nobody, not mr. lord, not mr. miller. none of these people. >> you are talking about -- it has to do with the 2005? >> correct. >> lookout exhibit b. -- look at exhibit b, the second page. if that was made known in 2005 that they want to operate under those hours, it would seem to me that you would have to show me where the hours returned earlier or explain to me the language on the basis for a recommendation. >> there is no hours in that 2005 at all. >> it does not mean that you cannot operate any hours that you want to. it means that nothing has changed from what was originally conditioned. >> let's go back to my brief. we talked about first amendment protected activity. somewhere along the way, the city let people do certain things. if you look at my exhibits, the dwellers themselves -- >> i am not a lawyer, but the problem becomes, maybe there was some mistake made on the part of entertainment. you have to have a validly issued permits. if entertainment made an error in their interpretation of the 2005 cu -- that is n

do not seek to constrain parliament, but it seems to me that the better course is to allow this inquiry to proceed." having agreed with this inquiry, let's listen to the inquiry it. >> mr. speaker, lord justice is a responsible for a lot of things, but he is not responsible for the integrity of the prime minister -- in case he forgot, that is the responsibility of the prime minister. mr. speaker, he was not judging this bid. he was helping the bid by news corp.. in january the culture secretary's office was not only colluding with news corp. to provide them information in advance, there were hatching a plan to ensure " it would be a game over for the opposition to the bid." does the prime minister believe that is how a judge and his advisers are supposed to act? >> the leader has clearly not read what lord leveson said this morning. let me remind him what he said yesterday about the leveson inquiry. this is the leader of the opposition speaking. "i think he's right, that the leveson inquiry takes its course. the most important thing is that the leveson inquiry gets to the bottom of what happened, of what labor did and what the conservatives did, and we reach a judgment about that." t

mr. speaker lord justice levinson is responsible for a lot of things but he's not responsible for the integrity of the prime minister's government. in case he's forgotten, that's his responsibility as prime minister. now, mr. speaker, it beggars belief that the prime minister can defend the secretary because he wasn't judging this bid, he was helping the bid by news corporation. two days before, on the 25th of january, they were not only oco-lewding with news corps to provide them information in advance, they were hatching a plan to ensure, and i quote, it would be game over for the opposition to the bid. does the prime minister really believe that is how a judge and his advisors are supposed to act? >> the leader of the opposition clearly doesn't think what lord levinson this morning mat -- said this morning matters. let me remind him what he said yesterday about the levinson inquishry. he said this. i think -- this is the leader of the opposition speaking. i think that it's right that the levinson inquiry takes its course. he went on, the most important thing is that the levinson inquiry gets

i would not put too much word on lord wyatt's. >> he was dictating these memoirs. >> he was close to mrsthatcher. i do not believe that mrs. thatcher had that much time on your hands, but never mind. >> the point he is making is mrs. thatcher defended on your support -- depended on your support and you depended on her support. because of your -- which was just sky but became later, the merging with the two companies. >> i see what he's saying. i do not agree. >> ok. [inaudible] >> to 1990, the november of that year. >> editorials do not read by very many people the much. -- that much. and there were a lot of different opinions being put. >> your company consistently, 36% of the newspaper market. you are the biggest player in 1990 and you are the biggest player now, aren't you? >> if you are talking about newspapers alone? >> yes. >> well, put it this way. [unintelligible] every day. people can stop by my newspapers any time. often do, i am afraid. and it is only natural for politicians to reach out to editors, and sometimes proprietor's if they're available, to explain what they are doin

mr. chairman. i apologize about having to step out for a little while. you know, thank you for breaking a little glass. this was lord knows not the traditional approach. lots of probably ideas about how this came about or why it came about. but as a guy who's only been here three years, you know, kind of the process here around this document that seems to be more about gotcha for future -- for future electoral campaigning process than how you actually try to reach a common ground on a plan that 65%, 70% of us could actually agree upon that would solve the problem, you know, i think is a much better approach. i know -- lord knows i know this simpson-bowles plan which i have more than a passing familiarity with will make -- will make folks on both sides of the aisle, some folks on both sides of the aisle really upset. i think that's great. because i think it means there may actually be a chance for the -- for those of us who think there are 65 or 70 of us who actually could find common ground, it might give us a chance to get at the bat. clearly, for all of the merits or demerits that the -- you know, the ryan budget has coming

not totally effective tool but let's deal with it now if we may. so we hit spot as we head on to the screening area. go to the screening area and mr. lord, you said 30% are used by ait machines. correct? 30% of the passengers going through? >> it's -- yeah. according to mr. mclaughlin that's correct. >> so 30% of the passengers are going through the newer, more improved ait machines. and would you consider as much as you can within this arena, are the aits 100%? are they fool proof? >> i can't discuss any of the details but in general any technology has limitations. >> we all have limitations. any technology is going to have some type of limitation. through the metal detectors those are less advantageous so, 30% of those people have gone v say, have gone through the first phase of spot, now going through 30%, say they go through an ait machine where the other 70% have gone through metal detectors which are basically less -- not less safe but not as good as the ait machines. then we get to the gate. we've got the gate agent making sure you get on the right aircraft so. we have gone through some security but there is a possibility somethi

not. >> on the issue of editorial control, you have given us some insight of a meeting you had with mr. evans when he was editor. you were interviewed in the context of the house of lordsfirst report on communications, where they set out at appendix four a summary of an interview which took place in september 2011. i just a 1.2 you which is -- paragraph 49 of the appendix. >> where is that? >> bear with me. tavis 18. >> thank you. >> 49? >> yes. >> yes. >> mr. murdoch did not disguise the fact that he is hands on both economically and editorially. he says that the law prevents him from instructing the editors of the sunday times. the independent board is there to make sure he cannot interfere in he never says do this or that, although he often ask, what are you doing? he explains that he nominates the editors of these papers but that the nominations are subject to approval of the board. his first appointment of an amateur is but the board, but was not rejected. he distinguishes between the times and the sunday times and the sun and the news of the world and makes the same distinction between the new york post and the wall street journal. before the sun and the news of

mr. speaker lord justice levinson is responsible for a lot of things but he's not responsible for the integrity of the prime minister's government. in case he's forgotten, that's his responsibility as prime minister. now, mr. speaker, it beggars belief that the prime minister can defend the secretary because he wasn't judging this bid, he was helping the bid by news corporation. two days before, on the 25th of january, they were not only oco-lewding with news corps to provide them information in advance, they were hatching a plan to ensure, and i quote, it would be game over for the opposition to the bid. does the prime minister really believe that is how a judge and his advisors are supposed to act? >> the leader of the opposition clearly doesn't think what lord levinson this morning mat -- said this morning matters. let me remind him what he said yesterday about the levinson inquishry. he said this. i think -- this is the leader of the opposition speaking. i think that it's right that the levinson inquiry takes its course. he went on, the most important thing is that the levinson inquiry gets

evidence to lord justice levin, i believe the actions are being taken as a result of evidence released yesterday. mr. speaker, we are 273 days into a process that will last until october. this is not the time to jump on a political bandwagon. what the public want to hear is not my views, but the review of lord justice love someone he has considered all the evidence. i do think it is right to set the record straight on a number of issues in light of evidence heard yesterday at the inquiry. specifically on the merger of new score with bskyb -- news corp. with bskyb. first, i have strictly followed due process. seeking the advice of independent regulators, something i did not have to do, and after careful consideration, acting on their advice. i have published all the advice i have received together with correspondence between myself and news corp., including details of meetings about the process of this. as part of this process, my officials and i engaged with news corp. and its representatives and other interested parties, both supporters and opponents of the merger. transcripts of conversations and texts published yesterday between my advisor, adam smith, and a news corp. represen

mr. speaker lord justice levinson is responsible for a lot of things but he's not responsible for the integrity of the prime minister's government. in case he's forgotten, that's his responsibility as prime minister. now, mr. speaker, it beggars belief that the prime minister can defend the secretary because he wasn't judging this bid, he was helping the bid by news corporation. two days before, on the 25th of january, they were not only oco-lewding with news corps to provide them information in advance, they were hatching a plan to ensure, and i quote, it would be game over for the opposition to the bid. does the prime minister really believe that is how a judge and his advisors are supposed to act? >> the leader of the opposition clearly doesn't think what lord levinson this morning mat -- said this morning matters. let me remind him what he said yesterday about the levinson inquishry. he said this. i think -- this is the leader of the opposition speaking. i think that it's right that the levinson inquiry takes its course. he went on, the most important thing is that the levinson inquiry gets

mr. chairman. i apologize about having to step up for a while. thank you for breaking a little glass. this was, lord knows, not the traditional approach. and loss probably ideas about how this came about or why it came about, but as a guy who's only been here three years, you know, kind of the process here a round of document that is simply not you were future electoral campaigning process and how you actually try to reach common ground on a plan, 65, 70% of us could actually agree upon that would solve the problem. i think it's a much better approach. lord knows i know this simpson-bowles plan, which i've more than a passing familiarity with common will make folks on both side of the aisle, some folks on both sides of the aisle really upset. i think that's great. because i think it means that there may actually be a chance for those of us who think there are 65 or 70 of those who actually could find common grounds, it might get us the chance to kind of get up to bat. clearly for all of the merits, or the merits, passionate or demerits, the ryan budget pass going out of the house, you know, it's not going to b

lords communications first report. mr. neal. >> pointed in full disclosure "the sun" king, one third of that perspective it by me that they may or may not have all been consistent. mr. david yellin, do you remember him? >> yes. in an interview he gave to the evening standard in 2010, there is this very small paragraph. did murdoch interfere in his editorship and this quayle from mr. yellin, a what they do is this, they go on a journey where they end up agreeing with everything rupert says but you don't admit to yourself that you are being influenced. most murdoch editors wake up in the mornings which other radio and hear the something is happened and say what would riverbank about this? is like a mantra inside of your head, it's like a prison. you look at the world through his eyes. do you see the point mr. murdoch? >> i understand what you are saying. mr. jay, but i think it's nonsense and i think you should take it in the context of mr. yellin's very strange autobiography. that he said he was drunk all the time which we did not notice. 's me when you yesterday mr. murdoch, if you want to judge my thinking, look at "the sun." "the sun"