Phone hacking scandal deepens

[Jan Klimkowski]

I wonder if these arrests are not related to this...[URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?3260-Phone-hacking-scandal-deepens&p=41735#post41735"]https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?3260-Phone-hacking-scandal-deepens&p=41735#post41735

[/URL]Otherwise why is her hubby arrested for Newscorp business of which he wasn't on the payroll of?

Magda - I agree.

On learning that hubbie Charlie Brooks was also arrested, and that Rebekah and he have been arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, my first thought was that this "computer, paperwork and mobile" may very well have revealed evidence of corruption.

Note how specific Scotland Yard's current investigator, Sue Akers, was to Leveson:

"The cases we are investigating are not ones involving the odd drink, or meal, to police officers or other public officials," she said. "Instead, these are cases in which arrests have been made involving the delivery of regular, frequent and sometimes significant sums of money to small numbers of public officials by journalists."

"A network of corrupted officials" was providing the Sun with stories that were mostly "salacious gossip", she said.

"There appears to have been a culture at the Sun of illegal payments, and systems have been created to facilitate such payments whilst hiding the identity of the officials receiving the money."

Akers said the 61-strong Elveden investigation was still at a relatively early stage in trying to identify the recipients of illicit cash: "The emails indicate that payments to 'sources' were openly referred to within the Sun … there is a recognition by the journalists that this behaviour is illegal, reference being made to staff 'risking losing their pension or job', to the need for 'care' and to the need for 'cash payments'. There is also an indication of 'tradecraft', ie hiding cash payments to 'sources' by making them to a friend or relative of the source."

It is implicit in the DNA of senior cops not to go beyond the evidence when on the record in a public forum.

For Akers to say this to Leveson, prior to a trial, she MUST have significant corroborating evidence.

Most likely, a paper trail.