is your explanation, i put it to you an inference could be drawn if the larger settlements contained confidentiality and the smaller did not, despite what you say it being a pragmatic condition based on the cost of the company an inference could be bought that silence was being bought by the confidentiality clause in the larger settlements. that inference would be false. a lot of people find it quite hard to believe that two executives who nobody would regard as passive had such little knowledge of widespread illegality at one of your flagship papers. can i ask you very specifically, mr. james murdoch first, when did you become aware that the victims of crime had been hacked, when did you become aware that the phone of the murder victim dowler had been
what you say it being a pragmatic condition based on the cost of the company an inference could be bought that silence was being bought by the confidentiality clause in the larger settlements. that inference would be false. a lot of people find it quite hard to believe that two executives who nobody would regard as passive had such little knowledge of widespread illegality at one of your flagship papers. can i ask you very specifically, mr. james murdoch first, when did you become aware that the victims of crime had been hacked, when did you become aware that the phone of the murder victim dowler had been hacked? the terrible, the terrible instance of deception around the lilly dowler case only came to