The decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to charge Rebekah Brooks came early during a cabinet meeting, and will have sent an unwelcome chill through the room.
It is an occupational hazard of senior politicians that they become friends or acquaintances of individuals who attract the interest of law enforcers. Of course, these are only allegations at the moment, but sometimes the mud sticks and questions of judgment grow, sometimes not.
Brooks, the former News International chief executive – who has condemned the decision to charge her with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as “weak and unjust” – was a ferocious networker. She was on close terms with many Labour politicians, notably Tony Blair and Sarah Brown. But when the music stopped her closest political friendship was with David Cameron. Cameron has now discovered that the allegations of wrongdoing by senior figures at News International are not just being taken seriously by Guardian conspiracy theorists, but also by the most senior figures in the legal profession.
The intimacy between Brooks and Cameron stretches back many years, and the bond doubtless has been strengthened by country sports, point-to-points and the whole Chipping Norton set.
In the past six years they have met 22 times on semi-official business, including in Greece and at New Year’s Eve parties. In opposition, as Cameron courted the support of the Sun newspaper and the Times, they met no fewer than 13 times.
Their friendship became closer when she began dating Charlie Brooks, the racehorse trainer and Daily Telegraph columnist, whom she married in 2009.
Charlie Brooks’s family and the Camerons were longstanding friends and neighbours in the Cotswolds.
Rebekah Brooks told Lord Justice Leveson last Friday morning that she exchanged up to two texts a week with David Cameron during the 2010 general election campaign.
She was invited to Chequers three times in 2010, prompting the Leveson barrister Robert Jay to ask: “Did you often pop around to each other’s houses?”
He signed off texts with “DC” or sometimes “LOL” – until she explained that the latter phrase meant “laugh out loud”, not “lots of love”. Brooks dismissed as “ludicrous” suggestions in some newspaper columns that they exchanged texts up to 12 times a day. Details of those texts remain under the lock and key of News International.
Read the rest, with full links, here
Meanwhile …
Dear friends across Australia,
There is evidence that Lachlan Murdoch might be breaking our laws and endangering our democracy. If tens of thousands of us add our names to a formal Avaaz complaint to be submitted to our media regulator today, we can build an unstoppable call for a full investigation of the Murdoch’s media monopolisation. Sign now:
Today, Avaaz will argue in front of our media regulator that Lachlan Murdoch is likely breaking the law. If tens of thousands of us urgently support the complaint now, we can build public pressure and win a formal investigation.
The Murdoch family controls 70% of Australia’s newspapers, as well as significantly influencing a network of radio stations, Network Ten and Foxtel. For over 20 years, our laws have prohibited cross-media ownership that looks very similar to this, but government after government has failed to curb their monopolisation of our media. Now, experts have helped us dig into years of regulations and precedent to produce a strong complaint that shows how Lachlan Murdoch could be illegally dominating our media.
This complaint will call for an investigation and firm action to bring any and all illegal activity to an end. Let’s all add our names to this historic, democracy-defining complaint — and encourage others to do the same — so the Australian Communication and Media Authority will have to act to enforce our laws. We’ll deliver it to ACMA at its meeting later today:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/australia_investigate_lachlan_murdoch/?vl
Australian law prohibits a “three way ownership situation”, where one person controls radio, newspaper and television properties all in one market. After years of rollbacks on protections for independent media, this law is our last defence against total monopolisation of our local media. We’re campaigning to strengthen these laws, but we should also call out media moguls who are breaking them right now.
ACMA already recognises Lachlan’s controlling stake in Australian radio and TV stations — he’s the Chairman of both Network Ten and DMG Radio Australia — but not any newspapers. Avaaz argues that Lachlan’s position on the Board of Directors at News Corp, his close cooperation with his father Rupert and the 40% ownership stake that his family holds in the company illegally constitute a controlling stake in News Limited — its Australian newspaper arm where Lachlan formerly served as deputy CEO.
ACMA has never clarified what constitutes control — and it isn’t used to public scrutiny. If thousands of Australians add our names to this complaint and drag ACMA into the limelight, it will have to enforce our laws against media monopolisation. Click the link below to add your signature to the complaint before we submit it to ACMA:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/australia_investigate_lachlan_murdoch/?vl
Step by step, Avaaz members have pushed forward the case for media reform in Australia. We’re getting results. Let’s now take the next step to enforce, then improve our laws and our democracy.
With hope,
Alex, Brant, Paul, Michelle, Alice and the rest of the Avaaz team
SOURCES
Read the full Avaaz Complaint to ACMA
http://avaaz_images.s3.amazonaws.com/ACMAletter.pdf
Why ACMA should force Lachlan Murdoch off News Corp Board (Crikey)
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/02/24/why-acma-should-force-lachlan-murdoch-off-news-corp-board/
The Unacceptable 3-way control Situation (Broadcasting Services Act)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/s61aea.html
Lachlan in the wings as Williams subscribes to overhaul at news (The Australian)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/lachlan-in-the-wings-as-williams-subscribes-to-overhaul-at-news/story-e6frg9tf-1226263177233
