mr. clifford? it's suggested to be 700,000 pounds and a million respectively, for invasions of privacy, when the record amount of privacy damages awarded pie a court remains 60,000 pounds ironically against the "news of the world. ". >> mr. sanders, i did question the amount but not in relation to the 60,000. as you recall, and i'm sure you do, the chronology here, the settlement made against 700,000 pounds was after the authorization of the settlement after the advice that we sought from senior distinguished outside counsel with respect to the quantum of damages that could be expected to pay, which in damages terms was quarter of a million pounds plus expenses and litigation costs was expected to be between 500,000 and a million pounds is my recollection of it. and i think that chronology is important. i think afterwards you would have obviously had maybe different information, but it wasn't afterwards, it was before. >> you have since said that when you approved the taylor settlement, it did not

mr. clifford as i was not... i don't have direct knowledge, because i haven't involved in those pieces, in that piece. with respect to the taylor piece, i made a judgment given the advice of counsel, given the advice of the executives involved that -- and going back and looking at what we knew in 2008 and looking at that advice, remembering that advice, and looking at the context at the time, as we step back those few years, three years, now, you know, it was a decision that, given that context, was a decision that i still stand by, i think. >> it just seems interesting -- >> certainly -- sorry. >> you had a... >> apparently there was a contract with mr. clifford. which was cancelled my mr. coulson. >> i don't know about that. if you have knowledge of that... >> i'm sorry. >> well, it seems to me that... >> i don't know what was in the contract. >> we might want to -- go back to that. we might come back -- actually have to come back and talk about that. but it seems odd to me as a layman, that, you know, the 600,

mr. clifford?to be 700,000 pounds and a million respectively for invasions of privacy when the record amount of privacy damages awarded by a court remains 60,000 pounds ironically against "the news of the world"? >> mr. sanders, i did question the amount made, but not in relation to the 60,000. if you recall, and i'm sure you do, the chronology here. the settlement made with respect to the 60,000 pounds against "the news of the world" which i believe was the moseley case was after the authorization of the settlement and after the advice we sought from senior distinguished outside counsel with respect to the quantum of damages we could be expected to pay which in damage materials was quarter of million pounds plus expenses and litigation costs was between 500 it,000 is my recollection of it. i think that chronology is important. i think afterwards you would have had maybe different information, but it wasn't afterwards. it was before. >> you have since said that when you approved the taylor settleme

mr. clifford which was canceled by mr. coulson. >> i do not know anything about that, if you have any knowledge of that. >> we might come back to that in more detail. 600,000, and gray got his phone hacked and he hasn't even gotten 50,000. it seems bizarre that someone can be hacked and get 600,000 and someone else gets 20,000. one instance was out in the open and everyone knew about this, and the other one was paid when it was trying to be kept rather quiet. in do you not see that to most people looking at it that it smells a bit? >> i understand where you're coming from and i understand. these are big sums of money that we are talking about. 200,000, 600,000. that is a lot of money. why would a company do that? i would as go back to my answer to mr. sanders, just to be precise about the chronology. mr. davis, and would like to answer this question. my understanding is that the 60,000 settlement or judgment in the moseley case, which was after the advice given around the gordon taylor settlement, is an importer chronology

mr. clifford in those pieces in that piece, with respect to giving advice of counsel and the executives involved in going back while renewing 2008 in looking at that and remembering bad advice and looking at the context of the time to step back as two years, three years now. it is a decision that given that context with the decision that i would still stand by a think. >> it seems like certainly -- >> apparently there was a contract with rupert murdoch that was canceled. >> i didn't know if you have knowledge of that. >> you were going on? >> it just seems strange to me -- we may come back with some details about that. but it seems to me the later -- the 600 pounds, the billion pounds for 600,000 or 500,000 or even 200,000 or even 50,000. he got 20,000. it seems bizarre that somebody would get 20,000 somebody else gets fun hack to make it 600,000 or a million. and surely you can see that the difference that most people draw is one when it was all out in the open. it was to be kept quiet, 600,000. do not see the two people he cannot it smells fishy. >> mr. davies, and understand that this is 100,

mr. clifford in those pieces in that piece, with respect to giving advice of counsel and the executives involved in going back while renewing 2008 in looking at that and remembering bad advice and looking at the context of the time to step back as two years, three years now. it is a decision that given that context with the decision that i would still stand by a think. >> it seems like certainly -- >> apparently there was a contract with rupert murdoch that was canceled. >> i didn't know if you have knowledge of that. >> you were going on? >> it just seems strange to me -- we may come back with some details about that. but it seems to me the later -- the 600 pounds, the billion pounds for 600,000 or 500,000 or even 200,000 or even 50,000. he got 20,000. it seems bizarre that somebody would get 20,000 somebody else gets fun hack to make it 600,000 or a million. and surely you can see that the difference that most people draw is one when it was all out in the open. it was to be kept quiet, 600,000. do not see the two people he cannot it smells fishy. >> mr. davies, and understand that this is 100,

mr. murdoch or by rebekah brooks? >> i forget, but i expect it was my son. >> when were you informed about the payments made to gordon taylor and max clifford? >> nope. >> you were not informed? >> nope. >> did you or anyone else at your organization investigate this at the time? >> no. >> is that right? >> i forget the days. i never heard -- i didn't hear that. that is the first i've heard of that. i just don't remember. there's no excuse for breaking the law at any time, sorry. >> a man named vincent "the chin" used to wander around greenwich village. which, in fact, he was. his scheme did not work. vinny the chin was convicted on racketeering and conspiracy charges in the 1990s, he ultimately died in prison. is rupert murdoch pulling a vinny the chin here? is he going to drop the whole fake limp or is rupert murdoch really that out of his depth, unaware of most things going on around him, unaware even of how much he's using his hands when he talks? meanwhile, rupert murdoch's son, james, only 38 years old, so he can not even try a i can't understand anything defense. instead, just tried a donald rumsfeld impersonation. >> i'm not saying t