Some of those who practised the dark arts have been promoted to senior positions, even to the most senior position on a newspaper, they claimed. Stanistreet heard from a fourth journalist, who had 32 years' experience in local and regional newspapers and broadsheet and tabloid and broadcasting. This journalist is still working in newspapers and TV. They became aware of "dark arts" practised on newspapers in the s.
They learned journalists regularly used private investigators, met the PI and worked with him on several stories. The PI was able to furnish the journalists with Police National Computer checks, social security records and frequently provided the most up to date addresses for people which was "invaluable". Clive Goodman, the former royal editor of the News of the World, said he was well paid and senior but still "came under a lot of flak" in front of 20 to 25 people at the paper's news conference.
The inquiry is back to anonymous evidence from another journalist, this time with six years' experience, including the News of the World. Young reporters were made wear stupid costumes for stories; they cite an example of a reporter "having to go head to toe in meat" following Lady Gaga's appearance at an awards ceremony two years ago. This was "sexist and degrading", they said. Leveson says just because there are some examples of poor behaviour does not mean journalism has been tarnished; much reporting is of great value.
Stanistreet says journalists feel that newspapers' managers have also betrayed them as they tried to pin the blame on them. The journalist said the freelance situation is as bad. They said the money was terrible, freelancers were expected to use their own laptop and car. They were "expected to pull stories out of the bag just like staffers", who were on much better conditions. Quite often it was difficult to claim expenses. The journalist added that they feelsjournalists have been betrayed and have been "vilified by Leveson in the public domain".
The first testimony comes from a journalist with more than 30 years' experience on national titles and worked on the News of the World for three years. There was "tremendous pressure"; they were given "impossible tasks" and if they didn't deliver they would be considered a failure, they said. All the journalists whose evidence she has supplied are still working in the industry. The submissions have been redacted to exclude names, names of papers and specific incidents which might identify newspapers, apart from the News of the World.
This follows directions given by Lord Justice Leveson. Stanistreet says these are not individual journalists with a gripe against their newspaper, but a consistent picture. Some she spoke to "were too scared about their experiences being shared with the inquiry, petrified". The issues she raises in the evidence include bullying, sexual harassment and cases of journalists being put under "intolerable pressure".
She says these are similar to the ones that the NUJ deals with every day; sadly the experiences are "prevalent within the industry today". The inquiry has resumed and Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, is asked about anonymous evidence from members. In her written submission, she says this was for fear of punishment, being "thrashed" by others in the industry and the fear of not being employed.
Clarence: My Diary of a Very Unusual Hamster - P.J. Kruger - Google Книги
Dan Sabbagh's story on how Ian Edmondson's evidence contradicted former boss Colin Myler's testimony is now live. The former news editor of the News of the World has contradicted evidence given to the Leveson inquiry by his one time editor Colin Myler over what a spokesman for the McCanns was told about the planned publication of Kate McCann's diary by the now closed Sunday tabloid in Ian Edmondson, giving evidence to the inquiry on Thursday, said he was instructed by Myler to call Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns public relations representative, and tell him only in "very woolly" terms that the newspaper would be running a story about them without giving the family any indication that the tabloid was going to publish her diaries in full.
The editor's instruction, Edmondson said, was to give Mitchell the impression "that we were running a story, but not tell him specifically what story" and that "certainly don't tell him [Mitchell] that we were in possession of the complete diaries". Myler, Edmondson added, was "frightened that if Clarence knew what we had, he might take action". Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked Edmondson what was the purpose of "having an ambiguous or woolly conversation?
You can read the full story here. The McCann diary story. May I start by reminding us all of Mr Myler's version — or rather, his evidence, pardon me. Tab 8, page This is part of the transcript of his evidence given on 14 December last year. Particularly at line 20, I think, but we can skim read a little bit earlier on but can I just try and get to the heart of this.
Because reading the transcript, and this is something which you didn't, of course, see at the time, the transcript of the conversation " And then we identified the transcript. Or maybe it's not necessary to go on, because we're then trying to interpret the transcript, about which you give clear evidence. But the gist of it is, the bit I read out between lines 20 and Can I seek to deal with your evidence carefully in this way: Recalling the conversation, what is your evidence in relation to that.
I think you say it's standard practice? Reinforcing please tape it — and it was standard practice to tape those types of phone calls and I might even say that to a reporter but I would reinforce it. But was it standard practice to make it clear to your interlocutor that the call was being recorded?
Do you feel that it's entirely a frank and honest procedure to conduct an interview with someone but not make it clear that it's being recorded? Obviously it gives you concrete evidence overspeaking subject to experting what's being said, one understands that, but is there not an element of deception — or maybe I can put is slightly lower than that, because that, I think, is a slightly sort of sinister tone, but at least an element of misleading the person you're speaking to that you are recording them and therefore it might be used to overspeaking?
But your feeling is, well, if you did make it clear that it was being recorded, then they would do what? I would imagine freeze up, not talk to you freely, not talk to you honestly. They might not want to talk to you at all. A number of things. I can see that they might not want to talk to you at all, but you think if we did make it clear to them that this he were being taped, there would be more incentive to be dishonest during the course overspeaking?
I would say that's fair, yes. Had there been occasions when you've had conversations with people which haven't been recorded? I'm sure there has been, but certainly not on a call that is paramount to a story, and something that might be used later on as evidence The third question which was put to you in a written notice, which we see at the bottom of page , the question was this: If so, please identify with reference to the transcript of your conference where you made it clear.
I attended a meeting with Mr Myler and Tom Crone where we discussed this story. I think we got the story to a point where I was prepared to present it to Tom and Colin, the editor. Colin gave — sorry, I beg your pardon — Tom gave his legal view, which I'm told I'm not allowed to repeat, but which dismayed, shall I say, Mr Myler. So he decided to ask me to make a call to Mr Mitchell, not make it clear what we had, telling him in general terms, basically make it very woolly.
I think someone previously used the word "ambiguous" — that is absolutely spot on what he wanted. So the preferred outcome for the end point of the conversation with Mr Mitchell would be what? To give him the expression that we were running a story, but not tell him specifically what story, certainly don't tell him that we were in possession of the complete diaries, as we understood.
There had been extracts in the diaries — of the diaries in Portuguese papers which had been translated into the English papers, but certainly not to the sent that we had. He was frightened that if Clarence knew what we had, he might take action. Well, he would do — was the fear that he would, at the very least, tell his clients, the McCanns, what was going on? Or make an application for an injunction to stop the News of the World publishing? Is that what it amount to? What was the purpose, though, of having an ambiguous or woolly conversation, as you've described? What was the you intention?
That you would have Mr Mitchell's part assent? Could you put it in your own words? Yeah, it would be in order to blame Clarence Mitchell that he hadn't acted properly upon instructions. I had an alternative, which I presented to Mr Myler. He was the only one to have Gerry McCann's mobile number, and up until that point, he had a reasonable or very good relationship with him, and I thought he could argue that we could work collaboratively to get the diaries in the paper, and that was my suggestion.
I think he believed, from memory, and I can't be sure, that that wouldn't be a successful outcome. So you were sent out to make it call and presumably in the light of the evidence you're giving to us, you felt uneasy by what you were being asked to do? Yeah, I'd developed a very good relationship with Clarence and I liked him a lot. I felt very uneasy. Do you feel that this was a sort of one-off, because we're looking at this one example, or do you feel it's part of a general sort of system or culture or practice, however you want to put it, and this is just one exemptfication of that?
I must admit I can't remember an occasion of this ill be. I'm sure there was occasions where an editor both want you to effectively deceive someone, yes. So there were other occasions of deception, to use your word, but this was a particularly egregious overspeaking? The inquiry is now breaking for lunch and will return at 1. Stanistreet says she does not believe any of these individuals colluded in their evidence; she did not ask any of them if they had spoken to the Guardian's investigative journalist Nick Davies. Contemporaneous notes were taken of all interviews, she says, and she typed them up immediately afterwards.
She did not record the interviews. Patry Hoskins gets from confirmation Stanistreet that the two of them met yesterday to discuss the interview notes. Patry Hoskins says she saw nothing that would undermine the witnesses' evidence. Stanistreet is asked about her second statement, which deals with the union's appeal for journalists to give anonymous evidence to the inquiry.
About 40 journalists got in touch as a result. She personally interviewed them either face to face or on the telephone. Some gave evidence in writing. Stanistreet has reported what 12 of them told her, as some individuals' feedback discussed their general views of the inquiry so far; others didn't want their evidence shared, even in confidence.
She says she didn't reject any examples of positive comments. In her opening statement Stanistreet says the NUJ has campaigned for a conscience clause for many years and everything she has heard at the inquiry to date shows how vital it is that every journalist has such protection. Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, has taken the stand. Mills says there needs to be "huge penalties, not these small amounts that don't make any difference to large organisations". She adds the new regulator also needs to take account that the expense of taking a newspaper is prohibitive for most of the public.
Reward Yourself
Mills adds that all photographers should be licensed, and they could be struck off if they harass people. The biggest problem is they [the public] feel helpless … I feel if all photographers, paps, are llicensed and that no newspaper can use a photograph unless it's from a licensed photographer … then they can be struck off should they cross the line in that area. Mills says that Sunday Mirror editor Tina Weaver ran a story accusing her of misdirecting charity money even though she was told it was untrue. Mills says she complained to the PCC many times.
Initially she was unaware of the body and launched libel actions. However, she says editors were judging themselves on the PCC and complaints only resulted in "postage stamp" sized apologies. Mills says newspapers only give "postage stamp" sized apologies even after going to court. Until there is a disincentive for them to write so many lies and untruths and abusive comments, it's going to continue.
If I was an editor and I knew I was going to be embarrassed every week with front-page apologies I would make sure every story was correct. Mills said coverage of her in the press was fine until she met Paul McCartney in and then it was "'one-legged bitch', 'cow' and every gutter word you can think of". Ian Edmondson's witness statement has now been published on the Leveson inquiry website.
On the video, Showed photographers are shown apparently trying to get a shot of Mills's house through a fence. One photographer apparently says "we don't just turn up … we do it because we are being asked to do it". They are also shown chasing her when driving, and there is the dramatic noise of screeching tyres and a car smash. Mills makes statements on the DVD about pursuit, pacticularly by one car, which she says has followed her from Kent to Dorset.
The inquiry has now resumed and is watching Mills's DVD of alleged harassment by photographers. Financial Times media correspondent Ben Fenton has just tweeted:. The inquiry is now taking a short break while it prepares to show Mills's DVD.
Mills talks about harassment of herself and her family. She says she was assaulted in Brighton and she was told she needed to get evidence by police because the photographers can legally stand outside the door. She then proceeded to film everything; she has 65 hours of abuse and harassment by the paparazzi. There are awful things, going over pavements when mothers are pushing prams … we have odd hours of video footage if the court ever needs to see that.
Jay asks about a article written by Piers Morgan in the Daily Mail in which he said he had listened to a message McCartney left on Mills's mobile phone — but refused to reveal his source. I can't quite believe that he would even try and insinuate, a man that's written nothing but awful things about me for years, would absolutely relish in telling the court if I had personally played a voicemail message to him. Mills says she was contacted by a former Trinity Mirror employee later that day who said had heard the message.
The employee said the paper had she had had an argument with McCartney and it had heard him singing on her phone. She said that they could only know that if they had been listening to her messages, and the employee laughed. Jay makes it clear that this person was a Trinity Mirror employee, not Piers Morgan or anyone then working for him at the Daily Mirror. Mills is asked about a voicemail left for her by her then husband Sir Paul McCartney.
Piers Morgan claimed in his book that he had heard the voicemail, which has given rise to allegations that it was obtained by phone hacking. Morgan was asked in his evidence about the incident. Mills says in February she was on holiday with McCartney. There was an earthquake in Gujerat and she that she wanted to help with prosthetic limbs as she had previously helped in Yugoslavia in this area.
She made contact with Phil Hal, then the editor of Hello! She had had a relationship with the magazine — every time they did a story with her they would make a donation to her chosen charity. She did not know Hall but set up a meeting. He said they needed some pictures if she was going on the trip and he put a photographer on the story. She started researching what was needed for the trip. She had a row with McCartney and went to stay with a friend. When she got up there were about 25 messages from McCartney.
They said "would I come back and one of them said, please forgive me and sang a little ditty of one of his songs onto voicemail. That afternoon I went back and all was forgiven. Mills was later shown evidence by detactives from Operation Weeting that the private voicemail messages of her and her sister were hacked. She said she can't say if they related to the Vodafone mobile she had in early because the police wouldn't given them the evidence. Mills has submitted two statements — 20 January and 6 February — and a DVD which the inquiry is going to look at later.
Heather Mills is now taking the stand. Sky's Michael Greenfield has just tweeted:. Heather Mills has just arrived in the courtroom Leveson. Would love to know what the likes of Sienna Miller, mrslrcooper and others think of this Big Pictures shambles. Here is a summary of this morning's evidence so far:. Edmondson has now completed his testimony and the inquiry is taking a short break. Leveson asks Edmondson some more questions about the Kate McCann diary. Did he or did not make it clear to Clarence Mitchell that he had the entire diary?
The News of the World was an "autocratic" organisation, says Edmondson. Edmondson says Colin Myler was part of the culture of bullying. Jay asks if this means the culture of bullying comes from the editor. Edmondson is asked more about bullying. Edmondson says he has an employment tribunal hearing coming up and his answer may cross over into that.
Every part of the paper is dictated by the editor of the paper … you don't do anything unless you are told to do something. Edmondson says the culture at the paper changed when Myler took over and throughout the industry "for obvious reasons". The paper's staff were given seminars on the PCC and legal briefings.
He is asked whether before Myler's arrival in , there was bullying or unethical behaviour at the paper. Edmondson says it's on the record that mistakes were made; the culture of the paper changed on Myler's arrival. Jay makes it clear that he wants Edmondson to answer in terms of everything but phone-hacking, which he cannot ask him about. This is a big Leveson moment.
- The Little Persian Girl and Other SHort Stories.
- Coronary Artery Disease - A Guide for Cardiology Rotation and USMLE, COMLEX I, II (1).
- Account Options?
- Classed Intersections: Spaces, Selves, Knowledges?
- What is Kobo Super Points?!
- CROSS IN THE SAND?
Edmondson offering a clear account that Colin Myler took the key decision as regards McCann diary publication. Edmondson says the paper deceived the McCanns. Asked by Jay if there were other occasions an editor would want to deceive someone, but this was a particularly egregious example, he replies: Edmondson agrees with Jay that the thinking behind this was to prevent the story being injuncted.
He told Myler, who had Gerry McCann's telephone number, that they could have worked "collaboratively" with the McCanns but Myler said this wouldn't work. Edmondson says he was told to "not make it clear what we had, tell him in general terms, something woolly". There had been publication of extracts of the diaries in Portugal but not to the extent we had; he was frightened he [Mitchell] would take action.
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 felt uneasy, but I did what I was told. Edmondson says he expressed "very considerable surprise" to Crone over the decision to use surveillance because he did not see such a story getting into the paper. Webb is asked about the decision to get Webb to spy on solicitors Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris, who were acting for phone-hacking victims.
He adds that Myler, legal manager Tom Crone and managing editor Stuart Kuttner were aware of this pretence, to the best of his knowledge. Jay runs through Webb's evidence. He says Webb left the NoW's employ for about 18 months in but returned in when certain matters were resolved. Webb explains how the paper encouraged him to become a member of the NUJ after the use of private eyes was banned by editor Colin Myler in He says he does remember have conversations with the editor and the managing editor about asking Webb to join the NUJ.
Edmondson is asked more about private investigator Derek Webb. He adds that before Webb the NoW used reporters and photographers "to carry our surveillance" and they might not have been particularly good at it, but Webb was trained in such skills. Edmondson is asked what factors would be taken into account by teh News of the World when deciding the public interest in relation to celebrities' affairs. Edmondson says there would be a public interest if the celebrity has promoted a "false public image" as "wholesome" and they are doing something else in private.
It might be a celebrity inviting cameras into their home, being photographed with their family, talking about their wife, saying "they would never do such a thing" and then it is revealed that they are having an affair, he adds. Edmondson says that there was little difference of approach to how the NoW dealt with politicians or celebrities.
Edmondson is asked about use of "Silent Shadow" private investigator Derek Webb for surveilliance. Edmondson indicates that Webb was regularly used by him. He says "one of the things" Webb was used for was to see if people were having an affair; later, he says this was "the majority" of Webb's work. Leveson says it's very important to get to the bottom of this. Would he ever have written such an email offering anonymity if the women co-operate? Jay says the point of the email is clear — the paper will guarantee anonymity to the women if they tell their story, but if they don't they will lose it.
It wouldn't be my responsiblity or decision … It's not his decision to make those statements. What goes into the paper is down to the editor … these sorts of decisions aren't made by a news editor, or head of news or a chief reporter. The emails were sent after the News of the World published its Max Mosley orgy story, and asked the women to tell their side of the story for the next Sunday's follow-up. That [the email] would have been a small part of it," says Edmondson. Jay asks Edmondson about emails sent from Thurlbeck to women involved in the Max Mosley case. As to who drafted them, I wasn't in the habit of drafting or dictating emails," he says.
Thurlbeck told the inquiry that Edmondson had drafted them , but the latter says that the language in the emails "didn't seem like the type of language I'd have used".
Leveson inquiry: Paul Dacre, Heather Mills, Max Clifford appear
Ian Edmondson has now taken the stand. Edmondson was the former head of news at the News of the World. He became head of news in November and left in Lyons has now finished his testimony and the inquiry is taking a short break. Lyons says the atittude of celebrities is "a great worry for the industry" and that many of the celebrities will "regularly take money" for the photographs. Paparazzi in America are regularly used by managemennt and publicity agents to boost someone's profile.
Where we are here in the UK is all over the place in terms of what can't we do what we can do … I think celebrities use these situations for their own self gain on a regular basis. There's two sides to every story which i hope this inquiry looks into in great detail. Lyons is asked about his new website, mrpaparazzi.
He describes it in his witness statement as "the future". Patry Hoskins says it might be said that encouraging the public to whip out their phones and take photographs of celebrities could be seen as incitement to invade someone's privacy. Lyons says if he has any doubt about a picture, if it was "unethical or suspicious in any way", he won't publish. Lyons repeats that the situation is very unclear.
One day celebrities will invite photographers into their homes; the next day they will complain about being photographed walking down the street. Lyons reveals that — like Gary Morgan of Splash Pictures, who gave evidence earlier this week — he has a "no-shoot list" but this list is based on legal cases. He says he will supply the inquiry with the list. Lyons says PR people for famous stars such as Mariah Carey and Paris Hilton phone him as soon as they are in town to say "she's staying here, she's staying there, they want the publicity". Lyons is right to say that it rules of celebrity snaps game have become ambiguous, that it is not clear what is legit and not.
Lyons says the situation isn't clear cut — sometimes a celebrity like Lily Allen will be snapped looking lovely on the beach and she won't complain and on another ocassion she will. Often he says they want to be photographed because it boosts their PR around the world and some go as far as "taking cash with the photographers on a regular basis". If it's on their terms it's fine but if they've done the wrong thing or it's immoral and that's been recorded in history; they've been photographed they don't like it … the problem is when you are photographing someone famous these days you don't now if it's right or wrong.
Others will pick and chose the times when they are promoting their record or TV show or their movie. Lyons asked about a complaint about photographs of JK Rowling and her children. Lyons say the pictures were taken of Rowling walking down a public street in Scotland. He says he felt there was no problem at the time and the pictures were available for use two or three years before the author's complaint.
The image was downloaded from an archive and used in the Sunday Express several years later, when the complaint arose. Lyons is now being asked about photographs of Sienna Miller on a boat in St Tropez. Lyons says photographers have been taking pictures of celebrities in the Med on "since Brigitte Bardot was sunning herself on the beaches of St Tropez It was normal practice.
If the photograph shows the celebrity in a good light, they won't necessarily go "legal", she said but if it "suits" them they will. Lyons better on Celebrity Big Brother. This evidence is catastrophic. Lyons is barely in control of biz of which he is chairman. Patry Hoskins notes that there has been a string of injunctions and complaints made against Big Pictures over the past two years.
She asks if any Big Pictures photographers have been disciplined. Lyons says he will have to take "secondary advice" as to whether anybody at Big Pictures has been disciplined. He adds he is rarely in the office but trusts his management to take action if needed. He is currently filming show in Australia for four months. Patry Hoskins moves on to the injunction sought by Amy Winehouse. Every time she got in the car she was chased, she was jostled, said her manager at the time. He said he spoke to Winehouse's manager and got an apology; he was subsequently invited to take exclusive shots of her.
Lyons adds that the agency often works with celebrities and they get a high cut of pictures sold. Lyons is asked about an injunction taken out by Lily Allen against Big Pictures and another agency. Leveson asks Lyons when his attitude changed. He refers to the car shots of Prince Charles and Camilla in December when the royal-Rolls Royce came under attack from student fees rioters in central London. The car was kicked, rocked and hit with paint bombs. Lyons is asked about a time when he was outside the Portland Hospital in London after the Duchess of York arrived to give birth to her first child.
He explains in his book that he didn't know the "car technique" and got a quick lesson from a colleague. He says this incident was 25 years ago; if he hadn't got the car shot he wouldn't have been employed by a newspaper again. He says things are different now. Patry Hoskins refers to another article in May about Amy Winehouse winning a case against photographers. The articles and images which Miller sued over included coverage of the actor's alleged relationship with Balthazar Getty soon after she broke off a relationship with Welsh actor Rhys Ifans.
The inquiry is now discussing proceedings brought by Sienna Miller in Lyons says he "wasn't in charge of that particular action". Horrid Henry's Joke Book. Hammy the Wonder Hamster. Happy Holiday, Hammy the Wonder Hamster! The Adventures of Laughing Gravy. The Wolf and Pig Report.
Geronimo Stilton Special Edition: The Kingdom of Fantasy 4: Big Trouble in the Big Apple. The Secret Of Cacklefur Castle. Four Mice Deep in the Jungle. Geronimo Stilton Cavemice 1: The Stone of Fire. Horrid Henry Summer Fun.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
The Tale of Samuel Whiskers, Illustrated. Moppet, The Tale of Tom Kitten and more. Heartwood Hotel, Book 2: Cream Cape and the Case of the Missing Hamster. It's Raining, It's Pouring. Adventures in Cottontail Pines: The Misadventures of Sweetie Pie. Maisy Goes to the Library. I Am a Mouse. The Adventures of Theodore Mouse.
Anatole and the Cat. How to write a great review. The review must be at least 50 characters long. The title should be at least 4 characters long. Your display name should be at least 2 characters long.