the proceedings by glenn mulcaire for unfair dismissal notwithstanding the criminal convictions clearly never saw the light of day because they were settled beforehand, therefore we don t know what they were planning to serve on you. do you know what sorts of allegations that they were making? we can only imagine that they were saying that such and such a person did you satisfy yourself about the allegations think were making? i think many of these individuals you re mentions are currently subject to criminal investigation. some have been arrested recently. these are important matters for the police now, and i do think it s important that i don t stray into or am not led into commenting specifically about individuals or allegations made in the past. the question is whether you have satisfied yourself as to what clive goodman and glenn mulcaire were alleging in discussions and negotiations that led up to the settlement, if they brought industrial
settlement. as to other settlements, more recent, i believe some are confidential, some are not. i don t believe any have been confidential settlements. i can follow-up as to whether think have been. it s customary for both parties to agree. there is nothing unusual about an ou out-of-court settlement bg made confidential and being agreed to being confidential. but it was. and with respect to i think the base of the question is the disparity in the amount of money involved? there was nothing in the taylor settlement with respect to confidentiality that spoke to the amount of money. the amount of money was derived, as i testified earlier, from a judgment made about what the likely damages would be, and what the likely expenses and litigations costs would have been had the company taken the litigation to its end and lost. you ve been great sure, that
again, the last member of parliament was addressing james asking specifically about a payout that was given to gordon taylor. he the is chief executive of the professional futbolers association whose phone was hacked by the news of the world. by the staffers. apparently he received roughly a $1.6 million settlement. during that answer that s when someone jumped from behind reaching toward rupert murdoch, i believe. again, i had my head down i was reading about what gordon taylor was. michael isikoff is with us. michael, as we ve been watching so far, things have been going along really well. this has been a very transparent and not a very raucous type of testimony that s going on until this moment that we just saw. and still it s unclear as we see the video playing back exactly what happened inside that parliament room. right. it s been an extraordinary hearing. i mean, you know, rupert murdoch is this almost wizard of oz like
and to allow my colleague louise to finish her questions. thank you very much mr. chairman. when discussing your initial appearance, i must say i think it she s men s guts on behalf of you to continuancing questions under the circumstances, in such a lengthy session, and i thank you for it. thank you. my questions will be just as tough as they would have been had that inch fortunate incident not have occurred. mr. james murdoch if i could take you back briefly before we were rudely interrupted. could you please tell me whether or not the taylor settlement involved a confidentiality clause that was not present for the other amounts of money. i can tell you the taylor settlement was a confidential
no. it s just interesting to somebody like me. he would pick other people to tell me that, if anyone was to. james, would you acknowledge then in your view that you overpaid max clifford and gordon taylor? well, i can t speak to the arrangements with mr. clifford, as i don t have direct knowledge in terms of i wasn t involved in those pieces, in that piece. with respect to the taylor settlement, i gave a judgment given the advice of counsel, given the advice of the executives involved and going back and looking at what we knew in 2008 and looking at that advice, remembering that advice, and looking at the context of the time if we step back those few years, three years now, you know, it was a decision that given that context was a decision that i would still stand by, i think. it just seems a bit