to do with price of eggs

They didn't marry until mid 2009.

Odd how they keep dragging up a police horse which was in retirement at the time.

I thought Sky News was BSkyB : not actually Murdoch's as such.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. The claim in 2011 that a computer, papers and phone were his?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/mystery-bag-bin-rebekah-brooks

[dipsydoodle]

11. That was July last year

at which point the Guardian had yet to lose their leak in the police force - that was about 4 weeks later. Did they follow up on that inbetween those two events ?

On the subject of disposing of computers I remain surprised that the administrators of NOWT didn't just dump the whole lot immediately : it wouldn't have been an offence for them to have done so - just part of the job.

You mentioned elsewhere Cameron and Charlie - hardly surprising given they were both at Eton and live quite close to each other.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. It would be an offence if the purpose was to cover up a crime

"Dump the lot immediately" would indeed look like a cover-up - did you mean "immediately they were publicly suspected"?

Yes, it was July last year - ie when the Brooks were already married. You wondered what he could have to do with the affair when they didn't marry until 2009. This is an obvious example of how he may be involved.

"at which point the Guardian had yet to lose their leak in the police force - that was about 4 weeks later. Did they follow up on that inbetween those two events ?"

I haven't the faintest idea what you're trying to say, here.

[dipsydoodle]

14. Simply

that having made a claim of some sort I'd have thought they'd have followed it up in some way.

When NOWT went into administration it was pointed out that the administrators were able to dispose of the company's assets as they saw fit - its what they do and its not as if they were attempting to restore the company which was a separate UK ltd company with its own registered number . The nature of PCs whatever etc is that value at the lower of cost or net realiseable value is nil so they'd have just been taking up space. For all I/we know they were in fact disposed of. If they were then the CPS would need to take that up with the administrators - would no longer have been NI's affair.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Did it 'go into administration'?

The following article was written assuming it would; but the note at the top says News Corp said there wasn't any liquidation of assets planned, after all. It was a business decision by Murdoch to close the paper; it's not that it had creditors demanding money off it that it couldn't pay.

http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2011/07/07/is-murdoch-free-to-destroy-tabloids-records/

However, I wonder if Stephens was right anyway - Operation Weeting started in January 2011, and to destroy anything that could be related to a police investigation already under way, that the company knew about, sounds highly dubious to me.

Finally, if the computer in question was used by Rebekah Brooks, it would not have had anything to do with a company that only ran News of the World - she hadn't been editor of it since Jan 2003 (and I doubt this was about a computer that hadn't been used 8 years).

[dipsydoodle]

16. I'd gone out before I opened this

and then searched DU2 when I got home only to find the link you'd also found. It had been their intention to place it in administration but they may have changed their mind. They could have been influenced by the fact that by then a consortium had been put together with a view to buying the name of the News Of The World from the administrator which would've been one of the large auditing firms. Even if that had happened it should've been quite simple to protect the name from alternative ownership as News Of The World Ltd / Limited - just change the name and re-register another company in that name at the same time more or less.

So - I don't know what subsequently occurred. I knew it wasn't going into the alternative of receivership because as you said it was not that would've had any creditors they couldn't easily satisfy.

[oldironside]

4. Wahay!

What we need now is some News Of The World style justice. Forget this innocent until proven guilty rubbish.

It's worth turning the clock back a few months. This would have been unthinkable before the Millie Dowler revelations. They were too all intents and purposes above the law.

Long may this continue.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Don't forget the issues which have arisen as a result of the Levenson enquiry

when mention was made of subjects in such a way they could foul up court cases, The first such instance was with Brooks herself.

They'd previously anticipated that actual charges, where appropriate, against any of those arrested to date would be made at one and the same time which should've occurred by now. Not sure what the holdup is.

Can't really see anything coming to trial now until 2013 earliest.

[oldironside]

6. Fair points.

Nothing to disagree with there.

On the other hand, the fact that the investigation has reached this point would have seemed impossible a year ago.

Whether or not this leads to actual prison sentences doesn't alter our changed situation. The whole practice of journalism and the relationship between Fleet Street and public offices have been radically altered. Just how far that change will ultimately go is too early to say. Still, better to be here than where we were.

[dipsydoodle]

7. Odious as some of it is

many other subjects will be less likely to come to the attention of the public in the future as a result of a future press clampdown.

Fortunately the same won't apply to stuff leaked to the foreign press.

[LeftishBrit]

10. This is not a 'press clampdown'

Unlimited licence to hack people's phones and bribe the police is not an essential part of press freedom.

Government should not run the media, but neither should media, especially media controlled by small groups of wealthy individuals (often not even living in this country), control the governmnent.

Not should they go around invading the privacy of powerless individuals for the sake of 'making a good story'. That is a form of tyranny in itself, and infringes on people's freedom. To many people, a legal punishment such as a fine is a less serious deterrent to free action than being vilified in the tabloids.

The worry is of course that we may end up with 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'; i.e. if we merely punish the Murdoch press, other nasty papers may move into their space. The Mail, the Express, the Telegraph in its present form - all are truly vile. The Mirror is slightly better politically but not morally.

At least though it is something to see some of these vicious creatures in trouble. Even if they escape prison sentences, their power will hopefully be much diminished.

[dipsydoodle]

12. its not a 'press clampdown'

yet.

Lets wait and see what the outcome is of all enquiries including Levenson and then see what subsequent events transpire.

It would appear News International is likely to be sold off as a separate holding company completely divorced from News Corp - see note elsewhere. The Times is heavily subsidised by the Sun and cannot exist without the link between them. Would need a fair amount of funds for another party to buy the whole shooting match. What you said about the other newspapers simply absorbing their readership is probably the least likely event. That assumes they just stopped printing and doesn't account for News International's overall profitability. If however you're right the test will be sales of the Sun on Sunday - if they're as substantial as I believe then to be
then our public are more forgiving than you give them credence for and overall they don't really care much about current issues with NI.

[dipsydoodle]

8. Incase anyone had previously failed to notice

Chas Carey , News Corps Deputy Chairman and President and Chief Operating Officer , said a week or back that News International would likely be set aside as a separate holding company and divorced from New Corp thus removing the connection.

That would also remove some of the , possibly artificial , allusions drawn elsewhere here with Fox and if any similar claims against Fox were to be found then presumably that would also be sold off to the likes of whoever could afford it - the Koch Brothers ?