:00:20. > :00:23.the Prime Minister's former Lieutenants in jail. I was given
:00:24. > :00:27.assurances that he didn't know about phone hacking, that turns out not to
:00:28. > :00:34.be the case and I was always clear if that happened I would apologise
:00:35. > :00:38.and I do so unreservedly today. He may be happier that his close
:00:39. > :00:42.friend, Rebekah Brooks, is cleared. She said she didn't know what was
:00:43. > :00:49.going on. So how did she get to the top of News International? Rupert
:00:50. > :00:56.did say to me, and this would be an exact quote, he said "she social
:00:57. > :00:59.climbed her way up my family". On tonight's Newsnight we will hear
:01:00. > :01:11.from victim, politician and the journalist who first broke the
:01:12. > :01:15.story. Good evening, guess who said "a
:01:16. > :01:20.newspaper can create great controversy, light on injustices,
:01:21. > :01:29.just as it can hide things and be a great power for evil"? It was Ruperp
:01:30. > :01:33.Murdoch, the head of the -- Rupert Murdoch. The conviction of two men
:01:34. > :01:38.for the little known crime of listening to a voicemail, he claimed
:01:39. > :01:42.was down to one rogue reporter. A seven month criminal trial later and
:01:43. > :01:46.many arrests, tonight it is the Prime Minister who is saying sorry.
:01:47. > :01:51.The man he trusted enough to take into Number Ten was the former News
:01:52. > :01:55.of the World editor, Andy Coulson, who was today found guilty of
:01:56. > :02:00.conspiracy to hack phones by an Old Bailey jury. But his then boss,
:02:01. > :02:03.Rebekah Brooks, was cleared. We have been following this case all the way
:02:04. > :02:08.through for us. An extraordinary day, what are we to make of it? It
:02:09. > :02:15.is a hugely dramatic day, of course, it is a ?30 million police inquiry
:02:16. > :02:19.lasting years. It has had nearly an eight-month trial costing tens of
:02:20. > :02:23.billions more. Huge reputations at stake, it is the sharp end of one of
:02:24. > :02:29.the biggest media scandals Britain has ever seen. Only one, thus far,
:02:30. > :02:33.only one guilty finding, Andy Coulson. Quite sensationally in some
:02:34. > :02:36.respects because there was huge expectation around this, Rebekah
:02:37. > :02:39.Brooks and most of the others found not guilty on the counts they faced.
:02:40. > :02:42.There will be questions for the prosecuting authorities. But
:02:43. > :02:47.nevertheless, we have also been given a glimpse, you mentioned it in
:02:48. > :02:54.the introduction, of the sheer scale of what has gone on here. Royal
:02:55. > :02:58.phone hacks, 200+, David Blunkett personally, 300+, this was an
:02:59. > :03:02.industrial scale operation. As much as we now know how big the scale
:03:03. > :03:06.was, there is potentially more to come, where to next? In terms of the
:03:07. > :03:15.company, well there are more trials to come, they start in the autumn
:03:16. > :03:18.and run into 2015. Les Hinton has been interviewed under caution, the
:03:19. > :03:30.Guardian are reporting that the police want to talk to are you you
:03:31. > :03:34.Rupert Murdock personally, the questions go back to David Cameron,
:03:35. > :03:37.how he hired Andy Coulson and how he took him into Number Ten, against
:03:38. > :03:42.advice at every stage who said he had to be really, really careful
:03:43. > :03:47.about this. It was an awkward promise for David Cameron to keep,
:03:48. > :03:50.but keep it he did. Apologising this afternoon for firing Andy Coulson in
:03:51. > :03:54.the first place. In his words, "giving him a second chance". He's
:03:55. > :03:58.not the first politician who called on the arch skills of Fleet Street
:03:59. > :04:03.editors to help them get elected, but neither he nor Coulson can ever
:04:04. > :04:08.have thought in their worst nightmare that it would turn out
:04:09. > :04:11.like this. ??FORCEDWHI
:04:12. > :04:18.From court into a media frenzy, and then what? Prison? We await the
:04:19. > :04:22.judge's sentence. But the verdict, guilty, of conspiring to hack
:04:23. > :04:28.phones. In one e-mail Andy Coulson instructed one of his News of the
:04:29. > :04:32.World reporters "do his own". But it was Coulson who was done for. As
:04:33. > :04:36.David Cameron finished his speech launching the Conservative's
:04:37. > :04:39.manifesto in 2010, his Director of Communications was in the
:04:40. > :04:42.background, always in the background, steering journalists and
:04:43. > :04:46.perhaps enjoying the thought that he and his boss were on their way to
:04:47. > :04:50.bigger and better jobs. But now, it is the man who appointed him who is
:04:51. > :04:54.having to answer difficult questions. I take full
:04:55. > :04:58.responsibility for employing Andy Coulson. I did so on the basis of
:04:59. > :05:02.undertakings I was given by him about phone hacking and those turn
:05:03. > :05:06.out not to be the case. I always said that if they turned out to be
:05:07. > :05:11.wrong I would make a full and frank apology, and I do that today. I'm
:05:12. > :05:15.extremely sorry that I employed him, it was the wrong decision, and I'm
:05:16. > :05:18.very clear about that. How much damage do you think you did the
:05:19. > :05:21.Prime Minister Mr Coulson? The Labour leader is equally clear this
:05:22. > :05:26.is not the end of the questions for the Prime Minister. We now know that
:05:27. > :05:32.he brought a criminal into the heart of Downing Street. David Cameron was
:05:33. > :05:36.warned about Andy Coulson, the evidence mounted up against Andy
:05:37. > :05:41.Coulson. David Cameron must have had his suspicions about Andy Coulson,
:05:42. > :05:46.and yet he refused to act. Now I believe this isn't just a serious
:05:47. > :05:50.error of judgment, this taints David Cameron's Government. We now know
:05:51. > :05:56.that he put his relationship with Rupert Murdock ahead of doing the
:05:57. > :06:01.right thing when it came to doing the right thing with Andy Coulson.
:06:02. > :06:05.And David Cameron received multiple warnings from Nick Clegg and Paddy
:06:06. > :06:10.Ashdown, by the at the ender of the Guardian and the then enity Prime
:06:11. > :06:15.Minister, John Prescott. Also by senior Conservative backbenchers,
:06:16. > :06:19.all telling the Prime Minister do not have anything to do with this
:06:20. > :06:23.man. He would have seen with people advising him against Coulson the
:06:24. > :06:27.voice of snobbery, and he wanted to have that connection. He basically,
:06:28. > :06:34.it is not that he wanted the Sun's vote, but he wanted the vote of Sun
:06:35. > :06:40.readers and even people who didn't read it, he thought would bring
:06:41. > :06:44.them. Even friends of David Cameron are puzzled how determined he was to
:06:45. > :06:47.bring a man with such a checkered past with him beyond the gates into
:06:48. > :06:52.the heart of his administration. When he got there, why wasn't Andy
:06:53. > :06:56.Coulson subjected to the same level of official vetting as previous and
:06:57. > :06:59.subsequent directors of communication. Was it, as some
:07:00. > :07:05.believe, that they didn't want to know the truth? I swear by Almighty
:07:06. > :07:09.God that the evidence I shall give... The Prime Minister was asked
:07:10. > :07:13.about the failure to vet Coulson to the highest level during the
:07:14. > :07:17.evidence he gave to the Leveson Inquiry. The issue of who was vetted
:07:18. > :07:20.to what level is for the Civil Service not the Prime Minister. The
:07:21. > :07:24.decision was taken by the Permanent Secretary at Number Ten, Jeremy
:07:25. > :07:28.Heywood, not by me. Having looked at all of this I'm convinced this is a
:07:29. > :07:34.complete red herring. The decision was made properly by the Civil
:07:35. > :07:37.Service, it wasn't abnormal. Mr Cameron will no doubt face more
:07:38. > :07:44.scrutiny about his decision to hire and keep Andy Coulson tomorrow at
:07:45. > :07:52.Prime Minister's Questions. With us now are Harriet Harmen, deputy
:07:53. > :07:56.leader of the Labour Party, and John Wittingdale. David Cameron said he
:07:57. > :07:59.would apologise if this is what happened, he has done that, he has
:08:00. > :08:02.been very clear about that, he didn't stint in his apology,
:08:03. > :08:07.shouldn't this be the end of the story for him? No, I don't think so.
:08:08. > :08:12.I don't think that makes it OK at all. I mean in the first place why
:08:13. > :08:18.did he place so little concern on what had happened to those victims,
:08:19. > :08:22.the Dowlers, the McCanns, who had been victims of crime and then had
:08:23. > :08:26.their lives turned more upside down and their privacy invaded and their
:08:27. > :08:29.pain and suffering made worse by abuse of the press. That already was
:08:30. > :08:34.known about and that was accepted. And he swept that aside because he
:08:35. > :08:38.wanted to have Andy Coulson by his side in Number Ten and the second
:08:39. > :08:44.thing I think that is really not OK to accept is the idea that David
:08:45. > :08:48.Cameron was some how niave, trusting, he wanted to give him a
:08:49. > :08:53.second chance like some kind of probation officer. That does not
:08:54. > :08:57.wash. He was not somebody who admit what had he had done and was turning
:08:58. > :09:00.over a new leaf, he was somebody who had not accepted what he had done.
:09:01. > :09:05.And the reason why Cameron gave him this second chance and ignored the
:09:06. > :09:12.concerns of the victims is because he wanted to have Andy Coulson by
:09:13. > :09:15.his side and a good link in to Murdoch, that is how it looks to me.
:09:16. > :09:18.In the same way many Labour politicians have too, we will come
:09:19. > :09:22.to that in a minute? We are talking about somebody who is a criminal. It
:09:23. > :09:26.is easy to criticise David Cameron with hindsight, when the fullness of
:09:27. > :09:31.the revelations came out, he ordered the Leveson Inquiry, and he now has
:09:32. > :09:34.backed the royal charter, the cross-party attempt to clean up the
:09:35. > :09:40.press. What do you actually want him to do now? Well, it wasn't that this
:09:41. > :09:44.only came out afterwards. He was warned before he took Andy Coulson
:09:45. > :09:48.into Downing Street and even after he was in Downing Street and
:09:49. > :09:52.evidence and the allegations mounted, like the whole front page
:09:53. > :09:56.of the New York Times. He turned his face against it. What do you want
:09:57. > :10:00.him to do now, order an inquiry into the vetting of Andy Coulson? It is
:10:01. > :10:04.strange that there wasn't proper vetting of him. What he should
:10:05. > :10:09.acknowledge is actually he did it to curry favour with the Murdoch press,
:10:10. > :10:17.he said I did it, I was too trusting and I will apologise. What he wasn't
:10:18. > :10:23.admit is he was prepared to have the office of Prime Minister and Downing
:10:24. > :10:27.Street sullied because he wanted to curry favour with the Murdoch press.
:10:28. > :10:36.What came out in the Leveson Inquiry was the extraordinary close knit
:10:37. > :10:46.relationship of new Labour with the Murdoches, we heard Gordon Brown's
:10:47. > :10:50.wife a pyjama party with Rupert Murdoch's wife. You can't have it
:10:51. > :10:54.both ways? There is two separate things, was this a different order
:10:55. > :10:58.of things? I think it was, this was criminal activity. This wasn't just
:10:59. > :11:01.cosying up at parties, this was inviting into the heart of Downing
:11:02. > :11:05.Street somebody who had been engaged in criminal activity which had
:11:06. > :11:08.caused people to suffer. Secondly, it is the case and this has been
:11:09. > :11:13.acknowledged and we have been quite clear on this, is there is a problem
:11:14. > :11:16.if there is a monopoly ownership of the press and the press becomes too
:11:17. > :11:21.powerful and more powerful than those who are elected. David Cameron
:11:22. > :11:23.did not know of cour because that conviction only happened today, he
:11:24. > :11:31.didn't know about that at the time. What he did know is that actually
:11:32. > :11:37.whilst Andy Coulson had been editor, criminal activity was going on. This
:11:38. > :11:41.trial has not even concluded. They were already convicted while he was
:11:42. > :11:46.editor. If your issue with this is how it exposed the closeness of the
:11:47. > :11:50.links, and the links between News International and the Conservatives
:11:51. > :11:54.were so inappropriate, why is your current leader allowing himself to
:11:55. > :11:58.be photographed holding up a copy of the Sun if the links are so
:11:59. > :12:03.terrible? What we are talking about is one newspaper owner having too
:12:04. > :12:10.much power. Nobody is boycotting the Sun. I disapprove of page 3, but the
:12:11. > :12:13.Sun readers are people we need to be communicating with, that is
:12:14. > :12:19.completely different than actually hiring someone who is presiding over
:12:20. > :12:25.criminal activity. Harriet Harmen is right, it was a terrible error of
:12:26. > :12:29.judgment for David Cameron to hire Andy Coulson? David Cameron has said
:12:30. > :12:32.it was a bad decision, but at the time you have to remember all we
:12:33. > :12:38.knew was one reporter had been convicted of phone hacking of the
:12:39. > :12:41.aides to the Royal Family. We didn't know anything about the Dowler, we
:12:42. > :12:46.didn't know about the huge numbers of victims which were subsequently
:12:47. > :12:50.revealed by the Mulcaire papers. We knew that a reporter had been
:12:51. > :12:53.convicted and Andy Coulson not only told David Cameron, he then came
:12:54. > :12:57.before my Select Committee after that and said categorically he had
:12:58. > :13:06.no knowledge and involvement in phone hacking. By the time he went
:13:07. > :13:10.into Number Ten and Downing Street that is something of a different
:13:11. > :13:13.order. But there were people including you... He was still saying
:13:14. > :13:16.he had no knowledge and involvement. There were people in the party
:13:17. > :13:22.warning David Cameron, were you one of them who warned him to go careful
:13:23. > :13:26.carefully? The only thing I said is here is somebody who decided to
:13:27. > :13:31.resign from the newspaper because somebody in his employment had been
:13:32. > :13:34.convicted of a criminal offence. I think that was the correct decision,
:13:35. > :13:37.my committee concluded even though we couldn't demonstrate any evidence
:13:38. > :13:41.to prove he had known, nevertheless he was right to resign. The judgment
:13:42. > :13:45.about whether or not to take him on was one which David Cameron made and
:13:46. > :13:50.he said in his own words that he thought he deserved a second chance.
:13:51. > :13:53.I didn't directly speak to him, I personally felt I wasn't sure
:13:54. > :13:56.whether the message was the right one. But I fully understand that
:13:57. > :13:58.whether the message was the right felt he would give him a second
:13:59. > :14:04.whether the message was the right difficult to condemn someone.
:14:05. > :14:04.whether the message was the right signals to get that message back,
:14:05. > :14:07.whether the message was the right and there were people
:14:08. > :14:10.whether the message was the right Conservative Party warning him? I
:14:11. > :14:15.had been told by Andy Coulson, in a full, formal hearing of the Select
:14:16. > :14:18.Committee that he had no knowledge or involvement. Therefore of course
:14:19. > :14:24.we assumed that he must be telling the truth. This whole thing about
:14:25. > :14:27.second chances, either this is the earliest point either Andy Coulson
:14:28. > :14:32.did not know what was going on in his newspaper at the very best he
:14:33. > :14:36.had no idea, so why give him a second chance and make him Director
:14:37. > :14:39.of Communications in Number Ten. It doesn't wash. We must be careful
:14:40. > :14:43.here because the proceedings are not complete. Before we close, Harriet
:14:44. > :14:48.Harman, all the parties have said at the time of Leveson that this was a
:14:49. > :14:53.moment, once and for all to sort out press standards. Do you believe what
:14:54. > :14:56.the press has come up with meets the requirements of Lord Leveson? One of
:14:57. > :15:00.the things about the framework that was agreement by all parties in the
:15:01. > :15:03.House of Commons and House of Lords is we shouldn't be judging
:15:04. > :15:06.House of Commons and House of Lords regulator, we should have an
:15:07. > :15:10.independent recognising panel set up and they will judge whether the
:15:11. > :15:15.regular Tatar the press come -- regulator the press come forward is
:15:16. > :15:19.part of the Leveson principles. The regulator has not yet been appointed
:15:20. > :15:22.and they will look at any regulator put forward for recognition and say
:15:23. > :15:27.is it independent, does it give people a fair deal. After all of
:15:28. > :15:30.this, still a work in progress? Yes and we cannot have business as
:15:31. > :15:35.usual. Thank you very much for coming in tonight. The outcome
:15:36. > :15:38.couldn't be more different for Coulson's former boss, colleague and
:15:39. > :15:42.lover, Rebekah Brooks. When she heard the jury had cleared her and
:15:43. > :15:45.her husband Charley Brooks she was overwhelmed and had to be helped
:15:46. > :15:50.from the court by the matron at the Old Bailey. She's free, but she can
:15:51. > :15:57.hardly return to the life she lived before as the former chief executive
:15:58. > :16:02.of News International, she was one of the most powerful people in the
:16:03. > :16:14.land. Rebekah Brooks is a dream client. So she spent 13 days in the
:16:15. > :16:24.witness box and she was brilliant. Rupert did say she social climbed
:16:25. > :16:30.her way up my family. She company these people much closer, she had
:16:31. > :16:34.them all on speed dial. Can Confident, wealthy, a powerful and
:16:35. > :16:38.influential networker at the highest level. Rebekah Brooks could be charm
:16:39. > :16:43.itself. A hugely impressive character, in control apparently of
:16:44. > :16:47.all she surveyed, and what a career, from office runner to chief
:16:48. > :16:54.executive in just 20 years. The first thing you notice about her is
:16:55. > :16:59.that fantastic shock of red hair. You know, it is almost as big as she
:17:00. > :17:04.is. She was desperate to learn. It was an admirable quality that she
:17:05. > :17:09.had. She was desperate to know what was going on and how it was
:17:10. > :17:17.achieved, how the package was brought up and ended up in the
:17:18. > :17:22.paper. In no time at all she was Charli, he's boss as deputy editor
:17:23. > :17:24.of the Sun, then on to News of the World, and then chief executive of
:17:25. > :17:29.the whole of News International. In the process she became close to
:17:30. > :17:36.first Elizabeth Murdoch and then to James, but especially close to
:17:37. > :17:44.Rupert. Rupert did say to me, and this would be an exact quote, he
:17:45. > :17:49.said, "she social climbed her way up my family". Now Rupert is funny
:17:50. > :17:54.because in conversation Rupert almost never says anything positive
:17:55. > :17:58.about anyone, and is prone to say incredibly negative things about
:17:59. > :18:07.people he actually is very close to. But I think that's a very precise
:18:08. > :18:11.description. Remember Rupert is astute about nothing so much as
:18:12. > :18:18.ambition itself. And he likes ambition. So much so that when the
:18:19. > :18:23.hacking scandal became a full on corporate crisis, Murdoch senior's
:18:24. > :18:29.first thoughts apparently were for his protege. When a reporter asked
:18:30. > :18:34.Rupert Murdoch was his priority, barely visible he gestures towards
:18:35. > :18:38.Rebekah Brooks and says "this one". For all their closeness and mutual
:18:39. > :18:42.affection, Murdoch and Brooks were in reality quite different. He saw
:18:43. > :18:46.himself as the anti-establishment outsider, she meanwhile had become
:18:47. > :18:52.the consumate new establishment insider, friend and even confidant
:18:53. > :18:57.of the most senior politicians in the land. She became very close to
:18:58. > :19:05.new Labour, thanks to her first husband, EastEnders star and top
:19:06. > :19:10.Labour luvvie, Ross Kemp. In no time at all she was a member of the
:19:11. > :19:16.family, fiercely protective as "our Tony", as she was heard to call him
:19:17. > :19:24.and sleepovers with Sarah Brown. And David Cameron was a close friend of
:19:25. > :19:29.her second husband, Charlie Brooks, all members of the Chipping Norton
:19:30. > :19:33.set. Brooks had become a power in the land. Then came phone hacking,
:19:34. > :19:38.three sets of criminal charges, an eight month trial and 13 days on the
:19:39. > :19:44.stand. Rebekah Brooks is a dream client. She spent I think it was 13
:19:45. > :19:52.days in the witness box, and she was brilliant. She knew the answers that
:19:53. > :19:57.she wanted to give. Her personal character came across as being
:19:58. > :20:01.submissive, kind, quite funny. And the prosecution were left in a
:20:02. > :20:05.rather unusual position really that quite apart from picking holes in
:20:06. > :20:11.what she had said, they launched a direct attack on her, saying to the
:20:12. > :20:14.jury, that was a performance. The prosecution case against Rebekah
:20:15. > :20:18.Brooks was that despite being on holiday in the week the News of the
:20:19. > :20:22.World ran a story based on the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone, she
:20:23. > :20:25.had been in close enough contact with the office to know what was
:20:26. > :20:31.going on. The jury were not convinced. Brooks's defence was not
:20:32. > :20:34.that phone hacking and the rest didn't happen, rather than she had
:20:35. > :20:37.known nothing about it. That although she had signed off hundreds
:20:38. > :20:41.of thousands of pounds worth of payments over the years to hackers
:20:42. > :20:47.and others, she had done so with no knowledge of who or what they were
:20:48. > :20:50.for. It is this apparant lack of knowledge, about the financial
:20:51. > :20:58.details of her business, that would appear to mark Brooks out from other
:20:59. > :21:03.Murdoch bosses. Murdoch kept terrific tabs on the figures, there
:21:04. > :21:10.was weekly figures of output, income, how many papers had been
:21:11. > :21:15.printed, how many ads had gone and so on. These would be supplied to
:21:16. > :21:20.him and he would question executives if they didn't have information or
:21:21. > :21:24.not. I think if you look at Rebekah Brooks regime that she had it easier
:21:25. > :21:30.than the editors of the Sunday Times and other papers. I think he had Mel
:21:31. > :21:33.bowed and was a lot more relaxed and that had a lot to do with his
:21:34. > :21:39.personal relationship with her, he trusted her. Acquittal on all
:21:40. > :21:43.charges leaves Rebekah Brooks vindicated and Rupert Murdoch no
:21:44. > :21:47.doubt relieved, but must leave open the question of whether she was ever
:21:48. > :21:58.really the right person to run a newspaper business. The Guardian's
:21:59. > :22:04.investigative report e Nick Davies broke the story in 2009 that hack
:22:05. > :22:08.was not limited to one rogue reporter. He's with us now. In the
:22:09. > :22:12.end one man has been convicted today, five people acquitted,
:22:13. > :22:15.including Rebekah Brooks. A newspaper closed down, hundreds of
:22:16. > :22:20.people lost their jobs, didn't really amount to very much did it?
:22:21. > :22:27.You have got your facts wrong, I'm so sorry. Operation Wheating this
:22:28. > :22:30.police inquiry charged eight people with phone hacking, and five pleaded
:22:31. > :22:36.guilty before the trial started. Today you had a sixth person
:22:37. > :22:40.convicted, it is a little bit misleading because the five people
:22:41. > :22:43.who pleaded guilty before the trial started are not in the dock. They
:22:44. > :22:47.charged eight and got six convictions, the editor, three news
:22:48. > :22:51.editors, two specialist hackers and in addition to the one rogue
:22:52. > :22:56.reporter originally convicted. A pretty high score. For many people
:22:57. > :23:00.the real totem of this story, the person who was the chief executive
:23:01. > :23:04.of the business in question, Rebekah Brooks, walked completely free? We
:23:05. > :23:07.need to think about Rebekah Brooks's acquittals, here is the thing, I
:23:08. > :23:10.think public opinion doesn't understand why she was acquitted.
:23:11. > :23:14.You look at some of the stuff on Twitter today, but there is a really
:23:15. > :23:17.easy explanation about why she was acquitted which is the prosecution
:23:18. > :23:22.case was weak. I have spent six-and-a-half years trying to
:23:23. > :23:26.uncover this scandal, I spent almost all of the last eight months
:23:27. > :23:30.listening to the evidence. If I was on the jury I would have found her
:23:31. > :23:35.not guilty. The case was too weak and the state doesn't have a right
:23:36. > :23:39.to send people to prison unless it can prove its case. This is
:23:40. > :23:45.important, some people rage out there talking about her being a
:23:46. > :23:49.witch, what they are doing is hypocrisy, they are behaving like
:23:50. > :23:53.the worst brutes at the bad end of Fleet Street who have a history of
:23:54. > :23:58.thinking they know better than juries, and organising lynch mob
:23:59. > :24:03.justice against her. Go quiet, give her the verdicts, she is entitled to
:24:04. > :24:08.them. And this, this is not a story about Rebekah Brooks. It is a story
:24:09. > :24:11.with layers and layers of scandal, which begins with the sheer scale of
:24:12. > :24:14.crime, at the News of the World and other newsrooms in Fleet Street.
:24:15. > :24:18.Then it is about the historic failure of the press regulator, not
:24:19. > :24:22.just to deal with the crime but to enforce their own Code of Conduct,
:24:23. > :24:28.then it is about the historic failure of the police and then
:24:29. > :24:31.Government. And their relationship with Rupert Murdoch. It is not about
:24:32. > :24:35.Rebekah Brooks, it is about power. She was someone who was extremely
:24:36. > :24:39.powerful individual, her career has been destroyed, she's the mother of
:24:40. > :24:43.a young child, she has walked free from court and in your view the case
:24:44. > :24:48.against her was weak. Do you feel any sympathy towards her? A healthy
:24:49. > :24:52.criminal justice system will take evidence, will not do what it did
:24:53. > :24:55.when it was behaving corruptly in the past and saying these are
:24:56. > :24:58.important people let's not look at that, and it will pass it on. The
:24:59. > :25:02.evidence in this case was strong enough for the Crown Prosecution
:25:03. > :25:08.Service to say this needs to go forward to a Magistrates' Court, and
:25:09. > :25:14.the magistrates court were right to say it was a prima facia case. The
:25:15. > :25:18.judge looked at it and thought it chuck it out but said no, to a jury.
:25:19. > :25:23.Do you have any regret about what happened here at all? Not at all, we
:25:24. > :25:28.are uncovering a massive scandal. She's entitled to her verdicts, but
:25:29. > :25:32.what you had here was a criminal justice system finally doing its job
:25:33. > :25:35.properly. Before you had cover-up and failure at every stage. It was
:25:36. > :25:38.absolutely right that they brought these charges. You can see that by
:25:39. > :25:42.the fact that contrary to what Steve said at the beginning, six of the
:25:43. > :25:47.eight people who have been charged with conspiracy to hack phones are
:25:48. > :25:52.guilty. 5,500 victims they have identified of the hacking, massive.
:25:53. > :25:56.There have been, however, many, many journalists swept up in this, many
:25:57. > :26:00.on bail for years sometimes, then with no charges brought. And also
:26:01. > :26:03.many who feared that this is damaging the freedom of the press,
:26:04. > :26:06.and allowed the freedom of the press's enemies, given them a
:26:07. > :26:14.whacking great amount of ammunition against the press. It hasn't damaged
:26:15. > :26:16.the freedom of the press to commit crime, to think it is above the law,
:26:17. > :26:21.to bully the police and Government, and set up a corrupt press
:26:22. > :26:25.regulator. In all those ways the freedom of the press has been
:26:26. > :26:28.damaged. I'm really glad. I'm a journalist a spend my working life
:26:29. > :26:32.in that profession, most journalists are good honest people, there is a
:26:33. > :26:37.dark end of Fleet Street who have brought shame on the profession and
:26:38. > :26:41.have corrupted Government and bullied police, it is great to clean
:26:42. > :26:45.it up. I'm saying give Rebekah Brooks her verdicts, it is not the
:26:46. > :26:48.story, it is about power. Don't complain about what the police did,
:26:49. > :26:52.they finally did what the public needed them to do, to run an honest,
:26:53. > :26:57.thorough inquiry. The trial was a good one. You can't criticise it, a
:26:58. > :27:01.good judge, excellent jury, a good result here. An acquittal doesn't
:27:02. > :27:04.mean the system is failing, but it is doing its job and separating the
:27:05. > :27:07.evidence from the weak evidence. Isn't part of the truth that your
:27:08. > :27:12.story that changed the dynamic of all of this, the story about Milly
:27:13. > :27:16.Dowler's voicemail that caused such a public outcry that really got
:27:17. > :27:22.probably many of the members of the public to notice this for the first
:27:23. > :27:25.time. On the specifics, the deletion of Milly Dowler's voicemail, it
:27:26. > :27:30.wasn't entirely and completely accurate. And your paper have made a
:27:31. > :27:34.very detailed clarification on that. And that's what led to the Leveson
:27:35. > :27:38.Inquiry, do you accept that? No that is a really complicated way of
:27:39. > :27:40.putting it. If we are talking about the criminal investigation,
:27:41. > :27:44.Operation Wheating, which has done all this work, started six months
:27:45. > :27:46.before we published the Milly Dowler stories, no connection at all.
:27:47. > :27:50.Secondly, there was a massive crisis before we published the story.
:27:51. > :27:53.Thirdly, at the end of the day it is a complicated question and you might
:27:54. > :27:57.not want to get into it, we still don't know the truth about that. The
:27:58. > :28:01.evidence strongly suggests, we are running a story about it, the News
:28:02. > :28:07.of the World did manually delete messages, just not the ones that
:28:08. > :28:13.caused the false hope. We are running out of time, what is next?
:28:14. > :28:16.We have disclosed in the Guardian that Rupert Murdoch will be
:28:17. > :28:21.interviewed as a suspect by Scotland Yard. You have got another 12 trials
:28:22. > :28:24.already scheduled involving another 20 current or former News of the
:28:25. > :28:29.World journalist, in the background a total of 210 people have been
:28:30. > :28:33.arrested, including 101 journalists from six different newspapers. There
:28:34. > :28:36.are decisions yet to be made about whether they should be charged. In
:28:37. > :28:39.summary you have probably got another two years of criminal
:28:40. > :28:43.trials, there is masses of litigation still going on with the
:28:44. > :28:47.victims of hacking queueing up to sue in court. We are a long way from
:28:48. > :28:52.the end of the story. Thank you very much for coming in.
:28:53. > :28:57.Throughout her career, Ulrika Johnson has found herself the
:28:58. > :29:01.subject of red-top gossip columns, she worked as a columnist for the
:29:02. > :29:05.News of the World for years, but later found the paper had been
:29:06. > :29:10.hacking her phone. She's with us tonight. You have had years of press
:29:11. > :29:14.attention, you weren't a stranger to it, how did you realise somebody had
:29:15. > :29:24.been listening to your private voicemails? Well the police
:29:25. > :29:29.contacted me in 2011, and so suspicious had I become of just more
:29:30. > :29:32.or less anyone who calls you with anything bizarre, that I didn't call
:29:33. > :29:36.them back and they had to make contact with me about three or four
:29:37. > :29:42.times before they said, no we are really the police and we have some
:29:43. > :29:49.evidence to show you. That's when they showed me evidence that, of
:29:50. > :29:54.personal information that somebody or they had on me. How did you feel
:29:55. > :30:07.when you realised that had actually gone on? Well it made me feel
:30:08. > :30:11.physically sick, because it was quite, some things were quite
:30:12. > :30:18.detailed, you know. They had the entry code to my gate at my house.
:30:19. > :30:24.And apart from anything else lots of numbers and dates and times and
:30:25. > :30:28.places where you have been. It does sort of immediately you are
:30:29. > :30:34.thinking, I'm really not very important and not very, well
:30:35. > :30:39.probably interesting but not very important and significant. It was a
:30:40. > :30:44.horrible experience and just quite scary. We're going to look at what
:30:45. > :30:47.is tomorrow's splash in the Sun, you have been the subject of some of
:30:48. > :30:53.these yourself. But there tomorrow is Rebekah Brooks, a great day for
:30:54. > :30:57.the red tops, ex-Sun editor, Rebekah Brooks found not guilty. How do you
:30:58. > :31:09.feel when you look at that after what has happened today? Well, I
:31:10. > :31:15.guess I was most I guess taken aback by, not taken aback by just the fact
:31:16. > :31:18.they are claiming this as a victory, and we can't make suggestions she
:31:19. > :31:22.was acquitted of all the charges, so it is not about whether or not the
:31:23. > :31:26.trial was right. There is no mention of Andy Coulson
:31:27. > :31:29.there, of course. I worked for Andy for four-and-a-half years, and
:31:30. > :31:36.became very close to him and to his family, to his wife. We both have
:31:37. > :31:39.children with cardiac defects who were treated at the same hospital by
:31:40. > :31:47.the same surgeon, we had that connection. So for me on a personal
:31:48. > :31:57.level I'm shocked at what may happen to him. But this is kind of I'm very
:31:58. > :32:02.surprised by this. It is triumphalist. How do you feel ever
:32:03. > :32:06.everything you have been through some parts of the press will still
:32:07. > :32:09.try to you know try to say there has been a victory, doesn't that suggest
:32:10. > :32:14.to you that they will carry on behaving as they did before? I
:32:15. > :32:19.genuinely have to believe they won't thank they don't. I think this will
:32:20. > :32:24.be or has been and will continue to be a huge and very steep learning
:32:25. > :32:28.curve for them. I would like to think that they have cleaned up
:32:29. > :32:31.their acts. Thank you very much for coming tonight.
:32:32. > :32:36.No-one really comes out of this whole mess well, none of our big
:32:37. > :32:39.institutions any way, whether press, politics or the police. They refused
:32:40. > :32:45.for a long time to take the complaints of victims of the scandal
:32:46. > :32:51.seriously. Painful and seemingly Eppingless wranglings on how to tame
:32:52. > :32:59.the beast to satisfy concerns. Will it change much more the lives of
:33:00. > :33:09.those affected. Press, police, politicians global
:33:10. > :33:13.business and a huge public scandal. The phone hacking saga is an
:33:14. > :33:19.extraordinary story of power and influence in modern Britain. It has
:33:20. > :33:36.the entire establishment in it up to their necks. So how did that happen?
:33:37. > :33:44.It goes back to 1969, the Sun, always a floating voter the Sun
:33:45. > :33:50.famously backed Mrs Thatcher in 1969 and from then on was the newspaper
:33:51. > :33:54.whose support politicians craved. And so began the process of
:33:55. > :34:02.relationship building that brought Tony Blair the backing of the Sun in
:34:03. > :34:08.1997 and David Cameron its endorsement in 2010 and gave senior
:34:09. > :34:17.News of the World figures unrivalled access to the corridors of power.
:34:18. > :34:22.Here at Westminster it became known that Sun support was vital to
:34:23. > :34:26.success. Falling out with Rupert Murdoch and his people wouldn't have
:34:27. > :34:32.been thought of as especially sensible. To cut a long story short
:34:33. > :34:35.few people here wanted to know anything about phone hacking, until
:34:36. > :34:39.Milly Dowler. The vast majority of people in the political world were
:34:40. > :34:44.happy to hide. They didn't want to get into a fight with Rupert
:34:45. > :34:49.Murdoch, why would you? That extends all the way up to the Labour Party.
:34:50. > :34:53.Although Ed Miliband finally behaved courageously and well when the whole
:34:54. > :34:57.story exploded, the earlier track record isn't so great. He's there
:34:58. > :35:02.wining and dining with Rebekah Brooks, trying to make friends with
:35:03. > :35:05.her. He's operating on the same unfortunately twisted logic that
:35:06. > :35:11.infected David Cameron, we have to have the Murdoch crew on side. So f
:35:12. > :35:18.that's why the politicians failed, what about the police? Once again
:35:19. > :35:23.the problem appeared to be proximity to News International. This man quit
:35:24. > :35:28.as Met Commissioner, when it emerged he had hired Andy Coulson's deputy
:35:29. > :35:35.at the News of the World as a PR man for ?1,000 day. The man who led the
:35:36. > :35:40.original phone hacking probe became News International columnist. And
:35:41. > :35:45.Britain's top antiterrorist officer brought in to review the phone
:35:46. > :35:49.hacking, it was revealed later was close to social editors at the
:35:50. > :35:53.paper. He was forced to quit. Do you think they were too close? I
:35:54. > :35:58.didn't know it at the time, I think that they probably were. It is
:35:59. > :36:03.interesting, in one sense they were very dismissive of the media, they
:36:04. > :36:07.were very suspicious of the media. On the other side of the coin, they
:36:08. > :36:11.thought it was you know in a rather niave way they thought politically
:36:12. > :36:17.it was important to have the media on side. However, what they didn't
:36:18. > :36:21.say, they could not see over the horizon that this might be, when
:36:22. > :36:28.things about, this might be a stick that was used to beat them with. So
:36:29. > :36:33.it was that repeated assurances from senior police figures that there
:36:34. > :36:36.really was no greater phone hacking scandal to be uncovered, sounded
:36:37. > :36:41.increasingly hollow. We now know that those reassurances
:36:42. > :36:45.were complete rubbish. Phone hacking was more widespread than had been
:36:46. > :36:50.acknowledged and the evidence for that, 11,000 pages of notes had been
:36:51. > :36:57.in the possession of the police themselves ever since their original
:36:58. > :37:02.inquiry in 20006. Why didn't they investigate further? Lord Justice
:37:03. > :37:07.Leveson looked quite closely at the police operation in 2006/07. He's
:37:08. > :37:12.right when he says the officers who were actually involved directly in
:37:13. > :37:18.that inquiry are straight guys, who stopped the job prematurely because
:37:19. > :37:22.their counter terrorism officers so they had to get off and investigate
:37:23. > :37:28.mass you are inneder on people. That is right -- murder on people. That
:37:29. > :37:33.is right. But there are a lot of worrying linger questions. Chief
:37:34. > :37:36.amongst them, not why Scotland Yard didn't investigate phone hacking
:37:37. > :37:42.themselves, but went out of their way to stop others from doing so. So
:37:43. > :37:46.the police and the politicians failed, but hang on, what about the
:37:47. > :37:51.majority of the Fourth Estate, our free press, the envy of the world.
:37:52. > :37:54.Well most of what was once Fleet Street didn't want to know about
:37:55. > :37:57.phone hacking at the News of the World either. Traditionally
:37:58. > :38:03.attacking other newspapers, well just wasn't done. Generalised
:38:04. > :38:08.stories of press misbehaviour, well, where do you start? And throw in the
:38:09. > :38:12.fact that no-one wanted to upset the rather comfy apple cart of voluntary
:38:13. > :38:15.self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission, and there you
:38:16. > :38:23.have it. Ignore it and if you are lucky it will go away.
:38:24. > :38:28.But it didn't. Now there was no ignoring it and the proprietors got
:38:29. > :38:32.the very thing they had sought to avoid, another major public inquiry
:38:33. > :38:38.into the standards, practices and ethics of the press. Months of lurid
:38:39. > :38:43.testimony about press misbehaviour, most of it unconnected with phone
:38:44. > :38:48.hacking brought Lord Justice Leveson to a series of potentially
:38:49. > :38:51.far-reaching, and to victims and campaigners, long overdue
:38:52. > :38:55.recommendations. While campaigners, vim Times and surveys appeared to
:38:56. > :38:59.show most of the public backed firmer action, many in the newspaper
:39:00. > :39:04.industry fear press freedom has already been damaged. Our papers
:39:05. > :39:11.have been cleaned up as never before. It is a miracle that we
:39:12. > :39:15.still manage to make them good, fun, irrasable products every day. Is it
:39:16. > :39:20.your view there are many more stories that perhaps should be told
:39:21. > :39:25.that are not being told? There is a lot more stories either being
:39:26. > :39:28.sanatised or almost out of existence, because we can't write
:39:29. > :39:37.the full facts or theying being spiked. # So that's -- they are
:39:38. > :39:43.being spiked. That is politics, the police and the press. What about the
:39:44. > :39:47.man at the centre of things, Rupert Murdoch.
:39:48. > :39:50.He arrived 45 years ago, the arch outsider, he took on and beat branch
:39:51. > :39:56.after branch of the British establishment. The old press when he
:39:57. > :39:59.bought the News of the World, and later the Times and the Sunday
:40:00. > :40:04.Times, and off the back of his success in Britain he went on to
:40:05. > :40:09.build a huge global media empire. Shaken to the core by phone hacking.
:40:10. > :40:14.It has been massive, one of the pivitol events in the 60-year
:40:15. > :40:20.history of this company. It has upset his business in the UK, in
:40:21. > :40:27.many ways certainly destablised it, maybe in fact destroyed his business
:40:28. > :40:32.in the UK. It has caused the break-up of his company, splitting
:40:33. > :40:38.it into the entertainment assets and newspaper assets. And perhaps most
:40:39. > :40:43.profound of all it has hit his family very hard. It has created
:40:44. > :40:48.rifts everywhere in the family. It is a family at war with itself now,
:40:49. > :40:49.all over hacking. The physical home of the News of
:40:50. > :40:54.all over hacking. The physical home that came with it has gone, but the
:40:55. > :40:56.all over hacking. The physical home scandal is far from over. In the US
:40:57. > :41:06.the Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act beckons and here in the UK lots
:41:07. > :41:10.more trials and even potential corporate liability. This trial,
:41:11. > :41:14.whatever the outcome must mark the end of the Murdoch era in Britain.
:41:15. > :41:17.As for the rest of the press, well, they are not quite what they were,
:41:18. > :41:21.not so much because of hacking and the regulation that will follow, but
:41:22. > :41:26.because of declining circulations and technology. As for the police
:41:27. > :41:30.hacking has played into what have become much broader questions of
:41:31. > :41:37.public confidence. But now the politicians they surely must have
:41:38. > :41:44.learned their lesson? With us now are Nick fare rary a
:41:45. > :41:51.former tabloid journal -- Ferrari, a former tabloid newspaper, a former
:41:52. > :41:54.Star reporter and now film maker, a political philosopher who gave
:41:55. > :42:00.evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, and the assistant editor of the
:42:01. > :42:04.Spectator. Thank you for coming in. We heard there already stories are
:42:05. > :42:09.being sanatised, they are being spiked, they are there are things
:42:10. > :42:13.the public is not finding out enough about because of changes in all of
:42:14. > :42:19.this. As somebody who was in the tabloid press and has now foresworn
:42:20. > :42:26.your past, doesn't that concern you or is that where you want it? I
:42:27. > :42:30.think you can look at it from the other perpicket -- perspective.
:42:31. > :42:35.Maybe they were stories that shouldn't be printed at all. If
:42:36. > :42:38.we're talking about the Sun, Hillsborough, that should have been
:42:39. > :42:42.spiked and it wasn't. There is plenty of stories that aren't being
:42:43. > :42:47.written about that should be written about. Snowdon leaks, a massive
:42:48. > :42:51.press freedom and journalism story you won't read much about it in the
:42:52. > :42:55.Sun. I think there is two ways of looking at that, I think that maybe
:42:56. > :42:59.it is time for the Sun and some of the other tabloids to slightly
:43:00. > :43:03.change their tack. Rather than the easy hits about celebrities but
:43:04. > :43:08.really investing in proper investigative journal, there is not
:43:09. > :43:13.enough young journalists going into the industry to do that. Instead it
:43:14. > :43:17.is the bikini pictures on the beach. I think news land up and down the
:43:18. > :43:21.land will be asking why, why, why. What haven't we focussed on, and
:43:22. > :43:27.what hasn't been said is the incredible cost. The Leveson
:43:28. > :43:31.Inquiry, ?6 million, a headline in tomorrow's Telegraph, ?100 million.
:43:32. > :43:35.That is well over ?100 million for what? One editor found guilty, five
:43:36. > :43:39.people cleared, it is clearly bungled, poorly executed and you
:43:40. > :43:43.wonder why on earth they have done it. It is kept some investigative
:43:44. > :43:48.reporters in work and they have won some awards, apart from that the
:43:49. > :43:51.public don't care. Six people have been found guilty before the start
:43:52. > :43:56.of the trial? They chose not to be put on trial, not found guilty. But
:43:57. > :44:02.in terms. Impact, we heard there in that film the principal journalist
:44:03. > :44:06.saying that stories are being spiked and stamped on. Is that a good
:44:07. > :44:10.thing? I don't know you have to tell me the stories. If you have a
:44:11. > :44:14.cabinet minister who has a problem with drugs, it is good we know about
:44:15. > :44:18.it. If you have a Premier League football player running around with
:44:19. > :44:23.call girls in a hotel, I don't care, it doesn't affect my life. The idea
:44:24. > :44:26.a prominent politician is thieving or inappropriate behaviour it does
:44:27. > :44:29.affect my life. Until I have heard the stories I can't comment. In
:44:30. > :44:33.terms of the affect on the press, the nervousness that has spread, the
:44:34. > :44:38.problem is, there is a stalemate, because some parts of the pressee,
:44:39. > :44:42.yes, that is pretty good, and others saying no it is sending a chill up
:44:43. > :44:46.our spines. Why is there a stalemate in terms of how people are trying to
:44:47. > :44:49.move on? I don't see that there should be a stalemate. The press
:44:50. > :44:55.enjoy freedom of expression and nobody has spoken out against that.
:44:56. > :44:58.Leveson's recommendations were for self-regulation to continue, but
:44:59. > :45:02.with an audit body to make sure that it was robust self-regulation. This
:45:03. > :45:08.is a privilege, afterall, that other provisions no longer have. They are
:45:09. > :45:13.only partially self-regulated. So that the proposed audit body that
:45:14. > :45:17.Leveson recommended seems to me not something to get timid about. It is
:45:18. > :45:22.something to, as it were, take in one's stride and create a good press
:45:23. > :45:31.that really does serious investigative journalism, as you
:45:32. > :45:34.say. The real thing, not the tawdry celeb stories we are getting. The
:45:35. > :45:37.majority of the press accepting that, the royal charter, they are
:45:38. > :45:43.tiny and just not going along with it? At the moment there is only one
:45:44. > :45:47.body which is IPSO, independent press standards organisation, son of
:45:48. > :45:53.PCC, and they have said that they won't apply to be audited. I suppose
:45:54. > :45:58.they are timid that they couldn't meeted standards. Having testified
:45:59. > :46:01.at Leveson are you satisfied with what you have seen so far. Does it
:46:02. > :46:05.meet his requirements? What we have at this stage does not meet his
:46:06. > :46:09.requirements, and I recently put a question in the House of Lords
:46:10. > :46:14.whether it would be satisfactory if the only self-regulating body for
:46:15. > :46:18.the press refused to be audited. I can't say the minister was able to
:46:19. > :46:21.answer that question. So briefly, should the Government force the
:46:22. > :46:27.royal charter on the press? The whole point about the royal charter
:46:28. > :46:30.is it is not forced. There is no state regulation of the press
:46:31. > :46:42.proposed, desspite a certain amount of sleeking. One of the --
:46:43. > :46:53.shrieking. I can't imagine Fraser Nelson
:46:54. > :46:56.shrieking. I think there is an unhealthy lack of trust in
:46:57. > :47:00.politicians, it gave us the opportunity to get their hands on
:47:01. > :47:04.regulation of the media. I'm not going to get hysterical or say they
:47:05. > :47:08.can shut down newspapers or force stories to be spiked. At the
:47:09. > :47:13.Spectator we have seen politicians gleefully seizing then't opportunity
:47:14. > :47:16.presented by press regulation to try to shut down stories they find
:47:17. > :47:18.inconvenient. We have had politicians calling our editor
:47:19. > :47:25.trying to stop writers publishing stories that are just inconvenient.
:47:26. > :47:27.In your view that's new? Respectfully you can't have a little
:47:28. > :47:31.bit of regulation, you can't be a little bit pregnant. Either the
:47:32. > :47:36.Government has got its fingers on it or it hasn't. This idea put forward
:47:37. > :47:40.by supporters, when they are all eating pizza at 2.00am doing shady
:47:41. > :47:45.deals where the press aren't invited. It is like an MOT, it is
:47:46. > :47:49.cobblers, respectfully, it is everything this country has fought
:47:50. > :47:52.against, thank God. Let's wind back there one second, you will find the
:47:53. > :47:59.newspaper groups had ten-times as many meetings with politicians as
:48:00. > :48:05.hacked off or anyone had. The pizza that has been denied it happened,
:48:06. > :48:10.and it gets repeated and it is the worse way the papers work, they
:48:11. > :48:15.repeat that again and again and again. They said on my LBC pizza.
:48:16. > :48:19.What flavour was it, the topping, the details. It doesn't matter.
:48:20. > :48:22.Isn't it part of being a politician to talk to the press? They have to
:48:23. > :48:26.have connections, they have to have links do they not? Of course they
:48:27. > :48:29.do. They have to win elections and they are very dependant on the
:48:30. > :48:33.media. I think what we have to understand is that this is a power
:48:34. > :48:37.relationship and what we have to think about is how do we sustain
:48:38. > :48:42.freedom of expression, which I take to be really important in the face
:48:43. > :48:46.of those who wish it to be controlled either by the press or by
:48:47. > :48:51.the politicians. And I think that we have to find a way of mediating
:48:52. > :48:55.that, Leveson's proposal, taken seriously and not looking at all the
:48:56. > :49:00.stuff that has been said about it, is actually very clever. It is not
:49:01. > :49:04.state regulation of the media, it does not permit censorship of
:49:05. > :49:09.content. You hear already before the full version is up and running we
:49:10. > :49:13.already have politicians trying to use it to shut down stories that
:49:14. > :49:17.they don't want to be published? Politicians will always try that.
:49:18. > :49:20.Politicians run very scared of the press. You have to recognise this.
:49:21. > :49:25.I'm sure they don't all behave well. We have very good evidence of that
:49:26. > :49:29.too. But it isn't a one-way story here. And self-regulation is a
:49:30. > :49:37.privilege we are called to no other powerful body, so I think we have to
:49:38. > :49:43.think very hard about how we sustain self-regulation without falling into
:49:44. > :49:47.the area where we have been... Pizza aside, one of the least impressive
:49:48. > :49:52.things this parliament has done is to force through this legislation
:49:53. > :49:56.that enabled the royal charter in an afternoon, the day after the press
:49:57. > :50:01.talks late at night, MPs voted on the legislation with no scrutiny
:50:02. > :50:06.whatsoever. You talk to many Conservative MPs and they are
:50:07. > :50:11.horrified. It is not legislation. I sat in the bill, it was debated in
:50:12. > :50:15.the Commons. How many times do you see parties vote something through
:50:16. > :50:22.and argue it and the arrogance saying they are above it, saying
:50:23. > :50:26.they are above parliament. Who elected Rupert Murdoch and others,
:50:27. > :50:32.they are not elected peers. They get elected every day by their readers.
:50:33. > :50:37.Don't give me that. Let's see what they are serving up to readers
:50:38. > :50:40.tomorrow morning. A quick look at the papers, the Sun we have seen.
:50:41. > :51:12.Rebekah Brooks on the front. That is all I'm afraid we have time
:51:13. > :51:22.Good evening. In the next few days it looks set to be a little bit
:51:23. > :51:23.cooler compared to