"“We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried.” "

Chinese premier Wen Jiabao 12th March 2009

""We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we'd like to do our best to preserve that system."

Timothy Geithner US Secretary of the Treasury, previously President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.1/3/2009

Friday, July 25, 2008

Who were the ,"unidentified group of people hostile to Max Mosley". News of the World and their world of blackmail.

Tony Hatfield casts his expert forensic gaze on the judgement of Justice Eady in the case of Mosley v News of the World which the BBC have kindly provided on line here.

Tony ask the question ..."Did the News of the World really try blackmail to get evidence against Mosley?"

If , as he suggests , you search on the word "blackmail" in the judgement, you will find two sections , paras 82 - 87 when Editor Colin Myler (who BBC4 gave a handsome "Profile" repeated 3 times last week) and chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck were cross examined, that Justice Eady isolates to demonstrate that that is indeed what they did.

In this case the soon to be ex Editor and reporter were blackmailing the highly paid ladies who indulged Max Mosley in his strange fantasies... and who went on to print spurious , misleading and dishonest statements , the ladies were alleged to have made.

Perhaps more intriguing ,is the reason for the activities of the News of the World in the light of what was said (at para 225) ..

In this particular case, the evidence is that the Claimant had received a warning from Lord Stevens that he was being watched by some unidentified group of people hostile to him. This was at the end of February. He had also received a similar tip from Mr Bernie Ecclestone in January. He had taken the matter sufficiently seriously to arrange instruction for himself in spotting or avoiding surveillance.
It is worth noting the ante-penultimate paragraph of the judgement No 234..

It is perhaps worth adding that there is nothing “landmark” about this decision. It is simply the application to rather unusual facts of recently developed but established principles. Nor can it seriously be suggested that the case is likely to inhibit serious investigative journalism into crime or wrongdoing, where the public interest is more genuinely engaged.
The judge must have chuckled as he assembled his statement ... it is not without some droll observations ..

30. It is fair to point out that any parts of the photographs revealing anybody’s private parts are discreetly blocked out – including in one instance by a chequered flag.

65. It was put to the Editor and Mr Thurlbeck that the reason why Woman E was only paid £12,000 after she delivered the video material, despite having been offered £25,000 previously, was that they had been disappointed by the lack of Nazi content – a pertinent question. This was denied and the editor gave the reason that they like to renegotiate downwards, when in a strong bargaining position. They were affected by the credit crunch like everyone else.
One is left wondering what sort of depraved people do like to strut about in Nazi uniforms ....
When they do, there is always, it seems, one of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers ready to print the pictures.


Anonymous said...

"148 It is necessary, however, to trace through how the Nazi and concentration camp themes emerged. According to Mr Thurlbeck, the first contact was on 13 March, when a man who was later identified as the husband of Woman E made a call to the newspaper's offices which was taken by the Associate News Editor Mr Neil McCleod. He referred it on to Mr Thurlbeck, telling him that the man had a story about Max Mosley.

149 Mr Thurlbeck called the husband back on the same day but made no recording or note of the conversation. This was true also of later conversations held between Mr Thurlbeck and Woman E and/or her husband. His evidence in respect of these matters was therefore based on "best recollection" supplemented by contemporaneous emails (to fix times or dates)

Wasn't the 'husband' the MI5 agent?

ziz said...

What ? Are you suggesting that MI5 / 6/ 7/ 8 etc., spend their time on such trivial pursuits ?

Let's just hope now taht Max has won and is proceeding to sue Bild ( Springer Verlag)and NOTW for libel that some inconvenient truths become public about the source of Max's income and it's close proximity to certain other financial interests.

Max had better not go for long unaccompanied walks in the countryside, cross the road, drink coffee in a posh caff in Grosvenor Square frequented by men in fur hats kicking the Moscow snow off their boots, travel to Cyprus ....

The gloves are off and Max, as he has shown is no pushover.

Watch this space....

sam_m said...

Re. MI5 / 6/ 7/ 8 etc.,

Dammit, how's Joe Public expected to have confidence in the kinda people who can put 7 bullets in a Brazillian's head when they're otherwise counting the £50's from their BDSM cottage industry??

ziz said...

Cottage industry - surely you are not suggesting that old Max is not as other men are ? Nothing queer about Carruthers.

This show will run and run.

Bleeve me.

If you will revert to original Mad Max story on this site you will find reference to the Bild story and the pic illustrating it came from that story and not NOTW.

The language used was somewhat different from the NOTW and messrs Axel Springer verlag will be regretting it say m'learn'd friends. Of course a settlement out of court might be just the thing to smoothe over injured pride and buttocks.

(C) Very Seriously Disorganised Criminals 2002/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 - copy anything you wish