And, as you would expect, his story varies somewhat from that given by News International staff (and ex staff).


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18386968

Its funny how they all were ok with the press upto the moment they disagreed with something they published.

Yeah, maybe when The Sun turns on David Cameron, he'll stop inviting Brooks & co round for dinner.

John Major has contradicted some Murdoch testimony too.

So which one of the thieving lying barstewards was actually telling the truth?
Everyone one of them has a reason not to tell the whole truth or as happens so often suddenly contract amnesia about a period that may be troubling for them but have full eiditic recall when its in their favour. ho hum.

Nothing could be further from the truth than this whole affair.
John Majors testimony was the tell here. He didn't pander to the media and ergo they "Steve Bell'd" him.
Blair, Brown and Cameron like to be thought more media savvy.

I don't think you can be all things to all men though, now it turns round to bite. Just hope Lord Justice Leveson has bigger cahounas than Hutton.

Did Mandy hold an 'official' spin position, so to speak?

I'd say that Major, even though I disagree with his policies, is more likely to be truthful in this situation. Given that what he said, it is reasonable to assume that Brown's testimony is close to the truth.

I pity Leveson. He has to pick all this apart and work out what really happened, write a report, justify it to a committee and deal with the fallout from various interested and powerful individuals.