How does Levison have private texts on Tory MPs?

estebanrey

estebanrey

estebanrey

Soldato
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
10,938
Just seen Jeremy Chunt at Levison squirming as details of private texts between him and Georgie Porgie over the Murdoch take-over bid were read to him, and it made me wonder how they got the details of private text messages between the two?

Kinda funny that an inquiry set up off the back of phone hacking has access to private phone messages themselves.

Do as we say not do as we do or what's good for the goose?
 
Just a theory but official communications between government ministers are property of HM government and not private maybe?
 
'Harry said:
They are required to supply any information related to the case.
Click to expand...

And how would they know whether these texts existed or not had they not been provided? Or why not provide texts that look less dodgy?

I dunno about you but I tend to clear my message history down every few weeks.
 
A formal request from the inquiry can easily get this information from any of the mobile networks.
 
estebanrey said:
And how would they know whether these texts existed or not had they not been provided? Or why not provide texts that look less dodgy?
Click to expand...

It's illegal. Legal disclosure says that you must disclose anything which may be related to the case, provided it's not legally privileged.
 
estebanrey said:
And how would they know whether these texts existed or not had they not been provided? Or why not provide texts that look less dodgy?

I dunno about you but I tend to clear my message history down every few weeks.
Click to expand...
Phones are like computers, nothing really gets deleted.

Can buy the software online to read/see deleted information/pictures.
 
manic111 said:
It's illegal. Legal disclosure says that you must disclose anything which may be related to the case, provided it's not legally privileged.
Click to expand...

Yes but if there is no way they could tell what they said, or if you even had them and could never be proved why would legality be a problem if it meant saving your own behind?

Claiming expenses you aren't meant to claim was illegal but that didn't stop a handful of MPs and that was a lot more traceable.

If you asked me to provide you with all the Word documents on my PC and I knew I had one on there with something dodgy on I just would just give you all of them except that one. You would be none the wiser.

I'm thinking the phone company request seems the most likely explanation. People don't tend to incriminate themselves on request.
 
estebanrey said:
Yes but if there is no way they could tell what they said, or if you even had them and could never be proved why would legality be a problem if it meant saving your own behind?

Claiming expenses you aren't meant to claim was illegal but that didn't stop a handful of MPs and that was a lot more traceable.

If you asked me to provide you with all the Word documents on my PC and I knew I had one on there with something dodgy on I just would just give you all of them except that one. You would be none the wiser.

I'm thinking the phone company request seems the most likely explanation. People don't tend to incriminate themselves on request.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure that some of the people involved in the Leveson inquiry have been withholding information and effectively committing perjury - look at Andy Coulson. You're effectively saying that, in order to save yourself, you would commit a criminal offence which is a) immoral, and b) likely to land you in hot water further down the line. Again, look at Andy Coulson.

Why would you hand over potentially incriminating evidence? A number of reasons. Judges often go easier on people who are willing to help them out. Looking sorry will be much more helpful to your future career than trying to weasel out of something. Because you don't want to risk being punished for perjury.

You might be right in saying that some of the texts were handed over by the phone company, but that doesn't mean that, had they been able to (i.e. had they not deleted the messages) the MPs in question would not have handed the information over.
 
estebanrey said:
Surely perjury only counts in courts of law? This is an inquiry not a criminal trial.
Click to expand...

The Inquiries Act 2005 says:

(1)The chairman of an inquiry may by notice require a person to attend at a time and place stated in the notice—
(a)to give evidence;
(b)to produce any documents in his custody or under his control that relate to a matter in question at the inquiry;
(c)to produce any other thing in his custody or under his control for inspection, examination or testing by or on behalf of the inquiry panel.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/12/section/21

I'm not sure whether breaching this constitutes perjury, but it's probably not a smart thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom