Change Your Life...

Cocks !

Met Police officer Christopher Exley admits looking at indecent images of children - Crime - News - London Evening Standard

Met Police officer Christopher Exley admits looking at indecent images of children - Crime - News - London Evening Standard

Banksy's Christmas Card.

Tear down the wall.

Top Economists: Iceland Did It Right ... And Everyone Else Is Doing It Wrong

Top Economists: Iceland Did It Right ... And Everyone Else Is Doing It Wrong

 Iceland Shows the Way

Nobel prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz notes:

What Iceland did was right. It would have been wrong to burden future generations with the mistakes of the financial system.

Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman writes:

What [Iceland’s recovery] demonstrated was the … case for letting creditors of private banks gone wild eat the losses.

Krugman also says:

A funny thing happened on the way to economic Armageddon: Iceland’s very desperation made conventional behavior impossible, freeing the nation to break the rules. Where everyone else bailed out the bankers and made the public pay the price, Iceland let the banks go bust and actually expanded its social safety net. Where everyone else was fixated on trying to placate international investors, Iceland imposed temporary controls on the movement of capital to give itself room to maneuver.

Krugman is right.  Letting the banks go bust – instead of perpetually bailing them out – is the right way to go.

We’ve previously noted:

Iceland told the banks to pound sand. And Iceland’s economy is doing much better than virtually all of the countries which have let the banks push them around.

Bloomberg reports:

Iceland holds some key lessons for nations trying to survive bailouts after the island’s approach to its rescue led to a “surprisingly” strong recovery, the International Monetary Fund’s mission chief to the country said.

Iceland’s commitment to its program, a decision to push losses on to bondholders instead of taxpayers and the safeguarding of a welfare system that shielded the unemployed from penury helped propel the nation from collapse toward recovery, according to the Washington-based fund.

***

Iceland refused to protect creditors in its banks, which failed in 2008 after their debts bloated to 10 times the size of the economy.

The IMF’s point about bondholders is an important one:  the failure to force a haircut on the bondholders is dooming the U.S. and Europe to economic doldrums.

The IMF notes:

[The] decision not to make taxpayers liable for bank losses was right, economists say.

In other words, as IMF put it:

Key to Iceland’s recovery was [a] program [which] sought to ensure that the restructuring of the banks would not require Icelandic taxpayers to shoulder excessive private sector losses.

Icenews points out:

Experts continue to praise Iceland’s recovery success after the country’s bank bailouts of 2008.

Unlike the US and several countries in the eurozone, Iceland allowed its banking system to fail in the global economic downturn and put the burden on the industry’s creditors rather than taxpayers.

***

The rebound continues to wow officials, including International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde, who recently referred to the Icelandic recovery as “impressive”. And experts continue to reiterate that European officials should look to Iceland for lessons regarding austerity measures and similar issues.

Barry Ritholtz noted last year:

Rather than bailout the banks — Iceland could not have done so even if they wanted to — they guaranteed deposits (the way our FDIC does), and let the normal capitalistic process of failure run its course.

They are now much much better for it than the countries like the US and Ireland who did not.

Bloomberg pointed out February 2011:

Unlike other nations, including the U.S. and Ireland, which injected billions of dollars of capital into their financial institutions to keep them afloat, Iceland placed its biggest lenders in receivership. It chose not to protect creditors of the country’s banks, whose assets had ballooned to $209 billion, 11 times gross domestic product.

***

“Iceland did the right thing … creditors, not the taxpayers, shouldered the losses of banks,” says Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University in New York. “Ireland’s done all the wrong things, on the other hand. That’s probably the worst model.”

Ireland guaranteed all the liabilities of its banks when they ran into trouble and has been injecting capital — 46 billion euros ($64 billion) so far — to prop them up. That brought the country to the brink of ruin, forcing it to accept a rescue package from the European Union in December.

***

Countries with larger banking systems can follow Iceland’s example, says Adriaan van der Knaap, a managing director at UBS AG.

“It wouldn’t upset the financial system,” says Van der Knaap, who has advised Iceland’s bank resolution committees.

***

Arni Pall Arnason, 44, Iceland’s minister of economic affairs, says the decision to make debt holders share the pain saved the country’s future.

“If we’d guaranteed all the banks’ liabilities, we’d be in the same situation as Ireland,” says Arnason, whose Social Democratic Alliance was a junior coalition partner in the Haarde government.

***

“In the beginning, banks and other financial institutions in Europe were telling us, ‘Never again will we lend to you,’” Einarsdottir says. “Then it was 10 years, then 5. Now they say they might soon be ready to lend again.”

And Iceland’s prosecution of white collar fraud played a big part in its recovery:

[The U.S. and Europe have thwarted white collar fraud investigations … let alone prosecutions.] On the other hand, Iceland has prosecuted the fraudster bank heads (and here and here) and their former prime minister, and their economy is recovering nicely … because trust is being restored in the financial system.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190105103044/https://washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/top-economists-iceland-did-it-right-everyone-else-is-doing-it-wrong.html

JUSTICE DENIED: North Wales Child Abuse Whistle-blower in Suspect ...

JUSTICE DENIED: North Wales Child Abuse Whistle-blower in Suspect ...: Whistle-blower who exposed the Welsh children’s home sex abuse scandal has cheated death in a suspect car smash ­after his b...

Thinking Of Our Kids ?

I am struggling to understand why it takes so long to investigate paedophiles, in North Wales. Arrested months ago but no charges brought yet. No worry for other kids in the community here then ! I will not publish your name for the sake of your kids. Though you didnt think of mine all those years ago, did you ? Lets hope none come to harm when you are bailed. Go to jail...

JUSTICE DENIED: STEVEN MESSHAM SEEKS LEGAL ADVICE THROUGH TWITTER

JUSTICE DENIED: STEVEN MESSHAM SEEKS LEGAL ADVICE THROUGH TWITTER: Steven Messham, abuse survivor at heart of McAlpine debacle, seeks legal advice via Twitter   Today  we find out  that Steven  Messham w...

Forget McAlpine.

The furore over the BBC and Newsnight's 'naming' of Lord McAlpine in the North Wales abuse scandal, continues to divert attention from the real issue. In the original Waterhouse Inquiry, Steve Messham said that the McAlpine who abused him was dead - this was in 1991. McAlpine had a cousin, 'Jimmie' who lved in Chester and died during the mid 80's. This is the McAlpine, Messham was referring to. The BBC has come under intense scrutiny and attacks for publicising a heinous scandal that, in my opinion, has not been fully investigated. And the BBC ? It now transpires that Matthew Freud, son in law of Rupert Murdoch, is now advising the temporary Director General on News. A Murdoch with his hands on the reins of the BBC. A near bloodless coup. It beggars belief.

Anne Clywd, MP Asks For Jillings Report.

In a question to Commons leader Andrew Lansley, Anne Clwyd MP said: 

"Can I ask that the Jillings (North Wales Abuse) report be published? I saw it. I wasn't supposed to see it. It was shown to me. I saw it at the time. It was subsequently pulped by the then Clywd county council because they were afraid of the attitudes of the insurers. I would say please get the Jillings report published because it shows buggery, rape, bestiality, violent assaults and torture." 

If I had spoken to the people, and created the report, I would have been shouting it from the rooftops. (maybe that's just me?)

Trolls And Abusers.

I am afraid to say that my last trolling incident has put me off blogging, recently. My blog began as my way back from the madness that happened with my daughter, grace. A diary of thoughts that aided my healing around my loss. I also used it to embarrass and shame my ex partner and family. It quickly developed a political theme - not surprising with my experience of the Thatcher years. My blogs have been attacked many times over the years. I have lost dozens, taken down by site owners who didnt agree with the publishing of stories and pictures that told a different story to mainstream media, Even blog co uk have forced pictures from my postings. It just spurred me on more. Knowing the troll and his family put me in a strange dilemma. Name and shame would mean embarrassing others. One asked me not to - and i obliged. The troll and his friends also supported my ex, many years ago. Supporting siabreen in using children as weapons and recanting lies. One, in particular, to whom i was a very good friend, {even ignoring the bruises on his girlfriends face to my shame}, cut deeper than all the others. He has just been arrested for downloading kiddie porn. Karma ? I truly hope so and thank you. Yet this is North Wales. Where paedophilia and other abuses too often rear its ugly head. Now we have the home secretary setting up an 'inquiry into an inquiry'. Isnt there a 'D' notice on this case too ? The state already know the abusers. But they dont want us to know for 100 years ! And some of these people hold power... And the point of this post ? To remind myself - dont be put off by wankers. I enjoy blogging my thoughts and will continue to do so. For a while, i did what i did for others, and also took myself too seriously tut.

the tap: Ben Fellows blows the lid on media/political pedop...

the tap: Ben Fellows blows the lid on media/political pedop...: Ben Fellows: ‘Murdoch Newspaper Does a ‘BBC’ to Protect Pedophiles and Child Abusers’ October 22, 2012 By Ben Fellows 21st Century W...

Removing The Shackles: VITAL UPDATE!!!!!! IMF plan to dethrone bankers a...

Removing The Shackles: VITAL UPDATE!!!!!! IMF plan to dethrone bankers a...: Spread this VIRAL!!!!!!!! IMF's epic plan to conjure away debt and dethrone bankers So there is a magic wand after all. A revolutiona...

Charles Frith - Punk Planning: Paedophiles In Power

Charles Frith - Punk Planning: Paedophiles In Power: Some of you may have noticed that Ed Miliband has called for the Government to set up an independent inquiry into the Jimmy Savile s...

MURDOCH: Brooks And Coulson Charged With Conspiracy To Hack...

MURDOCH: Brooks And Coulson Charged With Conspiracy To Hack...: Two of Rupert Murdoch’s former editors, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, are being charged with conspiring to hack the phone of the ...

Yellow.

‘Pepper Spray Cop’ loses his job | The Raw Story

A spokesperson for the University of California-Davis, where John Pike was captured pepper-spraying a group of seated protesters last November, said Pike was no longer employed with the school as of Tuesday, but did not specify whether Pike was fired or if he resigned, citing campus privacy rules.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120804044536/https://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/01/pepper-spray-cop-loses-his-job/#.UBp2HZMqpR8.blogger

FairSearch.org | What to Know About the European Commission Investigation

For the last 18 months, the European Commission has been investigating serious and credible formal complaints that Google is abusing its dominant position in online search and search advertising in violation of EU competition and consumer protection laws. The European Commission launched its formal antitrust investigation in November 2010 and reports indicate 16 or more companies have filed complaints, including FairSearch members Foundem, Microsoft, Twenga, Expedia and TripAdvisor.

What happened Monday?

On Monday, Joaquín Almunia, Vice President of the European Commission responsible for Competition Policy, acknowledged that Google is engaged in four potential abuses of dominance, validating the concerns of FairSearch members, other businesses and consumer advocates.

What’s the Commission looking at?

The Commission has outlined four areas of concern, in its own words:

1. Deceptive display: “In its general search results, Google displays links to its own vertical search services differently than it does for links to competitors. We are concerned that this may result in preferential treatment compared to those of competing services.”
2. Unauthorized content scraping: “Our second concern relates to the way Google copies content from competing vertical search services and uses it in its own offerings. […] We are worried that this could reduce competitors’ incentives to invest in the creation of original content for the benefit of internet users.”
3. Exclusivity in advertising agreements: “Our third concern relates to agreements between Google and partners on the websites of which Google delivers search advertisements. […] The agreements result in de facto exclusivity requiring them to obtain all or most of their requirements of search advertisements from Google, thus shutting out competing providers of search advertising intermediation services.”
4. Portability of ad campaign data: “Our fourth concern relates to restrictions that Google puts to the portability of online search advertising campaigns from its platform AdWords to the platforms of competitors. […]We are concerned that Google imposes contractual restrictions on software developers which prevent them from offering tools that allow the seamless transfer of search advertising campaigns across AdWords and other platforms for search advertising.”

Apart from the concerns mentioned above, Commissioner Almunia disclosed that his office is separately investigating other Google business practices for potential violations of antitrust and consumer protection laws.  Commissioner Almunia said, “We continue the investigations on other issues, on other complaints we received recently, for instance all those complaints referring to Android or some complaints referring for instance to the way travel agencies are dealt by the Google search engine.”

How did Google react?

Google said that “we’ve only just started to look through the Commission’s arguments.” (Worth noting that Google said two years ago, at the launch of the investigation when the Commission outlined the specific allegations it was probing, that Google would be “working with the Commission to address any concerns.”)

What is expected over the next few weeks?

According to Politico, “Almunia’s move Monday spares Google — for now — from a statement of objections, the preliminary document that would have started the EU’s formal antitrust process. Yet Almunia made clear Google must ‘come up in a matter of weeks with first proposals of remedies to address each of these points.’ Those solutions would have to be market-tested, Almunia said. And he explained it would ultimately lead to a commitment decision, rather than a formal antitrust proceeding that could end with steep fines.”

Market testing refers to a process where the Commission presents the proposed remedies to the public and invites interested stakeholders to provide comments on the potential for effectiveness and possible improvements. A Statement of Objections (SO) is a formal written step in Commission antitrust investigations in which the Commission would inform Google of evidence supporting potential findings that Google has violated the law.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120804160739/http://www.fairsearch.org/content-scraping/what-to-know-about-the-european-commission-investigation/#.UA88qmia2CI.blogger

Nursing Medical Care: Cancer Fighting Foods, Herbs and Spices...

Nursing Medical Care: Cancer Fighting Foods, Herbs and Spices...: Avocados are rich in glutathione, a powerful antioxidant that attacks free radicals in the body by blocking intestinal absorptio...

Mark Zuckerberg Awarded CIA Surveillance Medal

Mark Zuckerberg Awarded CIA Surveillance Medal

Well, now it is official. Mark Zuckerberg was not so smart after all, but just fronting for the CIA in one of the biggest Intelligence coups of all times.

But there remains one small problem, the CIA is not supposed to monitor Americans. I guess we will hear more on that soon from the lawyers once the litigation gets cranked up.

Personally I will be more interested in how this is going to effect the stock offering and shares as all Americans should own the entity that has been spying on them.

And then there are the SEC full disclosure regulations and penalties. It’s bonanza time for the lawyers.

Could the loophole the CIA used be that, ‘you aren’t being spied on if you are willingly posting everything a repressive regime would love to have on your Facebook account, with no threats, no family hostages, no dirty movies or photos that could be released?

But enough with the lead in. Let’s take you directly to our source where you can get it straight from the source’s mouth, including seeing Zuckerberg getting his award.

We really need your comments on this below so we can speak to power with one voice…something that can rarely be done around here.

I know what you’re thinking, but no, I am not stupid…all of my Facebook material is all made up, including all of my friends. I am in the safe zone. My momma didn’t raise no fool. But how about you?

 

YouTube - Veterans Today - – CIA and Zuckerberg

Hope you enjoyed the spoof folks. I thought it was great. And congrats to the Onion News Network gang  on getting those 3.7 million YouTube views !!!

 https://web.archive.org/web/20120712105751/https://veteranstoday.com/2012/07/10/mark-zuckerberg-awarded-cia-surveillance-award/#.T_8OYjBF6I4.blogger

Brown Moses Blog: Operation Motorman - Leveson Hearings In August?

Brown Moses Blog: Operation Motorman - Leveson Hearings In August?: 

The latest piece from a regular contributor.

Lord Justice Leveson delivered a new Ruling this morning regarding Operation Motorman and Associated Newspapers.  In this new Ruling, Leveson gives a glimpse of representations made in private on how the inquiry should interpret the Motorman Files - the Ruling itself gives a good background summary of the Motorman investigation and Steve Whittamore's documentation in relation to his business of 'enquiries' undertaken for national newspapers via named journalists.  Many of these commissions include criminal records checks, Police National Computer checks - on the face of it, data procurement which was illegal. No journalists were arrested, charged or prosecuted.

In order to address concerns on the level of detail that the Inquiry might make public, Leveson held private hearings to receive Core Participant views.  He understood from those private meetings that there was a general acceptance that breaches of data protection laws by some journalists were acknowledged. Given that understanding, Leveson ruled that he did not intend tp make public any or all information in the Motorman Files.  This decision drew criticism from those wanting all the information released into the public domain and, presumably, some relief was felt by the named journalists and the national newspapers who had employed them.

Then Paul Dacre decided to take umbrage at Lord Justice Leveson's understanding of the private hearings' consensus on Motorman.

Dacre's titles came top of Motorman league of journalists commissioning of Steve Whittamore so, arguably, Dacre has most to fear from any release or leak of the Motorman Files. For an analysis of Dacre's dilemma, see here.

During Paul Dacre's evidence to the Inquiry, he appeared to accept (prompted by Leveson's prompting to consult with Associted Newspapers counsel) that there was prima facie evidence in the Motorman Files that journalists in his employ had commissioned data procurement, obtained illegally by Whittamore.  This grudging and graceless acceptance was given by Dacre amid his defensive opinions on the accuracy and validity of the Motorman evidence.

However, Dacre now seems to be challenging Leveson's understanding of prima facie acknowledgement of illegality by Associated Newspaper journalists.  Associated Newspapers defensive actions may have been, in part, prompted by Core Participant victims' counsel, Mr Sherborne, making successful argument to Lord Justice Leveson for partial and redacted release of some Motorman Files evidence - that which relates to journalists still continuously employed by relevant newspapers. Even in redacted form - letter ciphers standing in for journalists' names - this represents the first Motoman evidence released which relates to non-News International titles.  (Whittamore's 'Blue Book' detailing named News International journalists commissions has been leaked by GuidoFawkes.)

Associated Newspapers representations to Leveson firstly take issue with his assumption that Dacre accepted strong prima facie evidence of illegality. Counsel have complained about Leveson's characterisation as "strong" prima facie evidence. Lord Justice Leveson's opening remarks this morning included an apology to Associated for mis-representing their understanding through his use of the word "strong".

Notwithstanding, should Associated Newspapers additionally be back-pedalling on any acknowledgement of bad practice, Lord Justice Leveson IS now prepared to address the Motorman Files (as they relate to Associated titles) - IN PUBLIC and over the summer:

If necessary I shall sit during August to deal with it

His intention seems to be to make public as many examples of illegal data requests as it takes for Associated Newspapers to finally and unequivocably accept prima facie evidence of wrong-doing, "strong" or otherwise.

Say goodbye to your summer.....

The Night Before...

It will be eight years tomorrow since my ex died. Eight short, long years. Our daughter is in the uk 12 miles down the road. With no wish to see me. Two broken hearts. Would you have done things differently if you'd lived, siabreen ?

Never Post Pissed.

I am. But eh ? Me - Reread this in the future and get bit into your head. 'People are crazy, do crazy things and rarely make sense.' Grace may fairclough, though your real name is nelson, (look at your birth certificate) you appear to have inherited your mothers brains and her heart. I now let you go completely - and i am free. For those who have supported the mother ? May God grant you all you deserve. r - let it go... no comments please - just prayers and positive thought.

MURDOCH: Leveson: Matt Sprake ex -met - part of his agency’...

MURDOCH: Leveson: Matt Sprake ex -met - part of his agency’...: 

 Police and other public officials are still being offered thousands of pounds for information about the private lives of celebrities, The Independent can reveal.

An investigation by Exaro, the investigative website, www.exaronews.com, found that officials such as probation and prison officers are being targeted by a former Metropolitan Police forensics and surveillance officer now running a news agency selling pictures and stories to newspapers.

This is despite the current police investigation into the alleged bribing of public officials by journalists, and the Leveson inquiry into media ethics.

Today a prison officer and two other people were arrested in connection with the police probe into corrupt payments to officials by journalists.

So far a total of 37 people have been arrested in connection with Operation Elveden, the investigation into suspected corrupt payments to public officials.

But despite this Newspics, a press agency based in Shenfield, Essex, still appears to be offering four-figure sums for ‘scoops’ through its website.

The agency claims endorsements from the picture desk of The People, the red-top Sunday tabloid, OK magazine, the celebrity title, and the Press Association, the national news agency. The Independent has published legitimate photographs taken by Newspics photographers.

On a page of its website headed ‘news exclusives' it says:

“Do you know of a story, a scandal, something that made you interested, chances are that a newspaper will pay for that information.  Do you know where a prominent person is living or what they get up to, is a celebrity having an affair that you know of, do you know anyone who’s on reality TV?  You can earn yourself good cash now by calling.

It then adds: “All sorts of people have been paid thousands of pounds by us for giving information that leads to a picture being sold or a story being written, are you a doorman, police worker, civil servant, probation officer, prison officer, nurse? Make some extra money without anyone ever knowing…”

Newspics is run by Matt Sprake a former forensics and surveillance officer for Scotland Yard who carried out anti-terrorism duties during his 10-year police career.

Sprake runs the agency with his wife, Marion, a banker who has been working for Barclays. He claims to have a network of 35 photographers, and a discreet studio “just 20 minutes from the City of London” for celebrity client portraits.

Part of his agency’s website is devoted to its “surveillance photography”, offering a menu of services, including “covert foot follows”, “covert vehicle follows” and ”remote technical surveillance”.

“You can utilise the very same skills that are used by the security services and the police,” clients are promised.  

“Our surveillance team has worked for and been trained by various police and government surveillance agencies within the UK. If you need it photographed without being seen, we are your experts.”

When contacted by Exaro, Sprake defended himself, saying that he had never paid a police officer or “anyone in authority” for information.

He said that he had wanted to remove the wording discovered by Exaro, but he was unable to do so because the website was “broken”.

“I wish I could change this website,” he said. “It was by three different companies and when one of them went bust, we could not change the website. It was a pain.”

But he told Exaro that he exercised caution with tip-offs: “I would not touch anything that is operational or compromising. We had people contact us on stories like the royal family, for example. My first question was, ‘How do you know that?’

“‘Well, I have heard it in a briefing.’

“‘Sorry, can’t touch it.’”

Sprake said that the wording on his agency’s website was “just advertising” aimed at the “general public”.

On the social-media website, Myspace, he puts his income at between £100,000 and £150,000 a year.

Sprake continued: “I used to work for a specialist department at the Met in Scotland Yard looking, basically, at terrorism work. The level I was working at involved very covert stuff.

“I got out after 10 years. You are limited on the number of years you are allowed to do, so I am now doing other work. But I have still got all that training that is very handy to have.”

He says that police officers contact him to “moan” about their conditions.

He also claims that his agency is “monitored by some departments in the Met for where some of our stories have come from.”

“You have got to be very careful whenever you get information from a police officer.

They are not going to be paid because it is obviously illegal.

The story will only be put forward if they have obtained that information through something that would be general information.

“If they ring up and say I have seen this bit of paper and this story is going on, well, we do not touch that because that would be highly illegal. So we are very careful.”

He said that most of the agency’s press work came directly from newspapers rather than information given by sources.

Mr Sprake said that he “adhered” to the code of conduct of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), which is a claim made by his agency on its website in relation to its surveillance work.

However, a PCC spokesman said that the code did not apply to picture agencies or freelance photographers. “This highlights the same issue that Lord Leveson has already raised: whether agency photographers or the paparazzi, as well as editors, should be covered by the code.”

Exaro's full report of the investigation can be found by clicking here.

Big Banks Have Criminally Conspired Since 2005 to Rig $800 Trillion Dollar Market

But Receive Only a Light Slap on the Wrist

We noted Friday:

Barclays and other large banks – including Citigroup, HSBC, J.P. Morgan Chase, Lloyds, Bank of America, UBS, Royal Bank of Scotland– manipulated the world’s primary interest rate (Libor) which virtually every adjustable-rate investment globally is pegged to.

***

That means they manipulated a good chunk of the world economy.

We actually understated the impact of the Libor scandal.

Specifically, according to the CIA’s World Factbook, the global economy – as measured by the world’s gross domestic product – is less than $80 trillion.

In contrast, over $800 trillion dollars worth of investments are pegged to the Libor rate.   In other words, a market more than 10 times the size of the entire real world economy is effected by Libor.

As the Wall Street Journal reports today:

More than $800 trillion in securities and loans are linked to the Libor, including $350 trillion in swaps and $10 trillion in loans.

(Click here if you don’t have a subscription to the Journal).

Remember, the derivatives market is approximately $1,200 trillion dollars.  Interest rate derivatives comprise the lion’s share of all derivatives, and could blow up and take down the entire financial system.

The largest interest rate derivatives sellers include Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Goldman and JP Morgan … many of which are being exposed for manipulating Libor.

They have been manipulating Libor on virtually a daily basis since 2005.

They are still part of the group of banks which sets Libor every day, and none have been criminally prosecuted.

They have received a light slap on the wrist from regulators, which – as nobel economist Joe Stiglitz points out – is just the cost of doing business when fraud is the business model.

Indeed – as Bloomberg notes – they’re probably still manipulating the rate:

The U.K. bankers and regulators charged with reviewing Libor in the wake of regulatory probes are resisting calls to overhaul the rate because structural changes risk invalidating trillions of dollars of contracts.

The group, established by the British Bankers’ Association in March after probes into allegations that traders rigged the London interbank offered rate … won’t propose structural changes such as basing the rate on actual trades or taking away oversight of the benchmark from the BBA, the people said.

Libor is determined by a daily poll that asks banks to estimate how much it would cost them to borrow from each other for different timeframes and in different currencies. Because banks’ submissions aren’t based on real trades, academics and lawyers say they are open to manipulation by traders. At least a dozen firms are being probed by regulators worldwide for colluding to rig the rate, the benchmark for $350 trillion of securities.

“I don’t see a significant enhancement to the reputation of Libor without basing it on actual transactions,” said Rosa Abrantes-Metz, an economist with Global Economics Group, a New York-based consultancy, an associate professor with New York University’s Stern School of Business and the co-author of a 2008 paper entitled “Libor Manipulation?” [the manipulation was well-known in England in 2007,  Shah Gilani  warned of Libor manipulation in 2008, and Tyler Durden, Max Keiser and others started sounding the alarm at or around the same time.]

“It would only be disruptive if current quotes are inaccurate,” so resistance “is suspicious,” she said.

***

Traders interviewed by Bloomberg in March at three firms said they were given no guidance on how Libor should be set and there were no so-called Chinese walls preventing contact between the treasury staff charged with submitting the rate and traders who stood to profit on where Libor was set each day. They regularly discussed where Libor would be set with their colleagues and their counterparts at other firms, they said.

“Sadly the response looks to be very consistent with the response of policy makers to the banking disasters we’ve seen over the last four years — cosmetic changes, but nothing substantial happens,” said Richard Werner, a finance professor at the University of Southampton. “It’s insufficient and doesn’t really go to the heart of the problem.”

IMEU: The Wall, 10 years on: part 9 / Dividing land - water, fauna, flora

IMEU: The Wall, 10 years on: part 9 / Dividing land - water, fauna, flora

Will Russian And Chinese Military Forces On Syrian Soil Prevent Obama From Bombing Syria?

Michael Snyder, Contributor
Activist Post

Everyone knows that the Obama administration has been steadily gearing up for a military campaign against Syria. Everyone also knows that Russia and China do not want to see this happen. Now Russia and China are sending military forces to Syria.

It is being reported that Russia, China, Iran and Syria will be conducting the “Middle East’s largest ever military exercise” next month.

Apparently tens of thousands of troops will be involved. This will be the first time that the Russians and the Chinese have jointly deployed large numbers of troops in Syria.

Will this show of military power be enough to prevent Barack Obama from bombing Syria? Or will Obama go ahead anyway and risk ruining relations with the Russians and the Chinese? Tensions are rising in the Middle East and the region is a powder keg that could erupt at any time. If someone makes the wrong move we could end up with World War III.

A number of sources have reported that the Obama administration has been contemplating a military campaign in Syria similar to what happened in Libya. The U.S. would institute a no-fly zone, bomb the Syrian government and the Syrian military, and provide heavy military hardware for the rebel forces on the ground.

According to a recent Debka report, the plans for such a campaign in Syria are close to being finalized….

As the violence in Syria continued to go from bad to worse in scope and intensity, US official sources had this to say Saturday, June 16, about planned US military operations in the war-torn country: 

“The intervention will happen. It is not a question of ‘if’ but ‘when.’” 

A Syrian Free Army rebel delegation is now in Washington to talk about their requestsfor heavy weapons from the Obama administration. In their meetings with US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford and the State Department’s expert on Syria Fred Hof, the rebel leaders handed in two lists for approval: types of heavy weapons capable of challenging Bashar Assad’s armed forces and selected targets of attack to destabilize his regime. 

Debkafile’s Washington sources disclose that the administration is very near a decision on the types of weapons to be shipped to the Syrian rebels and when. Most of the items Washington is ready to send have been purchased by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and are ready for shipment. 

The White House is also close to deciding on the format of its military operation in Syria. Some sources are defining it as “Libya lite” – that is, a reduced-scale version of the no-fly zone imposed on Libya two years ago and the direct air and other strikes which toppled the Qaddafi regime.

What the Obama administration fails to grasp is that Syria is not Libya.

Syria has a lot more friends, and any attack on Syria would almost certainly cause a wider Middle East war to erupt.

For Russia and China, Syria is a red line that must not be crossed.

Now Russia and China are sending substantial military forces to Syria for “war games”. Obviously this is just an excuse to get troops into Syria. The following description of these upcoming “war games” is from a recent article in the Jerusalem Post….

According to ShamLife, China had gained Egyptian approval to allow 12 Chinese ships carrying military equipment to pass through the Suez Canal, and that these vessels would reach the Syrian ports of Tartous and Latakia in two weeks’ time. 

ShamLife said Syrian air defense missiles and its coastal defense would be put to the test in the military exercises, and that 90,000 troops from the four countries would be involved in the war games along with 400 aircraft and 1,000 tanks and “hundreds of rockets.” 

The exercises would be carried out after Syrian troops had ‘cleansed’ several cities where ‘armed groups’ – meaning Syrian opposition forces fighting against government troops loyal to President Bashar Assad – were gathering.

It is also being reported that the Russians are sending warships from the Black Sea Fleet to the Syrian coast to protect the Russian military base at Tartus.

The following is from a recent Los Angeles Times article….

Russia is preparing to dispatch a pair of warships carrying a contingent of Black Sea Fleet marines to its logistics base in the Syrian port of Tartus, the Russian Interfax news agency reported Monday, in what appeared to be another sign of the deteriorating security situation in the strife-ridden nation. 

The report quoted an unidentified Russian naval source saying the amphibious ships Nikolay Filchenkov and Tsezar Kunikov, accompanied by the rescue tug SB-15, were ‘preparing for a non-routine departure’ for Tartus, Russia’s only Mediterranean base.

In addition, according to a recent article in the Telegraph, a Russian ship that was apparently taking attack helicopters to Syria has been stopped off the coast of Scotland….

A Russian ship believed to be carrying helicopters and missiles for Syria has been effectively stopped in its tracks off the coast of Scotland after its insurance was cancelled at the behest of the British government.

Obviously the Russians and the Chinese are trying to stop an attack on Syria.

Things are getting very tense, and that is not going to change any time soon.

Just check out how a recent CBS News report described a private meeting between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in Mexico….

The two men barely looked at each other. You could just feel, sort of, the tension between them. And the body language really represented how far apart the two leaders remain on the issue of Syria.

Needless to say, it was not a pleasant conversation. In fact, Putin reportedly wasvery direct with Obama….

Apparently President Obama got a bit of a lecture from Putin about some other failed transitions that are going on around the world. 

When Barack Obama was elected, many Americans expected him to keep his campaign promises and greatly reduce U.S. military action around the globe.

Instead, Obama has actually greatly expanded U.S. military action around the globe.

It isn’t reported on much in the mainstream media, but the U.S. military is actually at war in Yemen, in Somalia, in Pakistan, and in a whole bunch of other countries all over the planet.

The following is from a must-read Wired article that just came out….

The center of the US drone war has shifted to Yemen, where 23 American strikes have killed an estimated 155 people so far this year. But you wouldn’t know about it — or about the cruise missile attacks, or about the US commando teams in Yemen — by reading the report the White House sent to Congress about US military activities around the globe. Instead, there’s only the blandest acknowledgement of ‘direct action’ in Yemen, ‘against a limited number of [al-Qaida] operatives and senior leaders.’ 

The report, issued late Friday, is the first time the United States has publicly, officially acknowledged the operations in Yemen and in nearby Somalia that anyone with internet access could’ve told you about years ago. But the report doesn’t just fail to admit the extent of the shadow war that America is waging in the region. It’s borderline legal — at best. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to inform Congress about any armed conflicts America is engaged in. Friday’s report isn’t just uninformative about Yemen. It doesn’t even mention the US campaign in Pakistan, even though the Defense Secretary says America is ‘at war‘ there.

Obama has shown contempt for Congress on so many levels. Not only does he not ask them when he starts a new war, he barely even informs them of what is going on.

In the past, Russia and China kind of stood aside as the U.S. imposed its will all over the Middle East, but that is no longer the case.

Russia and China are clearly saying “no” to military action against Syria.

Will Obama back down or will he defy the Russians and the Chinese?

It is going to be very interesting to watch.

And this emerging alliance between the Russians and the Chinese is going to be something to keep a close eye on. We have been seeing increasing cooperation between the two nations in a bunch of different areas.

If the United States is not very careful, it could find itself in a direct conflict with both Russia and China in the years ahead.

The Russian military and the Chinese military have been very busy preparing for such a conflict. The U.S. military has been focused on other things.

Sadly, most Americans know much more about “America’s Got Talent” and “American Idol” than they do about geopolitics these days.

MURDOCH: Piers Morgan: The INSIDER Is A Sordid Tale Of Grov...

MURDOCH: Piers Morgan: The INSIDER Is A Sordid Tale Of Grov...: 

 Morgan with his News Corp mafia pals

The Insider by Piers Morgan is more than his magnum opus on the press, it’s a damning indictment a wiser man would never have put into print.

The objective of this piece is the study of Morgan’s revelations about the press that have come back to haunt him as a result of Hackgate and the Leveson inquiry.

Had Louise Mensch MP done her job properly last year and studied the text in depth, she would not have handed Morgan an undeserved apology.

The following list could almost have been read to Morgan by the ghost of Christmas past…
Monday, 24 January 2000, pages 250-1:

‘Had lunch with the boss of MI5 today, Stephen Lander, at his HQ on the Embankment. I knew from his cuttings that he was one of the key intelligence figures in successfully foiling a string of IRA attacks in recent years, which is why he’s now got the job. He was very matter-of-fact about what his organisation does.

“Look, forget all the myths and James Bond tales. We are a disciplined intelligence agency, and our job is not to go around assassinating people or tapping everyone’s phones illegally. Our main job is to find out what bad people are up to and prevent them doing it.”

I asked who the biggest threat to Britain was. “France,” he replied, to my astonishment.
“They have some very dangerous terrorists, mainly of Algerian descent, and given the proximity to our border they represent a very serious and present danger. But there are many other terrorist organisations out there, and we have to keep tabs on all of them.”

“Do you keep tabs on people like me, then?”

He laughed. “Piers, I could read all of your emails this afternoon if I wanted to.”

I think he was joking, I hope he was! I felt a bit safer after lunch than I had before, knowing someone like him is running MI5.’

Morgan’s child-like deference to Lander is nauseating. Morgan is either grovelling to the powerful, or intimidating those less powerful. There is no middle ground with the lead clown of the CNN roadshow.

But what Morgan failed to tell us in his book was the fact that his underling Oonagh Blackman had already developed “supervisory sources” at MI5 and the Met Police, who ‘supervised’ her output. Assisted journalism, a cancer that lead to the manifest symptoms of Operation Motorman and the Hackgate scandal.

But Morgan’s meeting with the DG of MI5 is an important confession and one that destroys other lies pushed by the press. Namely, Peter Hill, former editor of the Daily Express, who told me in 2003 that newspaper editors have no connection with MI5 and MI6...

MURDOCH: Leveson:Iraq - The Downing Street Memos And Docume...

MURDOCH: Leveson:Iraq - The Downing Street Memos And Docume...: http://downingstreetmemo.com/related.html The U.S. used Napalm In Fallujah http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-whitney021204.htm http...

Never Forget – the real Story of America’s abandoned POW/MIAs

Never Forget – the real Story of America’s abandoned POW/MIAs

May 27, 2012. Hanoi. The real story of America’s abandoned fathers, brothers and sons, betrayed and forgotten POW/MIAs in Vietnam. 3,109 men - That’s the number of US soldiers that were left behind. One day in 1973, the US government was negotiating their release. The very next day, the same American government declared them all officially dead. It was simply easier and cheaper than pursuing their release. Here’s the real story of what happened to America’s POW/MIAs in Vietnam.

The following true story was originally researched and published in the early 1990’s by the American Defense Institute. Also produced and distributed throughout the 1990’s and early 2000’s by your editor and The Liberty House. This article was one of the first ever published by Whiteout Press - ‘Americans Abandoned – POW/MIAs in Vietnam’.

---

---

The real story of America’s abandoned fathers, brothers and sons, betrayed and forgotten POW/MIAs in Vietnam.

March 1973: After years of fighting the Communists in SE Asia, the United States calls it quits, and its sons who fought the war and were captured by the enemy, some imprisoned for up to 8 years, prepare for their time of liberation and a return to the Land of the Free.

“To see that US aircraft, the Air Force uniforms come out of that aircraft, it melts your heart because you know freedom’s just a few hours away. It’s kind of hard to hang in there, day after day, in my case, 2110 days, you’ve just got to have absolute belief that some day your country’s going to come get you. When I went to Vietnam, I was prepared to be killed, to be wounded, even to be captured. But I was not prepared to be abandoned by the country that sent me there” – former American POW.

The war ended in January 1973, with a negotiated cease fire. 591 prisoners, or only about 12 percent of those requested by the US, were returned during “Operation Home Coming” in February and March 1973. Laos was another story. More than 500 pilots were shot down over Laos during the war. But none were returned, even though the Laos government indicated they desired to release American POW’s.

February 19, 1973 (UPI): “A Pathet Lao spokesman said his group is holding American prisoners of war who will be released after a cease fire goes into effect.”

But how many POW’s were they holding?

March 25, 1973 (UPI): “US sources believe that a substantial number of missing in Laos – perhaps as many as 100 – still may be alive.”

Laos made it clear. If American POW’s were to be released, Laos needed a separate cease fire agreement with the US – one separate from the agreement made with North Vietnam. A Washington Post report headline dated February 18, 1973 stated, “Pathet Lao says, no truce, no American POW’s”. But the US government appeared unwilling to negotiate a cease fire with Pathet Lao. And American chief negotiator at the Paris peace talks, Henry Kissinger, wanted American prisoners held in Vietnam and Laos returned in Vietnam through Hanoi.

March 26, 1973: North Vietnam announces they will release the last American prisoners being held, on March 27 and 28.

March 26, 1973 (AP): “The US demand that it also release POW’s captured in Laos, is beyond the Paris Peace Agreement.”

---

---

Capt. Eugene “Red” McDaniel (former POW): “After having asked for over 3,700 men, they gave us their list, the Vietnamese list of 591, which I happened to be one of. We accepted that list and came home in four groups. 591 men. And on April 13, 1973, and this is public record, the US government said, ‘they’re all dead!’. Well, my question is, what happened to those other 3,109 that we asked for between March of 73 and April 73, when we declared them all dead. What happened to those men?”

And, why would the United States government declare American prisoners of war dead, less than three weeks after US sources reported to UPI that as many as 100 were still alive, and after the United States originally asked for 3,700 men?

In a futile attempt to buy freedom for America’s POW’s, a secret letter dated February 1, 1973, was sent to the North Vietnamese Prime Minister from Henry Kissinger. The letter stated that the United States was willing to pay $3.2 billion dollars over five years. While this offer was being made by the Executive Branch, Congress was busying itself investigating the torturous treatment received by our servicemen at the hands of their Communist captors. Many former American POW’s testified to being tortured any number of ways throughout a given day.

One of the most brutalized of all, had this to say, “We’re talking, seven days and seven nights with no sleep, kneeling on concrete twenty-four hours a day, electric shock treatment about three hours per session, getting beaten with a fan belt about fifty times. And that was just the physical torture. The psychological torture was even worse. They’d come down and interrupt your daily interrogation and tell you there’s been a change in your family. And if you asked what kind of change, they would say, you don’t need to know. And you live with that for the next three or four years.”

April 6, 1973: Angered by reports of torture, the US Senate voted 88-3 to bar any financial aid to North Vietnam.

April 12, 1973: The Pentagon declares all American POWs dead.

April 30, 1973: White House staffers Bob Haldeman, John Erlichman and John Dean, were forced to resign. The POW issue was forced to take a back seat as the Nixon Administration became entangled in Watergate.

Being skeptical of Nixon’s ability to deliver the $3.25 billion dollars, which he never did, the North Vietnamese decided to keep their collateral, meaning prisoners from the war. And it wasn’t the first time the Vietnamese had ransomed prisoners. French POWs waited years for an agreement to be made. Evidence shows one example of this old Communist technique taking place after the liberation of numerous Nazi prison camps after World War II.

Stalin had held thousands of American and Allied prisoners, vowing not to return any of them unless numerous Soviet demands were met. General Eisenhower was aware that Americans were being held prisoner in the Soviet Union just weeks after the end of the war. In a secret message dated May 9, 1945, sent to General George Marshall in Washington, he estimated the number of prisoners being held at 25,000. Ominously, those Americans never returned home.

---

---

American POW’s taken from the Korean War were also transported to the Soviet Union. This fact was confirmed in a secret memo to the US Embassy in Moscow from then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, advising the Soviets that the United States was indeed aware that US POW’s from Korea were being held in the Soviet Union. Also verifying this is a Combined Reconnaissance Activities Report, dated February 24, 1953, as well as a CIA report dated July 15, 1951, which also mentions 78 American POW’s from Korea being held in a camp in China.

Former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Daniel Graham had this to say, “The Soviets would come with a list of specialties and look and pick among the POW’s being held in North Korea and then ship them out.” A CIA intelligence report dated as recently as March 9, 1988, indicates that at least some American POW’s from the Korean War may still be alive. It states, “11 Caucasians, possibly American prisoners, were seen on a farm north of P’Yongyang.”

Did History Repeat Itself?

What are the chances that American POW’s from Vietnam were also shipped to the Soviet Union?

According to Jerry Mooney, Former National Security Agency analyst, when the Soviets had the occasion to take into their possession, prisoners with superior technical knowledge, they would move them to a small underground prison located in Vietnam. The prisoners would then be taken to a small air field and flown to the coast. From there, they would be taken by boat, rather than by plane, to the USSR. He explains, “If a ship went down, the evidence was gone. If a plane goes down, there’s evidence all over the place.”

Testimony before the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs in 1991 by a former Soviet KGB official and a former Vietnamese General, suggests American POW’s were interrogated by the Soviets. Committee member, Senator Robert Smith, explains the significance of this admission, “All the American POW’s who came home, never gave any indication that they were ever interrogated by Russians. So, if that’s the case, where are all the ones who were?”

Smith and the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA affairs, Senator John Kerry, were appointed to a joint US/Russian Commission to comb KGB files for answers regarding the fate of American prisoners from World War II, Korea and Vietnam.

Evidence

Former President George Bush Sr., “There’s no hard evidence of prisoners being alive.”

Former Congressman and former consultant to the Defense Intelligence Agency, Bill Hendon, strongly disagrees with the former President as he furiously lists cases of documented sightings to the Senate Committee: “49 in North Vietnam, 200 in North Vietnam, 4 in South Vietnam, 184 in Vietnam, 70 to 80 in North Vietnam, a ‘truck load’ in North Vietnam, 2 in Laos, ‘a group’ in North Vietnam, 50 in Laos, 230 in Vietnam from the CIA, and 219 more in Vietnam from a Vietnamese doctor who testified that he took care of them.”

Continue reading Page 2 of 2

MURDOCH: #Leveson #pressreform: Jeremy Hunt memo to David Ca...

MURDOCH: #Leveson #presreform: Jeremy Hunt memo to David Ca...: 

 • Hunt drafted memo to Cameron backing News Corp's Sky bid
• Smith admits no contact with anti-bid coalition
• Michel: Smith gave updates on timings and process of bid
• DCMS 'encouraged News Corp to stay in the game on Sky bid'
• Michel denies he exaggerated DCMS position to Murdoch
• Hunt adviser sent 257 texts to News Corp lobbyist
• Over 1,000 texts between News Corp and DCMS over Sky bid
• Michel: 'I apologise if my texts are too jokey sometimes'
Leveson inquiry: Adam Smith
Leveson inquiry: Adam Smith has been giving evidence

6.16pm: The Guardian's Josh Halliday has just tweeted:

    Hunt to MPs 25/04: No unminuted/unofficial contact with Michel (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cm …); Michel to #Leveson 24/05: "one text every 3 months"

    — Josh Halliday (@JoshHalliday) May 24, 2012

6.13pm: The Guardian's Patrick Wintour has just tweeted:

    Downing Street claims Hunt memo is the same as his remarks in newspaper interviews and did not show he had prejudged the issue.

    — Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) May 24, 2012

5.13pm: Lisa O'Carroll adds this:

    Following the meeting to hand over responsibility for the BSkyB from Vince Cable's office to Jeremy Hunt's office, an email was circulated to summarise the key points.

    The confidential memo which was shown to the inquiry in court 73 but has not yet been published raised concerns about several issues including a rumoured plan by Rupert Murdoch to "bundle" content from his newspapers with content from BSkyB enabling readers and viewers to subscribe to packages of coverage of, for instance, sport from the Sun and the Times along with Sky Sport.

    The memo reads: "Is bundling a competition issue and something that we need to think about?"

    The memo goes on to also raise concerns over an imminent Ofcom report into plurality issues arising from the takeover bid.

    "Are we permitted to share the Ofcom report with News Corp but not with other interested parties? " the memo asks.

    Finally it says Jeremy Hunt would like some reading material for his Christmas break to familiarise himself with interventions made to Vince Cable.

    "The secretary of state said that he would be grateful for some reading material that he could peruse over the Xmas break – we should keep this concise. He would particularly like to see a summary of the representations that were made prior to Vince Cable's intervention notice to Ofcom (eg Enders Analysis) as well as the EC Rreport. You also explained that the EC report is not in the public domain."

5.12pm: The Guardian's John Plunkett adds:

    The special adviser at the centre of the controversy over Jeremy Hunt's handling of News Corp's aborted BSkyB takeover said he "couldn't see why everyone was getting quite so worked up" about the £8bn merger.

    Adam Smith said his position on the merger was "very broadly" the same as Hunt.

    "I didn't to be honest particularly mind either way whether it happened or not," said Smith.

    "In a funny sort of way I couldn't quite see why everyone was getting quite so worked up about it."

    Jay told the inquiry: "This is the sort of issue which for whatever reason has the tendency to divide opinion, where people hold strong points of view on either side. You're aware of that?"

    In his evidence, Smith said he remembered Hunt saying he wanted to be fair to everybody, including News Corporation.

    "Was there a sense that the previous incumbent [Vince Cable] had not been fair to News Corp?"

    Smith said: "I think that was the view, yes. I think it more meant that he would consider the bid on the grounds of media plurality rather than anything else."

5.06pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has this on Smith's evidence:

    Jeremy Hunt's special adviser Adam Smith admitted he had no contact with the coalition of newspapers and broadcasters that was officially opposing News Corp's £8bn BSkyB bid.

    He told the Leveson inquiry that that might "possibly" have been an "interested party" but he didn't have any contact with them because "I don't remember them getting in touch with me."

    Robert Jay, counsel to the inquiry, repeatedly pressed him on the point that this might have amounted to bias in what was a quasi-judicial role. Smith made it clear that he did not understand the quasi-judicial process to mean he had to have equal contact with all interested parties.

    "Did that even intuitively raise alarm bells with you? Mr Smith," Jay asked.

    "No not really," said Smith explaining much of his contact with Michel was "redactions to documents or process points and obviously you don't necessarily meed to talk to other interested parties."

    "My understanding of 'quasi-judicial' was that Mr Hunt had to decide on media plurality issues," he added.

    The media alliance that opposed the BSkyB have accused the government of showing bias towards Rupert Murdoch in the bid and said they had only one "wooden" meeting with the culture secretary which was as good as a "chocolate teapot".

Live blog: recap

4.58pm: Here is an evening summary of today's Leveson inquiry evidence:

• Jeremy Hunt drafted a memo to David Cameron saying it would be "totally wrong" to block News Corp's BSkyB bid four weeks before he was put in charge of the controversial takeover.

• Hunt told Cameron that James Murdoch was "pretty furious" at the Ofcom referral by Vince Cable.

• Hunt aide Adam Smith confirmed he was broadly in favour of the BSkyB bid while DCMS had judicial oversight.

• Smith admitted having no contact with anti-bid coalition, despite more than 1,000 text messages between his department and News Corp.

• News Corp lobbyist Frédéric Michel was given Hunt statement on BSkyB bid four hours before culture secretary spoke in Commons.

• Michel denied exaggerating conversations with Smith or that he received a "running commentary" on confidential government process.

• Smith sent 257 text messages to Michel over the course of the BSkyB bid.

4.51pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:

    Leveson over. Clearly Smith had no concept of quasi judicial process even though this affected stock Market fr news corp and BskyB

    — Lisa O'Carroll (‏@lisaocarroll) May 24, 2012

4.47pm: The inquiry has finished for the day.

Smith will return to complete his evidence tomorrow morning from 9.30 am.

4.43pm: Here is the full final exchange in which Smith confirms that he broadly agreed that News Corp should be allowed to buy BSkyB.

Jay: "Would you in essence describe your position on the merits of the bid as broadly speaking same as Mr Hunt's position?"

Smith: "Very broady. I didn't, to be honest with you, particularly mind either way where it happened or not. In a funny sort of way I couldn't quite see why everyone was getting quite so worked up about, but broadly speaking yes."

Jay: "Broadly speaking?

Smith: "Yeah, broadly."

4.41pm: Smith says his view on the plurality issues around the bid was drawn from the expert advice, "not much" more than that.

He adds that "broadly speaking" he shared the view of Hunt that the deal should go through.

"I didn't particularly mind either way whether it happened or not. In a funny way I couldn't see what everyone was getting worked up about. Broadly speaking, yes [I was in favour]".

4.39pm: Jay asks if this apparent bias raised any eyebrows.

"Not really," answers Smith. Jay suggests that Smith treated his role in the BSkyB bid as any other media policy decision. Smith says he did.

4.36pm: Smith "can't remember" whether Hunt asked him to the be point of contact for News Corp's Michel over the bid. The permanent secretary did not explain it either.

4.35pm: The Guardian's editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:

    Wapping 2 (multi-platform, from paper to web to tv to digital) is just what News Corp denied was aim w Sky bid ‪#Leveson

    — Alan Rusbridger (‏@arusbridger) May 24, 2012

and

    Memo reveals that Cam knew Hunt was passionate supporter of Sky bid just before he appts him in place of Vince

    — Alan Rusbridger (‏@arusbridger) May 24, 2012

4.33pm: Smith does not remember having any contact from the coalition of media groups who were opposed to the BSkyB bid.

Smith says: "There wouldn't be any [correspondence] because I don't remember them getting in touch with me".

4.33pm: Was there a view that Cable had not been fair to News Corp, asks Jay? "I think that was the view, yes," Smith replies.

4.31pm: media veteran Andrew Neil has just tweeted:

    Cameron knew Hunt was pro BSkyB but still put him in charge of takeover process. Hunt memo to Cameron v revealing ‪#leveson

    — Andrew Neil (@afneil) May 24, 2012

4.31pm: In his written statement, Smith says Hunt expressed a desire to "do things differently from Mr Cable" and "be more open" and hold more meetings with interested parties. Smith explains that Hunt was aware Cable had held no meetings with News Corp over the bid, and that he wanted to be seen as open to receiving representations.

4.30pm: Smith says there was "no direct instruction" about what he could and could not do in relation to his correspondence around the BSkyB bid.

4.30pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Hunt's memo to Cameron reveals a piece of News Corp strategy that was NOT in the public domain. News Corp ruled out TV/newspaper bundling

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

4.27pm: The Guardian's Patrick Wintour has just tweeted:

    Pm spokesman says hunt statement to parliament on april 25 was given in context of evidence to leveson day before. Does not say accurate.

    — Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) May 24, 2012

and

    Pm spokesman had 4 chances at briefing to say hunt gave fully accurate account to parliament of his contacts with news international.

    — Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) May 24, 2012

4.25pm: Leveson intervenes to say that you do not have to be a lawyer to understand that "quasi-judicial" means that whoever has this oversight cannot speak to the parties "in the evening" or in any way other than is "open and transparent to everyone".

4.23pm: Jay turns to a meeting on 22 December 2010 between BIS officials handing over the bid to DCMS officials, including Hunt.

Hunt's "quasi-judicial" role was likely discussed at this meeting, Smith says.
Jeremy Hunt Jeremy Hunt. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

4.21pm: Here is the draft text of the memo from Hunt to Cameron from November 2010:


    James Murdoch is pretty furious at Vince's referral to Ofcom. He doesn't think he will get a fair hearing from Ofcom. I am privately concerned about this because News Corp are very litigious and we could end up in the wrong place in terms of media policy. Essentially what James Murdoch wants to do is to repeat what his father did with the move to Wapping and create the world's first multiplatform media operator available from paper to web to TV to iPhone to iPad. Isn't this what all media companies have to do ultimately? And if so we must be very careful that any attempt to block it is done on plurality grounds and not as a result of lobbying by competitors.

    The UK has the chance to lead the way on this as we did in the 80s with the Wapping move but if we block it our media sector will suffer for years. In the end I am sure sensible controls can be put into any merger to ensure there is plurality but I think it would be totally wrong to cave into the Mark Thompson/Channel 4/Guardian line that this represents a substantial change of control given that we all know Sky is controlled by News Corp now anyway.

    What next? Ofcom will issue their report saying whether it needs to go to the Competition Commission by 31 December. It would be totally wrong for the government to get involved in a competition issue which has to be decided at arm's length. However I do think you, I, Vince and the DPM [deputy prime minister] should meet to discuss the policy issues that are thrown up as a result.

4.19pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Hunt memo to Cameron is extraordinary. Firmly takes side of James Murdoch, dismisses critics as BBC + Guardian.

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

and

    Hunt memo divides media world into Murdoch and publicly owned/trust owned media orgs. No room for Mail or Telegraph or ITV

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

4.17pm: Hunt received legal advice from officials that "it would be unwise" to intervene on the BSkyB bid because Cable was handling it. Hunt later sent the memo to Cameron.

The culture secretary said in the memo that it would be "totally wrong to cave into the [BBC], Channel 4, Guardian line" of opposition to the bid.

4.16pm: Smith says he spoke to Jonathan Stephens, the DCMS permanent secretary, about comments made publicly by Hunt about the BSkyB bid.

Pressed on whether he asked for private comments as well, Smith says: "I believe it was public comment".

4.16pm: The Guardian editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:

    Hunt memo to Cameron Nov 19 10: "James Murdoch is furious .. he wants to repeat what his father did at Wapping."

    — Alan Rusbridger (@‏arusbridger) May 24, 2012

4.12pm: Hunt said in his memo to Cameron that News Corp's BSkyB bid raised "no plurality issues as we all know Sky is controlled by News Corp now anyway."

4.12pm: Smith says to the best of his knowledge there was never a meeting between Hunt, Cable and the prime minister over the bid, following Hunt's intervention to David Cameron.

4.07pm: Hunt emailed Smith on 19 November 2010 saying he was "privately concerned about this because News Corp are very litigious" and that James Murdoch was "pretty furious" about Cable referring the bid to Ofcom.

Hunt told Smith that Murdoch wanted to "create the world's first multiplatform operator" and "if we block it our media sector will suffer for years".

He added in the email that sensible controls could be put in place and that they should discuss this with Cable.

Smith says "yes, I suppose" when asked by Jay whether this email shows the culture secretary saw no impediment to the bid.

"His personal view then was yes," adds Smith.

This was a draft version of a fortnightly update that was to be sent to David Cameron.

4.03pm: Leveson asks what this had to do with the DCMS and Smith, given that the BSkyB bid in October 2010 was being handled by Vince Cable's department for business.

Smith says it was a hot media topic at the time and the documents were just for information.

4.02pm: Smith is asked about the briefing documents he was sent by Michel on 7 October 2010 titled "Strictly confidential but very interesting". One related to plurality issues and the other was about competition issues.

Smith forwarded the documents to Hunt and the culture secretary replied that they were "very powerful actually".

Michel interpreted that as Hunt believing the documents were "persuasive".

4.01pm: Smith says he cannot remember having informal comments with Hunt about the bid before it was announced on 15 June 2010.

    I think his public comments were well known. He said something along the lines of 'he couldn't see a particular problem with it but didn't want to second-guess the regulators' and that's something he [adhered to] throughout the process.

3.59pm: Jay turns to Hunt's thinking on the BSkyB bid before 21 December 2010. Smith says he did not believe Hunt was close to News Corp.

"He [Hunt] did not have that much of a relationship with either of the Murdochs or the chief executive of News International ... but he was not close to News Corp," Smith says.

Smith denies that Hunt was a "cheerleader" for News Corp's BSkyB bid.

3.58pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Smith's A* appraisal of Dec 10 -"effective operator; bright, articulate, insightful, extremely well briefed".

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

3.57pm: In his witness statement, Smith describes himself as a "buffer" for outside organisations that wanted to meet Hunt. "It was to help him focus on what he wanted to do," he says. It was at Smith's discretion whether to suggest meetings to Hunt.

3.54pm: During News Corp's BSkyB bid, Smith's contact with Hunt about the takeover was "not as frequent" as you would expect and not daily. It was driven by events.

He spoke to Hunt around News Corp's publication of its undertaking in lieu, he confirms.

Smith would often speak to Hunt if events "were leading up to him announcing something," he adds.

3.54pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Adam's five star appraisal in Dec 10 is flashed up on our screens. "An ideal bridge with the dept and minister" + "consistently adds value"

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

3.53pm: Smith says he would generally speak to Hunt between two and four times a day. He was based down the corridor from Hunt's office at DCMS headquarters in central London.

3.52pm: Smith says it is fair to say that he was "under the wing" of Hunt as his special adviser.

Hunt gave him specific instructions on some occasions, he says, but generally he acted in accordance with what he believed Hunt expected of him.

3.50pm: Smith says that the permanent secretary had a supervisory role over him and others in the department. Jay asks who Smith's line manager was.

    I didn't really have a line manager if you like. I reported in to Mr Hunt and would meet with senior officials.

3.40pm: Leveson thanks Smith for appearing and says it "can't be an easy time" for him. He resigned the day after his correspondence was published by the inquiry at the end of last month.

Leveson asks Smith his age, and he says he is 30 years old.

3.39pm: Adam Smith, Jeremy Hunt's former special adviser, takes the witness stand.

3.38pm: Michel has now completed his evidence.

3.37pm: Michel texted George Osborne's chief of staff asking him to recruit the chancellor to support News Corp's Sky bid:

    Michel text to Rupert Harrison Nov 09 2010

    Rupert just spoke with James it would be helpful if George were to send a letter to Vince on our Sky merger and its economic importance separate from the Ofcom process. Do you think it is a possibility. I can of course help with the content. Best, fred

3.37pm: Michel says it was never put to him that he would get a substantial pay bonus if News Corp was able to purchase the remaining shares in BSkyB.

3.32pm: Michel later texted Gabby Bertin, the prime minister's spokeswoman, saying "thank you for your messages to Rebekah last night":

    Michel text Gabby Bertin - 06 Jul 2011 08.17

    And thank for your messages to Rebekah last night xxx

3.31pm: Michel tried to organise a dinner with News Corp's Will Lewis and No 10 press chief Craig Oliver, on 6 July 2011, shortly after the Guardian's Milly Dowler revelations.

Here is Michel's text to Oliver and email to Osborne's special adviser, Rupert Harrison:

    Will suggests we meet for dinner with no wives. Is that okay/ what time?

    Email to Rupert Harrison
    10 July 2012
    Hi, Quick question for your advice, you think it would be possible/helpful to get a senior govt person to come out condemning strongly phone hacking, ask for thorough police investigation but insisting on the need or the legal process to be follows ? Incredible that a business decision on a massive taker could be left to Parilament to oppose/influence no? Hope all is week , Fred.

Jay says Michel "wanted to find a discreet location".

Michel says in the end Oliver could not make it.

"It was social. The idea was to introduce Will to Craig," says Michel.

3.30pm: The inquiry has resumed and Jay turns to text messages from Michel to various individuals.

On 13 May 2011, Michel texted Craig Oliver, the No 10 adviser, saying "phone hacking case to be launched against Daily Mail on Monday".

Michel tells the inquiry: "It was a rumour I had been told. It never happened".

3.27pm: Former Guardian media correspondent James Robinson has just tweeted:

    Poor Adam Smith has been waiting to come in to bat all day. Those pads must be getting very uncomfortable #leveson

    — james robinson (@jamesro47) May 24, 2012

3.26pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:

    Michel insists key mail to Brooks saying Hunt and No 10 want help shaping response to hacking broadly accurate tho language poss bit strong

    — ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 24, 2012

3.20pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break.

3.18pm: Michel says Smith told him on 7 July about possible public inquiries (such as Leveson).

Michel says he offered to brief the DCMS and other government departments on phone-hacking issues after the Guardian broke the Milly Dowler story "and it was something that was welcomed at that time".

Smith says he didn't know about this.

3.17pm: Michel tried to secure a meeting with Hunt's deputy Ed Vaizey around 7 June but was rebuffed by the department and Smith.

3.16pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh reports that Adam Smith's evidence is now likely to run on into tomorrow given the pace of Michel's evidence.

3.12pm: Jay quotes emails from Michel highlighting News Corp's increasing frustration with the bid process, at one point even threatening that it might walk awy from the bid.

Michel says he was "reflecting the internal frustration from high up" when he told Smith that News Corp could withdraw its bid if lengthy regulatory hurdles continued.

3.04pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Michel's "one hour" phone call with Smith on March 10 was actually 34min long. "French time" Michel says.

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

2.59pm: Michel was told by Smith that Hunt was "minded to accept" and that he would make a statement the following day.

Jay says if the correspondence is correct Smith gave Michel a preview of Hunt's statement at 3.25am – four hours before it was delivered to parliament.

2.57pm: Jay turns to the events of 3 March 2011, when Hunt publicly announced that he was minded to accept News Corp's undertakings in lieu for the BSkyB bid.

There was a spike in correspondence between Smith and Michel, the inquiry hears, at around midnight when News Corp was putting the finishing touches to its press statement about the bid.

2.52pm: On 11 February 2011, Michel emailed Murdoch to say:

    JH called:

    - he now knows what OFCOM and OFT will send him tonight: both will recommend he refers to CC

Jay suggests that by this time Michel knew that DCMS backed News Corp's BSkyB bid.

Michel says: "They [the DCMS] were encouraging us to stay in the game, but I wouldn't say they were parti pris."

2.51pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:

    Michel says call in which he tld Hunt (via Smith) to shw "some backbone" was attempt to "reflect frustration + language we wr using in team"

    — ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 24, 2012

2.49pm: The next day, Michel emailed Murdoch and others to say: "Just had a strong and long exchange with him
again now."

Jay puts it to him that the call was just over three minutes – hardly "long".

2.48pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Michel told J Murdoch he spoke to "JH" before Swan Lake on Feb 9 when in fact Smith spoke to Hunt at 19.03 and appears to have relayed back

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

2.46pm: Hunt and Smith exchanged calls and text messages just before the culture secretary apparently went to see Swan Lake on 9 February 2011, says Jay.

Smith and Michel spoke later on the phone for about half an hour, the inquiry hears.

2.46pm: The Labour MP Chris Bryant has just tweeted:

    One other point: Hunt told parl 25/04: "I have published all advice.. together with corresp between myself and News Corp". Clearly a lie.

    — Chris Bryant (@ChrisBryantMP) May 24, 2012

2.42pm: Michel says there was a "toxic relationship and mistrust of Ofcom" at News Corp and that he was getting on well with Smith even after the bid process.

2.40pm: The Guardian editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:

    Michel claims Hunt's man offered to provide him confidential documentsfrom opponents of Sky bid#Leveson

    — alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 24, 2012

2.40pm: Jay turns to a 23-minute phone call between Smith and Michel.

In a follow-up text, Michel asks Smith to send him written submissions to the DCMS from a group which opposed the bid.

In the reply, Smith says "don't mention them to anyone like OFT". Michel was not given the documents, Jay says.

2.33pm: Michel is asked about a further text exchange of 25 January 2011:

    FM/AS: Today went well. Look at the coalition campaign's statement: so weak!

    FM/AS I think we re in a good place tonight no?

    AS/FM I agree. Coverage looks ok. Let's look again in the morning though!

Michel later emailed James Murdoch to say:

    Just had update on today's events with JH.

    Given the opposition has very few arguments on the impact on media plurality...

    JH believes we're in a good place tonight. Let's see what the morning's coverage brings.

Michel says he interpreted that as the undertakings in lieu had been represented well.

2.31pm: This is the email in which Smith allegedly told Michel it would be "game over for the opposition" if strong undertakings in lieu in relation to the bid for BSkyB were published.

The inquiry is told by Jay that Smith "hotly contests" the email.

    To: Anderson, Matthew
    From Michel, Fred
    Date: 23/01/2011
    Time: 8.59pm

    He still wants to stick to the following plan:

    - Monday: receive further details on UIL - but to need to meet at this stage

    - Tuesday: Publication of Ofcom report; our submission and announcement that he has received UIL proposal and is looking into it

    - Ask OFT to work with us on the UIL

    - Put the UIL to Ofcom for advice. He said he would be able to send it to them with a specific question to limit their ability to challenge it [ie - 'your report demonstrates that Sky News is the core concern; I would like you to consider the following UIL which addresses all of these issues] He said Ofcom would not be able to create major obstacles in that way

    - That in 2 weeks time, he announces he is minded to refer but has received a very substantial UIL and would like to consult publicaly

    - He predicts it should all be done by mid-Feb.

    His view is that he announces publicly he has a strong UIL, it's almost game over the opposition.

    He understands fully our concerns/fears regarding the publication of the report and the consultation of Ofcom in the process, but he wants us to take the hear with him, in the next two weeks.

    He very specifically said that he was keen to get to the same outcome and wanted JRM to understand he need to build some political cover on the process.

    If he were to follow our Option 1 and not provide any details on the Ofcom report, he would be accused of putting a deal together with us behind closed doors and it would get in much more difficult place. The more this gets out now, the better it will be as the opposition with lose arguments. This week's events do not give him much choice

    He said we would get there at the end ad he shared the objectives.

    Finally he asked us to stick with him in the coming weeks plan the upcoming Tuesday's publication and the debate which will unfold

    Fred

2.27pm: Smith continued:

    Other than what jeremy and I have told you! We have no legal wriggle room in a statement to parliament.

2.25pm: On 25 January 2011, Smith texted Michel to say:

    There's plenty- potential to mitigate problems! We can't say they are too brilliant otherwise people will call for them to be published. Will check on meetings.

Michel agrees that this refers to News Corp's undertakings in lieu.

2.22pm: Michel admits he was surprised that Smith sent him pre-notification of Hunt's statement on the BSkyB bid before it was made to parliament.

The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Michel was surprised that Smith shared info with him about the content of Hunt's Jan statement on Sky bid as early as 3.21pm the day before

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

2.22pm: Michel is asked why he told Murdoch he had been given sensitive documents from Smith "although absolutely illegal".

He answers: "It was a very bad joke. In hindsight, I wouldn't have put such words ... It's just an expression of surprise from me."

2.20pm: On 24 January 2011, Michel emailed James Murdoch:

    Subject: RE: CONFIDENTIAL - JH STATEMENT

    At the end, JH will indicate..

    Subject: CONFIDENTIAL-JH STATEMENT

    Managed to get some infos on the plans for tomorrow [athough absolutely illegal…>!]

    JH will announce that...

2.20pm:

    [On UILs - inthe Sky bid, News Corp proposed hiving off Sky News as separate company, diluting concentration of Murdoch-owned news power]

    — Ben Fenton (@benfenton) May 24, 2012

2.19pm: The Financial Times's Ben Fenton has just tweeted:

    [On UILs - inthe Sky bid, News Corp proposed hiving off Sky News as separate company, diluting concentration of Murdoch-owned news power]

    — Ben Fenton (@benfenton) May 24, 2012

2.18pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Michel writes on Jan 23 - days before Hunt goes to the Commons -that Smith "wants us to take the heat with him in the next two weeks".

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

2.16pm: Michel says he believed that whatever Smith said was also the view of Hunt.

"He's communicating the view of the secretary of state," he explains. "I was representing News Corp; he was representing the secretary of state in the discussion."

Jay asks how Michel interpreted his phrase that Hunt "shared our objectives".

Michel says he "took comfort" that News Corp had a strong chance of securing BSkyB because of its undertakings in lieu, but denies Jay's suggestion that they were given "immense reassurance".

Michel adds: "Yeah, it was encouraging."

2.08pm: Jay refers to an email from Michel to News Corp's Matthew Anderson, Jeff Palker and Andrea Appella of 23 January 2011 stating:

    Subject: update - confidential.

    He still wants to stick to the following plan …

    He predicts it should all be done by mid-Feb …

    His view is that once he announce publicly he has a strong UIL [undertaking in lieu], it's almost game over for the opposition.

    He very specifically said that he was keen to get to the same outcome and wanted JRM to understand he needs to build some political cover on the process.

Michel agrees that "he" refers to Hunt, through his spokesman Smith.

Smith hotly denies that he told Michel News Corp's undertakings in lieu meant it was "game over" for the opposition.

Michel says he believes that Smith used the phrase "game changer" in reference to News Corp's undertakings in a meeting.

2.03pm: Frédéric Michel, the News Corp lobbyist, is back at the witness stand.

Michel denies he was engaged in a "running commentary" on News Corp's Sky bid, but says there were "back-and-forth discussions" with Jeremy Hunt's adviser, Adam Smith.

2.03pm: The inquiry has resumed.

Lord Justice Leveson opens by saying that the inquiry will begin at 9.30am tomorrow. Jonathan Stephens, the top civil servant to Jeremy Hunt, is listed to appear.

1.47pm: Lisa O'Carroll's story on Michel's evidence so far is now live. Lisa writes:

    Jeremy Hunt had indicated to News Corporation by the end of 2010 that he was "probably in favour" of arguments for allowing its £8bn BSkyB takeover, the company's lobbyist responsible for contact with the culture secretary's department has told the Leveson inquiry.

    Frédéric Michel told the Leveson inquiry on Thursday that by December 2010, just before Hunt was given quasi-judicial responsibility for the bid, the Conservative cabinet minister and his Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) were supportive of News Corp's argument that the BSkyB deal would not be detrimental to UK media plurality.

    Michel was asked by Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, whether the DCMS was considered by News Corp to be "on side" in terms of being in favour of the Sky bid by December 2010.

    "I think they were probably in favour of, or in agreement with, the arguments we had put forward in terms of plurality, definitely," replied Michel, who at the time was News Corp's European head of public affairs.

You can read the full story here.

1.13pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has sent us this transcript of text messages between Michel and Hunt as seen at the Leveson inquiry.

    Michel to Hunt:
    20 January 2011
    20.54
    Great to see you today. We should get little [children's names redacted] together in the future to socialise. Nearly born the same day at the same place!
    Warm regards
    Fred

    Hunt to Michel:
    20 January 2011
    23.45
    Good to see you too. hope u understand why we have to have the long process. Let's meet up when things are resolved. J.

    Michel to Hunt:
    20 January 2011
    6.58am
    "We do, and we'll do our very best to be constructive and helpful throughout. You were very impressive yesterday. "

    Michel to Hunt:
    13 March 2011
    Very good on Marr as always.

    Hunt to Michel:
    13 March 2011
    Merci. Hopefully when consultation over we can have a coffee like the old days.

Live blog: recap

1.07pm: Here is a lunchtime summary of the key evidence heard by the Leveson inquiry today:

• Jeremy Hunt's department and News Corporation exchanged more than 1,000 text messages during the controversial BSkyB takeover bid.

• Hunt's adviser, Adam Smith, sent 257 text messages, plus a string of emails from his personal account, to News Corp lobbyist Frédéric Michel.

• Michel believed Hunt was "probably in favour" of News Corp's £8bn BSkyB bid by December 2010.

• Michel denied he was given "running commentary" on the bid by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

1.05pm: The Guardian's deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:

    Michel says Smith may not have "made a plea" that News Corp help identify errors in Ofcom report but he was encouraging him to do so

    — ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 24, 2012

and

    That was important: the "help find errors" email is key. Michel rowed back tiny bit on it but defended substance. Mail: bit.ly/I97mLM

    — ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 24, 2012

1.03pm: The inquiry has broken for lunch and will resume at 2pm.

1.00pm: Michel says in another email to Murdoch that Hunt had met Ed Richards, the Ofcom chief executive, and challenged him over the regulator's issues letter about the bid.

Jay says Michel spoke to Smith three times on the day Hunt had a critical private meeting with the Ofcom boss. The conversation lasted for 27 minutes.

Michel interpreted Smith's view as encouraging News Corp to find legal flaws in Ofcom's report.

"On this particular subject of the Ofcom report you could say he was probably agreeing with me on areas where we could justifiably find some criticism," he says.

12.55pm: Jay asks about an email he sent to James Murdoch on 31 December 2010 stating:

    Got a debrief from DCMS on their short meeting with OFT and Ofcom this morning.

    The details of the remedy were not discussed. OFT mentioned to JH they were meeting us this aftemoon.

    The conversation was solely on how they can set a process and timetable; but also on whether they can both work together [!].

    JH asked them to adhere to the timing set out in the terms of reference, Le. 2 weeks.

12.54pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Hunt text to Michel Mar 13 "Merci hopefully when consultation over we can have a coffee like the old days".

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

12.52pm: Jay asks if the texts were "schmoozing".

"No, it's a friendly text," replies Michel. "I think it's one text every three months."

12.52pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Hunt txt to M jan 20: "Good to see u too. Hope u understand why we have to have the long process. Let's meet up when things are resolved".

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

12.51pm: Michel sent Hunt a text congratulating the culture secretary on his performance in the House of Commons.

"Merci! Large drink tonight," replied Hunt.

In another message, Michel says "Very good on Marr as always".

"Merci," replies Hunt, again.

12.50pm: Michel says the DCMS had an approach "based on transparency" compared to Cable's department.

News Corp lawyers were aware of Michel's level of correspondence with Smith, he confirms.

12.45pm: Michel denies that Smith have him a running commentary on the bid, but did give him "atmospherics" of the takeover as well as updates on timing.

12.45pm: Michel says he was not surprised at Cable's secretly-recorded remarks about "declaring war on Murdoch" because they were "very much" in line with what he already believed about the business secretary's views.

12.42pm: Jay turns to correspondence between Michel and Rohan Silva, a senior adviser to prime minister David Cameron.

Cameron wanted to see media plurality, Silva told Michel, and in a meeting between the pair Michel mentioned the plurality issues around the BSkyB bid, the inquiry hears.

Michel met Silva and Cameron's adviser, Steve Hilton, in No 10 on 10 December 2010.

12.41pm: The Guardian editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:

    Hunt & Cable advisers saying same thing in mid Nov 10: don't meet with News C "Wrong, inappropriate, don't do it" #leveson

    — alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 24, 2012

12.37pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Michel: "I apologise if my texts are too jokey".

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

12.36pm: Jay suggests Michel was frustrated because Cable's department would not allow him to trade text messages with them, which he was "very good" at.

Michel responds: "I am a compulsive texter, I will accept."

12.36pm: Michel says that Hunt's department took a "very different approach" when the culture secretary was given responsibility for the bid.

When the bid switched to DCMS there was "much more openness" about hearing News Corp's arguments, he adds.

12.35pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Nov 15 2011 - Hunt told he could not meet Murdoch. Cable also refuses to meet Murdoch. Michel says Cable wrong but Hunt more open later

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

12.33pm: Michel tried again to meet Cable's special adviser, says Jay, but was once against rebuffed.

He believed that this deserved to be "tested" and asked News Corp lawyers whether they should be allowed to lobby Cable and his special adviser.

12.29pm: Michel says: "If anyone from Hunt's office thought this inappropriate they would have told me. It's not for me to say how Hunt's office should work."

Jay turns to a meeting between Michel and George Osborne's special adviser, Rupert Harrison. It was rushed but Harrison told Michel there were "coalition tensions" around the bid, the inquiry hears.

12.27pm: Michel says that in Cable's department there was "definitely a view that no representation would be taken" on the BSkyB bid.

Jay suggests that was different with DCMS and that the conversations turned "clandestine". Michel contends that it was "advocacy".

Michel says there are a lot of lessons to learn from this process and that he can understand Jay's argument.

12.24pm: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has sent us emails flashed up on screens at the Leveson inquiry containing the assertion that Hunt found News Corp's arguments for a successful BSkyB were "persuasive".

    EMAIL ONE: MICHEL TO SMITH OCT 7, 2010

    From: Michel
    To: Smith
    Date: Thursday 7, Oct 2010
    Time: 16.11

    Adam,
    Hope you're well.
    As promised in Birmingham, attached briefing memo for Jeremy on the transaction, including Sky News audience shares.
    I hope it's helpful. Let me know if he needs more info
    I will keep you aware re timing
    Warm regards
    Fred

    EMAIL TWO - MICHEL TO SMITH

    To: Michel
    From: Smith
    Date: Friday 8, Oct, 2010

    Attached briefing on competition issues around the transaction as well

    EMAIL THREE: SMITH TO HUNT

    From Adam Smith
    To: Fred Michel
    Re: Confidential - Urgent
    Date : Monday 11/10/2010 7.02am

    Jeremy's response to this - 'persuasive'

12.24pm: Jay resumes his questioning about Michel's contact with Cable's department.

In one message, Michel was told by one of Cable's advisers that a meeting was completely off-limits because it was highly sensitive.

Jay asks whether he found it strange that DCMS's stance was more open.

"No, I thought DCMS's stance was more normal," Michel says.

12.13pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    So News Corp was told that Hunt found their bid arguments "persuasive".Was Hunt minister for Murdoch then?

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

12.12pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break.
Vince Cable Vince Cable. Photograph: INS News Agency/Rex Featu

12.10pm: Jay turns to Michel's dealings with Vince Cable's department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Michel says that in September and October 2010, many Liberal Democrat and Labour politicians were telling him that phone hacking would be a problem.

12.08pm: The Guardian deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweeted:

    2 interesting things so far: 1. Michel protecting Hunt to point by saying he wasn't supportive 2. Smith will deny lot of what Michel claimed

    — ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 24, 2012

and

    If you're following Michel at #Leveson you may find this mega-timeline of the BSkyB bid and Micehl's lobbying helpful bit.ly/I97mLM

    — ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 24, 2012

12.07pm: Jay turns to correspondence recently passed to the inquiry.

On 7 October 2010, Michel sent a confidential email containing commercially-sensitive information to Smith (Jay says Smith had two email accounts but Michel denies he saw any difference between them). Smith replied saying he had passed the information on to Jeremy.

The following day, Michel sent Smith a briefing note on media plurality issues. Smith replied on 11 October 2010 saying "Jeremy's response to this persuasive".

Jay asks if this was suitable reassurance.?

"There is two items: the plurality side and competition side. On the plurality side it was definitely something the UK was focusing on. The competition side was being focused on in Brussels," Michel says.

Jay asks whether Michel had the same correspondence with other departments.

Michel says he only did it with the DCMS and BIS.

12.03pm: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Michel won't say it strongly but seems obvious to a dodo that Hunt preferred the Sky bid when compared to the 'biassed' Cable.

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

and

    Michel now agrees that Team Hunt was "probably in favour" of Sky bid by Dec 10

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

12.03pm: Michel and Smith had a 22-minute phone conversation after Ofcom released its "issues letter" on the bid.

Michel later wrote from this conversation that Hunt was supportive of the bid and suprised at Ofcom's stance.

12.00pm: As Jay leads Michel through the trail of correspondence, the counsel indicates that Smith will later repeatedly deny Michel's interpretation of their conversations.

Jay asks again if Michel believed Hunt was supportive of the bid.

Michel replies:

    My view is that Jeremy Hunt was probably supportive of some of the arguments we were putting forward and he has made that public on the plurality [issue].

In another email, Michel says: "Jeremy has also asked me to send him relevant documents privately".

He tells Jay that he meant "directly" rather than "privately".

11.55am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Michel tripped up. Writes June 10 mail that UK govt would b "supportive" of bid after spkng to Smith - but says didn't know if Hunt onside

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

11.55am: Michel denies exaggerating Smith's comments about government support for the BSkyB bid, saying: "I don't need to puff myself up."

As Jay turns to another email to Murdoch, Michel denies again that he exaggerated what he was being told by Smith.

11.54am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Michel - "I was never told otherwise" that it would be wrong to work w Smith on bid behind scenes.

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

11.52am: Michel says his conversations with Smith were to "check on an ongoing basis the temperature in Westminster".

"Precisely," says Jay, before moving on.

11.50am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Hunt told Michel in a pre Xmas texts - all contact must be through "official channels" - ie Smith.

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

and

    Hunt told Michel in a pre Xmas texts - all contact must be through "official channels" - ie Smith.

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

and

    Leveson asks why Michel wrote to Murdoch it was "fine to liaise at that political level". Michel-Smith linkin addition to lawyer contact

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

11.50am: Jay asks whether he exaggerated that text conversation with Hunt in a memo to Murdoch.

Michel denies he exaggerated the conversation, but says he put his own interpretation on it.

11.46am: On 24 December 2010, Michel text Hunt to say James Murdoch asked him to be the point of contact for the culture secretary and Smith. Michel says in the text "glad John Zeff is in charge of dossier".

Hunt replied to say: "All contact with me now needs to be through official channels until decision made."

Michel says he took this to mean Hunt's office was his official channel.

He adds that he stopped having contact with Hunt "except for a few private contacts during the day".

11.44am: Jay says it is clear that Michel was working with Smith to send Hunt "helpful arguments" relating to the BSkyB bid.

Hunt replied: "Pleasure".

Michel says he does not know if these arguments were about the BSkyB bid.

11.40am: Jay raises a memo from 15 November 2010 to Michel which explained that Hunt was unable to meet James Murdoch. The memo says: "Jeremy's very frustrated about it but the permanent secretary has also now been involved."

Michel confirms that this message was from Smith, Hunt's special adviser, who suggested Murdoch and the culture secretary have a private conversation by mobile phone.

11.38am: In October 2010, Michel asked Hunt if he will see News Corp"s arguments for Sky bid. Hunt later texts back to say this is "persuasive".

Jay says these exchanges between Hunt and Michel showed that the culture minister was "reasonably favourably disposed to the bid".

Michel replies he would not have drawn that conclusion.

11.35am: Jay turns to text messages sent by Michel between June 2010 and December 2010.

On 27 August 2010, Michel sent a text message to Hunt about a speech by BBC director general Mark Thompson. Hunt replied: "Thanks. I agree, nothing about BBC role in competitive market". Michel described Thompson's speech as "a whimper" in a follow-up text. Hunt replied: "Because he trained his guns on you he failed to make his case to me".

These text messages were in response to Thompson's MacTaggart lecture in Edinburgh, in which he warned that BSkyB was too powerful and threatened to "dwarf" the BBC and its competitors.

11.34am: The Guardian editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:

    Jay: did you big up your role (by exaggerating in emails)?Michel: No i don't agree with that. I didn't need to#Leveson

    — alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 24, 2012

11.31am: Jay asks whether Michel exaggerated Smith's position in his emails to James Murdoch.

Michel says his emails were "accurate accounts of the conversations" but adds: "Maybe I was trying to keep the morale up internally" because News Corp was facing closed doors from other government departments.

He does not agree that he spun the emails to put himself in a good light.

"It was a very few, rare occasions where this happens," he says.

11.30am: Michel describes Smith was "very straightforward" and available to him.

Jay asks whether he believed Hunt was in favour of the BSkyB bid.

"It's something I can't say," Michel answers. He believed that Hunt was acting impartially over the takeover.

11.26am: Jay says that there were 191 telephone calls, 158 emails, and 799 text messages between Michel and the DCMS, of which 90% were with Smith. Between 28 November 2011 and 11 July 2011 Smith sent 257 text messages to Michel, Jay adds.

Michel says he did not have any reason to believe Smith was or was not in favour of the BSkyB bid.

11.25am: The Guardian-editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, has just tweeted:

    Michel I always assumed Smith, special adviser, represented Hunt's views at all times#Leveson

    — alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 24, 2012

11.24am: Michel says he believed that special advisers always represented the views of their boss, the secretary of state.

He believed some of the information from Adam Smith came after the special adviser's conversations with Hunt.

"There was two or three events where I had the impression some of the feedback I was given was discussed with the secretary of state before it was given to me."

11.22am: Michel's first witnes statement has now been published on the Leveson inquiry website.

11.21am: Michel is asked why he did not make clear in emails to James Murdoch that "JH" did not mean conversations with Hunt himself.

He explains:

    I think it's a shorthand I decided to use, both because I was having a lot of conversations at the beginning of January with the office of the secretary of state and I was trying to be as quick as I could when writing those.

Michel traded "less than five" messages with John Zeff, Hunt's head of media, the inquiry hears.

11.20am: Michel says there were no conversations with Hunt between 24 December 2010 and the end of July 2011, but there were texts with Hunt.

11.19am: Michel is asked why he lobbied other government departments outside Cable's before December 2010.

He says that News Corp was not given much chance to make representations to Cable "even though we tried".

Jay asks whether he hoped another government department might be able to influence Cable.

Michel says other departments were "very interested in hearing our case" because they wanted a debrief on the complex issues and undertakings involved in the takeover.

11.17am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Michel says "JH" meant Hunt or his spads or civil servant. Therefore Michel should not made any inappropriate contact w any of them.

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

11.16am: Michel says he did not believe it was inappropriate to lobby the office of the secretary of state.

"I was never of the view that it was inappropriate to at least try put the view or make representation to his office," he adds.

Jay asks why, then, he used "JH" as referring to Hunt's team in his emails to James Murdoch.

"I don't think anything inappropriate ever took place," he says.

11.15am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Michel edgy, cautious. Jay moving slowly, stalking him. Leveson's early tone sceptical.

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

11.12am: The Guardian's Dan Sabbagh has just tweeted:

    Michel says (dubiously) that he didn't have a specific view whether Tories or Labour would be more favorable to a Sky bid.

    — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 24, 2012

11.12am: The Guardian's Lisa O'Carroll has just tweeted:

    Michel written statement says "reference to hunt, JH, Jeremy in the emails are I'm fact summaries of what I was told by Adam smith #leveson

    — lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 24, 2012

11.11am: The Guardian deputy editor, Ian Katz, has just tweted:

    Here's what Michel reported to his bosses about his June 15 conversation with Cable on bid bit.ly/KcPEWD #Leveson

    — ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 24, 2012

11.10am: Michel is pressed on when he first knew about News Corp's £8bn bid for BSkyB.

He says there were internal discussions and reports in the media from when he joined in May 2009, but that he was formally told the day before it was publicly announced.

He adds that he did not have a specific view on which government ministers would and would not be in favour of the bid. He was tasked to discover what government ministers – including business secretary Vince Cable – thought of the bid.

11.07am: Michel says he was only aware News Corp was launching a bid for full control of BSkyB the day before it was publicly announced. He adds that he was not in the "circle of confidence" that knew in advance.

In his witness statement, Michel says his only contact with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was "solely with Mr Hunt's adviser Adam Smith and the (DCMS) director of media Jon Zeff," according to the Evening Standard reporter Tom Harper at the court:

    Frederic Michel w/s: "My contact was solely with Mr Hunt's adviser Adam Smith and the (DCMS) director of media Jon Zeff"

    — Tom Harper (@TomJHarper) May 24, 2012

11.04am: Michel joined News Corp as director of public affairs for Europe in May 2009.

He says News Corp's BSkyB bid "became a very full job" from September 2010 and increased "further and further" throughout the process. It took up 80% of his time, he adds.

11.02am: The inquiry has resumed and News Corporation lobbyist Frédéric Michel takes the witness stand.

Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, is leading the questioning.

11.01am: Sky News reporter Martin Brunt has just tweeted:

    #phone Ex-News International CEO Rebekah Brooks bailed for another two months on phone hacking and bungs allegations

    — martinbrunt (@skymartinbrunt) May 24, 2012

10.57am: The Guardian's Maya Wolfe-Robinson has just tweeted:

    Here's the judgment in the Trimingham v Associated Newspapers Ltd bit.ly/KcNJBa

    — Maya Wolfe-Robinson (@mwolferobinson) May 24, 2012

10.56am: Brooke has completed his evidence and the inquiry is taking a short break.

10.55am: Brooke is asked what functions he believes the reconstituted press regulator should have.

He says: "I wouldn't want to do a big bang," and advises that the powers of the new regulator be increased over time instead of all at once.

Leveson asks when there be this appetite for change.

Brooke says a "big bang" change to press regulation "needs a big person to do it".

10.50am: You can watch today's hearing live on the Leveson inquiry website here.

10.48am: Brooke says it is a "great pity" the government and press was not able to reach an agreement and move forward.

The government might have been able to sleep better at night because it had not crossed the Rubicon, but it might have been better if had, says Brooke.

10.47am: The Guardian's Josh Halliday has just tweeted about the Trimingham case:

    The Judge Tugendhat ruling on Trimingham-Daily Mail sounds significant. What did Trimingham, a PR, do to limit expectation of privacy?

    — Josh Halliday (@JoshHalliday) May 24, 2012

and

    Trimingham describes ruling as potential "blueprint for bullies and bigots" – @BBCNews

    — Josh Halliday (@JoshHalliday) May 24, 2012

10.42am: Brooke is asked whether he was lobbied by the press in this period.

He says he cannot recall any lobbying over press regulation between 1992 and 1994.

10.42am: Brooke says he was effectively being asked by the then prime minister, John Major, to take the white paper back to the drawing board.

Later, in June 1994, the then home secretary proposed that the white paper could be published without the contested draft clauses.

10.41am: The Guardian's Josh Halliday has just tweeted about the Trimingham case:

    Judge on Trimingham: [She] was not the purely private figure she claims to be. Her reasonable expectation of privacy has become limited" -PA

    — Josh Halliday (@JoshHalliday) May 24, 2012

10.38am: No 10 wrote to Brooke to recommend continuing pressure to improve self-regulation but asked that a white paper be redrafted featuring arguments against it, the inquiry hears.

10.34am: Lord Wakeham was instrumental in incorporating a privacy tort into the Press Complaints Commission code, says Brooke.

10.29am: Brooke is asked whether the government believed the Press Complaints Commission, when established, would be a regulator.

He replies: "We believed it would be a self-regulator".

Lord Justice Leveson presses Brooke on what he understood by "self-regulator".

Brooke says "he would not go to the stake for the phrase," indicating that the government was not entirely sure of the self-regulatory function.

10.23am: Sky News has just tweeted about the Trimingham case:

    Court orders Carina Trimingham to pay £250,000 in costs within 14 days after losing privacy case.

    — Sky News Newsdesk (@SkyNewsBreak) May 24, 2012

10.22am: Brooke says it is correct that the government gave the press one more chance to avoid regulation after the 1993 Calcutt report.

He describes further proposals suggested by the MP Clive Soley as "draconian".

10.19am: Calcutt's report on the press was leaked so the government had to bring forward its response, says Brooke.

His 1993 Review of Press Self-Regulation reiterated the potential need for a statutory press tribunal, as well as sterner laws to protect privacy.

Brooke says in his witness statement that the government was "extremely reluctant" to introduce statutory regulation of the press.

He adds:

    The press has been not subject to statutory interference since 1695. The first time it happens is going to be a very significant event.

10.17am: Elsewhere at the high court, BBC political correspondent Carole Walker has just tweeted about a privacy case involving Chris Huhne's partner Carina Trimingham:

    Carina Trimmingham has lost her case against the Daily Mail

    — Carole Walker (@carolewalkercw) May 24, 2012

10.15am: Brooke was the national heritage secretary between 1992 and 1994, replacing David Mellor in the post.

Barr asks whether the press exacted revenge on Mellor because he appointed Sir David Calcutt to review self-regulation of the press.

Brooke cannot remember having any conversations about that at the time.

10.07am: Lord Brooke, the former national heritage secretary, has taken the stand.

David Barr, junior counsel to the inquiry, is questioning Brooke.

10.05am: The Guardian's John Plunkett has sent us breaking goat news from the steps of the high court. No kidding: that is a real goat.

9.58am: The Guardian's Esther Addley has just tweeted from the high court:

    Leveson inquiry: Lord Brooke Leveson inquiry: Lord Brooke

    Adam Smith is in court, with (i assume) his lawyer. Order of witnesses: Lord (Peter) Brooke, Frederic Michel, Smith #Leveson

    — esther addley (@estheraddley) May 24, 2012

9.51am: Good morning and welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog.
Goat at the Leevson inquiry Goat at the Leveson inquiry. Photograph: John Plunkett/Guardian

All eyes will be on the culture secretary Jeremy Hunt today as his former special adviser, Adam Smith, and the News Corporation lobbyist, Frédéric Michel, give evidence about their role in News Corp's abandoned £8bn bid for BSkyB.

It will be the first time the pair have spoken publicly since the huge row over Hunt's handling of the bid erupted at the end of April.

Smith resigned on 26 April after he admitted he allowed the impression to be created of too close a relationship between News Corp and Hunt's Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

More than 160 pages of emails published at the Leveson inquiry showed that News Corp's Michel was given inside information on ministerial thinking over the company's bid for BSkyB, including handing over commercially confidential information and repeatedly suggesting that Hunt wanted the bid to succeed.

Smith will be pressed on whether he was a rogue operator acting without the authority of Hunt and other senior colleagues in the department. Jonathan Stephens, the department's top civil servant, will give evidence on Friday and Hunt is expected to be called in the coming weeks.

The pair will appear after evidence from Lord Brooke, the Tory cabinet minister between 1989 and 1994. Brooke was the national heritage secretary from 1992 to 1994 in a department later renamed Department for Culture, Media and Sport; he was the Northern Ireland secretary between 1989 and 1992.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/may/24/leveson-inquiry-adam-smith-frederic-michel#block-146 # pressreform # Leveson