of milly dowler s phone to support their investigation, you said the first you knew about that was on when it was reported in the newspapers. what i m saying is, it musting the case therefore that someone without your knowledge who was an employee of yours at news of the world decided without talking to the editor, or maybe did consult to pass that onto the police. is that is that the case? is that the chain half events? i think i understand the question, i think it s important to say that obviously the milly dowler news story went on for many years, and i had been editor of news of the world and the sun while the investigation was on going. what i thought you were referring to was when did i first hear and allegation that milly dowler s phone or voice mail had been intercepted by either someone working for the
and i was referring to that fleet street had actually come together and used the press complaints commission code and adhered to it to respect the privacy of the families. clearly these allegations that came out two weeks ago, if true, are appalling and contradict the statement i made. in the context of what we know now it does appear ridiculous, to use your words. when were you first aware that milly dowler s phone had been hacked? i think it was last monday, no, maybe the monday before. that was the first knowledge you had of it? i heard of it when the story broke at at first broke in the media i think on monday evening. nothing in the news of the world to suggest that milly dowler s phone was hacked or carried out by news of the world. of course not. were you aware that people at news of the world may have
can you remember calling any editors after the guardian story in july 2005 to discuss how they might cover or not cover the story in order to downplay the coverage? in 2005. in 2009. after the guardian broke the story. do you recall calling around editors to no. to encourage them not to give the story any play? i don t remember calling him about it. he and i would talk about industry matters on occasion, but, you know, i only knew what i had read on the guardian. and the final question, do you recall a conversation with boyce johnson during which he asked you what you wanted out of this and your response was for allen to go down on his knees
minister or politician or prime minister was unhappy with the stories western were returning. but not that they ever pleaded for it directly not to run. if they had you wouldn t have been interested? as long as the story was true and accurate there is no reason for the prime minister. that s exactly why we have a free press. the final question, the thing i m feeling that in some way that you had a close relationship with the prime minister. the current prime minister. i think the allegation goes seems to me it s no different than your relationship with previous prime ministers. but for the benefits of what people may perceive. you had a close relationship with the prime minister, that was helpful to him and news
obviously milly dowler s disappearance was a terrible news story and it would have been covered by all newspapers, and for a very longtime. the trial only finished last month. let s call it something like this. would it be normal to expect that it would have been the editor or a senior member of the editorial staff on-duty that day, the lawyers that would sign off on anything we ve written about it because of the incredible sensitivity of the material? that is true, yes, on any story, but particularly as you say on such a sensitive story the lawyers would be heavily involved and talking to the reporters and to the news 0 editors, or the news editors, and the executives on the news desk as to where the information came from, or what the veracity of that information is. how involved are you personally in the milly dowler