News of the World paid bribes worth £100,000 to up to five Met officers

[denem]

Source: Guardian

Investigators inside Scotland Yard are trying to identify up to five officers who were paid between them a total of at least £100,000 in cash from the News of the World, the Guardian understands.

Documents sent to the police by News International did not name those involved but contained pseudonyms which investigators within the Yard are trying to match with individual officers.

The revelation comes a day after Sir Paul Stephenson, commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said that the amounts involved had been paid to a small number of officers.

News that officers were allegedly paid so much in bribes has caused shock and concern within Scotland Yard, where the directorate of professional standards is now investigating the matter. There have been calls for an external force to be brought in to investigate the scandal – Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, has said someone else should wash the Met's dirty linen in public.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/07/phone-hacking-bribes-five-police-officers

---

"Shock and concern within Scotland Yard"?
Yep - this years News bonuses are likely to fall short of expectations

[Botany]

1. Bribery, spying, wiretapping, and lying to cover it up

Uncle Rupert is not going to have a good day. I wonder who will be paid millions to take the
fall so Rupert stays out of jail?




I saw that Parliament was discussing this case this AM. :bounce:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. How long has this been going on for?

[denem]

3. The document trail starts at 2002 I think

when Rebekah Brooks was News of the Editor. David Cameron is up to his neck in this. Rebekiah is a very close friend. Cameron's (now former communication director, Andy Coulson, personally authorised payments as Deputy News editor, and James Murdoch paid 700,000 shut up money to one of the phone hackers in 2008 after the said hacker was released from prison.

[mwooldri]

4. External investigators needed, definitely.

The police officers shouldn't have been taking bribes to begin with, and the private investigators shouldn't have been giving them out.

Though the Bribery Act of 2010 didn't come into force until 1st June, the earlier 1886 and 1906 laws (with later amendments) I feel are strong enough and clear enough to show that the guilty parties are a) the person taking the bribe, b) the person giving the bribe, and c) the employers of those whose people were involved in bribetaking.

Hacking into voicemails of dead people is bad enough. Bribery is something else, and the consequences of bribery are wider than voicemail hacking.

[Downwinder]

6. Ian Tomlinson and now this, time someone cleaned house.

[bigworld]

5. Follow this money to the top

A newspaper doesn't spend $100,000 without someone at the very top knowing about it.... or authorize phone hacking on such a large scale. This is not a couple rogue reporters' doing.

[Stuart G]

9. It sure isn't..You are correct.

So who authorized payments of one hundred thousand. and
Who at the top knew about it??
Who will take the fall for Murdock?

I am waiting. Rebecca, you are being paged..

:popcorn:

[Blue_Tires]

7. it's a tidal wave of stuff coming out every hour....

Even wikileaks has to be in awe at how quickly this scandal reached light-speed status...

[Stuart G]

8. OH MY...NO WONDER THAT BRAND IS GONE..BUT

THE OWNERS, or OWNER.. SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE..NOW WHO IS THAT OWNER??
:sarcasm:

Perhaps he should testify before Parliament..let's see how that goes..

I'm waiting...:popcorn:..

[annabanana]

10. pry open all that rotten stinking stuff.. over there and

OVER HERE!