to explain 'hush money'
Britain's Guardian newspaper is urging Parliament to interrogate media mogul Rupert Murdoch's son, James, over payments of as much as $3.2 million in apparent "hush money" to cell phone hack victims.
The Guardian editorial poses these questions:
Why did you pay £1m [$1.6m] in damages and costs to Gordon Taylor [a soccer star] and others in 2009 and seal the evidence? Would you agree that this could be described as "hush money"?
On whose advice did you make this decision?
Why did you agree the payoff to Max Clifford [a well-known public relations man]? Is it right that the value of this was £1m? Is it fair to describe this as "hush money"?
Why didn't you make a clean breast of what was discovered in the spring of 2009 instead of covering it up?
You have said this decision was based on "incomplete information". What further information would have made these payments right?
Was evidence of criminality concealed at any time from: The News Corp board? The NI [News International, a Murdoch holding company] board? Parliament? Police? The PCC [Press Complaints Commission]?
Are you aware of section 79 of RIPA which can be used to prosecute any director showing "consent, connivance or neglect" of offences relating to interception of communications?
The Guardian story of 9 July 2009 showed that the "one rotten apple" story NI had stuck to for three years was untrue – and known by then within NI to be untrue. Why did you issue a statement denying it?
Other questions for James Murdoch are found at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
The Guardian's questions for Rupert Murdoch include:
When did you become aware of the 2009 payments authorised by your son James to buy the silence of people whose voicemails had been hacked by NI employees?
It is understood the value of these payments was in the region of £2m. Which News Corp executives or board members knew about them?
Were News Corp's audit committee, board or general counsel made aware of these payments? If not, why not? Should they have been?
When previously unknown evidence of criminality within your company becomes known to senior executives isn't it their responsibility to inform the police and regulators rather than try to cover it up?
What do you now think of your son's decision to try to conceal this evidence of criminality with secret payments rather than inform the appropriate law and regulatory authorities?
The Guardian's story of 9 July 2009 exposed these payments and the fact that the "lone rotten apple" theory within your company was wrong. What action did you and/or the News Corp board take as a result of this story?
More questions for Rupert Murdoch and the executive he forced out, Rebekah Brooks, are found at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Britain's Independent newspaper cautioned parliamentarians to frame questions in such a way as to prevent the Murdochs and Brooks from dodging questions based on a claim of impeding a police inquiry. Brooks' lawyer indicated that she might not appear in Parliament at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment