your intervention was successful in securing a review of the case. do you understand that? >> do you remember about that intervention? >> the reason i was involved was because it considered soon newspapers. i did the deal with harpercollins. and let it to others to decide the different approaches. i had always got along very well with dr. mccann and kate mccann they're out there incredible time. i think there would be very positive about it, actually.

in this case, i thought that the idea to run the campaign was the right thing for them to do. my intervention was the original discussion. i am pretty sure that he may have done in appeared coxless if we can agree or disagree. >> when you're discussing arrangements, you asked if there is anything more. do you recall that? >> yes. >> you wanted a review of the case. >> ps. >> do you remember your answer

being, is that all? i may have said itaid the slightly more politely. and not particularly remember saying that. >> maybe i did. what i was not suggesting that it was impolite. what may be, yes. we have been going through a list of issues that they wanted to be insured up before we went forward. >> did you then take the matter up? >> no perce >> did you not tell them that they would demand a review that they should do it agreed to the request? no. i did not speak to them or the home secretary about this. i know that dominic will have

spoken to them. they will have spoken directly to them. >> they wanted immediate results. lesser would be posted all over the front page. they're asking for a reviewer. did that happen? >> yes. i think that is how they launched a campaign. >> the home secretary was told if she agreed that they would not learn. >> no. , i do not remember that. they did not respond in time. he did publish this.

>> i do remember this of the letter. >> you do not remember if there is any threat to the secretary of state. is that right? >> i'm pretty sure there would not have been a threat. you'd have to ask him. my involvement was to discuss the campaign and the continued search for madeleine and to do this. i done so many campaigns. they wanted my opinion. i'll wanted both editors to execute it. >> what i have been told is that you intervene personally. you told them unless the prime minister orders this by the police, they would put the home secretary on the front page every day and still the demands

were met. is that true or not? >> no. >> is in a part of that tree? >> i did not speak to #10 or the until after the campaign had been one. and do not even think directly with the prime minister. >> we can find out in due course whether this is true or not. i will repeat it to you. it says that you directly warned the prime minister that unless there was a review that they would pit the home secretary on the home page every day and still demands are met. is that true or not? >> i did not say i would put this on the front page of the sun every day unless he could.

if i had any conversations with him directly, they would not have been particularly about that. it would have been about having a conversation with a very strong letter to start the campaign. anyone would have talked to me. a politician would have talked to me about it. i did not say that. >> could we ask this, were you part of a strategy that involves your paper putting withure on the government' this sort of implied or express threat? >> i was certainly part of a strategy to launch the campaign in order to get the review.

yes. i think there were threats -- i think the word "threats" is too strong. >> give me another word. >> persuasion. >> define for us what the strategy was. >> the mccann's were deeply upset that there had been a review. it had been incredibly unfair that they have not got this treaty. you only have to read their books to understand that the trauma if they go through, so we said we would join forces. they went away. they constructed a campaign. and they have even been my idea to do the letter. the campaign was launched in order to try to convince the government's that this would be

the right thing to do. >> do you know how it came about that the review was ordered? >> i cannot remember. i am sorry. a lot as happened since then. >> i remember them telling me that the review was going ahead. i think he said the mccann's had one. >> the headline on the 14th of may was that the prime minister was "opening the magic files." do you remember that one? >> i remember them winning the campaign, yes. >> this is not a exercise in power of value? i am not suggesting the end result was right or wrong. many said it was right.

it should be very few. the means by which you achieved the objective? >> it could be said that a review of the case with everything that had gone on was the right thing to do. we presented the issue. this supported the mccann's and their determination to get a review. they tried before the election. the election had come in there. the health secretary clearly thought it was a good idea. i am pretty sure it does not aid long campaign. i think it was quite short. >> they did not say very long. the government yielded to your pressure, didn't de? >> perhaps they were convinced by our arguments. >> there are always two sides of the claim.

on one level, money should be spent. the campaign today has cost 2 million pounds. they would say maybe the money might have gone somewhere else. >> the madeleine mccann campaign? >> >> perhaps he would say all your doing was assessing the views of your readers. >> and that case, it was an issue we brought to the readers we presented the mccann's story. as to the reason why they wanted the review, i think that time with our readership. the campaign started with a very heartfelt letter. the politicians were convinced the argument was correct.

>> also that the commercial interests. >> campaigns can sell newspapers. i think the sterilization of the book actually was good for the sunday times. i am not sure how well the campaign was in circulation. that will be a matter of record. >> mr. dominic said that oone. at one point. do you remember a conversation in which he discussed the human rights act that's what i do. >> -- human rights act? >> i do.

his position was that david would replaceise this with the british bill of rights. it should not be so easily promise. it was not that he was for it or against it. he was just making the legal point that it was very difficult to do. >> were you impressed with them after that conversation? >> as it turned out, he was absolutely right. at the time, it was more his

colleagues around the table. i think they have put out a policy announcements that it was going to be in the manifesto. they were explaining this. they did know the conversation was quite heated. here is the only one saying imagine standing up to the colleagues like that. in the end, he was correct. >> didn't you tell mr. cameron after that conversation the cannot have someone like that as home secretary. he would not appeal to the readers movement. that is what happens. >> i did not tell mr. cameron to lose some. the conversation was born out were trying to almost silent some at the table.

in effect, one of the promises the conservatives have made was the electorate. they're going to repeal anything. it was almost the opposite way around. that his view was not to be taken seriously. as it turned out, he was entirely correct. >> did you give any advice? >> no. in fact, after that conversation, it is important to remember mr. cameron was not dead dinner. >> did you indicate to mr. cameron was? >> they did the opposite to me. they were paying to explain the view which is not entirely correct. it is absolutely not their view.

they're going to reap kill this and replace it with a bill of rights. this was the mistakes. >> before we break, let me take you back to this issue that we have bounced around several times, which is who is leading him. do you think that at least in part what you were doing was bringing up issues to your readers? as opposed to maybe responding to your readers interest? >> that is correct, yes. i am sure we will come back to its. i would like to be your view and

what you can reflect upon which is this. everybody is entitled to be a friend with whoever they want to be a friend. that is part of life. can you understand why it might be a matter of public concern that a very close relationship between journalists and politicians might create subtle pressures on the press to have the megafauna and on the politicians who have the policy decisions. >> yes. i can understand that. >> all right, 2:00. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

to a couple of labour party politicians have to say. do you recall an occasion in september 2004 when they had been speaking at the meeting and argued that rupert murdoch should not be allowed to monopolize the u.k.? but i do not, i am sorry. >> 2004. as he arrived at the news international reception, you approached him. do you recall that? >> i think i know what antidote you are referring to. what it is not an antidote. antecdote. antidot

i do not remember saying that. no. >> do you recall what your husband said? >> i remember what mr. bryant said. >> he was extremely rude, wasn't he? your husband. >> i don't think he said that. >> mr. watson, you had it been for mr. watson. mr. watson says following his resignation in 2006, is that true? >> you encourage them to write verse information.

>> they have written this. i think mr. watson is referring to an incident -- and instance when he galvanized the troops. it was in order to force mr. blair to resign. it is a queue at the time. there's a situation where the night before he published a letter was calling for a tony blair to step down. he had driven half we across scotland to see mr. brown when the newspaper confronted mr. watson and said he clearly did tell him, he claimed that he was just delivering a thomas the tank dvd. i think these subsequent coverage was very critical of

mr. watson. >> your thoughts another journalist would write stories about mr. watson that he knew were completely untrue? >> note. did you tell mr. nick robinson? >> i cannot remember saying that exactly. >> you think it was disparaging politicians that you did not totally like? >> i do not. >> now go back to be bskyb

issue. this is page 08257. you say on the fourth line that many people saw to raise the issue with me. involved in th defending. he always picked a defense of the pension -- you always pick a defensive position, is that right? >> not necessarily. the fact is that it was a common misconception and often reported that news international was trying to buy the remainder of

the shares. but subtle distinction was perhaps understandably confused. yes, there were occasions when i defended the bid. >> you do so in paragraph 19? i am sure that i would expect my views given the vocal opposition. it might be the more thoughtful you needed to be. would you agree? >> i think the anti-alliance had so many members from the alliance. they were seeing politicians. i think dr. cable had a dinner with him. when i met people, if i had the chance to put our side of the

story, i would. >> those people included mr. cameron? >> not mr. cameron. i did have a conversation with others. not to be dwelled on. i did have a conversation about it sometime in 2010. i put my views that were contrary to the ones who had heard. >> no. will go back to that in a short time. you say with regard to the discussion i am sure i did refer to this issue generally. is that statement relevant to both mr. cameron? >> a general discussion always

in relation to something i entered the anti sky bed had before were. i remember conversation in 2010. i do not remember having a particularly forceful conversation with mr. cameron about it. our view on the bskyb bid were pretty clear. >> were they shared by mr. cameron? >> he always made it very clear that he turned it into a judicial decision. it was not him. i think he had been bothered by lots of other people. i would say it was not

particularly shared. he was always very candid about it. >> was the supportive of the bskyb bid? >> it was fair to say he understood why we wanted to present our view. what was mr. osborne supported bskyb of the bid? >> he never said specifically. one of the points that we are trying to make was that if that kind of level of investment was coming into the u.k., that contrary to what the anti-sky bid would say, it would be a bad thing. we thought in these centers around the country, the creation of jobs, and that we would try to put those arguments to mr. osborne. it is not my decision.

he never specifically said so. >> could you infer whether he was aboard id? >> he was interested in our arguments. >> were you aware of the others were playing in the big debts what i was aware at the time. there was a way, yes. and not realizi now realize thet many. >> where did you read that e- mail? >> i still had not read them all. i saw some during the evidence. did this surprise you in any way?

>> the truth is at the time, i suppose like most journalists, i viewed public affairs with slight skepticism. however, he was doing his job. during information let lobbyists do. >> as journalists, would have direct contact with ministers and prime ministers in the course of our work. i always thought it was like the strange at that level.

i know is that the level of access the seem to come out was pretty good. what a couple of documents feature you. big improbably put it up on the screen. i'm not sure it'll be available for anybody else. in the file, 10,001657 -- 10, ,1657 it relates. the work covered on an e-mail.

we heard james murdoch. >> he is public affairs for news corp europe. and at the anderson is corporate communications for news corp.. >> the bid is still with dr. cable, you understand. this is december 2000. it is necessary to keep the cabinet ministers. why do think you are copied into this e-mail? >> i was not copied into many of them. there be regular meetings of

people who were iengaged in the bid. i am not sure why particularly. >> the next one is the same file. >> are you going to 1679? >> yes. >> a lot 3 e-mails are on the same sheet. >> i found an earlier one. the most beloved one -- relevant one is 1679. it states the 14th of december, 2010. it is sent from mr. michelle to mr. james murdoch.

>> you obviously have the chronology. >> three minutes later, you replied to mr. mashal. - mr. michelle. the reason why you replied so quickly. you said you had dinner with mr. osborn the night before. you discussed the issues letter with mr osborne the night before a request i must have done. >> the reference to g.o. is to him personally. barbour you discussing the issue with mr. osborn at all -- why were you discussing the issue with mr. osborn at all? iraq's my memory from the dinner was that -- >> my memory from the dinner was

that my husband and i and mr. osborne and his wife, it was more of a social occasion but are probably brought it up but i cannot remember. it would have been something i discussed at the dinner out of frustration perhaps at the time of what was going on. but we did discuss it at the dinner. not at any great length. >> that would not have been -- that would not have been my stance on it. i probably was not all over the complexities of an issue's letter. as chief executive of news international.

my main focus of my main d volvement in the bskyb biud was a formal and generally in response to the huge amount of opposition and lobbying going on by the anti-bskyb bid. >> of what this dinner must have encompassed. does the e-mail make that clear? >> i agree with you. that is exactly what the e-mail says but i do not remember a detailed conversation at a social dinner about the complexities of in the letter. it may have been three minutes of nisei can you believe that had happened -- of me saying can you believe that happened? it was a very brief conversation but it did happen. >> plainly, it did happen.

but mr. osborn is totally baffled according to your response. the conversation must have been initiated by you. you do not hold back on these occasions, do you? >> i just cannot remember whether or not i bought it up. that's all. let's say i brought it up then. i am being forced to guess. >> i promise you, you're not being forced to guess. i cannot remember who bought the up but i am happy for argument's sake to accept that i did. but i am not sure that is the case. >> you think it is inappropriate conversation with mr. osborn? >> i think it was an appropriate conversation. i was reflecting the opposite view that he had heard by that stage from pretty much every member of the anti sky bid

alliance. so 13 minute conversation beginning at dinner, i got the opportunity -- so one three minute conversation beginning at dinner, i got the opportunity. excepting for the sake of argument that i brought it up, i cannot remember it is absolutely true. >> i abhisit remembered from the conversation -- i obviously remembered from the conversation that he was baffled at the response. that is what i say. i am agreeing with you on the e- mail. >> yes but it is also obvious he was supposed to involve your bid. >> he was perplexed.

he was baffled at the response. >> paragraph 92 of your statement proceed on that premise. >> that it was the issue's letter? >> yes. >> he was baffled at the response. i am not sure what the question is. > at this stage, you kne4w where everybody stood in relation to the bid, didn't you? >> no, i did not. what you did not have any suspicions at all as to what his view was? >> no. i assumed mr. cable would carry out that responsibility as any minister.

properly, without any personal prejudice. >> by the time you wrote in the e-mail if not before, you were not aware what mr. hunt's view was regarding the bskyb bid? >> i do not remember hearing anything from mr. hunt directly on the bid. but i have a recollection that he put something on his web site. something positive on is website? >> didn't you have conversations with mr. james and mr. rupert murdoch about how the bid was going on and he was supporting it? i think, if my conversations with mr. james murdoch and mr. rupert murdoch about the bid

were in essence to discuss the latest move of the anti sky bid alliance. i remember calling mr. james murdoch when the commission -- the pr agency they hired. their poll discovered that 80% of the people did not want us to buy the rest of the share. the anti shy bid alliance was working in the territory. there were internal meetings that went on inside that occasionally i would attend. >> news corp. and news international regarded it as important to lobby government in relation to this bid? >> i cannot think that was the

strategy. --i do not think that was the strategy. i think that was a response. >> this is what happened in the event. >> certainly from what we have seen. there was lots of lobbying going on from our side, yes. >> you could assist the , youch's to this extent know the personalities involved and you could buy them in relation to mr. osborn, mr. cameron. isn't that what you brought to the table? >> i do not think so. the strategy behind the bid was said by news corp. and i have nothing to do with that. this was a it was i judicial decision. nothing to do with the personalities and preferences of the prime minister or mr. hundt

before he took over. prexy were not so naive, were you, to believe that quasi decisions would be carried out >> mark personal prejudice might intrude. >> maybe it wasn't even me to think it will be dealt with properly but i did believe that. i had no reason not to until dr. cable's, and came out in december. >> we do have one e-mail which you have found under tab for. -- four. you disclosed this one to us. >> yes. i've got it. >> before we look at it, i think

people would be interested to know how it is that this one e- mail survived and others might not have? >> in the period at the beginning of june and july 17 when my blackberry was imaged, there were certain e-mails and text messages on there. for the purpose of the notice for this inquiry, my legal team went through all of those in order to disclose anything that fell into the inquiry. this was the only e-mail that i had in that period that was relevant to the bskyb bid. >> the bottom of page 02606 -- the first page of this document.

1629 hours on the 27 of june 2011, fredrik michelle send an e-mail and it goes to just you, i think. is that your understanding? >> i would be surprised if it just came from me. they were always copied into the same, almost same group of people. >> the text of the mail is on the next page. hunt will be making references to phone hacking in his statement this week. this is based on his belief that phone hacking has nothing to do with the media plurality issue. >> that is the corruption, i

think. >> you are being told what the secretary of state is going to be saying in his rubicon statement. is that it? >> yes. >> he supports a widening of its -- more newspaper groups. he was to prevent the public inquiry. the committee will need to come up with a strong report in the autumn and put pressure to strengthen itself. was any of this news to you? >> i think it was. >> was in the of a surprising? -- any of it surprising? >> i think it could be

surprising, yes. >> the next paragraph -- they're not starting to look into phone hacking practices more thoroughly and have asked me, mr. machel, to invite him privately in the coming weeks and guide higgins -- his and number 10's positioning. do you know without was about? >> i think it speaks for itself. >> is that surprising? >> at the time, the 27 of june, news international -- i had a lot of my own concerns. we just handed over the file. it was probably my focus more than anything else. i abhisit got this e-mail and a million others. got this e-mail

and a million others. i think the e-mail and my response speak for themselves. >> your response was, we have to go back to the previous page. when is the rubicon statement? and the answer came back probably wednesday. you assist us further from memory -- was mr. machel and dealing with number 10 at this time? >> probably not any further than the evidence that james murdoch did. michele worked for news or not news international. so he did not work for me.

my interactions with him were not as frequent. i am not sure i can add anything. i know his own statements -- sometimes he overstated his case. for all i know, this could be directly from jeremy hunt or no. 10. i just do not know. >> you say in paragraph 28 of your statement, talking generally of your time as ceo of news international, your time it became increasingly occupied with the phone hacking issue. if you remember saying that? >> i do remember. >> back on 28 of restatement. -- of your statement. the detailsed with

-- were you concerned with the investigation of your knowledge. >> i do not think it was between father and son. >> you described in one article as being in the go-between an increasingly troubled father-son relationship. is that true? ">> vanity fair" spent a lot of time covering the murdoch family dynamic. >> the -- were you the go between in an increasingly fraught father-son relationship? >> no.

they were very happy to speak to each other. >> it was also suggested that james was passing blame on to subordinates. >> what is the context of the " vanity fair" piece? >> it alleges you are under pressure to please and protect rupert and james both said they had no idea what was going on inside their company, particularly james placing blame on subordinates. is that was happening? >> no. >> you cannot shed any light on the truth? >> if saying i am the go-between father and son in an increasingly fraught situation

-- what i'm saying to you is i was talking to both james and rupert murdoch about the issues at news international. james and i had offices next to each other. i talked to mr. murdoch every day. i do not accept the premise of what they are insinuating. whenever it came out, the vanity fair thing, it was a dead james started to pass the blame on to support that. i am not sure of that peace is referring to james murdoch's testimony at the committee or here. i do not know when the piece ran. so it is difficult for me to answer the question without some context. >> can i ask about the police and your meetings with senior

police officers? rnb 1 again. the schedule you prepared. the back of it, i think. you kindly provided a schedule of meetings with senior officers. the second page of that, it appears you did not meet with john yates, the assistant commissioner, after december 2006. is that to the best of your recollection correct? >> i do not think that is correct. i think i did meet him. we hosted the police bravery awards every year.

i was always in attendance. so i am sure that he would have been there. i really do not think these diary entries are a full picture. >> there is likely to be a difference. during a large function, a conversation might be snatched. dinner in a rest right might only be a few of you. >> i do remember having a meeting with john gates -- yates. a lunch. >> we are back at the 2005? >> this diary may be correct then. i did not see much of john yates. >> are you able to say whether or not you discussed phone hacking issues with him?

>> i do not remember a one-on- one meeting. i am pretty sure i attended the -- attended the police bravery awards right up until 2011. and he was always there. i cannot remember when "the guardian" broke their story. the police korea words is usually in july. so i did not want to rule out the fact that i mentioned it to him because he was often around. but i do not remember sitting down and discussing it with him at any length. it might quite probably have happened if the sequence of events if my memory serves me well. i cannot remember what date did

the guardian story broke. and the police reward's was after. a cadet in the other way around. -- it could have been the other way around. >> the meetings which were more frequent, but were the purpose of those meetings? >> they would often be attended -- usually he would accompany a commissioner or a senior officer. if he came in on his own, it would be to discuss things with me and my crime editor and senior team. it could be a variety of issues. the results though, although it was an annual event, it was always quite a lot of organization for the police bravery awards. the process started many months before and he would've been

involved and that as i was. mainly introducing a new commissioner are coming along with an update for the commissioner. >> did you ever obtain information from him which formed the basis of a story? >> no. >> did he put you in contact with police officers who could provide the basis of a story? >> i think most crime journalists -- i think the process was that we would often rainy dick if we had a story-- ring dick if we got a story. he was in a position to steer it away from it or give it a comment. so if you like exchange of information, in the way you put

it it sounded like he would come into these meetings and give a story. >> mr. wallach was an employee of news international until 2009. were you aware of the nature of his relationship with police officers? >> only in so far as i never worked directly with mr. wallace but when i took over his position in 1998, i resume -- assumed his position. i was aware that he had started those in the previous year. >> one general question about the nature of hospitality. in terms of the nature of the hospitality your offering -- lunches, dinners -- you regard

police officers in the same way as politicians? it was appropriate to take them with the restaurant with a certain distinction or did you see that being in the different to police officers and politicians? >> if there are definitely a distinction between the two. it would be fair to say that senior police officers were more inclined to want to go to a neutral venue like a restaurant whereas a lot of meetings with politicians took place either in headquarters or at party conferences are downing street. that was my experience. >> the inquiry has very little interest in the -- but i should

ask you this question. was there any exchanges between the work experience of his son and the acquisition? >> absolutely not. >> moving on to a different issue now. >> are you moving away from police officers? >> yes. >> there is a balance here as well. on the one hand the need to keep an eye on the stories as they are coming out but on the other, a professional distance. do you think there is a risk there? >> i think it is always up to

individual conduct in these matters. so i felt that the contact i had with police officers and particularly commissioners and senior police officers in that kind of context was always appropriate. i never saw any of my dealings with the police -- in the inappropriate -- any inappropriate conversations take place. my experience was relatively good. particularly the police bravery awards where we would come into contact with police officers from all over the country. i always thought they were very useful for us, for both sides. rather than inappropriate. but there is always a risk that

that is not the case. >> gordon brown -- you did have some involvement there, didn't you? >> if yes, i did. >> under tab 29, part of the narrative. this is an article in 2006. "the sun" exposes the allegation that we hacked into the gordon brown's medical records. we discovered he and his four-

year old son had cystic -- fibrosis' months after his birth. we can reveal the source. he wanted to [unintelligible] is that true? >> yes. this was written in 2011 but the article came out in 2006. >> you have any involvement in this article? >> no, i did not. i think and he even left the company -- i may have even left the company. no, sorry, i was still there. >> do you know were the shattered dad got his

information from? >> i think we do, yes. >> where did he get his information from? he got it from the facts that his own child had cystic fibrosis. he was given this information when information was saw about cystic fibrosis. i'm being very careful to try and not reveal his identity, that's all. but i think we know what happened. >> that is of very vague. -- all very vague. >> it is vague but purposefully so. i remember the sun -- son

absolutely putting this together to refused gordon brown's allegations. we were incredibly clear on it. we have an affidavit from the father where he explains the story but i do not think it is public. so i am being slightly hesitant, not try to reveal his identity. >> we are not concerned with his identity. -- i hadr's version is not have access to the medical records of any child at any time. this is the truth or i shall answer to god. that is what his affidavit say it -- said. how did the father get the information? >> if i could put that back to reassure you, we at the time

were absolutely satisfied that the father had got the information from legitimate means. we were very sure about that. he got the information because his own child had cystic fibrosis and he got the information through a very small -- not a small charity but there is a charity aspect of cystic fibrosis society and he got a slightly by involvement through that. >> what sort of involvement? >> i am not going to tell you anymore about the source. i do not want to reveal his identity. >> you are not. >> i feel uncomfortable answering that because i think it could lead to his identity. you're asking me where information came from and the source and i think they are matters i have to respect as a

source coming to a newspaper. the new -- may point of this issue is being accused of hacking into his son's medical records to get the story and that was not true. >> it was not accurate. but that is quite important because the place to something else -- plays into something else concerning me. mr. brown was concerned that information he thought was private had entered the public the main -- domain and he felt the way that most of happened is that somebody got a hold of his records. that is what he was saying. is that right? >> that is what he celt -- said

in july 2011. >> if he did not know anything of how you got the story, it is not unreasonable to believe that the private details of your chao condition being put into the -- your child's condition been put into the public domain -- >> he formed that you -- view in 2011. sun"06, would be for th"the published the story, we discussed it directly with the browns before publication. the first time i had heard that he had a concern of that nature

was when he gave an interview to the bbc in 2011. it was not something he felt at the time. >> it may be that it went into the public domain. i am not focusing so much on that point. i will come to the point i want to make. you do not explain to him, presumably because he wanted to protect your source, no, we got this from somebody whos son also has the same condition. you just did not discuss the source? >> that is right. >> would you look at the first line of "the sun" particles? the sun today exposed the allegation we hacked into court and round -- gordon's browns as false and smear. my concern is whether it is fair

to describe that as it may be incorrect but as false and a smear. i can the general point, absolutely see what you're saying is correct but this is not -- this was a particular journey but the sun had been involved in since the beginning of the information coming into the newsroom and what happened after that and subsequent to that. >> if he never knew how you got it, he is just got it wrong. >> he came to the wrong assumption. >> that is absolutely fair. so the issue is whether it is part of the culture of the press that attack is the best

form of defense. people do not just get it wrong. it is false and a smear. d.c. the point i am making? >> i do. but the context of that article was written after gordon brown at first of all, i think his first appearance in parliament since he stepped down as prime minister was to come to the house and speak critically and in some cases made wrong assumptions through his testimony to the house. he then went on i think the bbc to do an interview with another wrong assumption that "the sun" have got the story from his medical records.

combining the two, this had never been raised by him in any shape or form with any of us at news international warmest murdoch. he never once mentioned press ethics or practices. "the sun" felt it was a smear. that he was doing it five years later for a particular reason. i think that is why they read the story they did. i was chief executive at the time. i did not write the story but i'm finding the right to write the story like that. >> all right. he provided an answer but what you have demonstrated is that "the sun" believes that mr. brown had added two and two and

two and got 27 or as if you took each of the instances on their own, he may have made a mistake. he may be wrong to reach the conclusion. that is all fair enough, entirely proper but it goes a bit further than that. >> i said that this story does but if you imagine for the sun, "the sun" has a trust with its readership. if that is broken -- a former prime minister had claimed, i think harshly, he comes to the conception that we got the story from his medical records, that that was false.

there was a correction published in "the guardian" and i think "the sun" felt they have to stand up because it was a terrible activation -- accusation to make without the facts. that is why you're seeing a strong tone of the rebuttal in the paper. >> thank you. >> let's see how far i can go with it. where did the fathers and permission come from? >> i am not going to say. >> why not? >> because if you knew were the fathers information came from, it would identify the source and i am not going to do that. >> are using the information came from a charity? >> no, i am not. i am saying because the source

also had a child with cystic fibrosis, he was aware -- it was the fact that he had a child with cystic fibrosis that helped him to know. >> that would indicate the father might at some point have been close to the browns, perhaps in a particular hospital. it would not demonstrate how the father got hold of relevant information. do you understand me? >> i understand your point. >> did he gain the information by substitute? or directly from the browns? >> no, he did not. >> did he gain the information from a third party? >> i suppose you could describe it as that. >> it was that an employee? >> no, it was not requested the other party have a duty of confidence to hold the information? >> no, i do not think so. without revealing the source,

the sun was satisfied that the information came from legitimate means. i felt that covered all those questions. id thethe father -- d father pay for his time? next i think there was a donation made. he asked for it to be given to the cystic fibrosis charity. i cannot be sure. we can check. >> harkin the inquiry assess whether or not the father is a source -- how can the inquiry ?ssess the father's source surely you can assist to that extent. >> i can assist to the extent as i did mr. lewis did when he asked about the source for the expenses. i can assist you to the point that it was a legitimate source.

in any case, the way we conduct ourselves after receiving the information towards the sensitivity of that information and how we handle that was no. 10 and with the browns was also exemplary. >> did you have the agreement of the browns publishing the story about your son? >> out to the lead. >> said they were entirely relaxed about it -- >> absolutely. >> so they were an entirely the relaxed about it. is that your position? >> to be fair to the browns, you have to consider how traumatic

for any parent this was. >> what was? >> the diagnosis. >> and what about concluding it on the front page of "the sun." is that helping it or not? can you answer my question? in putting this on the front page of of"the sun" is not helping this. run t>> if they asked me not to it, i would not have. there are many examples where people have asked me not to run a story and i had not and i would not have done. they give me permission to run it. it is the only way we would that put that in the public domain. i cannot remember my call, i

think it was after -- i think he ended up firing sharon. >> i told you that on live television. i am looking to weeks beforehand. the 17th of november. did you have a conversation with him about sharon? >> yes. it would have been discussed to request with the purpose of the call -- >> was the purpose of the call to discuss the sharing? >> if it was trying to engage why social services were allowed to do their own review. >> did you indicate that you wanted her back? i did not tell ed to fire sharon smith. it was very obvious that we launched a petition because the government was refusing to do

anything about the situation. so i had at conversations with ed. i would have spoken to anybody basically to try to get some justice for baby p which was the point of it campaign. >> the person needed to have been somebody who commit relevant decisions. that would the ben ed -- that would have been ed. he was the decision maker, the person who could affect things. >> i am picking up the that the premise of your question is did that tell ed to fire sharon.

from the debris broke the baby story -- the day we brought the baby story, it was clear that that was the editorial line on it. he was under no illusion that that was the focus of our campaign. >> he was also under no illusion of the telephone call as well. >> the telephone call was in part to petition. we also wanted to deliver the additions to downing street because nothing was moving on the campaign. we ourselves at "the sun" were very surprised by the level. one whiff 5 million of a percentage of readership is a huge reaction -- 1.5% -- million of a percentage of leadership is

a huge reaction. >> you had mass of signatures on a petition. all the more reason to bend his ear. >> yes but the premise of your question was did i call him up and say, did i say get rid of her? i am saying i did not say that. the point of the campaign was obvious to him. he only had to read the paper. i was asking him much more subtle information like the context of the review we were not allowed to say in the white wash i felt they had done on their own review. >> i think we better get a break. just five minutes. >> next, president obama talks

about his home ownership initiative in nevada. then the conversation with libertarian presidential nominee gary johnson. then another chance to see former news international chief executive rebekah brooks testifying before the leveson inquiry. tomorrow on [captioning performed by national captioning institute] -- "washington journal" a federal investigation into who leaked information about an al qaeda plot to bomb the u.s. bound flight. and haskell students will have a chance to talk live -- high school students will have a chance to talk live about prepping for tuesday's advance placement government exams. live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> these men go through things and have scars that no one can

understand except each other. >> the first thing that startled us what the relationship between harry truman and herbert hoover. they were too personally and politically different men. they ended up forming this alliance that neither of them would have anticipated and and that being enormously productive and formed the foundation of a very deep franchot. the letters between them later in their lives about how important they had become to one another are extraordinary. >> it may be the most exclusive club in the world. altars on the private and public relations of the american presidents. sunday at 8:00 on "q and a." >> cutting back in an age where crime is a global race it was not tenures ago. by that i mean whether it be organized crime, cyber crime, white-collar crime, gangs, there

globalized and consequently that entity that has the best chance for adjusting globalize, criminal activity is the fbi. if you cut us from going at the point of time for most of the crime is glass, it is a double hit. >> on wednesday, the fbi director testified about the negative impact of budget cuts, political correctness and renewing the foreign intelligence surveillance act. what to online. it is one of many committee hearings and panel discussions recovered this past week. all archived. at c-span.org/videolibrary. >> president obama concluded today trips to the west coast with a visit to reno, nevada to highlight his refinancing plan. as part of his to do list for congress, the president is

urging lawmakers to cut red tape so homeowners who have been paying their mortgages on time to refinance at lower rates. one touts as refinancing applications have increased 50% since the president's announcement last fall. this is about 20 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [applause] >> you guys can come closer. good afternoon, everybody. thank you for arranging a beautiful day. this is a spectacular afternoon and i am thrilled to be here. we all know how difficult these past few years have been for this country but especially for this state. after the worst recession in our lifetime, and crisis that followed the collapse of the housing market, it will take a

long time for the economy to fully recover. more time than any of us would like. but there are plenty of steps and that we can take to speed up the recovery of right now. there are things we can do right now. to help create jobs, help restore some of the financial security that too many families have lost. i have to say that there are few too many republicans in congress who are not as optimistic as we are. they think that all we can do are things that have been done in the past, think they have tried in the past. they want to cut more taxes, especially for the wealthiest americans. they want to cut back on the rules we put in place for banks and financial institutions. they have said that they want to let the housing market hit

bottom and just hope for the best. that is it. if you have heard those ideas before. that is their economic agenda and i will be honest with you, i cannot buy it. we tried their ideas for nearly a decade in they did not work. i refuse to sell this country short by going back to the same ideas that helped get us into this mess in the first place. our goal is to build an economy where hard work and responsibility are rewarded. we can find a good job, make a good wage, own your own home, maybe start a business. send your kids to college. hopefully their lives will be even better than ours. that is what i wish for my children and i know you guys feel the same way to have kids. i have been pushing congress to help us get there by passing a few common-sense policies that

we are convinced will make a difference. we even made a handy to do list for congress so they can just check them off. a list like michelle gives me. i know paul is familiar with that list. he gets it from vale. there are only five things on this list. i do not want to overload congress but to much at mutt -- at once. but they are ideas that will help build a stronger economy right now. first up, it makes no sense that we give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs in factories overseas. that does not make any sense at all. so we have told congress it is time to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs over pcs in use that money to cover moving expenses for companies that bring jobs back to america. [applause]

second, instead of just talking about job creators, congress should help small businesses and help small business owners who create most of the new jobs in america. we want to give them a tax break for hiring more workers and pay them higher wages. the third thing on our to do list -- congress should extend tax credits that are set to expire for our clean energy companies. these businesses are putting folks to work here in the state of nevada. the last time i was here, i saw a huge solar plant -- solar energy plant. a lot of folks were working it construction of it and maintaining it. that is happening across the country. we have to make sure we're helping those folks because that helps to break our dependence on foreign oil. that would help drive down gas prices and it puts people to work right now.

it is the right thing to do. [applause] fourth, congress should create a veteran's job corps so we can help communities hire returning veterans, our heroes, as cops and firefighters and employees at national parks because nobody who fights for this country should ever have to come home and fight for a job or a roof over their head. [applause] which brings me to the fifth. the fifth thing on the list, that is what i am here today -- i am calling on congress to give every responsible homeowner the chance to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing their market. it is a simple idea, it makes great sense and i know it will have an impact. last october i was in clarke

county were i announced new steps to help responsible homeowners refinanced their homes. at the time, congress was not willing to act so we did. we went ahead and did what we could do administratively without a new lobbying pass. as a result, americans who were previously saw -- sucked in high-interest loans were able to take advantage of these rates. they were able to save thousands of dollars every year. and it turns out that two of those people are your neighbors, paul and valerie keller. [applause] so i just had a chance to visit with them and look of their beautiful home and check out the grill outback. valerie says paul is a pretty good cook. i will take her word for it. they have lived in this house

for 14 years. val works nearby helping secure loans for farmers and ranchers. paul is a retired electrical contractor who started a family business with their son. last last year, with mortgage rates at historic lows, the kellers decided it would make sense for them to refinance. they thought it would be easy, since they're current on their mortgage, they make their payments on time. so this is an example of responsible homeowners doing the right thing. but when they tried to refinance, they were told they couldn't do it. because the kellers' house, like thousands of others in this state and probably some of the neighbors here, their house is underwater, which means that the price is currently lower than what they owe on it. so they were hit -- you were hit with a historic drop in housing prices which caused the value of the homes in their neighborhood to plummet. and a lot of banks historically have said, well, we're not going to refinance you if your home is underwater.

now, luckily, the kellers saw my announcement that i had made down in clark county. so i'm assuming it must have been val because whenever something smart is done, it's usually the wife in the house. so they called their lender, and within a few months, within 90 days, they were able to refinance under this new program that we set up. their monthly mortgage bill has now dropped $240 dollars a month, and that means every year they're saving close to $3000. now, val says that they've been talking to some of their neighbors -- maybe some of you are here today -- and you're saying, well, that sounds like a pretty good idea.

and a lot of folks across the country recognize this is a smart thing to do not only for homeowners but for our economy, because if paul and val have an extra $240, $250 a month, then they might spend it on the local business. they might go to a restaurant a little more often. they might spoil their grandkids even more. and that means more money in the economy, and businesses do better, and slowly home prices start rising again. so it makes sense for all of us. and the good news is, since i've made this announcement, refinancing applications have gone up by 50 percent nationwide and 230 percent here in nevada alone.

that's the good news. people are taking advantage of this. that's what we want to see. but here's the only catch -- and this is where you come in, because you're going to have to pressure congress: the pool of folks who can refinance right now, when their homes are underwater, is still too small. the reason the kellers were able to refinance is because the only thing that we could do without congressional action was to give opportunities for refinancing for folks with a government- backed loan, an fha-backed loan. but in order to expand that opportunity -- we want to include everybody; people whose mortgages aren't government- backed. and in order to do that we've got to have congress move. there's absolutely no reason why they can't make this happen right now. if they started now, in a couple of weeks, in a month, they could make every homeowner in america who is underwater right now eligible to be able to refinance their homes -- if they're making their payments,

if they're responsible, if they're doing the right thing. and think about all those families saving $3,000 on average a month year-- that's a huge boost to our economy. and for some of you who are underwater, you might say, instead of spending that money i can plow that back into equity in my home, and build that back up, which would further strengthen housing prices here in nevada and around the country. so it's the right thing to do. there's already a bill in the works.

it's supported by independent, nonpartisan economists. it's supported by industry leaders. congress should pass it right now. and let me just say this -- maybe there are some members of congress watching. if you need some motivation to make this happen, then you should come to reno and you should visit with folks like the kellers. i'm not saying the kellers want all these members of congress up in their house. it's bad enough having me and secret service in there. but at least they -- they probably wouldn't mind saying

hello and talking to them here in front of their house. but they should talk to people whose lives are better because of the action that we took. all over the country, there are people just like paul and val, folks just like you, who are doing everything they can to do the right thing -- to meet their responsibilities, to look after their families, to raise their kids right, give them good values. you're not looking for a handout. you just want to make sure that somebody is looking out for you, and that when you do the right thing that you're able to keep everything that you've worked for. that's what folks are looking for, and that's what they expect from washington: to put the politics aside and the electioneering aside, and just do what's right for people. so i need all of you and everybody who's watching to push congress on their "to-do" list. nag them until they actually get it done. we need to keep moving this country forward. send them an email. tweet them. write them a letter if you're old-fashioned like me. but communicate to them that this will make a difference.

it's one small step that will help us create the kind of economy that all americans deserve. and that's an economy that's built to last. an economy where everybody has a fair shot, everybody gets a fair share, everybody is playing by the same set of rules. that's what made us great in the past. that's what's going to make us great in the future. all right. thank you, everybody. god bless you. god bless america. and give paul and val a big round of applause. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] des moine>> index, a conversatih

gary johnson. then rebekah brookws. ks. >> tomorrow, mitt romney gets

the commencement address. he will be addressed by jerry falwell junior. the question is live at ted 10:20.e >> they have taken american history on the road. they have visited the places that define the city's heritage. this is the tv in american history television. >> now i conversation with gary johnson. this is about 45 minutes. >> on your screen joining us this gary johnson.

he was recently selected by the presidential candidates in 2012. thank you for being with us. >> knowing that you like to be in the white house, it is a long way to go. what is the ultimate goal of this time consuming bid that you have been making for the presidential campaign this year that's what you want to accomplish? >> really, i am talking about the same message as ron paul. i think this is the american politics today. i think we are on the verge of a monetary collapse because we are continuing to spend and borrow

43 cents out of every dollar we are spending. i am promising to submit a balanced budget in 2013. i and promising to veto any expenses that exceed revenue. i am promising to advocate on behalf of the fair tax that is throwing out the entire federal tax system and replacing it with a consumption tax. it does with the irs, income tax, corporate tax, tax withholding. it repeals the 16th amendment to the constitution allowing for an income tax. host: talk about the route to a balanced budget. what would you do? guest: i would submit it. i would submit it to congress in 2013. that would be a $1.4 trillion reduction in federal spending. if we do not balance the federal budget, we will find ourselves with the collapsed government. i do not think there is any denying the mathematics of continuing to borrow and spend to the tune of 43 cents of every dollar.

so much talk is being given of greece of late, the fact that they are 160% of gdp. we are six or eight years away from that. balancing the federal budget, and would abolish the federal department of education believing it is a negative to take federal funds. the federal government gives each state about 11 cents of every dollar of that each state spends. it comes with 16 cents worth of strings attached. i think people do not realize it is a negative to take federal money. give education back to the states. 50 laboratories of innovations and best practice. i think that is what would have, fabulous success that would get emulated. i do not think people recognize

the part of education was established in 1979 under jimmy carter. medicaid/medicare, i would do the same thing with health care for the poor and those over 65. i would block grants to states, less than we are currently spending. i would rely on the states to come up with best practices that i think which a fabulous success. of course, there would be failure that would get avoided. washington knows best -- that is what has us in the predicament we are in right now. as governor of new mexico, i did reform medicaid in the state. we changed it to a managed-care model. we saved hundreds of millions of dollars, set up better health care networks. i believe if the federal

government would have block granted the state of new mexico 43% less money from a done away with all the strings and mandates, i could have effectively overseen the delivery of health care to the poor. i maintain the same for medicare and health care for those over 64. host: the phone numbers are on the screen. we welcome your calls. you can also tweet us or send us an e-mail. a.v. york is really unhappy with my first question to you -- a viewer is really unhappy with my first question to you. here is history. john anderson in 1986, ross perot in 1992, ralph nader in 2000. none received any electoral votes. let me ask you about the process of your campaign from now until november. guest: i would not be doing

this if there were not an opportunity to win. the opportunity is to pull 15% against obama and romney, believing romney will be the nominee and being on the stage with both of them. if that happens, i think anything is possible given the fact that 80% of americans are saying they would vote for a third-party candidate. changing the world a little bit is to get on the stage with obama and romney. i think we need to balance the federal budget, get out of afghanistan, bring the troops home. i think we should be adopted in marriage equality in this country. i think we should reform our drug laws. i think there are all sorts of

civil liberties issues that could be addressed by libertarian president. i think there are all sorts of dollars and cents issues that could be effectively dealt with by libertarian president as opposed to republicans that seem to spend a lot of money even though they are not supposed to end the democrats' -- not supposed to and the democrats who are supposed to be good on civil liberties. host: how will the libertarian party approach ballot access issues? guest: i should be one of three candidates on the ballots in all 50 states.

libertarians have achieved 100% ballot access, meaning all 50 states and corporate election cycles. this is the cycle where the libertarian party believes it will be on the ballot in all 50 states. that is another thing that is very significant. host: last question from me and will get to the college. your campaign announced it was expecting several matching funds. i wonder how the squares with your libertarian point of view. guest: it is a system that has been gained -- gamed by the two older parties. democrats and republicans have received hundreds of millions of dollars. i would be the first one to sign off on no federal matching funds. in the meantime, this is why we

have to the parties -- we have two parties and federal matching funds could conceivably help out in bringing about change. host:. every person look up federal dollars -- could every person look at federal dollars and say they exist so they might as well take advantage? guest: i understand the arguments for both sides. democrats and republicans collecting hundreds of millions of dollars are the ones that have gamed the system in this way and benefit. to be the libertarian candidate and qualified -- qualify and take federal matching funds, we're talking about not even a penny relative to the dollars given to democrats and republicans. host: let's go to calls for governor johnson. go ahead, rose. caller: i just have a couple of things.

1st with the policy versus process. when gary johnson says he would submit a budget, then what? senator kirk came in on the latter portion of senator obama's term. the democrats have put together a budget -- had put together a budget. senator kurt came in with john mccain on the floor and said to stop the budget from moving. he said to senator mccain, we want -- we won. what did we win other than that were there was no budget? how do you feel about giving our land to canada, one industry big oil? tell america how many foreign trade zones exist in our country and what they exist for. thank you. host: governor johnson? guest: i apologize. i am getting a poor feed and not picking up everything that was said.

host: the last question was on the foreign trade zones and what americans get for those. can you hear me ok? caller: i am having a really hard time hearing. i am sorry. host: that is our fault. our technicians will work on that. let's listen to another telephone call from silver springs, maryland. sam is an independent. go ahead. caller: c-span showed the

convention over the weekend and the debate he had. it was excellent. thank you. keep up the good work. he said he had to get 15%. do they plan on having a petition? i would like to see the libertarian party and other groups recognize -- represented in the national debate. does he plan on doing town hall meetings and coming to big cities? thank you and keep up the good

work. host: i will keep a tally on your questions while the technicians work on the governor's audio. we will take a couple of calls and go back to see how he is doing. let's here from california, jane, a republican. caller: i would like to know how the libertarian party could present a budget to congress when they are mostly republicans or democrats and there are no libertarians in the house that in any kind of work for the people, if he became president. how would he address that. host: governor johnson, are we connected? guest: yes, i can hear just fine. talking about a balanced budget, i and promising to submit a balanced budget to congress. i will suggest to you and i would have been elected president promising to do this. i am going to suggest the wind would be at my back and there would be pressure on reducing spending. i do not think congress can balance the budget. i do not think it is possible.

i am promising to veto legislation where expenses exceed revenue. as governor of new mexico, they have vetoed more legislation. i may have vetoed more legislation than the other 49 governors combined. by promising to submit a balanced budget and document with a $1.4 trillion reduction in spending, taking on the debate and discussion that will go along with the document, and the telling legislation where expenses exceeded revenue. i will offer of that spending will be lower with those two promises kept than any of the possible scenario you could come up with. i think it is important to reduce spending given that we're not immune from the mathematics of continuing to borrow and spend 43 cents of every dollar we are spending. host: governor johnson referenced ron paul at the beginning of the program. but make a quick ron paul street in here. -- let me get a quick from paul story in here.

this is adding more delegates to the national convention because supporters have flooded the conventions and elected themselves to delegate slots. what does paul want? governor johnson, if you have any comments on up? -- do you have any comments on that? guest: i think i am delivering the same message as ron paul. i do not think you will be successful in getting the nomination for president. what happens to the message and voice when that goes away? i am going to pose there is a viable alternative and it is not a compromise alternative.

that would be neat running as the libertarian candidate for president. -- that would be me running as the libertarian candidate for president. host: caller asked about the 15% threshold to get a slot at the debate. the caller asked whether he would conduct a national petition to get access to the debates. guest: i do not think you can sleep 15% polling under the rug. that will be noticed. in ppp boeing, and polling about 8% against obama and romney. -- in ppp polling, i am polling about 8% against obama and romney. i do not think 80% of the people in this country know who i am or

what i am about. i will say to present a third name to a voter these days, a lot of them will say yes, this person as opposed to what we know. what we know will not change things. there is tremendous discontent with politics reflected in the fact that 80% of americans are saying they would consider voting for a third-party candidate. that is unprecedented. host: to that end, someone on twitter rights -- writes -- guest: i think the libertarian party is committed to running

candidate from the bottom of and has been. politics, the top of the ticket helps the bottom. the bottom helps the top. libertarians are running candidates top to bottom. they have for 40 years. they have not really gotten anybody elected. hopefully that changes. with a broad brush stroke describing a libertarian, i think most people in this country are fiscally responsible and socially tolerant. i think that is where a libertarian lies. i think libertarians are strong on civil libertarian -- civil liberties. libertarians are strong on managing the checkbook and lowering taxes. i think you take the best of what republicans are supposed to be about and the best of what democrats are supposed to be

about, and you end up with a libertarian. of course, that is my argument. we will see how it ends up flying. host: dave is an independent. caller: i want to bring up something that happened when ronald reagan was running the first term. it threw me for a loop. it was lyndon larouche. he wanted people to vote for him. he wanted people to vote for him but said if you do not, vote for reagan. that threw me for a loop. it made me lose respect for the libertarian party at the time. i truly feel we need a third party in this country. i do not think in libertarian by himself is going to do it. i do not think the green party is going to do it. if all these grass-roots parties to form and make one

super third-party, take the best ideas of of each one, are you following that serve -- are you following that, sir? host: he is suggesting the smaller parties joined together, it would create critical mass. guest: it sounds great in theory, but i think the reality is impossible. the libertarian party has been around for 40 years. that is the kooky party that talks about legalizing drugs. in america, 50% of americans are supporting legalizing marijuana. who is ultimately responsible for the shift in public opinion? i think it might be the libertarian party. why is it that 50% of americans are supporting legalizing

marijuana today as opposed to four years ago? i think it is because more people are talking about the issue. the more people talk about it, the better it does. the more informed people are, the more people recognize there are viable alternatives to what we're currently doing. it does not involve arresting and incarcerating the whole country. host: this is from twitter. what are your thoughts on this? guest: there are no military threats to my knowledge from any country in the world against the united states. the president should be vigilant to any of those threats. i think that is the primary responsibility of the president, to make sure we're not being threatened from any foreign country. are their military threats from foreign countries currently?

if we want to use iran as an example, iran is an unintended consequences of taking out iraq. that was their only concern. we take out iraq and saddam hussein, now they are raising their head. do they have nuclear capability? no. should we be vigilant about being developed and used against the united states? absolutely, yes. if we bomb iran tomorrow, we will find ourselves with 100 million enemies we did not otherwise have. we will be engaged in a two-year bombing maintenance program. the libertarian party, i am a non-interventionist. military use american party unless we are attacked. in the context of being attacked, the president has the best intelligence available to determine if an attack is imminent. i was against iraq from beginning.

i know there was talk of weapons of mass destruction. i said, don't we have the military capability to see iraq rolled out weapons of mass destruction? if they do, we can deal with it. i thought if we went into iraq, we find ourselves in a civil war to which there would be no end. i think that has happened. afghanistan, we were attacked by al qaeda. we attacked al qaeda back, completely unwarranted. after having been in afghanistan two wants, we wiped out al qaeda.

-- after being in afghanistan for two months, we wiped out al qaeda. we should have gotten out of afghanistan 11 years ago. the underwear,, these things happen. we should be vigilant. is this a threat to the notice states -- to the united states? i do not think it is. we should do our utmost to prevent these kinds of things from happening. but i think all of us would recognize these things are going to happen. this is what is going to be occurring, hopefully with minor consequence. host: publication suggests you say you support america's military effort to eight african troops in chasing down joseph kony in uganda. is that true? guest: i am non-interventionist in not using our military unless we are attacked.

do any of us want to stand by and watch the holocaust occurred? i do not think any of us want to see that happen. in the case of joseph kony and a large resistance army, -- and the lord's resistance army, as president i would have a constitutional obligation to take any plans i have to use the military to congress, get congressional approval to go to war. in this case, the lord's resistance army, i have come to find out this may be the worst terrorist group the world has seen over the last 20 years. it is a finite number, about 300 in the lord's resistance army.

they have been marauding african country. it is not getting involved in a specific country. three countries announced for intervention. congress authorized the intervention. the president signed off on the intervention. i think the difference is i would have bounced for volunteers to go in and deal with the situation. the president has sent in advisors. arguably, this is a group that has been responsible for tens of thousands of rapes, murders, and relations over the last -- mutilations over the last 20 years. caller: i want to ask what you do about social security. the cost of living is going sky-high.

they give us a $10 or $15 raise. forget about it. host: governor johnson? guest: i heard that question. my hearing is not very good again. social security is what i heard. host: what would you do about it? he says he only gets a $15 a month to raise. costs are going up. what would you do about social security for seniors? guest: social security is very fixable. it is a system that needs to take in more money than it pays out. it has paid in $3.5 trillion

more than it has paid out, but the government has spent that money. it is gone. to reform social security simply, change the escalators built into social security from the wage index to the inflation rate. come up with the means testing that could be very fair. raise the retirement age. i think there should be provision for op in -- opt in and opt out. i am proposing to drop the entire federal tax system and replace it with a national consumption tax. i am specifically talking about

the fair tax. there were no more withholding from payroll checks. you would not have to match social security. that would come out of the proceeds of the fair talks -- fair tax. social security is very stable. i say this relative to medicare. medicare is the 800-pound gorilla that has the country in the state of affairs it is in. i suggest if we do not fix it, we will find ourselves without a country and without social security. we will find ourselves without any health care. the alternative to a reduction in medicare is no health care at all, a collapsed government unable to deliver any bids and services. host: chris jones writes this. guest: i think one federal consumption talks -- tax ends up being cost neutral over a short time. a can of coke has 23% in bedded tax in it. you take away that and change it over to a very transparent 23%. coca-cola does not have to sell the coke for $1 to make the same profit. they can sell it for 80 cents. you are doing a with the hidden taxes.

they are going away. -- you are doing away with the hidden taxes. they applied a fair tax and in that pocketing the same amount of money. it is the answer when it comes to exports, making them 23% more competitive. it is the answer when it comes to china and jobs. in the zero corporate tax rate environment, if the private sector does not create millions of jobs, i do not know what it will take for the private sector to create tens of millions of jobs. tens of millions of jobs. a consumption tax by its nature is regressive. the fair tax deals with the regressive nature. the less money may, you will have to buy a certain amount of goods and services to get by on. the fair tax deals with the regressive nature of a

consumption tax by giving everyone a prebate check of $200 a month. that would allow all all of us to pay the tax up to the point of the party level. this is held a fair tax addresses did this is have a fair tax addresses -- this is how unfair tax addresses the regressive nature. check out fairtax.org. i think it would improve " we're currently encountering -- i think it would improve what

we're currently encountering. we would not be dealing with the ira's. i think the positives outweight not giving it a try. -- we would not be dealing with the irs. host: terry is up next, a republican. caller: i am glad you got the nomination. i am very happy about it. i wish you the best of luck. people talk about ron paul and knocking him down about legalizing drugs.

they do not say it would cut the murder rate in half in this country. it would stop all the drug gangs in the country. it is ridiculous the way it is now. my son got his jaw broken but a gang member. he would not tell on him for fear of what would happen to our family and property. host: governor, i can tell you are still having audio problems. can you hear me ok? caller: yes -- guest: yes, i think we got it fixed. i apologize. i did not hear anything other than that we are engaged in a fruitless drug war. i would certainly agree with that. maybe we have the sound carried -- cured. host: he said legalizing drugs

would have a very positive effect on the murder rate in the united states. guest: i believe that. if we look at border violence with mexico, 40,000 deaths south of the border over the last four years. this is a prohibition phenomenon. these are disputes being played out with guns rather than the courts. legalized marijuana, arguably 75% of the border violence goes away as a result of legalizing marijuana. that being the estimate of the drug cartel's activities involved in the marijuana trade. host: the next call comes from michigan, outside detroit. jamie, you are on. caller: i was calling because i have a problem with the child protective services right now. i am wondering why in michigan

the target of lower income families. they are targeting the lower income families and there is not any fairness in the court system. guest: i do not have the answer in this particular -- if the state is utilizing discretion in how the funds are being distributed. i get back to the model i think we're going to have to have to fix medicaid and medicare. virtually all existing federal programs, that is going to be to devolve these programs dumped the state. i am hearing you say michigan has real issues with top protective services. child protective services. i cannot speak to those specifically. i will say back to the competitive nature of all of the states, if implemented protective practices that are cost effective and everybody is happy, those are going to be practices that in related by other states. it sounds like michigan may have issues that other states

would do well to avoid. host: julio, a republican. caller: my question links the dust before with this one. what do you think of obesity in this country? what do you think is a good route for the problem to be solved? guest: i think it is about education. i like the notion i can read stories on the menu and be able to determine how many calories are an consuming.

that goes a long way toward obesity. you link up a meal is your daily allotment of calories and that you should be exercising. i think education is the main component. i think if government start mandating -- start mandating and passing laws relative to calories and health, you will see huge bureaucracies that do not make a difference. i was on a talk show the other day abdicating -- advocating government should pass laws requiring restaurants to list calories. i was thinking about in terms of the gary johnson law where the restaurant owner would be able to sit down and reasonably come to some pretty good estimates on the calorie content of meals. that would have been the gary johnson law.

i think it would have made a huge business -- difference. it would not have imposed on business. it would have provided a valuable educational tool to consumers. then i realized, at a point, i would leave office. the program would be so successful. the new legislation that would require stiffening calorie counting criteria. it was going to have to be very accurate and reflect protein, carbohydrates, and fat in the most accurate way. the point being alternately -- the point being 0 ultimately, my calorie counting would lead to the biggest bureaucracy and the government. i do not want to propose legislation to address obesity.

education is obviously the key. host: the complex food analysis required on all foods sold in grocery stores, if you disagree with that? guest: no, i do agree with that. i think that is a given. back to education, it is key to understanding half of the obesity problem. that is your intake. the other half has to do with exercise. host: so that is a good use of government mandates and regulations? guest: i do believe that, yes. host: the next call is from california, lori, a democrat.

caller: are you for or against gay marriage? if you are president, would you do anything about the under- treatment of the mentally ill? guest: yes, i do support marriage equality. i know that has been in the news the last couple of days. i think president obama's position does not change marriage equality in this country by leaving it up to the states. i think it is a constitutionally guaranteed right and that the federal government should be dealing with that. about the mentally ill, i come back to what we're going to have to devolve to with health care to make it work. that is devolving it to the

states and not the federal government. that houses in the predicament that we are borrowing and printing money to the tune of 43 cents out of every dollar we are spending. if we do not fix spending, we will find ourselves without any health care at all from the government. we will not be able to garner health care for ourselves with the collapsed dollar and government. that will be the result of continuing to bar and spend -- borrow and spend what we're doing. host: the last call from gary johnson is from minnesota, clifford. caller: one thing i have not heard mentioned on the fair tax is people who are retired and spending savings will have to pay tax on this. i never hear that mentioned in the discussion of a fair tax. guest: retired, if you are still going to have to file with the irs.

that goes away. for those on deferred retirement, having saved money and later being subject to tax, that would go away. there is the notion this is cost-neutral over a short time. it is not that you will be having to spend more money on these items. i think when you add it up, it gets back to the notion of fair. this is a fair way of rebooting the american economy. going forward, we will benefit from the jobs that will get added with no corporate income tax. our exports become 23% more competitive. i do not know that it is as big an issue that some would say. it only applies to new goods and services.

it is not a compounded tax. for a home builder building a home, everything would be tax- exempt up to the point of sale. that would also apply to businesses. any goods or services used in the final production of a good is not going to be taxed. i think we will find the opposite occurred. this will stimulate the u.s. economy. host: governor johnson is on twitter. you can follow him. garyjohnson2012.com. thank you for being on c-span this morning and taking our viewers' questions.

guest: 80. i wish the sound would have been good the whole time. -- thank you. , jennifer discusses the timing and impact of president obama's support of gay marriage. roberts talks about a federal investigation into who leaked information into an al qaeda plot. high school students will have a chance to talk live to high school teachers about prepping for tuesdays and pants placement.

thomas to think gasoline this summer. >> after that, the inquiry hears from andy coulson. the president obama talks about his home ownership initiative. >> i thought it was important to write a book. obama did not come out of nowhere. also the tea party movements seem to come out of nowhere. how did it work? occupy wall street. those are important things to take seriously. >> than jones on social movement in america today. saturday night at 10:00 p.m.

eastern. then the american spectator founder contends that modern liberalism is flawed. sunday night at 11:00 p.m.. >> i had my ambition to walk with john smith. i got to pocahontas. this makes a rectangular space that would be the chancel. pocahontas mary's john in this church in 1614. i guarantee you i am standing exactly a little deeper than she was. this is where she stood when she got married. >> toward the jamestown colony babe with the project director. it is yielding more than 1.5 million unique artifacts. take the tour starting at 1:30 a.m. eastern.

where less steady at 2:30 p.m.. >> next, rebekah brooks testifying before a panel about politicians and the british press and the culture and practices of the media. she discusses e-mails and text messages between david cameron and other e-mails -- and other leaders. she was arrested last july on suspicion of conspiracy and corruption and arrested again in march 2012 on suspicion of conspiracy. the criminal and investigation is still pending.

>> the other witness today is rebekah brooks. thank you. >> i swear that the evidence i shall give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> your full name, please. >> rebekah mary brooks. >> please identify the two in front of you. the second of may of this year. the principal focus is on the second statement.

the time line of your career -- tell me if i make any mistakes. you joined news international in 1989. >>that's right. >>but then to 1995, you were appointed deputy of "news of the world." 1998, deputy editor of "the sun." may 2000, editor of "news of the world." is that right? >> yes. >> january 2003, editor of "the sun." >> can't be clear of the dates. >> with the announcement of your employment in june 2009 when you took on the job formally in september of 2009. >> that is correct.

>> then resigned on the 17th of july 2011. >> the 15th. >> 15th of july. >> so we are clear. you are under police investigation in the context of operation wheeting and allegedly perverting the course of justice. is that true? >> i am grateful to you for the care you put into the statements he made. i am conscious of the difficulties facing you. >> may relate to documents regarding e-mails and text messages. can i ask you to look at paragraph 30 on page 02577. you have had reference to a diary kept by a former pa.

is it an ordinary desk diary or an alistair campbell typed diary? >> definitely not. it is my pa's old desk diaries. the appointments in there are not the complete picture. i have done my best to give a schedule but it is more of a flavor than precise. >> the schedule appointments is not a narrative of what was discussed on any particular case. you said you have had no access to your work since were fired -- to your work emails. however the ones that are on

your desk that he saved -- doesn't follow that your work e-mail account was lost to you in some way? >> i think it was blocked on the day i left. >> can you tell us when those events occurred? >> mica blackberry -- my blackberry was by my legal team. it contained a think about six weeks of e-mails and about a month of text messages. but we had to relish them and we had some problems with that request approximately when was a blackberry returned? >> i think about three weeks later. maybe longer. >> can you give us a month? >> in july, 2011. >> so we have as you explain e- mails and texts which come mark

-- cover a limited period. you see the 17th of july or the 15th. >> i think it was the 17th. >> you also confirm there is nothing of relevance to the inquiry in your private account. is that right? >> that is correct. >> in e-mails he might have had with politicians were three-year work e-mail account? what's that is correct. >> text message contact with politicians would have been on your work blackberry? no other mobile phone? okay. i have been asked to put to this question -- whether any e-mails or texts to mr.

cameron on a blackberry at the time you left news international? >> no. although one will make up the image back. there was one that was compressed. in june but there is no content in it. >> so it is a complete mystery of what it might contain? did you receive messages of commiseration or support from politicians in july, 2011 in particular? >> some. >> directly or indirectly? >> remini indirectly. -- mainly in directly. >> been able to assist us with from home you received such messages? >> i had indirect messages from politicians but nothing direct. >> the indirect ones, who were

the politicians? >> a variety. -- a few labour politicians. >> can be more specific? >> are received -- i received indirect messages from number 10, no. 11. foreign office. about're talking secretaries of state, prime minister yuri >> and also people who worked in those offices as well. >> labor politicians? how about them? >> there were very few. >> mr. blair. did he send you one? >> yes.

>> it has been reported in relation to mr. cameron that you received a message of support along the lines of keep your head up from mr. cameron and directly -- indirectly. >> along those lines. i do not think those were the exact words. it was not direct. >> did you also receive a message from him via an intermediary -- sorry i could not be [unintelligible] but they had me on the run or words to that effect? >> is similar but very indirectly. >> broadly speaking, that message was sent to you?

do you know how these messages to enter the public domain? >> we have a strong free press to have great access to politicians. >> you cannot be of any more particular clarity than that? mr. cameron said publicly we all got too close to news international. did he communicate that to you personally? >> no. >> mr. murdoch. we know he told the house of lords communications committee back in 2007 when he was spoken to in new york that he was a

traditional proprietor who exercise editorial control on major issues. you agree with that or not? >> yes. >> doesn't apply as much to the "news of the world" as "the sun.:" >> i think mr. murdoch is probably more interested in "the sun" and terms of political issues but it also apply "news of the world." >> your evidence -- question 146, i think it would be said that before any appointment, he knew me pretty well. you stand by that? >> before my appointment to the editor of "the sun." >> he would be aware of my

views, social, political and cultural. do you stand by that? then you said take europe, for example. i think he was aware of my views. >> yes. >> without delving into this with great detail, your views on europe -- you were skeptic? and politically your position is very similar to mr. murdoch's? >> in some areas. >> in which areas to they differ? next we disagreed about quite a few things.

more in margins of it rather than the principle. the environment, dna database, immigration, celebrities in the paper obverses serious issues, the design and headline, the size of font. we had a lot of disagreements but in the main, big issues we had some agreements. >> on the amount of celebrity versus serious issues, where did you stand on that? >> i like more celebrity and he wanted more serious issues. >> why did you want more celebrity? >> i thought the readers were quite interested in -- you only have to look at the viewing figures of bbc to see that the celebrity programs, the reality programs do well.

i took from those figures that our readers were quite interested in that. he thought it was too much of it. >> and not going to pry into cultural views too much. are you a strong believer in human rights? >> not particularly, no. in its form, obviously the existence, obsolete. but there were parts of the campaign against when i was the -- the conservative party was going to appeal it. but i think that has now been dropped. >> be may come back to that.

-- we may come back to that. >> in 2000, was that mr. murdock plaza decision? >> i was actually told by les hinton that i was going to be editor. i did not speak to mr. murdoch until after that. i think it was les hinton's strong recommendation. i did not speak to mr. murdoch until i had action taken the job. >> we had some discussion in october in relation to the departure of mr. hall. >> i was not at "the sun" at the time. >> with the editorial line he took in relation to "the sun" reflect mr. murdoch's thinking? >> it really is important to differentiate between mr. murdoch also thinking, my thinking, the political thinking and the thinking of the readers. i know i spent a lot of time in

my witness statement to get across the point that it was the readers views that were always reflected in any policy or political party. i know mr. murdoch when he gave evidence said if they want to know what i think, read the "sun" editorial. >> those were the exact words he used. it was a response to levenson. >> i do not think it was liberal. >> why not? >> there were a lot of things in "the sun" that would not reflect his views on request at

that he met on the big point -- meants on the big point. >> paragraph 12 of your witness statement. you give a little thumbnail sketch of what "the sun" is, what it represents. he said of a particular social class. sometimes the relationship between the paper and its readers reflects a national conversation. if you wanted to know what the nation was talking about, you would look at "the sun." but some would say if you want to know what mr. murdoch was thinking, look at the sun and then you are saying

if you want to know what the nation is thinking about, read the sun. which one is correct? >> the one in my statement. i believe it. >> what do you mean by the nation? >> i think if you except that "the sun" for many years has been the biggest selling the skipper in the country -- nwespaper in the country. a think about five years ago and maybe longer in circulation terms. you have a huge readership. i do not know what the exact figure is today but we always use 8 million. the paper next to that is 6 million. i am basing it on such a large percentage of the bridges population who would come in contact with "the sun." they may not read it every day but it would come in contact with it at some point or another. >> it seems the nation is monolithic or homogeneous which it is not.

the bigger the readership is, it might be the more diverse its views are. d.c. that point? >> i do. i made it later on in my with the statement. this has been touched on through the inquiry. broadcast media have become more influential and important. ms. piper's circulation in -- newspaper circulation in the printed form is declining. it was meant to say if for example no the conversation in the past or at work during the majesty united clash, that conversation would be talked about and that was that -- that is what i meant about national conversation. >> a reflection of the sort of debate which he would hear in any -- you would hear in any pub but not a reflection of the

individual collected use of the readership. is that a fair description? >> not particularly. >> i am leading into paragraph 15 and the myth which she seemed to explode -- explored. that is pipper editors are not elected -- that news paper editors are not elected. who elected you? >> we are not elected officials. >> you are saying it is a myth but it is the truth, isn't it? >> newspaper editors, if you who them -- if you view them as that. i view them as journalists. >> isn't the point you're really making not so much about an unelected force?

one could talk about unelected whatever but it is that you're shaping and changing government policy to suit your own interests? that is the myth you are really talking about. >> that was also a focus, yes. >> that there is no doubt or perhaps he would disagree that newspaper editors are a powerful force. they have a voice. >> i understand what you're saying. sayink what i'm trying to is that particularly newspapers like the "sun" -- your power is your readership. it is not an individual power.

i think that is really important. i think someone said if he fell under a bus, the power of his office would go. adding to his point, i think that the sun, the reader's are the most powerful. their interests we try ending date in. i do not see -- i cannot remember what the question was but i was more reacted to the fact that every day, the readers cannot elect us. >> we have heard that several times. i think we discussed this yesterday. in the extent to which editors are reactive and to which they can in fact lead opinion. they have to reflect the

overall position of their readership. they cannot go out on a limb when they know readers will not follow them. but they are in a position to lead opinion. would you agree with that? >> you can present issues to the leadership. -- readership. >> when you present issues, were the assurgent ben -- a certain spin? >> depending on the paper. i would not say "spin." i would say attitude. >> for perspective, then. you mentioned the "sun" was enacted to rather than a particular social class. -- an attitude rather than a particular social class. we talked about the -- with

your evidence be similar to his or difference regarding the amount of contact discussion? it was on saturday evening or less often than that. >> i am sure that is right. >> he was interested in the big stories? >> occasionally. yes. mr. murdoch also contact with "news of the world" was much more limited than "the sun." >> when he became editor of "the sun" in 2003, ecb believes that mr. murdoch was instrumental in your appointment -- you say you believe that mr. murdoch was instrumental in your appointment?

>> yes. that is true. >> how often did he speak to you when you were editor? roxbury frequently. -- >> very frequently. sometimes it could be every day. sometimes something else was going on and around the world and it could be less than that but very frequently. >> even when he wasn't in the country? >> mainly when he was not in the country, yes. >> it is said you had a close relationship with mr. murdoch.

he said that you used to swim together when he was in london. is that true? november 2005, do you recall that you were arrested for alleged assault on your ex- husband? >> i do recall that. i think you had been to the 42nd birthday party that evening. >> i do not know if it was that date but yes. >> other members of the murdoch family would have been there? >> i cannot remember. not particularly but. >> mr. rupert murdoch was there? >> no, he was not. >> is said that you kept waiting for a breakfast meeting the following morning. is that true? >> no.

>> and he sent a dress to the police station? >> that is not true. where is it fun -- from? >> various sources. >> you need better sources. >> they are all in the public domain, actually. it may be leading up to a question much later on in relation to all of it. there is evidence of a 40th birthday party for you at mr. murdoch also house. where politicians there? >> some. >> were mr. cameron and mr. blair there? >> it was a surprise party. i know mr. blair was there. i am not sure if mr. cameron was. possibly. there are several stories as to what the birthday present was but i will not ask you.

>> you have asked me if i had been swimming with mr. murdoch. please ask me about the birthday present. >> no, i will not. in 2006, you were appointed chief executive international. >> 2009. i discussed the appointment with james and rupert murdoch. was it rupert murdoch's idea? >> i think it was more james in the beginning of both of their ideas. >> what was that job of interest to you? >> i think i had been editing for some seven years by then. i was interested in looking at the future of economic models of journalism. and how you continue financially to keep high-quality

journalism going. i think the digital age in the ipad were all of interest to me. something i was looking forward to doing. mr. marion was a replacement. i think he was your recommendation? why? >> he had been my deputy for a few years so i had seen the paper that he edited in my absence and also i attended a few more business management programs in the last year a couple of modules and internal- meant -- internal management programs. i thought he was doing a very

good job. >> and terms of the general political perspective where you stood compared to mr. murdoch, did he stand in the same place? >> domenic is not entirely the same as i am or mr. murdoch. but then none of us are -- we all have different shades of gray. >> the same color, though. is that right? >> not necessarily. >> july 2011, were you embarrassed when mr. murdoch indicated you were his priority? >> are you referring to the -- in the street? >> north dakota. -- indeed. >> i was not at the time because i did not think that's what's --

>> indeed. >> i was not at the time because i did not think that what he was referring to. i took that to mean he meant as in this issue. it was only the next day when i saw how it could have been interpreted in the papers. i was not embarrassed at the fact at first. >> relationships with politicians. chemical back to mr. blair -- can we go back to mr. blair. paragraph 53 of your statement. you say you met him on numerous political and social occasions. these meetings increased in frequency throughout the decade as prime minister. many formal and informal and social meetings, some of which we have been able to detail. you also spoke to him on the phone on a number of issues. so you have very frequent

contact or contact which became frequent? >> i think it became more frequent when i became editor of "the sun." that would go for most politicians. obviously you heard from mr. murdoch. mr. blair flew out to a news corp. conference in 1995. i probably met him shortly after that. then he obviously -- and they were in power for 10 years. >> so there was not a key moment. did you find your contact with politicians generally increased from 2003 on? >> yes, i would say so. >> it is also clear that he became friendly with mr. blair. >> yes. >> were there text and e-mail

exchanges? >> he did not have a mobile phone. i think he used the computer when he was prime minister. >> so all the telephone contact is on the land line? in the same paragraph, his senior cabinet advises were a constant presence in my life for many years. why do you think that was? >> i think they made sure it was. i was biunique -- was not unique.

i think you have to look at mr. campbell's appointment. he came from a political editor of the "daily mirror." anti put a huge -- and he put a huge story in newspapers. i think they made a shift change from major government into trying to get as much access to the press as possible. millions of books have been written about that, so. >> it is you as an editor reacting to the politicians' wishes? >> no, not at all. >> the impetus on your narrative is coming from the politicians, not from the press. which is correct? >> i think the point of new

labor embracing the media at a different way was because they felt they had a very big story to sell. they had a big story to tell about the changes they wanted to make or had made to the labor party. on the side of the press, we are journalists and access to politicians who can tell us things that we do not know, i explain things that are going on, tell us policy being developed -- all those things we can report back to our readers. that is the job of the journalist terry >> your job is to hold politicians to account, you tell us. how can you do that if they are a constant presence? >> easily. you can find that -- find out easily what is going on in holding account for it. we think every journalist and newspaper does that all the time on behalf of its readers. >> if a line is crossed or an antipathy develops, is that in danger of being abused? >> i think if a politician or a

prime minister ever put a friendship with a major executive or a media company in front of his or her ability to do their professional duties properly, that is their failing. i think if a journalist ever compromised their leadership for their role through friendship, that is their failing. i think that is simply put. >> tony blair and new labor were parker lee masters of span. what steps did you take to counter act that? >> i think gordon brown was in

master spend more than alistair and tony blair. i think the whole of new labor engaged in a new way with the media when they came to power. >> what steps did you take to counteract that? >> i don't think in the journalistic story or a line from a politician and repeats it verbatim without checking it or analyzing it. it will of a journalist is not to just gather information but to analyze and process that information. >> but hubert on his side, he made that clear -- but you were on his side. you made that clear a few minutes ago? >> when you back a political party in the way some did in

1997, i was not there then but i was a close observer. i do not think you back them wholeheartedly. i think if you look at the "sun"from 1997 until when tony blair left, you would be quite confused if it was supporting the party particularly on europe. but other issues as well. >> you speak to it in your statement. you were on mr. blair's side, were you? >> you are talking about the hostilities between gordon brown and tony blair? >> you were talking about in your statement. >> and what was the question? >> you were on mr. blair's side? >> what i said in the statement was that in the latter years,

there has been much better political commentary on this but in the latter years, tony blair's prime ministership, the hostilities between him and gordon brown got increasingly worse. it did become a tony blair camp and a gordon brown camp. on particular issues, for example, the welfare reform bill. if first try to get through in 2004. hostilities between the two were such that it did not get through that time. so you would have an inside how the hostilities were affecting the way to govern. so you would have an opinion on them. on the side of the readers.

it was not an automatic given that alistair campbell or charlie were telling you the truth. it was our job to judge and analyze it. >> was your relationship with mr. brown on the same level? >> i was actually friends with several brown =-- sarah brown. >> say you were more friendly with mr. blair that mr. brown? >> by the end, yes. not at the beginning. as mr. murdoch said in his testimony, he had a warmer relationship with mr. brown and i would see gordon brown quite regularly as well. >> we may come back to this but in relation to this huge -- fued, he took the side of mr. blair, not mr. brown?

i think you have to state which part of the feud. for example, in the famous curry house coup, i think we did take mr. blair's side. the country was almost on ice because of the hostility. i felt an injustice on behalf of our readers because policy was not getting through. but not always. >> but most of the times? >> i am reluctant to agree because i am not quite sure it is true. but at the end, we were on the side of mr. blair. >> in the fair interests of your readers, he maintained

impartiality between them? mr. brown and mr. blair? >> i did not quite understand the question. >> he did not take either person's side -- you did not take yvette person's side. -- either person's side. >> we were a newspaper looking after the real serious concerns of our readers. it was not that we were -- i would stand in one corner of the playground. it did not work like that. every story, every feud, every mediation at the time was analyzed by the media in a just and proper way. >> is it true that in exchange

for generalally speaking supporting mr. blair, the son would often be the first to receive scoops? >> i would like to think we were the first. but we did get lots of scoops. not all of them were particularly pleasant. >> some of them were? >> trevor and i had some good sources. >> those close to mr. blair himself or your good sources? you look at the schedule of meetings with british prime

minister's. tab 3. you put in a revised version. >> ok. >> we need to be clear about this. you are not putting this forward necessarily as 100% complete. to include the documents you told us about, the diary. some meetings have been canceled, some might not have been included. >> that is correct. >> we know from mr. campbell's diary that there was a dinner on the 27th of april, 1997. mr. blair, mr. campbell. four days before the famous collection of the first of may, 1997.

do you recall that? let's not particularly but i am sure it is correct. we were following mr. blair's last conference on education in the paper. i think it was to do with that but i cannot remember. >> you were going to be discussing what was then let it happen in the huge victory for the labor party. >> that was 14 years ago. i know there was a meeting at an education rally. it might be in one of the same things. >> when we see an injury like tony blair launched does that mean just ham or can it mean -- an instance like tony blair

lunch does that mean just him? >> the come into the newsroom and sit down with the editor and senior executive and discuss issues of the day. i think a lot of those would have been in that format. >> how does it work in restaurants? just mr. blair are other people? >> in 1999, i doubt that very much. i have probably better notes at news international. >> use your memory. particularly 2003, 2007.

>> like everybody, i will probably have a better recollection of 2003-2007 and 1999. >> i was asking about 2003. in particular entry. whether a dinner with the prime minister in the restaurant was one on one? >> i think during that time from memory i had about three dinners with mr. blair on my own. we see one dinner at the home of matthew and elizabeth murdock. one would be led to believe they were frequent occasions when mr. blair went with you to the home.

is that correct cannot? >> no, 1. >> you can only remember one >> i'm sorry, what is your question? i will have seen mr. blair probably much more sense to left office in their company but on occasion, yes, he was there. informally? spontaneously? >> no. you say on occasion. can you give us a feel for the number of occasions? when he was prime minister. >> quite a few. >> a handful then? >> maximum, yes.

>> can we look at the elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005. with the support of your newspaper, the subject of a prior discussion with mr. blair or his advisers? >> i have no idea. -- for 1997. not in 2001. that i can remember. but in 2005, it was a very difficult time for the labor party. i think, i am pretty sure it was michael howard who was leader of the opposition at that time. so "the sun" at the time, we

were very even-handed during that election process. in giving equal weight to all party policies. so i am not sure we particularly had a conversation with the labor party back then. >> in 2005, "the sun" did support the labor party. it changed of course in september 2009 but the question was, was the fact that "the sun" supported a conversation prior held with mr. blair? >> it would not be that way. a think in 2005 -- i think in 2005, "the sun," we left it right to the day. i think we erected a vatican style chimney on the roof.

whatever colored smoke -- sorry. it was funny at the time. clearly lost in translation. we had red and blue smoke. i am not sure we could find in a yellow smoke at the time. we clearly would have needed it now. i remember being on the ruth -- roof and looking down and seeing all the press guys they're waiting for the color to come out. i did not see mr. blair standing there. >> that was not a question. was "the sun'" support a subject of a prior discussion? >> no, i do not remember having

a prior discussion. vatican chimney, we did not tell anyone until we got to the roof what color was coming out. what did you at least make it clear to mr. blair and his advisers before the election which aspects of labour party policy would be less or more acceptable to your readers? >> there was not a particular discussion about policy but it would be fair to say that leading up to the 2005 general election, there was a huge debate on the next stage of the european constitution. "the sun," "the daily mail" -- they were all campaigning. so that with the bin subject of discussion -- would have been subject of discussion.

>> ok. just look at one particular article, tablet 27. 2005, "the sun." do you remember this one? >> sorry, i am trying to -- yes, i have it now. >> hopes dashed, pressing blow to gordon brown's chances of becoming prime minister. >> is there a date on this? >> no, it was printed on line but we know it was 2005. mr.

blair and tends to lead labor for five more years. was that the outcome of a conversation between you and mr. blair? >> i think the byline -- it is not printed on here. trevor and i have good sources. >> i think he can tell me whether it was mr. blair himself, if he planted this in "the sun" with your help? >> i did not think i can tell you that at all. although i do remember this story. i think sometime a dented 2004 -- in 2004, gordon brown felt he had to come to an agreement that he would step down before the 2005 election then some point in 2004 during the summer when they came back from recess, i think tony blair changed his

mind and trevor and i had heard about it. we asked everybody and we got that story. >> it is also suggested that you passed on material intelligence gained from your few dinners with gordon brown to tony blair. is that true or not? >> he suggested that? what's it does not matter. at the same way you are not telling me your sources, i will not share my with you. >> no, it isn't. and i think your source might be john prescott.

and it is not true. >> completely untrue? >> not true. >> you can see from the schedule of rnb1 that you had much less contact with mr. brown when he was prime minister then you had with mr. blair when he was prime minister. would you agree? >> he was not by minister for very long. and in 2009, "the sun" came out and contact was very limited after that. >> in march 2009, there was a phone call and that was the last contact you recorded? >> can i check that date? >> do you see that one?

>> i cannot but anyway, i am not sure that is true. >> unless the diary is incomplete. >> the diaries are very incomplete. i do want to make this point. i would have seen gordon brown between the 30th of march 2009 and i saw him at the labor party conference in december -- september 2009. i remember at least one occasion. i am sorry but they are just my pa's desk diaries. >> after the 30th of march 2009, suddenly moving towards the conservative party, wasn't it? >> i think the petition at the time was not an overwhelming

asset support for the party but more -- we had a few major issues in which we had on behalf of our readers particularly in afghanistan a falling out with gordon brown's government. and i think around march 2009 may have been a bit later, that is when gorton brown announced that the referendum that had been promised in the 2005 manifesto on the european constitution, they were going to make on that conference -- go back on that. "the sun" called for a snap election in autumn 2009 because the referendum was a hard fought battle.

the population by far wanted that referendum. so we had a falling out with each other but i still saw him on that day. >> that was not really the question at all. march 2009, "the sun" was moving towards reporting the party? >> is that true or not? correct. >> that is not the way i would describe it. we were running out of ways to report mr. brown's government. >> moving towards withdrawing support of the labor party? could we agree on that? >> we could. >> could i ask about one sentence in what you just said? you spoke of -- let me find it.

>> you spoke of pursuing matters on behalf of your readers. i am wondering what you did to discover the views of your readers save up for those who communicated with you. if you had millions of readers, how are you identifying their views, or are you reading the ruins of what you believe the

correct approach this -- i am trying to find the balance here. >> yes, i think in the european campaign, which had been a long tradition at the time. since the census in the 2009, we were short where our readers were on that matter. we had done polls in the newspaper, and both of the male -- mial and the sun gave us feedback on that issue. it is helpful that we are considered to be a pro armed forces paper. we had a pretty good idea on

those issues. >> i am wondering if you are merely a conduit or if there is a fair amount of -- we are wondering how you were going to pursue the matter. every person uses his or her own and judgment. it is an instinct, we have a close interaction with sun readers. the letters that we get for them are always looked at as a great we always get people asking for directions if they are lost somewhere.

>> we did not meet as a group very often. according to his biography in 2000 and five, he was involved

with the conservative leadership.

>> can i have five minutes? according to his biography, he supported the conservative leadership. is that correct? >> i do not think the sun came out for leadership. we probably did not support kenneth clarke because of europe. i do not remember having a particular line in the papers about leadership. >> mr. paulson was in charge of communications in may of 2007.

can you recall when you first heard about it? >> i heard about it from him after he had met with george osborn. i was then told that he got the job. >> what was your reaction to that piece of news? >> i probably said well done. >> how did you feel about it? >> he had to resign from the news of the world, and he had found another job, one that he was interested in. >> were you at all surprised? >> i was not surprised when he finally got the job. he was a good communicator, and works with several others so there was a long history of

journalists going into politics. this did not seem any different. >> let's go into some meetings of political parties. do you have that page?

>> yes. it >> asterisk by. you do not remember it happening. whose idea was it that he meet with the murdoch's on this occasion. >> i do not recall if rupert murdoch was in europe that summer. i think the idea was organized by at no. 10. >> they're must of been an initiative with news

international to make arrangements. i knew he was coming, but the arrangement was made through mr. murdoch's office and no. 10. >> were you consulted at all? >> no. >> you were there increase on holiday with the murdoch family and there was nothing more to it. -- in greece on holiday with the murdoch family and there was nothing more to it than that? murdoch's birthday. >> you presumably met with mr. cameron on that occasion. >> i did. >> do you remember how long he stayed? >> i think it was an afternoon and an evening. >> were you aware of the conversations that took place or not?

>> i was witness to one of with mr. murdoch about europe. in very general terms. then he had subsequent other conversations. >> it was not a sort of formal sit-down conversation, however the one i was witness to happen to be there when we were talking about europe. was this -- >> was this an occasion you were pleased about or not? >> it seemed like a very cordial meeting. it lasted an afternoon or an evening so it was not

particularly long. >> by that point, you were quite friendly with mr. cameron were in the decks >> yes. >> we know that he attended a new year's eve with you. >> it was my sister-in-law's party. >> they had a family relationships before i came along. >> are you accepting that mr. cameron became your friend? >> yes.

looking further down this list, in may of 2009, from that. of course there is no evidence that your meeting with mr. brown, although you did say that your list may not be complete in relation to mr. brown. >> i know it is not complete i am also not sure the they had a formal or informal meeting. i am pretty sure that if they had they would be meeting at downing street with mr. brown from that. in may right up until september. >> a topic of conversation on may 3, 2009, did it cover political issues?

>> it would have in general terms. there were probably lots of other people there at the lunch. >> i am not quite sure that my memory is correct, but i believe the european constitution debate was at large as was afghanistan at the time. >> we know that on the ninth of september 2000 and nine, mr. james murdock told mr. cameron that the sun would support the conservative party of the next election this headline was on the front page in september 2009. when did you first know that

that shift would take place? >> to the conservative party? >> yes. when did you first know that shift would take place? >> if we put aside the timing of it, i think probably in the june mid 2009. i think by that stage it was post a campaign for election, the point of it was there did not seem to be one a senior politician including the prime minister who was willing to take tress the issues the military were phasing out there.

>> the question was simple? when did you first know. there were conversations. is that t in a nutshell? >>yes. > was there any part of the discussion about who they would like to win in the election? >> back in june, was that it was more that we had lost things to support gordon brown some government and what did that mean. they were very initial discussions in june.

>> was there any part of the decision based on the who was likely to win the next election. >> i am not sure who the polls are at the time, but it was much more in that summer about our leadership and where they stood in terms of the politics of the government. bank bailouts had been the year before, and the recession was one of the issues that our readers were concerned about. the main point of the summer was that we had not written one editorial in support of the labor government for quite some

time. it was not as clear-cut as -- a >> the question was any part of the discussion related to who was likely to win? >> in general terms, but i cannot remember what the polls were at the time. >> from your perspective, you were interested in who was going to win. >> one of the most interesting things about its readership is the amount of voting voters. if you are a mirror journalist, you are tied to labor. i think the floating voters are quite important. the overwhelming feedback from

the readership at that time was that they were very unhappy with what they had. >> there was also a dinner in the september of 2009, can you remember if anyone else was present? >> i cannot. there would have been other people from the office present. not particularly that one. >> was there any discussion as

to the timing of the changes? >> no. >> did mr. cameron and know the timing? >> probably he knew that it was with and a period of time that you referred to with james murdoch, that it would happen. >> can we see how specific you can be. >> what was he told? >> they had a discussion which is this is what they will probably do.

the timing was a matter of discussion with me and the editor of the sun and the political team there and james and rupert murdoch. the timing conversation was not with david cameron or his advisers. >> the news international team from the editorial level were responsible for the timing of the decision? is that right? >> in terms of the conference season, yes. >> did you play a major role here? >> i was certainly instrumental and it. ultimately, rupert murdoch is the box. -- is the boss.

>> the final decision made by rupert murdoch, you are the driving force behind it or not? >> no, i was instrumental rather than the driving force. it was pretty collective in terms of everyone's view, particularly the reader should you, that we were going to distance ourselves from the labor party that we supported for many years. in terms of the timing, it was quite a small group. >> and you were part of that small group? >> yes. >> the timing was careful. it was designed to cause him maximal political damage, would you agree? >> the discussion on the timing

the was this. it would be terribly unfair at the start of the party conference to say that to before the hearing what mr. brown and the senior cabinet ministers had to say, for all we knew they could have come up with a fantastic policy for some readers or anything that. i think it was unfair for us to go before. >> are you saying that mr. brown might have said something that caused you to change your minds and go back to plan a? >> what i am saying is we thought it was unfair to cloud a party conference in that way. that was the reason for the timing, not been before. you heard yesterday that the conservative party, if they had their way they would have liked

the endorsement at the beginning of their conference. the sole reason for -- we were ready to do this. the reason for that night is because mr. brown's speech, which i cannot remember how long it lasted, the key was he spent less than two minutes on afghanistan. we felt that was the right timing the in order to distance ourselves from him. >> you must have made the decision before you heard the speech? >> i was talking more about fairness. we thought it was fair not to do it at the beginning of the conference. at the time it was --

>> which is it the consideration of fairness -- would you agree? >> i think from the sun's. if you it was an incredibly important decision that the son of made it in 1997 after many years of support. >> please take to the question. it did not give us ancient history. >> the ancient history is important in this manner. i think you are asking for an explanation. i think it was a very important decision, and we did give it careful consideration after many years of labor support. >> you knew the decision would anger certain people, did you not? >> the labor party? >> obviously.

>> who did you mean then that? >> individuals within the labor party as well. you do that did you not? >> yes. >> did you sense in any way this was the exercise of power concentrated at least in a small group of people within news international who which you have named it? >> i do not think we ever saw it in those terms. >> i do not know if we have ever seen it in those terms. >> why not? >> right or wrong, i believe and have believed the route my career that my main responsibility was to readership. any influence that we could come to bear on their behalf for their concerns was the most

important thing. that is just the way it was. i do not think we saw it like that. we knew there would be certain individuals in the labor party that would not be happy with the decision. >> you have to identify who took it. our responsibility was to rupert murdoch. james murdoch was a party to it. you were instrumental. effectively it was those four people. was he contributing much to this debate? >> yes, he was. >> five of you. all five of you in different ways exercising considerable power, would you agree? >> i think the parts of us and the political editor, the

journalists -- i think we were all of the mind that this was the right thing to do for the paper and a leadership. we did not see it in those terms. i am sorry. >> you do not see the intrusion of the dissemination of power from within a few people capable of impacting on the opinions of many people. you do not see that as being a possibility? >> i can see how you would phrase it like that and many other critics do so, too. from our own perspective the newspaper has in its history always done quite dramatic endorsements. it is like the paper. is strong and tells it like it is. when you reach an opinion it is

pretty obvious. from the vatican chimney of smoke -- will the last person turn out the lights, we have had a history and tradition of being bold and dramatic in our timing when it came to politics. we did not see it in the terms you are capturing its assets. >> we know you had conversations with those close to mr. brown in relation to the decision. did you try to speak to mr. cameron before the headline went out? >> no, i did not. >> too busy to try to speak? >> my main concern was trying to speak to mr. brown. >> because i felt it was the right thing to do to speak to mr. brown before anybody else.

>> for what motive? >> i think general courtesy. and i thought it was the right thing to do. mr. brown and his wife were due to come to the news international party that night. i wanted to get a hold of them beforehand. >> did you leave a series of voice mails and text messages on the mobile phones of mr. brown and lord -- >> i think series is too strong a word. i left a message, yes. a >> to speak to you urgently? >> i certainly put a request earlier in the afternoon to speak to him. >> you probably have seen his

account, he eventually did speak to you, did he not? >> yes, he did it. >> there is a slight difference as to one word that was used, which we better not go into. >> that is what he claimed to have said, yes. >> was he angry or not? >> depending on how you heard it, chomp could be quite an offensive word. he seemed quite angry. but not surprised. >> know. because as you have said, your coverage had been unfavorable to the government for some time, had it not? >> yes. >> did you have any conversation with mr. brown on or shortly after the 30th of september,

2009? >> i did have a conversation with mr. brown. i think it was in october rather than the that night or that week. >> so within a week of the -- >> i think it was a few weeks after. >> why did it take you so long to speak to him? >> i had tried to speak to him. then i had spoken to him instead it. it was clear there was nothing more to say at that point. i did not think he wanted to talk to me. >> when you did speak to him eventually, can you remember anything about that conversation? >> remember it quite clearly because it was in response to --

"the sun" had read a letter that a bomb had written about her son dying in afghanistan. "the sun" had been particularly harsh to him over it. i spoke to him either that day or the next day. >> was at his instigation or yours? >> he ran into me. >> can you remember anything about the conversation? >> it was quite tense. cox what was said then? >> it was a private conversation, but the tone of it was a very aggressive. and quite rightly, he was hurt by a the projection and the headline that had been put on the story. i think also quite rightly in

his defense, he suspected or thought that this may be a way in which "the sun" was going to be hit and i assured him it was not. it was a mistake. the headline was too harsh and this was not the way the paper would be paved. >> you were no longer the editor, were you? >> i have spoken to the editor that morning. we had discussed this at length. we had come to that conclusion. >> you told him not to repeat that sort of thing, did you? >> i thought mr. brown goes to concerns that the coverage was going to be a personal attack was understandable. i thought i would be wrong.

>> that is what politicians fear the most is it not? personal attacks? would you agree? >> know. i think the fact it resulted in such an extraordinarily aggressive conversation between me and mr. brown shows that it actually does not happen all of the time. i remember very clearly through the nature of it. i do accept that. >> a fear of personal attacks from the sun has been a factor in what politicians do or not to. you well know that, do you not? >> i think that neil may feel that about "the sun." i am not sure that the paper has been like that for a while. >> for how long?

>> i just do not think it is concentrated on the personal -- occasionally depending on the story that what happened. i think the sun concentrated on the issues and the policies and the campaigns rather than the attacking just for the sake of personal attacks. i think mr. brown felt it was a personal attack. the >> a fear of holding the politicians to accounts by prying into their personal lives has been part of the sun, has it not? >> obviously i am going to object to prying the interests of lee. the whole point of the press in general is to hold politicians to account on occasion has been found to be intrusive. that is not the policy.

>> is it what it amounts to? >> i think when a newspaper oversteps a line, i have heard criticism of papers i have edited and others where privacy is a hugely debated topic in every newsroom. your question -- your premise was this was the culture. i was diffusing that. >> it is also a manifestation of the power that the sun and other newspapers often through the personality of the editors. would you accept that or not? >> what was the question? >> the manifestation of the power the newspapers can exercise take on the personality of the editors. the fear that the politician departs from what the paper

once, there may be a personal attack. >> i do not think it is fair to say politicians live in fear of newspapers. they are heart -- they are highly motivated ambitious people. i do not think that is fair to say they live in fear of power. because i believe the power of the paper is its readership -- that is what i believe it. that would be like saying they are fearful of the reader ship or the electorate. >> this is a recurring theme in what you're saying. the reader ship -- it all flows up three you and then is admitted out. you have no role in any of this? >> i suppose the point of me being here is to give the inquiry some explanation of how

the newspapers i edited works. it was true that the reader ship was at the very center of that paper. going against that readership -- that is what i am saying. it is not a individual -- a particular editor that has the power, it is the paper. >> after you have a piece which some would say is personal, we are talking about mr. brown's ps, what happens? does your in box fell up with e- mails of accusation? is there a deathly silence? what happens? >> in extreme circumstances going over history, numbers of people can stop by the newspaper. in terms of that particular story, i think i was not on the

paper at the time. i think i do remember that being the a negative reaction from the readers. they felt prime ministers should probably take the time to spell out the name of a grieving widow correctly. there was some sort of -- over all they felt at least he had taken the time to do it. i think that is probably fair. you do get a reaction. >> one extreme reaction -- there has never been anything equivalent of people voting with their feet? >> there have been other occasions. >> let's go back to this conversation with mr. brown. he said it was tense and he was angry.

did he say anything which was relevant to this inquiry, particularly in the context of evidence we have heard from mr. murdoch? >> >> what particular piece of evidence? what's that i am leading. do you follow mr. murdoch's evidence? >> i did follow it. i think mr. brown was very angry. i am not sure there was anything particularly relevant to the inquiry. when mr. murdoch related his conversation with mr. brown -- i cannot remember when that was, he also told me the same stories that he told you. >> can we be clear when did mr.

murdoch relate that conversation to you? >> the reason i cannot remember the timing is because obviously i have my own rather angry and intense conversation with mr. brown. however, previous to that conversation, i have also in directly had similar -- not threats made but vain reactions -- similar comments made about "the sun"abandoning labor after 12 or 13 years. there were hot style conversations. would mr. murdoch told me his conversation, it is -- it did not surprise me. >> what did mr. murdoch tell you -- in the conversation that you had with mr. brown, well,

was that issue returned to or not? >> i feel that the content -- private conversations. unless mr. brown by to tell you about it, it was incredibly aggressive and very angry. >> i doubt whether in the end of this inquiry will result in fine detail. you were chief executive officer of news international. if mr. brown did win the next election against the odds, he had in his power to harm the interest of your company. do you see that? >> i do not accept it. >> what part you not accept? >> i did not think that.

>> that did not cross a river at all did it? >> not at any point did i think if he won he would go against the commercial interests of this company. >> it did not probably foster your mind in the conversation, but when you reflected on the conversation it would spring to mind, would it not? >> it did not. >> at no stage in the run-up to the 2010 elections did you harbored such fear or concern? >> know. >> why not. >> because although mr. brown said those things to mr. murdoch and although i have heard similar insinuations from others close to mr. brown and that there was a tone of threat about it.

it did not occur to me that they were real or proper. i just dismissed them i suppose. >> some would say that an elected government has an executive power conferred on it by a mandate or through parliament in due course would be quite entitled to media policies it ought to be in the public interest but nonetheless did impact on the commercial interest of media companies. would you agree? >> i am 8 your -- of course it is proper for the government to debate and introduce regulation and policy on the media. of course i agree with that. >> i am just trying to explore your thinking in 2010. you have here mr. brown allegedly put on your evidence

hostile to news international. you have mr. cameron who is not. is that correct? >> he was not hostile to the sun a. you are the chief executive officer now. that is something you should be thinking about, would you agree? >> it depends -- gordon brown is -- if you accept the premise that gordon brown is a responsible politician that does not put personal prejudice or bitterness before his policy making decisions -- if you accept that premise, then the threats are pointless and should be dismissed. however, if he is not the person and he does put those things, that is a failing in his duty.

it should not be about his personal prejudices. "the sun" supported the labor party for many years and decided to make a change. it did not occur to me they would devote their time into carrying out this. >> it might have been part of the implied a settlement between "the sun" and the labour party that wasn't part -- power for 10 years -- they would not intrude in the media policy that could harm the interest of news international and other similar organizations. did that thought process ever cross into your mind? >> know. >> can i come back to mr. cameron?

there is an absence of text messages which might have existed. >> yes, that is correct. >> he said he tested you at certain times up to a dozen times a day. is that true? >> know, thankfully. >> ok. a handful of times a day? >> know. it is preposterous. one would hope a prime minister would have better things to do. i would text him on occasion like a lot of people. >> can you give us an idea of frequency? >> probably more between the january 2010 on average of maybe

once a week during the election campaign. >> a critical time as you say, the election campaign from march to may of 2010. can you give us an idea of frequency in relation to that. >> maybe twice a week. >> can you tell us the contents of any of these text messages? >> some if not the majority were to do with organization. meeting up for a ranging to speak. some were about a social occasion. some would be my own personal comment on the tv debates or something like that.

>> how often do you think you met with them socially during this period? ignore the record. we agreed that -- >> i am ignoring the record, but at least it gives me some sort of a refreshed memory. what was the period of time? >> let's just say the run-up to the 2010 election which was i think on the sixth of may of 2010. the fourth five months before then. how often would you meet with him or did you meet with them socially? >> i did meet with them between january 2010 and the election. as you can see i have no record of it. i think we would have met between -- i would say probably about three or four times. >> what comments if any did you

make on his performance in the television debate. can you remember that? >> i think like everybody i felt the first one was not very good. >> did you text the other two party leaders or not? >> i did not taxed gordon brown, no. -- text gordon brown, no. >> everybody wants to know how his texts are signed off. if i do not ask, people will inquire why a question is not asked. i am happy to be overruled. >> what was the decision?

he would sign them off "d.c. in the main." occasionally he would sign them off "lol -- lots of love." until i told him it meant laugh out loud and then he did not do that anymore. >> well done. move on. did you make phone calls to his constituency home? >> no, actually. >> did you often pops around to each others houses? >>no. i think popping around is overstating the case. >> how would you put it?

>> we occasionally met in the countryside because i was there every weekend and he was there in his constituency. >> was there a meeting the ahead of which the text did each other to make sure you would not be seen together? >> my husband is chairman. i think mr. cameron has been in his constituency. what was the question -- did we meet their? >> did you taxed each other beforehand? >> there have been many. two. over the years. was this a particular one?

>> can you remember this or not? a date has not been put on this. >> where did you say you read it? it was in the "the times" on tuesday. >> i did read that. it was a suggestion, but we did not meet. there was some reason why that was significant that we did not meet up. i was there very briefly. >> did you attend his private birthday party in october 2010? >> yes. >> did you have any communication with mr. cameron

following the the publication of "the guardian" hacking story on the fifth of july in 2011? >> i am sure we discussed it. >> he did not ask about 2009. he asked about 2011. >> no, i do not think i did. >> any other question? did you ask -- did you discuss it with mr. cameron at any time between july 2009 story and your departure from news international?

>> yes, i did. >> i would not what you to say anything that relates to anything in particular. in general terms, can you assist us as to the conversation? >> not very often, once or twice. because of the news of the phone hacking story, it was a constant that kept coming up. we would bring it up, but in the most general terms, we had a more specific conversation about it in 2010. and it was what i remember rather than general terms.

>> if it is a general conversation then it may relate more to mr. cameron and then at me. >> it was nothing particularly that was from the public, but he was interested in the latest developments about him. i told him the same thing i tell everyone, it was due to the amount of civil cases coming in that in 2010. >> the context must be that he was concerned that this went be on, is that fair? >> >> yes. it was a general conversation in late 2010 about the increase in the civil cases.

>> the inch -- increase of civil cases could only be an indication that this phenomenon was not limited. are we agreed? >> i think it news international has a knowledge that publicly. >> can you help us what what mr. kamen said? -- mr. cameron said? >> it was a general discussion about -- he asked me what the update was. i explained the story behind the news. there was no privilege in permission, it was a general update. >> you are focusing on what you

told him. i am concerned with what he might have said. >> i think it was about the civil cases. i responded accordingly. >> in any other instance? >> no. >> are you sure about that? >> yes. >> we are in the dark about what these compositions were about apart from the general. >>there were a particularly around the civil cases of 2010. my answer is we did speak about it, very generally, but in late 2010, we had a more detailed

conversation because if you go back in the chronology of the phone hacking situation, that is when civil cases were coming in and being made newsworthy. >> ok. on a different topic, you have been a close friend of elisabeth murdoch for over 10 years. >> longer actually, but yes. >> they have a country house and oxford shire as well, don't they? >> yes. >> how often have the ban in their country home, your home in the country, or camerons constituency home and the company of other politicians?

>> to distill that, how many times have i been in his home with other politicians? >> i am pretty sure i have never bend there. -- never been there. e george osborne they been present at the dinner at i think the only time at elizabeth murdoch and matthew freud's house was her 40th in, a couple of years ago. >> the 40th party, we've got under tab 40, haven't we? that's the last tab which was in august 2008.

stick it was actually held -- [inaudible] >> well done. [laughter] >> anyway, we can see who was there. to be fair, a range of politicians across the sound or parties, was it? >> were there no liberal democrats? no. right, yes, i can see the list. >> do you know bskyb is still a client of freud communication? >> i don't. i'm sure, i mean freud communication is a huge country. i don't know the full client list. i'm pretty sure they have a represented bskyb on a corporate level, but i'm sure they would have represented lots

of other areas of sky. i do know currently, but probably. >> just ask you some general questions about -- when we are made aware that the bid would be made? >> i think before, before the public announcement, and shortly before the public announcement. >> before the general election or after? >> i think it was before. yeah, before. i just can't remember when the public announcement was. it was a shortly before. >> this is obviously a big moment for news corp. i appreciate you are -- that distinction is understood. werther not discussions by either of the murdochs about the timing of the bid?

>> i played no formal role in the bskyb transaction come and certainly not the strategy of timing and all that kind of thing. i was made aware that it was on the cards, thursday, before the public announcement. 86 weeks, a couple him of month beforehand. >> it would have knock-on effects of news international as well, wouldn't it? >> well, not particularly, no, no. >> did news international had no interest in it, why we told about it and? >> it wasn't that we had no interest. but at the time i didn't come it didn't, the way it was presented to me was, i didn't think is going to have an effect on news international. >> you said that you had no formal role in the bskyb bid, and i quite understand that. because there is no reason why

you should, but what about informally? i mean, here as we've been discussing you are extremely well-connected to very, very senior politicians, across the range, and that's heart of your job, as you described. wouldn't your views, how it might work out, how it might play, be extreme body, informally, not formally? >> extreme value to news corp the? >> to news corp your to your ultimate boss, tim mr. murdoch. >> it was never quite put in those terms, but i did have been in formal role, as you suggest.

mainly after the formation of the come if you want to call it does for better, the anti-bskyb a lengthy because that directly in some ways brought news international into what was a news corp. transaction. because the anti-sky alliance was i think the be peacekeeper "the daily mail," the telegraph, british telecom, independent, well, everyone. everyone else audibly. and once they formed the alliance and were using their own news outlets to promote their view, and also to lobby politicians, then i suppose i probably did get involved. but again, not in video or the transactional or the strategy behind. >> no, not the deal or strategy behind it. it's the, it's perhaps the public presentation, perhaps the

way in which the criticisms could be counted. perhaps using all your experience borne out of the relationships you've been careful to develop for professional reasons, and doubtfully for personal reasons, over the years? >> i think in some circumstances that may be true, but in this one it was the quasi-judicial decision. and i don't think my input or, as you say, using that, was of relevance. obviously, in light of the anti-sky bid alliance lobbying that i would waste no opportunity in putting what was probably our case on the deal,

not ours news international, but ours news corp. but because of the nature of the decision i'm not sure i was in, it was of any value particularly, apart from the counter voice in a very large opposition. >> when we first made aware of the code-named rubicon, can you recall the? >> i think when i was, i was told about it here i may have heard it before but i think i was told what that was spent sure you are told about it but when was that? >> around the same time. >> a few weeks before, is that it's? >> maybe a couple months before. six to eight weeks before. >> do you know he chose that code-named? >> no, i don't come but i think it might have been james murdoch but i don't know that. >> i be someone who enjoys classical illusions.

was it a codename which anybody in government knew about? >> that i don't think so. spent esther osborne or mr. hunt? >> i never heard them acknowledge that name. >> okay. if you look at the list again of the with prime ministers, and identify whether bskyb bid was discussed on any relevant occasion. the night of october 2010 there was dinner at chequers with mr. cameron. might you have raised a question on that occasion? >> no. i'm pretty sure that was the birthday party. >> that's the private party we have covered about 50 minutes ago. what about the 23rd of

december, 2010 in which you've already had some evidence about? >> well, it was rather than discussed at that dinner it was mentioned. i think james murdoch's testimony put that. and i was aware it was mentioned, but it was not by any means widely discussed at that dinner. it was mentioned because it was in the news because -- resigned from that role. >> were you party to any conversations along the lines that doctor cable had acted in breach of duty, and let's go to the next one, mr. hunt? >> not necessary but clearly that was our view that we hoped that having always been put to us that be a very sad process,

which it would be fair and democratic to find out that perhaps some personal prejudice had come into that decision was quite disappointing. so it would have been, it would've been along those lines, yes. no, that lease now the decision would be fair. [inaudible] you new mr. hunt, quite well, didn't you? >> not as well as others, no. on me, i had seen him occasionally but not particularly. >> even informally you were not putting out feelers to find out whether he would be on side or not? >> i think he hurt, i think he posted something on his website saying that he was quite favorable early our on in the process before he had, before the decision went to him. i'm pretty sure spent so maybe he knew it anyway.

>> maybe i knew from them, but not from the correct information with mr. hunt. [inaudible] on further occasions when you may have met with mr. cameron in 2010, can you enlighten us? >> yes, no. i've been asked about it before. mr. cameron attended a boxing day, at my sister-in-law's. and i popped in on my way to another dinner, and i actually haven't got any memory it has i don't think i did even speak to him, or samantha that night. but they were deadly at my sister-in-law's house. they were definitely there for the party so i would have seen them. but not even have a conversati conversation.

>> and -- [inaudible] are you sure it would not have covered the bskyb issued? >> definitely. absolutely not. i don't think it was a conversation. >> i will not come back to certain aspects of bskyb in due course, but i would like to cover general questions now about the subject matter, conversation with politicians seeking to ignore to the extent to which one can private and social matters. it's self evident your conversation with politicians were in place throughout the day, is that there? >> sometimes, yes. >> would they also embrace such as press regulation and media policy? >> very rarely. at me, there are some examples of when, i would've met with a politician particularly to discuss that, but they were very infrequent. >> the role of the bbc, was that

often the subject and are sometimes the subject of conversation? >> not particularly. i mean, from my perspective, some leaders pretty pro-bbc. i think in general, wasted in the public sector or taxpayers but it was something we would address at the bbc on occasion and others, but not, i never really had a conversation with a politician about sort of top slicing the licensing and all that. >> what about issues such as self-regulation to the press and the press complaints commission, where there was ever discussed with politicians? >> again, probably not enough, but no. >> why did you say not enough speakers i wish is reflected on the fact that i couldn't remember a conversation with a politician when we did discuss

pcc spent what about press ethics, was that ever the subject of conversation with politicians? >> obvious he because the last couple of years it has been the subject. >> can we go back before there because i think the last couple of years is in danger of muddying the waters. i want to speak more generally the opposite of that. >> i think after operation motorman and privacy there was a general debate going on in the media in terms of, particularly in 2003 which was pretty much until the end of use of private detectives. certainly in the way that they have been for the last decade. and i think that was something that operation motorman and price privacy would've been discussed relevant at the time. i suppose press ethics

particularly came up with jack straw. i know that mr. les hinton, mr. dacre had spent some time as most of the rest of the industry discussing the data protection act. and in particular the custodial sentences confined to journalists. and i remembered that being at a conversation with politicians, and i probably only got involved in that, again, quite late off. so there was some discussion but not a great deal. >> you were friends with mr. blair and mr. blair we know often felt "the daily mail" was hostile to him and his wife. was that something that you discussed with you? >> on occasion, yes. >> quite often, perhaps? >> not quite often. it was probably more -- would discuss it with me. >> i'm not interested in private

discussion but i'm interest in the private -- what was the concern being conveyed to you in this context? >> it wasn't, if you like, press ethics it was the tone. i think she read the letter was concerned that she felt a lot of her coverage was quite, was quite sexist. but she's not the first high profile female to think that about the uk media. that would come up on occasion. and she sometimes felt it was quite cruel and personal about her weight and that it sort of concentrate on those things rather than in her eyes, her charity and the things she's going to do. but i'm not sure that's what you're asked me because it's not really press ethics. it's really more tone.

>> it may be part of the whole picture. we know that mr. blair described the press in 2007. was that a discussion in which he had with you? >> no. although i think that post-iraq i think there was some conversations about the 24 hour media, which i think is what he was referring to, the fact that we the press have become therapy because there's always a constant need for a news story. application of 24 hour news was mentioned in terms of iraq, but not really. i was surprised when he said that. >> his speech speaks for itself but i think it went further with just a temporal point. certainly 24 hours a day, the way they behave.

sometimes they act a bit wild. do you see the analogy? >> i see the analogy. >> he didn't concern any of those -- he didn't have any those concerned with you? >> no. >> dead politicians ever complain to you privately about coverage of "the sun" of them a? >> yes, occasionally. you know, there was, if people, if someone thought it was unfair, i become you asked me a question earlier about how i can learn how you but if i passed information from gordon brown to tony blair, i think it's something of that, which i said wasn't true, essentially people doing that. but on occasion they would complain. tony blair would often complain

about attitude to europe and him on europe, regularly. many, many home secretaries would regularly compaign -- complaint about campaigns that we are doing in the paper, so yes, they did. i think our role was that i think i was correct because our role was those issues. >> further general questions, see if we can analyze the power play which we may or may not be an issue here. him you were very close to mr. rupert murdoch's? >> i was close to them, yes. [inaudible] >> yes. >> would you also agree that politicians, for whatever reason, wanted to get close to

mr. murdoch to advance their own interests, are we agreed to? >> i think that a lot of politicians wanted to put their case to mr. murdoch, advance their own interests is probably, i'm sure that most politicians have a higher view for what they were doing. >> we are not suggesting this is solely selfish, but i think we can agree more or less where we are. but this may be the more important point. in order to get close to mr. murdoch, in practice had to get close to you. would you agree with that? >> no. >> why not? >> because it is not true. >> would you agree that politicians might see that you at influence over mr. murdoch? >> no, i don't, i sorely don't think that, no. i think a day, i was an editor of a newspaper, a very large

circulation newspaper with a wide readership, with an exceptional censorship placing voters but and i do believe that, like other editors in similar situations, politicians did want to get access to the editor of "the sun" and his or her team as much as possible. but i don't think that people ever thought to get to mr. murdoch they had to go through me. i don't think that is correct. >> let's see if we can break that down. politicians certainly wanted to get close to you, to have access to you, didn't they? >> yes. >> and you were someone who mr. murdoch trusted implicitly, weren't you? >> yes. i hope so. >> that was well understood by any politician who cared to look, wouldn't you agree? >> well, i think they thought we

had a close working relationship, yes. >> didn't you ever examine the motives or thought processes of politicians, why they were wanting to get close to you? just even as self-indulgence, well, what's going on here, why are they trying to get close to me? >> well, i think, i think i always examined the ulterior motives of politicians. but i thought it was pretty obvious that they wanted to get, i don't know a politician that would turn down a meeting with a senior journalists from any broadcast or any newspaper. so it wasn't, it didn't need a lot of thinking that politicians wanted to get access to journalists. i mean, that's been the same case for decades, as you, as you

pointed out in your opening statement in this module. >> you were in possession of the megaphone which would be facility to them, in which they have access to, logically and self-evidently, might have influence over your readership. that's the truth, is in its? >> i think politicians were very keen to put their case to me and my team at "the sun" because of the large readership of "the sun." >> did you regard it as part of your role for, perhaps it was accidental byproduct of your role, to build up friendships with politicians? >> well, i think some friendships did occur, but i think it's important to put it in the context of friendships. i mean, we all have lots of different friendships, old

friends, new friends, work colleagues, associates. and you know, through the decade that i was a national newspaper editor and the years i was ceo, and a 10 years i was a journalist, some friendships were made. i don't think i ever forgot i was a journalist but i don't think they forgot they were a politician. >> did you not understand that you did have a degree of personal power over politicians? >> no. again, i just didn't see it like that. i saw my role as editor of "the sun" as a very responsible one, and i enjoyed my job, and every part of that job, but particularly as i said an eyewitness statements, i enjoyed campaigns and i enjoyed, you know, bridging a gap between

public opinion and public policy, taking on concerns of the readers. so i don't except in the power terms that you keep describing it as. >> your real interest is people, isn't it, mrs. brooks? you understand how human beings think and feel, don't you? >> i do like people, yes. as a journalist, do try to be empathetic otherwise no one would tell them anything. >> you understand the potential, i can put it in this way, personal outcome, how you can get people to do, might get people to do what you want, and what they're trying to do for you, don't you get any of that? >> i'm not sure quite what you mean. >> there's nothing anything sinister. i'm talking about really the power of human empathy. some people are empathetic.

it's not lost on you, is it? >> well, i hope, i hope to be empathetic in life to people, yes. >> i just wonder whether you sense, or sensed, we're talking about the past and now, how, the effect you might have had on politicians, some have made have even been afraid of you, is that true? >> i, i literally, like i said, i don't see politicians as the sort of easily scared people, because most of them are pretty strong, ambitious and highly motivated. so. >> let's see if we can just take one case study and see whether there's any validity in that case study. you remember the they can sterilization case of?

>> yes. spent which actually got doctor mccanns evidence at page 57. do you have that there? and if you look at page 57, line 11, question i asked was you talk about the meeting with rebekah brooks. are you on the right page of? >> they are not numbered in that way. >> they are actually. 15 at the bottom to each page has -- >> right. i've got it. thank you, sir. >> question was, you talked about the meeting with rebekah brooks which led to her view of your case, a formal review. just assistance quickly with it. can you recall when that was?

i think is probably just elaborate a little bit. [inaudible] news international actually bid for the rights of the book along with a colleague. they would materialize the book. he was somewhat horrified at the prospect of that given what we been treated in the past. [inaudible] we were subsequently afraid by news international and associated to do is the book, and after much deliberation we had a couple of meetings. [inaudible] so pausing there, there's going to be sterilization in both the sunday times and "the sun," i believe, do you recall that? >> id. spent a chance -- i do.

>> your chief executive officer? >> that's correct. >> the price you paid for the sterilization, do you remember it? >> i can't remember actually. hundreds of thousands of pounds. >> a million we have been told. >> no, it wasn't a million. have a million maybe. i can't, i can't remember. i may, i can -- have to wait to find out but i'm not sure. >> to paraphrase the rest of what dr. mccann's said, was that your intervention was successful in securing a review of the case. do you understand that? >> you asked if it was successful and he said it was. >> do member anything about that

intervention? >> actually just go by, the reason i was involved as chief executive was because it concerned to newspapers, the sunday times and "the sun." if you like, i did the deal with harpercollins from a corporate point of view. and then left it to the two editors, to decide the different approaches. i had always gotten along very well with dr. mccann and kate mccann threw out there and credible dramatic time. and, in fact, i think day, if asked would be very positive about "the sun" actually. and in this case i thought the idea to run the campaign, again, the review of madeline's case

was the right thing for "the sun" to do, and i think the sunday times did the book. so my extension at the point was the original discussion with dr. mccann. i don't think i spoke to theresa may directly, but i'm pretty sure dominik may have done. >> let's see whether we can agree or disagree of what might happen. we were discussing the arrangements with the mccanns, you asked if there's anything more they wanted, do you recall that? >> maybe, yes. >> dr. mccann said he wanted a uk review of the people? do you remember that? >> i do. >> was that all?

[inaudible] >> maybe, yes. >> we have been going to a list of issues that dr. mccann and kate mccann wanted to be sure before we went forward with the sterilization. >> did you then take the matter up with downing street direct? >> no. >> did you not tell downing street that the sum is going to demand review that the prime minister should agree to the request and that sun has supported him in the last election? >> no. in fact, i didn't speak to downing street or the home secretary about this but i know dominic or tom will have spoken to them. they would have spoken directly either to number 10 or the home office. i'm not sure. probably the home office.

>> this unwanted and immediate result and a lesser would be posted all over the front page from the mccanns to the prime minister asking, unless downing street a great comedy not have an? >> i think that's how "the sun" had the campaign. there was a letter, yes. >> the home secretary was told that if she agreed to review, at page one letter would not run. do you remember that? >> no, i don't. >> the secretary of state did not respond in time. you did publish the letter on the front page. do you remember that? >> i do remember "the sun" kicking off the campaign with a letter, yes. >> you don't believe there was any conversation or indeed threat to the secretary of state, is that right to?

>> i'm pretty sure they would have not been a threat. you would have, we'll have to ask dominique, because as i said my involvement was to discuss the campaign in the continued search for madeleine with the mccanns, and to do the deal on the book, and, because i had done so many campaigns in the past they wanted my opinion but after that i'd left it to both editors to execute the campaign. >> what i've been told is that you then intervene personally, mrs. brooks. you told number 10 that unless the prime minister ordered the review by metropolitan police, "the sun" would put theresa may on the front page every day until "the sun"'s demands were met. is that true or not? >> no. >> is any part of that drew? >> i didn't speak to number 10, or the home office about the

mccanns, and telling think after the campaign had been one. in a can of any conversation as i had, and i don't think directly to prime minister. i think it was one of his teams. >> we can find out in due course whether this is true or not, but i must repeat it to you. you just said you directly intervened with the prime minister and warned him that unless it was a review by the metropolitan police "the sun" will put their home secretary theresa may on the front page every day until "the sun"'s demands were met. is that true or not? >> i did not say to the prime minister i will put theresa may on the front page of "the sun" every day unless you give me -- i did not said the. invite any conversations with number 10 directly, they would have been particularly about that but they would've been if i'd been having a conversation "the sun" was leading a major

campaign with a very strong letter on page one to start the campaign, and anyone who need me would have talked to me, any politician would have talked to me about it. but i did not say that. i don't think i said that. >> could we ask of this? were you part of a strategy that involved your paper putting pressure on the government with this sort of implied or expressed threat? >> i was certainly part of a strategy to launch the campaign in order to get the review for the mccanns, yes, but i think there were threats, is too strong. >> well, give me another word then for threat, could you?

>> persuade. >> persuasion, all right. >> in your own words, mrs. brooks, define for us what the strategy was. >> so, the mccanns were deeply upset that there hadn't been a review. it seemed incredibly unfair that they hadn't gotten it this review. you only have to read their book to understand that. so we said we would join forces with you. and dominic mohan and his team went away and i can our member when the id of the letter came a. it may have been my idea to do the letter, i get my member. but the campaign was launched in order to try to convince the government or convince the home secretary that every he would be the right thing to do. >> do you know how i can about that the review was ordered? >> no, i, government.

sorry, such a lot has happened since then. [inaudible] spirit i remember dominic mohan telling me the review was going ahead. action i think he said the mccanns have one. >> "the sun" headline on the 14th of may front page was result of the campaign, prime minister was quote opening the files, do remember that when? >> i remember "the sun," the mccanns winning a campaign, yes. >> so this is not as you say a case study in the exercise of power by you. i'm not suggesting that the end result was right or wrong. many would say it was right. there should be a review. i'm just saying the means by which you achieve the objective. >> but it could be said that a review of madeleine mccann's case, with everything that has

gone on, was the right thing to do. we presented the issue, we supported the mccanns in their determination to get a review. it wasn't new. they tried before, before the election, and the election had come into -- and "the sun," and home secretary clearly thought it was a good idea, too. because i'm pretty sure there wasn't, it wasn't a long campaign. it wasn't 10 years. i think it was quite short. >> yes, it didn't take very long because government yielded to sure pressure, didn't they? >> perhaps they were convinced by our argument. >> there are always two sides to the coin. of course anybody would say on one level money should be spent, but the campaign to date on told has cost 2 million pounds. and some would say well, maybe that money i have come somewhere else.

>> the madeleine campaign? >> called operation great, i understand. >> right. >> perhaps you did all you are doing was professing the views of your readers. >> is that it? >> in that case it was an issue that we explain to the reader's, that a review hadn't taken place, and that we presented the mccanns story, as in the reason why they wanted the review. i think that absolute child with a readership. the campaign was started with a very heartfelt lesson. and the politicians were convinced our argument, or the mccanns argument was correct. >> there was a giant commercial interest to your paper because this sells copies, doesn't it? >> campaigns can sell newspapers.

i think the sterilization of the book actually was good for circulation for the sunday times. i'm not sure how well the campaign was in circulation but that would be a matter of record. it may have been. [inaudible] at one point the shadow home secretary, wasn't he? >> yes, he was. >> do you remember a conversation with him over dinner in which you discuss the human rights act of? >> i do. >> and to cut to the quick, his position was in favor of the action come your position was not, is that correct? >> i don't think that's quite right. similarly his position was that it was a shadow cabinet dinner.

and his position was that david cameron's promise, partially say the tories party promised to repeal and replace it with a british bill of rights i think was the plan at the time, was not, should not be so easily promised. and so it wasn't that he was pro-or against the. he was just making a legal point that it was her difficult to do. >> were you impressed with him after that conversation speak parks well, as it turned out, he was absolutely right, but at the time it was more his colleagues around the table because they may, i think they put out policy announcement that it was going to be in the manifesto. david cameron had written for "the sun" explaining this.

and so the dinner conversation was quite heated, as he was the only one at the table saying actually, i might have been standing up to his challenge, colleagues like that, and at the end he turned out to be correct. >> didn't you tell mr. cameron after that conversation you had with mr. grieve, you can have someone like that as home secretary, he won't appeal to our readers either, and that's indeed what happened? >> no, i did not tell mr. cameron. what the camera dash it was a conversation, as i said, was a very heated conversation, or not by his colleagues were trying to almost silence him at the table because he was in effect saying one of the promises the conservatives have made to the electorate was never going to repeal, and he was almost the opposite way around, that they

were concerned that his view was not to be taken seriously. and as it turned out he was entirely correct. .. >> absolutely not their view, and they were going to repeal the hra and replace it with a patient's bill of rights. and mr. green was mistaken. >> just before we break, could i

take you back to this issue that we've bounced around several times which is who is leading who. do you think that at least in part what you were, in fact, doing to use your own words was bringing issues to your readers as opposed maybe to responding to your readers' interests? >> i think that's correct, yes. >> and i'm sure we'll come back to it this afternoon, but i would like you, your view which you can reflect upon which is this. you're, obviously, everyone's

entitled to be a friend of whomsoever they want to be a friend. that's part of life. but can you understand why it might be a matter of public concern that a very close relationship between journalists and politicians might create subtle pressures on the press who have the megaphone and on the politicians who have the policy decisions? >> yes, i can understand that. >> all right. um, 2:00. >> all rise. [background sounds] and politicians.

>> do you recall occasi at the time the labour party brighton in september 2004 when chris brown mp had been speaking at a meeting and argued that rupert murdoch should not be allowed -- do you recall that? >> i don't, i'm afraid. i'm sorry. what data was it? >> 2004. as he arrived at the news international reception, you approached m. blair. do recall that? >> i think i know what anecdote you' referring to. >> it's not an anecdote. and a itness statement i've seen, you said mr. brown, shouldn't you be out of comment now, or something like it. did you say that? >> i don't wind up saying that, no. >> do you remember what your husband said? >> i remember what mr. bright

said my sband said. >> he was extremely rude, wasn't he? >> mr. bright? >> no, your husband. >> i don't think he said that. >> mr. watzman, you had him for mr. watzman. mr. watzman would say, or will say, following his, mr. watson, resignation in 2006, is a veteran? >> that that's what mr. watson which they? >> no. but thers underlying truth to it. and you have come you have encouraged "the sun" to write adverse maternal about him, is a veteran? >> no, i -- story. "the sun" has covered and has written adverse things about mr. watson. i think mr. watson is referring to an incident, and i can't

remember, i think 2006, when he galvanized troops as backbench rebellions in order to form mr. blair to resign. it was a situation where the night before mr. watson publish the letter in which mr. bryant was on all slightly, calling for tony blair to step down. he had driven halfway across scotland to see mr. brown. and when the newspapers confront mr. watson answered you clearly tell mr. brown to me famously said no, i was just a living a comments that take dvd. and i think the subsequent coverage, not just in "the sun" but the times and lots of newspapers very quickly of mr. watzmai think that's where it are regions from. >> did you ask another s journalist to write stories about mr. watson that the new

were completely untrue? >> no. >> did you tell others the political editor of the bbc, in august 2011, or rather di you speak to him at thelabour party conference in 2009, along the lines what am i going to get about tom watson? >> i may have done, yes, but i can't remove are saying that exactly. >> do you feel that you might have used "the sun" as an unfair means of disparaging politicians you did not particularly like? >> no. i don't actually. >> now, go back to the bskyb issue, and paragraphs 90-92 of her witness statement please, mrs. brooks.

>> yes. >> paragraph 90, you say in the fourth line, third line, many people sought to weigh the issue with me. and i became involved in defending the bid to them. so you're suggesting there you are adopting a defensive position, is that right? >> well, i see ts of people at that time as well. so not necessarily, just politicians. the fact is it was a common misconception, and often reported that newsinternational was trying to buy the remainder of bskyb rather than news corp. and that subtle distinction therefore because was in the uk territory was perhaps understandably got confused. and so yes, there were occasions

when i defended the did. >> you do also in paragraph 90, the next page, when the conversation, i'm sure as i would expect my views forcibly, particularly given the opposition, it might be said that stronger in your eyes the more strong you need to be. would you agree? >> i think, i think the anti-sky did alliance, so many different members of all of the meat at all other rivals of sky, and that day, i knew were seeing politicians and i think dr. cable have a dinr with them early on in 2010. so i think yes, i did. when i met eva, if i had the chance to put our side of the story, so to speak, i would. >> and those people included mr. cameron and mr. osborne, didn't they? >> not mr. cameron.

i ha a conversation with mr. on four. i've may have mentioned it to mr. cameron but it's not to be dwelt on because it wasn't a particularly long cversation but i did have a conversation with mr. osborne about it i think sometime in 2010. where i put my views, country - contrary to the once feared from everyone else. >> comeback to the in a short time. paragraph 92 of her statement, you say with regard to this just in i had discussions with those with david cameron and george osborne, i'm sure i did refer to the issue generally. is that statement relevant to both mr. cameron and mr. osborne? >> yes, but general discussion in terms, always in relation to usually in relation to something i'd heard that the anti-sky bid had put forward.

but i remember better conversation with george osborne sometime in 2010, but obviously discussed, and the bskyb he did was mention at the dinner at our home in december but i don't them having a particularly forceful conversation with mr. cameron about it. although our views on the bskyb bid, news corp you ad news international views or my views were pretty -- [inaudible] >> where they shared by mr. cameron? >> mr. cameron always made it ry clear that it was, or it was agreeing light judicial decision and it wasn't him and it was not up to them. he i think have been lobbied by lots of other people. so i would say no, it wasn't particularly sheer. he was always very evenhanded about it. >> w mr. cameron supportive of the bskyb to your knowledge? >> not particularly, no.

i think it would be fr to say that he understood why we wanted to present our position in relation to the other lobbying he was getting. >> was mr. osborne supportive of the bskyb bid to? >> he never said so. he never said explicitly that. however, i think one of te points that we, or we are trying to make about the bid was if, if that kind of level of investment was coming into the uk, that contrary to the anti-sky bid online for saying that it would be, it wld be a bad thing, that actually we thought into call centers around the country, the creation of jobs, that we were tried to put this argument to mr. osborne. but again, they would all say the same thing, it's not my decision. >> think my question was only was he supportive of the bid to? >> as i said, he never explicitly said so. >> could you confirm whether he

was supportive or not? >> no. he was interested in our argument. i think that's probably his best. >> we are aware of the role of fred michel in relatio to the big? >> well, i was aware at the time but not to the extent that i have not seen. but i was aware, yes. >> so when you say to the extent that you now see, are you referring to the e-mails of? >> yes, but iad realize there were that many e-mails. >> when did you read those e-mails of? >> i actually still haven't read them all. >> you saw some? >> i saw some during the evidence giv by james murdoch. >> and when they were drawn to our attention that way, did it surprise you in any way? >> will i think the truth is at the time, at the time the bskyb bid, i suppose, like most journalists i viewed public

affairs and obvious with quite skepticism and often thought that mr. michel's perhaps overextended position. however, he was doing his job. you know, he was passing on information as lobbyists do. >> how do you know he was overrating his position of? >> i suppose because as journalists we would have quite direct contact with ministers d prime ministers, you know, in the course of our work. but i ways thought it was ightly strange that he had that level. not quite strange. that's not fair. the level that came out was pretty good really. >> a couple of documents, 163

e-mails, picture you, only a couple. krm-18. we have one of them under tab 17 in the bundle. we can probably put it up on the screen. i'm not sure if would be available to anybody else. in the file, 101,657, you may have it as a separate piece of paper. let us know. >> i do, thank you. >> it relates to the 12th of october 2010, and you were copied in an e-mail from a mr. michel. are you with me? mr. anderson, we heard what mr. james murdoch explain who he

is. can you remind me? >> fred michel is public affairs for news corp europe and asia, and matthew anderson is corporate communicate should for news corp. >> the general gist of this e-mail is, the bid is still with dr. cable. this is before the 21st of december, it's necessary to keep briefings and key cabinet ministers. why do you think you were copied on this e-mail? >> i'm not sure because i wasn't copied on many of them. so i don't know. there woulbe regular meetings between the news corp people who were in charge of the bid, and occasionally maybe i was in that meeting. i don't know why i was copied on this particularly. >> reference to the next one,

which is same file, t. r. o. p-10 thousand 16 at -- >> hang on. just before it -- sorry, which? 1679? >> yes. >> that were probably the only one you have in that file spent all ree e-mails speak to i found an earlier one. the most relevant one is 1679 which you will have on tap 17. >> yes. the one that starts very ood? >> that's right. it's stated the 14th of december 2010. it's sent from a mr. michel to mr. james murdoch, and your copied and. are you with me? >> yes im. >> this was the ofcom issues letter. is in its? >> you have got the chronology. i accept that, yes. >> you scan the page, three

minutes later you replied to mr. michel, don't you? [inaudible] now, the reason why you're able to replace it quickly is because i think a dinner with mr. osborne the night before, hadn't you? >> that's correct. >> so you discuss the issues of the lead of the night before? >> i must have done so, yes. >> and the reference to gao is not including a special adviser. it's g. oh, personally, is in its? >> yes. >> why were you discussing this letter with mr. osborne at all? >> you are timing out the time of the issue of these letters likes it that. my memory from the dinner was that it was with my husband and i, mr. osborne and his wife, mr. lewis and his wife. so it was the six of us. it was in a restaurant, more of

a social occasion. but like i said in my witness statement, i probably brought it up but i can't remember, but they would have been part of the dinner i would have discussed our frustration perhaps with him at the time of what was going on. so i don't know wheth i brought it up for church, but we did discuss at the dinner not any great links because -- >> the part of the detail, was in an ofcom letter, you would agree with me? >> that would have been, i mean, that would have been my stance on it because i probably wasn't all over the complexities of an ofcom issues letter. as chief executive news international. i mean, literally my main focus, my main involvement in the bskyb did -- the bskyb bid if you like, nothing to do with the transaction but generally in

response to the huge amount of opposition and lobbying that was going on by the anti-sky of li life. >> was the dinner must have a compass, this was a discussion about the issues letter because the e-mail makes that clear, would you agree? >> i a tree with you. that's exactly what the e-mail says, but i don't remember a detailed conversation at a social dinner about the colexities of an issue such as ofcom. so it may have been precisely three minutes of me saying, can you believe that that has happened? and george osborne looking perplexed and the respond to fred michel the next day. it was a very brief conversation but it did happen. >> it didn't hppen but it's not mr. osborne looking slightly perplexed that he is totally baffled according to you. >> totally baffled in my conversaon with them. >> the conversation must've been initiated by you, mrs. brooks.

you usually don't hold back on occasions, do you? >> i just got number i brought it up or not, that's all. [inaudible] >> let's say i brought it up then. >> we don't want you to guess. >> i have been told to just spend i promise you, you're not been forced to guess. >> well, i can't remember who brought it up but am happy for arguments sake to accept that i did. but i'm not sure that's the case. >> do you think as an appropriate conversation with mr. osborne? i think, i think it was an tirely apppriate conversation. i was reflecting the opposite view to the view that the asserted by that stage from pretty much every member of the anti-sky data lines on many occasions. so i think, for one, three-minute conversation beginning of dinner i got the opportunity to get our view. i don't see why that's

inappropriate. >> you might be asked to assist us who initiated it? >> i'm accepting for the sake of argument that i brought it up. i just can't remember if that's absolutely. >> it's obvious from your one line e-mail that we know what mr. osborne's thinking is about more generally, don't we? >> well, i obviously remembered from the conversation, which i can exactly how long it took, but from the limited conversation that we had the nit before that he was baffled at the response. as what i see. i'm agreeing with you on the e-mail. >> yes, but it's also obvious that he was supportive of your bid, wasn't he? >> no. bafflement, or he was complexed at whatever, you're telling me with issues. i'm fine. he was baffled at the response speed hold on. paragraph 92 of your statement

proceeds on that premise. >> the issues letter? >>es. >> he was baffled at the response itself. i'm not sur what the question is, mr. jay. >> this stage of course, mrs. brooks, you knew everybody in the cabinet and his coalition stood in relation with the bid, did you? >> no, i didn't i particularly didn't know mr. cable's view, personal view. >> you do not any suspicion at all as to what his view was? >> no. in fact, i ask him to mr. cable would carry out that responsibility as any minister would. properly without personal prejudice. >> by the time you had read the e-mail the first in the chain,

if not before, you were well aware what mr. himes you was, the merits of the bskyb bid, n't you? >> i don't remember hearing that, hearing anything from mr. hunt directly on the bid, particularly. but i have a recollection that he put something on hi worksite. i think came up in this inquiry. that he put somehing positive on his website, was in its? >> did you have conversations with mr. james and mr. rupert murdoch about how the bid was getting on and he wasn't supporting its? >> i think, if my conversations with mr. james murdoch and mr. rupert murdoch about the bid were in essence probably discussing the latest move of the anti-sky alliance, sadr member having to call mr. james

murdoch wendy nti-sky alliance commissioned a poll to the pr agency they hired, i believe weber shandwick. and they discover that 80% of people didn't want us to buy the rest of sky shares. so i would probably update because the anti-sky alliance of courses working in the uk territory. so there would be occasions when i would update rupert or james murdoch him and/or internal meetings that went on inside news international that occasionally i would attend, too. >> news corp, news international regarded it important to lobby government generally in relation to the bid, aren't we agreed? >> i don't think that was the strategy. i think, i think it was a response. >> regardless of what originated it, it's what happened in the

income isn't? >> certainly from what we've seen from fred michel's e-mail, there was a lot of lobbying went on from our site, yes. >> you could assist the murdochs to this extent that you knew the persons involved, at least as well as income and you could advise them in relation to mr. osborne, mr. camero mr. hunt, in a way -- [inaudible] isn't that what you brought to the table here? >> no, i don't think the. first of all, the strategy behind the bid was set by news corp, and i've nothing to do with that. and had aain no formal role. and secondly this was a quasi-judicial decision, which is nothing to do with personalities, the preferences of particular, of the prime minister or the chancellor of the exchequer in this case, or mr. hunt before he took over for dr. cable. >> you weren't so naïve, were you, to believe that quasi-judicial decision be

carried ou necessarily, you would naturally fear that it might trude, you knew that, didn't you? >> no, actually. maybe it was naïve of me to think, you know, the procedure would be dealt with properly, but i did believe that. i had no reason not to until dr. cable's comments came out in the summer. >> okay. but we do have one e-mail, don't we, which you have, you have found. it's rem be two, you kindly disclose this to us. yes, this e-mail, tap number for? >> it is under tab for. before we look at it, i think people would be interested to know how it is that this one e-mail have survived and others might not have done. can you assist its?

>> welcome in the period, beginning june and july 17, when my blackberry was damaged, there were certain e-mails on their and some text messages, and for purposes of sectn 21 notice of this inquiry, my legal team went through all those, and inert to disclo anything that fell into the inquiry. and this was the only e-mail that i had in that period that was relevant to the bskyb questions i've been asked in my witnesstatement. >> would have to look at in this order. page 02606 will will be the first page of this document. you can see at 1629 hours, on the 27th of june 2011, are you with me? >> im.

>> frederick michel, send an e-mail. it goes to just do i think, although it's not altogether clear. is that your understanding? >> i would be surprised if it just came to me. as you saw from the previous enough, there always copied to the same group of people. but perhaps it was directly getting. >> the text of the e-mail is on the next page, which is zero to 607. hunt will be making references to phone hacking in a statement later this week. you would meeting -- [inaudible] this is his belief. phone hacking has nothing to do with the media plurality issue. if something has gone wrong with -- >> that's corruption, i think. >> you are being told whilst the secretary of state is going to be saying in his rubicon

statement, code-named, in a statement department. is that it's >> yes. >> that speaks to its appeared the issue of the privacy committee supports the widening, the future of the press and more newspaper groups of the regulatory regime that he wants to prevent the public inquiry. further the committee wanted to me up with a -- put enough pressure on the pcc o strengthen itself in terms of recommendations forward. was any of this news to you, mrs. brooks? >> yes, i think was. >> was it a bit surprising to you? >> i think, i think it was, it was news to me and, therefore, could be surprising, yes. >> the next paragraph, looking into phone hacking practices more thoroughly, and has asked

me, the pronoun me is mr. michel, to advise him privately in the coming week and guide his and number 10 is positioning. do you know what i was about? >> well, i think, i think it speaks for itself. >> does that surprise you? >> well, at he think is -- >> the 27th of june. >> the 27th of june, and at the time of news international it was a particularly, i have a lot of my own concerns. we just handed over the lewis file to mps because probably my focus more than anything else. i august have his e-mail and a million others. i read it at the time. and i responded i think to find it when the rubicon statement was. so i think the e-mail and my

response speaks for themselves really. >> well, your response was 1720 hours, we have to go back to the previous page, when the rubicon statement, and answer came back, probably wednesday. can you assist us further from your memory as to mr. michel's feelings with mr. hunt at this time? >> probably not any further than the evidence that james murdoch gave really. i mean, fred michel worked for news corp., and not news international so we didn't work for me. so my interactions with him were not as frequent. so i'm not sure i can add anything particularly. i know fred michel's own statement was that sometimes he overstated his case, for all i

know this cold be directly from jeremy hunt or as he said, number 10. so i just don't know. >> you say in paragraph 28 understatement, talking generally of your time as ceo of news international, that your time was previously occupied with the phone hacking issue. you members saying that? >> i do remember. >> content what am i going now? >> page 28 of your statement. i'm concerned with the detail of your investigation, or your knowledge, mrs. brooks. were relations between murdoch, father and son, increasingly

cold as this issue develop? >> i don think is between father and son. i mean, the situation was false. >> you'd is described in one article, "vanity fair" this time, being the go between in an increasingly father-son relationship. is that you? >> "vanity fair" spent a lot of time covering the murdoch family dynamics. and they're just like any normal family. they'd have dynamics and to change. i wouldn't put any thing by "vanity fair" spent maybe one should. listen to the question. were you the go between in a father and son relationship? >> no, they can speak to each other. >> i didn't hear that? >> no, they could be very happy to speak to each other. >> it was also just tested that james was passing blame onto his

supporters but is that what was happening? >> no. >> he wasn't? >> what's the context of the "vanity fair" piece? >> you've seen the piee. it alleges that you are now under pressure to please a protect not only rupert but also james. bova taken the decision they have no idea what's going on inside the company, and a particularly james passing blme onto subordinates. is that's what was happening? >> no. >> so you can't shed any light on the truth or otherwise as to what can you are shedding light. >> it's saying that i was the go between between father and son and increasingly fraught. the situati i think -- >> relationship. >> so what i'm saying to you is that i reported both to james and rupert murdoch, and i talked to them both about the issues unfolding at news international.

james and i had offices next door to each other. i have been talking to mr. murdoch everyday. so if "vanity fair" wants to characterize that as a go between, then fine, but i don't accept the premise of what they are insinuating. and secondly, the "vanity fair" piece, whenever it came out, anythinghat james tried to start to pass the blame onto subordinates and i'm not sure, if that "vanity fair" piece, is referring to james murdoch's testimony at the select committee or his testimony here. i just don't even know when the "vanity fair" piece ran. so it's difficult for me to answer the question without some context. >> can ask about -- can i ask about the police and your meetings about senior police officers? >> yes. >> rmb one again. the schedule you prepared.

the back of it, i think. you kindly provided a schedule of meetings with senior officers with the metropolitan police. >> yes. >> the second page of that, it apars that you did not engage with john gates, assistant commissioner, after december 2006. is that to the best of your recollection correct a? >> i -- i -- i don't think that's correct. i think i did meet him. but i, i me, we hoped, we hoped to show we hosted the police break the awards every year for start and i was always in attendance, and so, i'm sure that he would've been there. so i just, i really do not think the diary entries are a full

picture. >> is likely to be a difference between a large function where you might bump into people, any conversation might be smashed, and dinner a wrestler, maybe only a few of you, conversation might be -- >> no, i did, i do remember having a meeting with john yates, a lunch, aroundi think about the time that cash for honor. >> we are back in 2005? >> right. again, this diary may be corrected in. i didn't see much of john yates spent are you able to say whether that you discuss phone hacking issues within? >> because i don't remember one meeting, i'm pretty sure though i attended the police bravery a ward right up until to if you

can imagine, until 2011. and he was, he was always there. and the kerry member when "the guardian," "the guardian" broke the story in july 2009, and it was a police bravery award, it is usually in july. so i don't want to absolutely rule out the fact that i may have mentioned it to him because he was often around, but i don't remember, sit down conversation where we discussed it at any light. >> so you're admitting of the possibility that -- >> i'm saying that it might quite probably have happened if the sequences of events, if my memory serves me well, and those are the sequence ofevents that "the guardian" story broke out in july 2009, but i can't member what date, and the police bravery awas were afterwards but it could've been the other way around. >> "the guardian" story was the fifth or six, wasn't it?

the eighth. the meetings with mr. -- more frequent. what wh the purpose of those meetings in your own words that? >> what they would often be attended come usually he would accompany a commissioner, on a particular senior officer, or if he came in on his own, it would to discuss things with me and my crime editor and senior team, and it could be a varie of issues. there was also, although is an annual event, if you like, a well-oiled machine, it was always quite a lot of organizations for the police bravery awards. the process continued for many months -- soda, started many months before, and he would've been involved, as i would. but mainly the issues of the day or introducing a new commission are coming along with an update for the commission.

>> did you ever obtain information from him which forms the basis of a story in "the sun"? >> no. >> did he put you in contact with police officers who could provide the basis and to provide the basis of a storied? >> i think, i think most crime journalists would come in a, i was a crime journalist or a crime editor but i think the process was would awfully bring him if we had a story, that we've got from our in sources that involved the metropolitan police. and he was in a position to eer us away from it or give us acoment if we got it right so there was, there was a come if you like, exchange of information, but it can and will you put it sounded like he had come into me anything and give me stories. sadly, no. >> mr. wallis of course was an employee of news international into dashed and till 2009 but

were you aware of his relationship to? >> no. on insofar as i never worked directly with mr. wallis. but when i took over his position as deputy editor of he sun" in 1998, i think assume his responsibilities in ly come if you like, the police bravery awards. so i was aware that he had started those in the previous year. >> okay. one general question about the nature, this has to be a very general question. in terms of, the nature, the hospital you are offering, i'm talking about lunches, dinners, did you regard police officers the same way as politicians go so in other words, it was appropriate to take them to a restaurant of a steward and dus of a certain stature or difference?

>> there were definite distinctions between the two. i think it would be fair to say that senior police officers were more inclined to want to go to a neutral venue like a restaurant, whereas a lot of meetings with politicians took place either in hq are at party conferences, or at downing street or various ministries. so that was in my experience. >> the inquiry has vy little interest in the police force going to understand, that's the summer 2010. but i should ask you this question, even though we don't care about it. was there any exchange as it were between t work experience of his son, which is also in

2007 an acquisition by you? >> absolute not. >> move on to a different issue now. spent are you moving away from police officers to? >> yes. >> there's a balancer as well, isn't there, -- a balance here as well, isn't there, on the one hand they need to keep an eye on the stories that are coming out, but on the other, a professional distance. do you think there is a risk of there? >> well, i think, i think it's always up to individual conduct in these matters, and so i felt that the contact i had with

police officers, and particularly commissioners and senior police officers, in that kind of context was always appropriate. i never saw any, any of my dealings with police. i never saw any inappropriate, either conversations or -- take place. so my experience of it was relatively good. and particularly at the police bravery a ward and we would come, "the sun" shows and that he would come in contact with police officers not just the metropolitan police but from all over the country. and i always thought they were very useful for us for both sides, rather than inappropriate. but there is always a risk that that is not the case. >> mr. gordon brown cystic

fibrosis story, i think he did have some involvement in that, didn't you? >> guess i didn't. >> the peace in "the sun" is under tab 29. it's part of the narrative, as it were. this is an article in 2006. i believe. "the sun" today exposes the allegation that we hacked into gordon brown'samily medical records is false and a snippet we discovered the four year old son fraser had cystic fibrosis months after his birth. we can reveal the source of our information was a shattered dad whose own son also had a crippling disease and he wanted

to highlight it by suffrage. is that to? >> yes. i think mr. jason 2006. the article came out in 2006, but this was written in 2011. >> yes, you're right. the article is november 2006. did you have any involvement in this article, although you are of course editor -- no longer edit a? >> no, i didn't i think i might have even left the company. >> i don't have the exact date. >> published 13th of july, 2011, according to what's on the screen now. >> no. sorry, i was still there. >> do you know where the shattered dad, as referred to, got his information from? >> i think we do, yes. >> and where did he get his informatn from?

>> he got it from the fact that he, his own child had cystic fibrosis, and he, he was given this information when informationwas sought about cystic fibrosis. i'm being very careful to try to not reveal his identity, that's all, hence the hesitation. but i think we sort , we know what happened. >> that's all very vague, mrs. brooks. >> purposely so, i think when we wrote this article, i think, although like you say, i was chief executive at the time. i remembered "the sun" absolutely putting this together to refute gordon brown's allegations, and we are incredibly clear on it. we had an affidavit from the

father where he explains the stricken but i don't think that affidavit is publics so i'm just being slightly hesitant in not to reveal his identity. >> we are not concerned with his identity. that wasn't my question. the father's version is, and we can see this in the article, i have not had access to the medical records of any child, at any time. all of which s the truth, as i shall answer to god. apparently it was, his affidavit says, was its? >> i think it was longer than that but that would be part of it, yes. >> how did the father get the information? >> well, if i can put that back to reassure you, we, at the time, and again in july 2012, were absolute be satisfied that the father had got the information from legitimate means, and we were very sure about that.

[inaudible] >> he got the information because his own child had cystic fibrosis, and he got the information, suld i say, through very small, not a small charity, but there is a chaired aspect to the cystic fibrosis society, and he got it slightly by iolvement through hat. >> what sort of involvement in? >> i'm not going to take it ymore about this was because i don't want to reveal his identity. >> you are not. >> but i feel, i feel uncomfortable answering that because i think it could lead to his identity. you ask me where information came from, and the source, and i think they are matters that i have to respect as a source coming to the newspaper. the main point of this issue is mr. brown accused "the sun" attacking into his son's medical

rerds to get the stor. and that wasn't true. >> it wasn't accurate speakers no, sir. >> but that's quite important because it plays into somein else that is concerning me, which i'm just going to dwell upon. if i have taken a question from mr. jay, just to bed. mr. brown was concerned that informatn which he thought was private had entered the public domain. and he felt that the way that that must have happened is tt "the sun" got hold of his records in somway. that's what he was saying, is that right? >> that's what he said in july 2011. >> yes. now, you knew that, go back one step. first of all, ifou don't know anything of how you got the story, it's not unreasonable, is

it, to believe that if private details of your child's condition being put into public domain, they could only have come from medical records. because diagnosis, medical detail. so it's not an unreasonable view to form? >> he formed to that view, or he came to that assumption in 2011, and in 2006, in november 2006, way before "the sun" published the story, we discussed the story directly with the browns, before publication. and the first time i heard that he had a concern of that nature was when he gave an interview to the bbc in 2011. so it wasn't something that he felt at the time. >> it may be until into the

public domain, i'm not, i'm not actually focusing so much on that point, outcome to the point i want to make. you didn't explain to him, because you want to protect your source, no, no, no. we got all this from somebody whose son also has the condition as his own child's condition. you just didn't discuss the source is th right? >> that is right spent my question is, would you look at the first line of "the sun" article? "the sun" today exposes the allegation we hacked into gordon brown's medical family as false and a sneer. and my oncern is whether it's fair to describe that as may be incorrect, but as false and a

smear. >> in the general point that i can absolutely see what you are saying there is correct. but this was not, this was a particularly journey that "the sun" had been involved in since the beginning of the information coming into "the sun" israel, and what happened after that, and subsequent to that. >> but if you never knew how you got it, all you could say, your title said, he's just got it wrong. >> he came to the wrong assumption in 2011. >> that's absolutely fair. so the issue is whether it's part of the culture of the press that actually attacked us the best form of defense. so that people don't just get it wrong, it's false in capitals, and a mear. you see the point i am making?

>> i do see the point you are making, but, so the context is, that article was written after gordon brown had, first of all, i think his first appearance in parliament since he stepped down as prime minister, was to come to, was to come to the house and speak incredibly and critically, and in some cases made wrong assumptions through his testimony to the house. and then the second thing he did, he then went on, i think bb i can't remove or, to do an interview with another wrong assumption, that "the sun" had got the story from fraser brown's medical record. and i think, combining the two, if you like, attacks from mr. brown, this has never ever been raised by him in any shape or form with any of us at news

internationals, or mr. murdoch. he never once mentioned press ethics or practices in our entire relationship, that "the sun" felt that it was a smear, that hwas oing it for years later, sorry, five years later, for a particular respect and i think that's why they wrote the story that they did. now, i was chief executive at the time. i didn't write the story, but i'm defending their right to write a story like that. >> well, i -- already give provided, actually which have demonstrated is that "the sun" believed, and may be right or wrong, i don't know, that mr. brown's add two and two and two and got 27. what has, in fact, if he took each one of the instances on their own, it may have, he may

have been made a mistake, he may be wrong to reach the conclusion. that's all fair enough, entirely proper, but it goes a bit further than that. >> i accept that, that this story does, but if you imagine for "the sun," "the sun," and i know i keep mentioning this, but "e sun" has a trust with its readership, and it's a very important trust, and if that trust is broken, th, and a former prime minister had claimed i think partially -- harshly, he comes to the misperception we got it from the medical records. whoever broke the story, "the guardian" probably, that that was false. and there was a correction, subsequently published in "the guardian," and i think "the sun" felt on that that they had to stand up. because it is a terrible

accusation for a former prime minister to make of a newspaper without being in possession of the facts. that we have hacked into his medical record. and i think that why you're seeing a strong tone of the rebuttal in the paper. >> well, thank you. >> you are refuting "the sun" with a virtue, mrs. brooks. let me, how far i can get with it. where did this information come from? >> i'm not going to say, mr. jay. >> why not, mrs. brooke's? >> because, because if you knew where the father's information came from it would identify the source and i'm not going to do that. >> are you saying that the information came from a chari? >> no, i'm not that i'm saying that because the source also had a child with cystic fibrosis, he was aware and in, it was, it was the fact every child with cystic fibrosis, is how he came to know.

>> that would, that would indicate that the father might at some point have been quite close to the browns, perhaps any particular hospital. [inaudible] do you understand the? >> i understand your point. >> did he gain the information by substitution? >> no, he didn't. >> tdk and information directly from the browns? >> no, he didn't. >> didd gained information froma third party? >> i suppose you could describe it as that? >> was the thirdparty an employee othe nhs? >> no, what wasn't. >> well, did a third party have a duty of nfidence to hold the information? leches go as simple as that. >> no, i don't think so. i'm sorry. without repeating the source, "the s" was satisfied that th information came from legitimate means. and i felt that that covered all the questions.

>> was the father paid for his time to? >> i think it was a donation may be, but i can't be sure. >> to a charity in? >> i think he asked for it to be given to the cystic fibrosis charity, which is featured i have in my head. but we can check with "the sun." >> how come the inquiry said whether not the fathers -- site duty of confidence without knowing the identity of the source, but the nature of the duties, that source was discharging? >> sure you can assist to that extent. ..

did you have an agreement great -- freely given to publish this storyn "the sun"? >> absolutely. >> they were entirely relaxed about this personal information related to a 4-year-old boy. entirely satisfied that this could be placed on the front page of "the sun" in november of 2006? that your position? >> you used the word relax. you have to consider how traumatic clearly for any parent this was. >> what was? >> the diagnosis. >> what about including it on the front page of "the sun"?

is that helping or not? >> that background -- >> enter my question. obviously the tragedy and pain of the diagnosis but on the front page of "the sun" is not helping this? >> if the browns half me not to run it i wouldn't have. there are many examples of tragic situations in people's lives when people have asked me not to run a story and i haven't and i wouldn't have done. not only they world" is testying. back to live coverage on c-span2. >> did you have a conversation to talk about this specifically? >> can't remember when my call was. i think was after -- she ended "news of the world" firing her. >> on the first of december of

2008 two weeks befehand the week commencing the seventeenth of november did you have a conversation about sharon? >> was discussed. >> would have been or was discussed? >> it was. >> the purpose of the court to discuss sharon? >> wasn't. was to discuss the case and also to try to undstand why social services were allowed to do their own review and their own conduct. >> in the course of the discussion you had in relation to sharon smith did you indicate you wanted her back? >> i didn't tell the board to try -- i was very obvious in the coverage in our paper that we launched a petition because the government were refusing to do anything about the situation. i had conversations with the board. i also -- the shadow minister

was michael gerber at the time but i can't remember that. i would have spoken to anybody basically to try to get some justice appointed to the campaign. >> the justice in this way, the person who could make their own decision. >> obviously had influence on that decision but the paper was the main form. >> he was the decisionmaker who could affect by direct instruction. >> just picking up the premise of your question is did i tell -- in fact in the newspaper from the day we broke -- that they be covered the baby story it was

very clear that that was the same editorial lines of mr board was under no illusion that that was the point of our campaign. >> he was also under no illusion. that with the point of your telephone call as well. >> the telepne call was in part the petition and also wanted to deliver the petition to downing street because nothing was ving on the campaign and we oursels at "the sun" were very surprised. 1.5 million as a percentage of readership is a huge reaction. it would not just be -- i don't think it was a point of reference because the editor of "the sun" had to read the paper. >> you were frustrated by his apparent inaction and had a mass of signatories on the petition, all the more reason to bend mr. colbert?

>> the premise of your question is that the ring got mr. bohr's -- it was in line with i wouldn't use. but you said that i say get rid of her or else or whatever you said? i did not say that. the point of the campaign was obvious that he only had to read the paper essentially asking mr. bours for subtle information like the contents of the reviews we were not allowed to see and the white wash i felt council had done in their own review. >> we had better before the leveson committee. they have gavel back in and we go back to london on c-span2.

>> to conclude your evidence, six pieces of your statements. your credo on accountability. do you see that? you have seen firsthand. the importance of pulling politicians now the public figures arts in account and policies for the public good? would you agree that editors subject only to review have so -- sold discretion what constitutes public good? >> no i don't. they do have some discussion as we discussed earlier. it is a combination of reacting to readers, understanding the readers but also putting issues in front of the readers for

their reaction. so not so responsibility. the team of each paper which contribute to conference for ideas, so responsibility. >> in terms of assessing the public good, that reside with the newspaper and the response to the early resides with the editor. are we agreed? >> yes. >> i think i was right in saying that in terms of this particular subject, by the review by the pc see the responsibility is with the editor. >> i don't think for responsibility. >> over the responsibility because you look to everybody else for advice and everybody looks towards you and you decide what we're going to do. >> ultimately everything is published in the paper is their responsibility. >> do you feel that that is a

satisfactory statement given that the editor is bound to be party free in assessing of a public good, the editor needs to have an eye on such and such circulation period? >> that is the role of an editor. an editor's judgment is part of -- a big part of their role. >> holding public figures to account would include exposing the private weaknesses of public figures. is that right? >> i would defer that more to campaigns which i discussed the lot in my witness statement. >> i am not discussing that. i'm discussing the issue of exposing private weaknesses of public figures. you regard that as completely within the bounds of the public good? >> not necessarily. >> when would you not expose the

weakness of public figures? >> when there didn't seem to be public interest in doing so. >> when would such circumstances arise? >> there are many stories newspapers have been run about personal circumstances of public figures. >> what sort of circumstances would mitigate against giving us details of individual stories which weren't published? >> if perhaps no trust broken between them and their constituents. in fact you discussed yesterday all those that story was published. maybe george argued that before he became an m p, the judgment is their own. >> goes back to the point of an editorial discretion at the end

of the day. >> hy just wanted to convey -- thei just wanted to convey -- the workings of the newsroom. >> one particular campaign because some would say their arguments are both ways. naturally i have ideas expressed here. the murder of sarah page which featured in "news of the world" for a number of years. >> isn't it right that the "news of the world" published the name and photographs of known sex offenders in order to, quote, protect other children from them? >> correct. ..

and there's always a risk with campaigns although there were some issues with the campaign, i think the mechanic in a way to try to explain to the public what was going into the campaign was effective, and i think there was off 13 or 14 pieces of legislation brought in subsequently on the back of it to read >> why did you need to publish the names and photographs of the known sex offenders in order to bring home what was otherwise a

legitimate point? >> because was the point about information. when sarah payment missing i was surprised the police came around the inquiry were pretty sure who they thought the perpetrator might be because he was a convicted pedophile living in the community who had just been released having conducted under eight year old girl and in almost didn't call circumstances and it was news to me that convicted in the serious nature were allowed to live unchecked in the community and parents didn't have any information on that, and when i checked back in america after the murder of mcginn in 1994, president clinton had brought in meagan's

law which had been working very well and that is why the mechanic is right. >> i can understand the argument to this extent, the degree the criminal law might need to be strengthened. why is it necessary in that legitimate campaign to publish the names and photographs of the known sex offenders? >> because in 2000 when we did it -- and i fink was over a period of just two weeks -- it was a way of highlighting the central issue of the campaign to try to explain to the readers the gap between what they felt was the situation and what was the situation. >> why couldn't you just explain it to the readers in clear and simple language? why sensationalize it and create the obvious risk of reprisals? >> welcome actually before we did it, having the meagan's law

there was very limited -- there is very little vigilante is some. i wasn't protecting those reprisals, and i felt it was the best way to highlight the central point of the campaign. >> were there any reprisals? >> there were the to the were written about. estimate does that include the pediatrician? >> it does, yes. >> fun natural foreseeable consequence of the sensationalist campaign, wouldn't you agree, ms. brooks? >> no, i think -- i don't think anyone could have predicted a pediatrician situation. and secondly, i think on the growth at stake i think the residents were quite shocked to discover there had been living there unchecked when i'm going

to offend again. so, although, again i didn't predict the outcome. >> it's been a recurring theme in the questioning of the course of the day but your proposition, which might seem obvious as the common sense and you reject this each time i'm going to try again with this one is it not evidently inflammatory to publish in the news of the world the names and photographs of the known sex offenders foreseeable consequence there might be physical violence? >> if you publish it on the basis you knew that would happen, yes. but it was not the intention. the incidence i can explain as i've tried to. the fact is that it was a very serious, very serious loophole that needed coming into was a bold. some people disagree with it, some people agreed with in terms

of press, but monday 8% for the british public continued to agree with the campaign probably up until this day. >> might not have been your motive, mrs. brooks but there's a natural and probable consequence of your actions, wasn't it? if it wasn't, mrs. brooks, it would be banished from your mind i would suggest to you protecting the obvious to anyone else and what ought to have been obvious to an editor exercising your position role in power would you not agree? >> i wouldn't agree because i did not predict a there was going to be a riot, and i didn't predict that somebody, members of the public would mistake a pedophile for a pediatrician. i don't think anybody could have predicted that. >> there are many things in the sequence of events the would lead to an outcome, you can certainly predict the outcome in

general terms, and what i am suggesting to you is this sort of come would you not agree to? >> you have the benefit of hindsight which i didn't have at the time. i was constructing a very bold campaign in order to change the sex offenders act of 1997. >> not just a bold, but sensationalized, designed to inflame and designed to improve standing the view and the news of the world to the objectives in mind is that not true? >> you seem to have taken the opinion of the guardian has i think the time. i disagree, it is not my opinion and i am not going to agree with you. >> let me make it clear that i have absolutely no concern about the policy objectives of the

campaign of news of the world or anybody else which is to run. that's what freedom in our society means. the only question i might ask following up on mr. jay's question is if you have appreciated that the public might react in a way in which it did in these two incidents, do you think you would have rethought whether that aspect of the campaign should be run? >> i do have some regrets about the campaign, particularly the list of convicted pedophiles that we put into the paper

because i felt that we have made some mistakes by just going on an appearance of the sex offenders act which wasn't necessarily the right criteria. however, i still felt that the mechanic that we used was the right thing to do. >> 99 in your statement. when you referred to the wider point, do you remember that? >> what paragraph? >> paragraph 99. you've moved of the issue of and then you are moving on to the wider point. >> yes. >> you say on the second line

it's one thing to be a passionate advocate of free press, but if you seek to defend an inaccurate free press, you lose the moral high ground. are you intending to to say that there are some aspects of the free press which might give rise to criticism because the free press can be inaccurate? >> cut and need to discuss this in the first module of the inquiry that when the newspaper gets it wrong one of the biggest complaints i used to get not necessarily about leona newspaper but about the press in general was the prominence of apologies when an and accuracy had taken place and that is what i am referring to. page 37 paragraph type of thing

>> in some respects, and this is perhaps an ironical response to your evidence. in the course of the day i put to you stories which are said to be reliably sourced whether they are in the times or "vanity fair" or elsewhere, and three often you have said it's untrue. but that in a funny sort of way is the sort of debate we have been having in this inquiry. the evidence this is so often sources don't stand up based on myths or half truths or the garble of the truth. do you see the irony? >> yes, i do. >> what do you think the reason for that is? >> well, mr. jay, to me you have put quite a few should we say gossip items for want of a

better word. >> the same sort of stuff in the news of the world and continues. >> we are not in a tabloid newsroom are we. you put quite a few gossip, my out of me, my -- rupert murdoch and i swim, where did i get the horse from, did mr. murdoch by me s suit, the list is endless and i've had to refuel a lot of those allegations because allegations is overstating because it is so wrong, but i do feel that that is merely a systematic issue that i think a lot of it is gender based and my relationship with mr. murdoch if i was a grumpy old man of the street no one would write the first thing about it, but perhaps otherwise i guess a lot of this criticism is gossip. but i wasn't complaining and i wasn't making it the typist

hypocrisy that last paragraph to mean that. all i was saying was in my experience as a journalist it's one of the biggest complaints leggitt where people say the apology never matches the and accuracy. >> the systematic issue may not relate to you all the lenders and naturally you would have particular concerns in relation to yourself. the systematic has regarded inaccuracies may be in the connection of the commercial press on the sources which do not always stand out and tend to rely on stories that really true but don't happen to be true, and finally, the story itself being more important. so the microcosm today we have seen demonstrations, the sort of phenomenon which is occupied the life of the press for decades in this country.

is that fair or not? >> i don't think it's fair and i don't think any journalist in the room would agree with that final summing up of the statement where you say the story is more important than the truth. >> are there other aspects of the press which you are looking at in paragraph 99 such as intrusion or these issues which he would even prefer not to address or don't think are particularly important? >> of course i think they are important. i'm happy to discuss them, but just for the purposes of this module which is meant to be about the discussion of the appropriate relationship between present politicians and i haven't got anything in my witness and.

>> fair enough. ha >> i understand that. but one couldn't have listened for the day and indeed have read the material, that has been published and written about you without wondering a little bit about the extent to which the press have intruded rather be on in your public position into your private life, and i wonder whether you have a comment speaking with all the experience you have in news of the world. and to the extent to which the

press does now we get further and further into the issues of privacy as i said to mr. jay, it would be i think the height of hypocrisy to a list to complete. however, i have had those complaints from people in my career of journalism and i've always tried to understand and always try to use my judgment to where that line fell. s to my own situation, well, you know, it's been a difficult year, but a lot of the questions of life had for mr. jay, wife of concentrated on it trivialized i was happy to discuss them, but i'm not sure that it helped to inquire whether mr. murdoch bought me a suit or not or i went swimming with him.

>> what might help is the nature of the relationship and the influence that it generates. but i just -- i wasn't asking you to complain because you said in terms it would be hypocritical of you to do so in the past experience. but because i am trying to find a way through the various modules including the political one, i wanted to give you the opportunity to say anything you want it to say on the subject. >> i think on the politicians and i do think much has been made of the relationships and the formal contact scum and -- contacts, and i believe if journalists meet politicians, they are going to be incredibly hard to be the journalists to be

transparent and of that or are thought to be transparent because often they are exactly the way they get information. so if you see someone for a drink and then have to print your schedule the next day that is quite difficult. on the other hand, i understand from this government that they have improved their transparency from that part. and so, i suppose it was to urge you that there really shouldn't be if everyone's individual contact is correct i would never compromise my position as a journalist by having a friendly relations with a politician. and i've never known a politician to compromise their position, particularly with their friendships with me or with another executive. and so i'm not saying the system is perfect. it's far from it, but i feel an understanding in the current law might be a start before we

present any more restrictions. >> in relation to the politicians i don't know that it is a question of the law. >> i'm talking of the ministerial code which is changing all the time. it changed in july think of last year. >> you said before lunch when i asked you can you understand why it might be a matter of public concern the very close relation to journalism and politician might create on the press in the policy decisions you agreed that you could understand that. >> i could understand the point very clearly because i think in every walk of life and every kind of relationship you have, there are subtle pressures. i think that is human nature. and it is up to the individual conduct and how you respond to those pressures. so i accept what you are saying as a fact. but i do think that those politicians need to make sure

that they have their professional lives in front of everything else so they don't compromise. the big point about the prime minister is if the prime minister ever had put a different ship or a relationship or coziness in the group to the electorate than the would be a terrible feeling. >> but it might be they are convinced that it's consistent with their duties of the electorate. in other words, the nature of the relationship is such that they become honestly and completely convinced because of the respect they hold to the people they are dealing with who may be their friends, and therefore they are not doing something paragraph are not doing anything that is in

proper, but they are slightly perhaps less guarded with politicians, which people of the press, particularly those who may be their friends come and they will be when they know there's a lot of people coming in the example i gave to the school yesterday was from the coal industry and then there's the lobbying industry from greenpeace to talk about, and that's a part of our process that a different interest groups get the opportunity to make that point. but i don't suppose many get the opportunity to make as many points as to the senior journalists get to make, and they don't have quite the same ability to provide it for use the word something in return i

don't want you to misunderstand me. i'm not saying there is a bargain to necessarily, but i think it has been said in the report rather more subtle than that, it's just a recognition that's actually if her to people, journalists on the one hand and a politician on the other are on the same page and therefore support each other they might generally support each other, not in properly, not because they have made a deal, not because they have been given cash or anything like that, but because people can be persuaded. that may be fair enough. but the question is how long can they ensure there's sufficient openness and transparency about that so that everybody is satisfied in this day of the mass media communications that

all decisions are being made openly and transparently without influence that people know about. that's my point. >> that's correct in terms of business and commercial interest, which is i think where the coal manufacturing comes in. all i was saying, not disagreeing with that point, from the journalists perspective, you are not trying to get to see it published in for your own personal or even your company's commercial interest. you are trying to gather information. to put at its lowest, you are trying to get a good story. >> you might be doing it for your commercial considerations. we've talked enough about them on the antiascribing it to doesn't really matter which one that's where it gets fuzzy

doesn't it? >> i have never known anything like the alliance in life never heard of any media group in the country in the british telecom and the bbc getting together against noncommercial it. >> we could take the example of the meeting in a 19 -- i've got to get the year right. >> the meeting between rupert to -- ruppersberger murdoch i'm not reaching any conclusion of any of it but it is another example of the alliance not merely of the ability to lobby but the

ability to use the press interest. >> well we didn't actually. >> whether you did or you didn't isn't my point as you understand so it's the question of ensuring the public that this pressure does not get out of hand. >> that's correct the ordinary that make the newspaper powerful and if i can just give you one example where the daily mirror ran a very good campaign in that time with the leadership at the beginning in the war in iraq and

some being pro-military always kept it very supported backing troops on the ground and once the war started coming to america continued the campaign and they say why the readers are wrong and i think it is from pierce morgan's book from this inquiry he talks about how the circulation of the mirror plummeted, he continued to control the line, the editorial line in the paper that was against the leadership and they reacted pretty swiftly and i know that is an extreme example in these kind of pressures. >> that's why we spoke earlier about its responsiveness or leadership in a little bit of both. >> absolutely both. many people question and i completely understand that it

was controversial. the fact is i put a piece of information in front of the readers that i found astonishing when i heard it is to systems that conform to pedophiles could live in the community unchecked and then was something i just didn't know and i presented it to the readers in the way that i did so was the situation of me putting something in front of them. however, i did know that they were incredibly moved by what happened to the pain family from their reactions early on, so i knew they would be responsive to its. >> it doesn't make it very difficult.

>> there is something else to deal with. i will let anybody else who wants to leave, leave. >> next, we hear from the former communications director for david cameron.

then, president obama talks about his home owner initiatives in nevada. then your calls and comments on "washington journal." mitt romney gives the commencement address at university -- liberty university. you can watch it at 10:20 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> cutting back in an age where crime is global in ways that it was not 10 years ago, and by that i mean organized crime, cyber crime, white-collar crime, gangs, they are globalized and that entity that has the best chance for addressing a global criminal activity is the fbi. if you cut us from doing it, where much of the crime is

globalized, it is a double hit in some sense. >> on wednesday, the fbi director testified about budget cuts, political correctness. watch it on mine on the c-span video library. -- online on the c-span video library. >> andy coulson served as being too cases director to david cameron. he testified concerning his position with the murdoch's. this portion is about an hour and 10 minutes. inquiry looking into british journalists and politicians.

>> thank you. >> the evidence i shall give shobi the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> your witness statement is dated the first of may this year. if you looked at the last hurrah of, u will see a signature which is yours. the statement is given in light of the ongoing investigation. is that right? >> yes. >> you started working as a journalist in 1989. is that correct?

>> yes. >> you edited a column. in the year 2000, you were deputy editor of "news of the world." in january were appointed and now editor. on the 26th of january, 2007, you regn. in june, we will come to the exact date when you give evidence, you were appointed director of communications to the conservative party. is that right? >> yes. >> you started work in to buy, and after the next general election, you were appointed director of communications at downing street. is that correct? >> yes.

>> can i ask you this general question fir on? there are reports you were keeping a personal diary with relatives of sense -- with relative eents? is that correct? >> no. >> you have had to rely on memories. are there other documents you have had access to that might have existed? >> there are some notes. >> these are manuscripts or computer records the amount >> notebooks -- fees are