Human rights judge Garzón barred for 11 years after authorising illegal recordings of lawyers' conversations The Spanish judge celebrated for pursuing international human rights cases was convicted of overstepping his jurisdiction in a domestic corruption investigation on Thursday, the culmination of a spectacular fall from grace. A seven-judge panel of the supreme court unanimously convicted Baltasar Garzón, 56, and barred him from the bench for 11 years. Although less severe than the 20-year-ban the prosecution had originally demanded, the ruling is not subject to appeal. Garzón, 56, is also liable to a fine of €2,500 (£2,095). Javier Baena, Garzón's lawyer, said after the sentence: "We shall carry on fighting, carry on appealing. We have a long road ahead, but I believe both he and I are more than strong enough." Garzón enjoyed rock star status among human rights groups but had made a lot of enemies at home, in particular among judicial colleagues uncomfortable with his celebrity. He is still awaiting a verdict in a separate trial on the same charge of knowingly overstepping the bounds of his jurisdiction for launching an investigation in 2008 of rightwing atrocities during and after the Spanish civil war, even though the crimes were covered by an amnesty. That trial concluded on Wednesday but the verdict is expected to take weeks. Garzón has been suspended from his job at the national court since 2010 when he was indicted in the civil war case. Thursday's conviction relates to Garzón's decision in 2009 to order wiretaps of prison conversations between detainees and their lawyers. The detainees are accused of paying off politicians to obtain lucrative government contracts. Such wiretaps are allowed in terrorism cases, but Spanish law is more vague on non-terror cases. Garzón argued during the trial that he had ordered the wiretaps because he thought the lawyers were being given instructions by the detainees to launder money. The judged grabbed headlines around the world in 1998 by using international human rights law to order the arrest in London of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Garzón was already well known in Spain for investigating the Basque separatist group Eta. His probe into government death squads in the 1980s is credited with helping to bring down the Socialist government in 1996 elections. Baltasar Garzón Spain Europe guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Lawmakers in Washington vote to approve gay marriage by 55 votes to 43, with Chris Gregoire set to sign it into law next week Washington state lawmakers voted to approve gay marriage on Wednesday, setting the stage for the state to become the seventh in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed. The action comes a day after a federal appeals court declared California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples. The Washington House passed the bill on a 55-43 vote. Supporters in the public viewing galleries stood and cheered as many on the Democratic side of the House floor hugged after the vote. The state Senate approved the measure last week, and the bill now goes to Democratic governor Chris Gregoire, who is expected to sign it into law next week. Gregoire issued a statement after the vote, saying it was "a major step toward completing a long and important journey to end discrimination based on sexual orientation." Democrat Jamie Pedersen, a gay lawmaker from Seattle who has sponsored gay rights bills in the House for several years, saying domestic partnership laws as the state has had for years, are "a pale and inadequate substitute for marriage". Pedersen, during his remarks on the House floor, read from Tuesday's ruling by the San Francisco-based ninth US circuit court of appeals, citing a section that stated "marriage is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults". Several Republicans argued against the bill, saying that it goes against the tradition of marriage. Jay Rodne said the measure "severs the cultural, historical and legal underpinnings of the institution of marriage." Despite the action, gay couples can't begin walking down the aisle just yet. The proposal would take effect 90 days after the session ends next month but opponents have promised to fight gay marriage with a ballot measure that would allow voters to overturn the legislative approval. If opponents gather enough signatures to take their fight to the ballot box, the law would be put on hold pending the outcome of a November election. Opponents must turn in more than 120,000 signatures by June 6 if they want to challenge the proposed law. Otherwise gay couples could wed starting in June. Two Republicans crossed the aisle and voted in favour of the bill. Three Democrats voted against it. Democrats hold a 56-42 majority in the House.Washington state has had domestic partnership laws since 2007, and more than a dozen other states have provisions, ranging from civil unions to gay marriage, supporting same-sex couples. Gay marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington DC. Lawmakers in New Jersey are expected to vote on gay marriage next week, and Maine could see a gay marriage proposal on the November ballot. Proposed amendments to ban gay marriage will be on the ballots in North Carolina in May and in Minnesota in November. Washington state's momentum for same-sex marriage has been building and the debate has changed significantly since 1998, when lawmakers passed Washington's Defense of Marriage Act banning gay marriage. The constitutionality of that law ultimately was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2006. But earlier that year, a gay civil rights measure passed after nearly 30 years of failure, signalling a change in the legislature. The quick progression of domestic partnership laws in the state came soon after, with a domestic partnership law in 2007, and two years of expansion that culminated in 2009 with "everything but marriage" expansion that was upheld by voters. In October, a University of Washington poll found that an increasing number of people in the state support same-sex marriage. About 43% of respondents said they support gay marriage, up from 30% in the same poll five years earlier. Another 22% said they support giving identical rights to gay couples, without calling the unions "marriage." If a challenge to gay marriage law was on the ballot, 55% said they would vote to uphold the law. And 38% said they would vote to reject a gay marriage law. Same-sex marriage also has the backing of several prominent Pacific north-west businesses, including Microsoft, Nike and Starbucks. Washington state Gay rights United States guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Three employees of care home at centre of TV investigation into allegations of abuse plead guilty to ill-treating patients Three employees of a care home at the centre of a television investigation into allegations of abuse have admitted mistreating patients. Wayne Rogers, 31, Alison Dove, 24, and Holly Draper, 22, appeared at Bristol crown court on Thursday alongside eight other members of staff charged with a string of offences alleged to have occurred at Winterbourne View care home in Hambrook, south Gloucestershire. Rogers, of Bristol, pleaded guilty to nine charges of ill-treating Louisa Deville, Simon Tovey and Simone Blake; Dove, also of Bristol, pleaded guilty to seven charges of ill-treating Lorraine Guilford, Louise Bisset and Blake. Draper pleaded guilty to two charges of ill-treating Blake. The court heard the offences were committed between February and March last year. Crime Health guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Former News of the World news editor gives different version of events surrounding the publishing of Kate McCann's diaries The former news editor of the News of the World has contradicted evidence given to the Leveson inquiry by his one time editor Colin Myler over what a spokesman for the McCanns was told about the planned publication of Kate McCann's diary by the now closed Sunday tabloid in 2008. Ian Edmondson, giving evidence to the inquiry on Thursday, said he was instructed by Myler to call Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns public relations representative, and tell him only in "very woolly" terms that the newspaper would be running a story about them without giving the family any indication that the tabloid was going to publish her diaries in full. The editor's instruction, Edmondson said, was to give Mitchell the impression "that we were running a story, but not tell him specifically what story" and that "certainly don't tell him [Mitchell] that we were in possession of the complete diaries". Myler, Edmondson added, was "frightened that if Clarence knew what we had, he might take action". Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked Edmondson what was the purpose of "having an ambiguous or woolly conversation?" Edmondson replied that the purpose would be "in order to blame Clarence Mitchell that he hadn't acted properly upon instructions" if there was a row post-publication. Edmondson's appearance before Lord Justice Leveson was the first time he has spoken publicly since he was arrested and bailed on suspicion of phone hacking in April of last year. The former News of the World news editor was not asked any questions about hacking because of the ongoing police inquiry. Edmondson's evidence directly contradicts that given by Myler to the Leveson inquiry on 14 December. Myler was asked: "Did Mr Edmondson make it clear to you that he had made it clear to Mr Mitchell that he had the whole diary and was going to cause extracts from it to be published in the News of the World?" In response, Myler said: "That's what he led me to believe, yes." Kate McCann told the Leveson inquiry in November that she felt "mentally raped" by the News of the World's decision to publish her diaries in full – diaries that she had written after her daughter Madeleine had disappeared on holiday in Portugal in 2007, and which were subsquently seized by the Portuguese police. The diaries were translated into Portuguese and acquired by the News of the World, which retranslated them to publish them. A week later, the News of the World printed an apology for publishing the diaries, and it subsequently emerged that the Murdoch-owned title paid £125,000 to the fund for finding Madeleine. Edmondson told the inquiry on Thursday that Myler's instruction to ring Mitchell came after a meeting that he, Myler and the News of the World's former legal manager Tom Crone had ahead of publication. Edmondson said that Crone gave "his legal view, which I'm told I'm not allowed to repeat, but which dismayed, shall I say, Mr Myler". The News of the World editor then asked Edmondson to call Mitchell. Myler lost his job as News of the World editor upon the title's closure last July in the wake of mounting phone hacking revelations. In January it was announced that he was to become the editor of the New York Daily News, the bitter rival of Rupert Murdoch's New York Daily Post. • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication". • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook. Leveson inquiry Phone hacking Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers Press intrusion News of the World Colin Myler Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Decision to extend quantitative easing programme to £325bn had been widely predicted after UK economy shrank last year The Bank of England will inject billions more of electronic cash into Britain's flagging economy, extending its quantitative easing programme by £50bn. Economists had widely expected the Bank to resume QE after the UK economy slipped into contraction at the end of last year. Bank policymakers had warned that they saw inflation undershooting its target at the end of the year and hinted that more money-printing was on the cards. At the end of its monthly meeting on Thursday, the Bank's monetary policy committee also left interest rates at a record low of 0.5%. Most economists had expected an additional £50bn in QE, though some had forecast up to £75bn and a handful had forecast none at all. The latest move comes on top of the £275bn of QE announced since the scheme was launched during the recession in 2009. The decision comes despite business surveys last week suggesting a fresh fall into recession could be averted. Those reports showed a stronger-than-expected start to the year for the dominant services sector as well as for manufacturers. Official data earlier on Thursday showed manufacturing output rose five times faster than expected in December, but the wider industrial sector fared worse than first thought over the fourth quarter. Analysts now await the Bank's quarterly set of economic forecasts, to be published next Wednesday in the inflation report, for clues as to whether there will be any more QE later in the year. "Recent survey data and today's industrial production figures are encouraging, but the UK data isn't all pointing in one direction," said James Knightley at ING Financial Markets, forecasting that weak consumer spending will see the economy stagnate in 2012. "With inflation plunging due to weak corporate pricing power, falling commodity prices and last year's VAT hike dropping out of the annual comparison, the Bank of England has considerable room to step up its quantitative easing efforts even further." The Bank justified the latest decision to inject fresh money by arguing that the UK recovery slowed during 2011 and that inflation was on track to undershoot its government-set target. In a statement, the monetary policy committee said: "Some recent business surveys have painted a more positive picture and asset prices have risen. But the pace of expansion in the United Kingdom's main export markets has also slowed and concerns remain about the indebtedness and competitiveness of some euro-area countries. "In the light of its most recent economic projections, the committee judged that the weak near-term growth outlook and associated downward pressure from economic slack meant that, without further monetary stimulus, it was more likely than not that inflation would undershoot the 2% target in the medium term." The Bank argues that the scheme, under which it prints fresh money and buys government bonds with it, has boosted output and helped keep a lid on borrowing costs and inflation. But critics say it has done little to help businesses and households and has damaged pensioners' finances by artificially depressing annuity rates. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said resuming quantitative easing was the right thing to do given recent economic weakness, but that the extra money must get through to companies. "More needs to be done to ensure that this latest injection of cash actually reaches the businesses that need it, rather than just gathering dust on banks' balance sheets. The failure of banks to increase net lending to businesses, despite £275bn of quantitative easing, is holding back growth in the real economy," he said, demanding more pressure on banks from the chancellor, George Osborne. Bank of England Quantitative easing Interest rates Economics Economic growth (GDP) Economic policy Katie Allen guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

• Hit F5 or press the auto-refresh button for the latest news• Email your thoughts to paul.doyle@guardian.co.uk• Get the latest news and comment on our England homepage 12.25pm: Bernstein denies that Capello was a waste of money, saying "no one's going to defend the South African World Cup performance but the qualification campaigns have been perfectly acceptable." He also praises England's away record under Capello and suggests the part of the new man's (or woman's) remit will be to "imbue additional confidence in the side" so that they perform better at Wembley. Which will obviously be significant during the Euros. 12.24pm: FA general secretary Alex Horne says that all the operational planning for the Euros are in place so "any manager coming into the role will be able to hit the ground running very quickly." Emailer Mike Gibbons, meanwhile, says: "Capello had just qualified for Euro 2012, gone unbeaten for a year and plotted a victory over european and world champions Spain, albeit in a friendly. All the while he'd been incorporating new players - Young, Jones, Wilshere, Parker, Hart - with the end goal of his new team bearing fruit at the Championships. Whatever anyone thinks of him that's what he was building towards, and now people expect Redknapp to come in at the end of the season, have a fortnight with the players, one friendly, pick the final squad and have a successful tournament because he speaks better English and has triffic passion? Bizarre." 12.22pm: Bernstein speaks of his admiration of Pearce: "When I talked to him he just said "if you would like me to do it, I will do it ... I was very impressed". The chairman also says it is not definite that the long term replacement will be English. 12.21pm: Throughout this press conference Trevor Brooking has been sitting in silent irrelevance at the end of the table. A symbolic representation of his role within the FA? 12.19pm: The FA stress that they got Capello's interview with Italian TV professionally translated to be sure that the press had not twisted his words in translation. Speaking about that interview, and Capello's English language skills in general, Bernsteins says: "The backing [by Capello] of John Terry clearly wasn't helpful in the way it was communicated and the way it came across," says Bernstein, who also says there was "a degree of an issue" about Capello's poor linguistic skills, mentioning that "telephone conversations, for example, were not the easiest." 12.18pm: The FA refuse to disclose whether Capello was given a pay-off. 12.15pm: Bernstein reiterates belief that the decision to strip Terry of England captaincy was correct, reasoning that given the "totemic" nature of the armband, "going into a major championship with this issue hanging was not what we wanted." 12.14pm: Bernstein asked "were you considering ssacking Capello anyway?" to which he replies: "that didn't arise." 12.13pm: FA refuse to discuss any potential candidates but say they "will not rush" the appointment. "We will be putting together a shortlist of people." 12.13pm: Bernstein: "The squad don't get together until May [for the Euros], there is pelnty of time for a new man to get in place and do what he needs to do, so we're actually in a much better place than it may appear." 12.12pm: Bernstein: "at the end of the meeting he [Capello] decided he had to go, I can't really add to that." 12.10pm: FA announce that Stuart Pearce will manage England against Holland later this month. 12.07pm: Bernstein: "We all believed that the John Terry case would be dealt with by March or April and when it was postponed we were all taken by surprise. We then made a very quick decision ... Fabio wasn't happy but accepted the board's authority on the matter." This all happened on Saturday, but then "on Sunday [Capello] conducted an interview with an Italian broadcaster that caused conjecture and huge public debate and was frankly an unsatisfatory situation." So the FA, feeling undermined and possibly betrayed, and Capello had a meeting yesterday, which was adjourned for an hour before Bernstein and Capello reconvened by themselves and the Italian offered his resignation, which Bernstein accepted. 12.06pm: Bernstein: "I do agree that the manager is the most important person in a football club or an organisatsion from this but there are moment when the board have to step up to the plate." 12.05pm: The FA chairman begins by thanking hrte FA board, whom, he points out, "have huge knowlefge of football", which is nice. He then thanks Fabio Capello, who, he says, "has always behaved with dignity and honour ... any reports of storming out [yesterday] are not true and a misrepresentation of fact." 12.04pm: The four-man FA delegation has arrived and is ready to address the press. 12.01pm: "You can see Nick Collins there, his questiosn are ready," gasps Sky's anchorman, valiantly filling the air as we await the arrival of the FA (which is something I would never do, obviously). Meanwhile, Jim Burke emails as follows: "If we accept England are no longer a "Top Tier" Footballing nation (Which as a Scotsman I've been happy to do since 1973) then you need a man with a proven track record of success in the second tier, a Proud Englishman, a motivator, a character, a man to deal with the inflated egos in the dressing room ... step forward Neil Warnock." 12.00pm: It's a kick-off time and on the platform at Wembley are ... three empty seats. Poignant. 11.56am: This, as Doro Pesch might say, is a three minute warning. The big press conference that will determine the future well-being of the nation is due to kick off as soon as Sky comes back from a break ... 11.42am: "[Clearly the job is Harry Redknapp's if he wants it, but what if he decides to stay at Spurs?" wonders Alex Bell. "Personally I'd go for Hiddink on a short-term deal up to the Euros, then if he succeeds you can extend it, but if it doesn't work out we can either re-visit the Redknapp option or go for Stuart Pearce (who will doubtless be riding a wave of Olympic Gold medal euphoria)." I must admit that I don't get the Hiddink love. He has achieved fine things in the past but his most recent feats were to preside over a dismal campaign by Turkey on the back of spectacular failure with Russia. On the other hand, it would be quite amusing if Redknapp was overlooked in favour of someone who has been found guilty of tax fraud ... 11.38am: Here's an email from Gunnar Gunnarsson, who, despite his name, comes across as more of Tottenham fan than an Arsenal fan. "So 'Arry is now being publicly tapped up by not just every newspaper in the country (that part's predictable) but also every other tweeting footballer who also happen to play for rival clubs, as well as current and former managers. Maybe Daniel Levy's first utterance post-Capello should be that Fergie should immediately replace Levein and Mancini should take over from Prandelli right now." 11.26am: Obviously if you're looking for advice onw how to bring succcess to England, the first person to turn to is a Scot, so here are Craig Brown thoughts: "[Installing a part-time manager] should be do-able up until the Euro championships in the summer. But not in the longer term. It would not be ideal. It would devalue the job of national team manager. Harry Redknapp seems to be the obvious choice for the job and I would agree with that. But I wouldn't envy any other manager who got the job. It would be, 'what if Harry had been in charge? So it is inevitable that they go for Harry. He is ideally equipped to do the job and he has a number of terrific players at his disposal." 11.14am: Speaking on Sky Sports, Kenny Sansom reckons Stuart Pearce - supervised by Terry Venables - should take charge of England for the Holland friendly later this month before Redknapp accedes to thr throne at the end of the season. Heck, if they're looking for a caretaker boss, surely there's only one man to turn to: come on down, Tony Parkes. Hello everyone. And goodbye Fabio. So what now for England? The FA will begin answering that at a press conference scheduled to kick off at high noon today, but naturally plenty of people have already weighed in with advice. Rio Ferdinand and Wayne Rooney have already tweeted to endorse the presumed candidacy of Harry Redknapp (while Roy Keane has chipped into tell Rooney "keep his nose out of it, he never did enough on the pitch when Capello was manager") and David Cameron has said something designed to make him appear with it but I just can't summon enough energy to find out the precise details of his utterance. Ferdinand's exact words, meanwhile, were: "I think we need an English manager now, we don't need anything else lost in translation....Harry Redknapp would be my choice by a distance." You don't have to be English to speak English or understand English football, of course, which is why there is also some support for respected foreigners such as Guus Hiddink and Rafa Benitez; but Redknapp is by far the most popular choice and, unlike Newcastle's Alan Pardew, he did not rule himself out of the running this morning when accosted by reporters. "I've not even thought about it, my focus is on Tottenham," was all he would say on the matter. In the past, of course, he has said that he would find it impossible to turn the job down if offered it and given the public clamour for him, the FA may well find it impossible to avoid offering it. So Harry seems set to be swept to power on a wave of popularity. Just like Kevin Keegan, who ultimately resigned in a toilet. England Fabio Capello Paul Doyle guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Public accounts committee criticises decision to award contract to A4e despite poor performance on government programmes The record of welfare-to-work company A4e has come under scrutiny from MPs, as they questioned why a company with an "abysmal" record of delivering government programmes had been awarded new contracts to provide the coalition's Work Programme when it launched last summer. Details of large dividends received by Emma Harrison, A4e's chair, also emerged during questioning of the company's chief executive officer, Andrew Dutton. He confirmed that all of its UK turnover last year, estimated at between £160m and £180m, derived from government contracts, and of the £11m paid in dividends to the company's five shareholders, 87% went to Harrison. During a session on Wednesday on the introduction of the Work Programme, MPs on the public accounts committee put a series of critical questions to the civil servants responsible for devising the scheme about the way that contracts for the £5bn Work Programme were awarded. The committee's chair, Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP for Barking, asked civil servants why welfare-to-work companies with a poor track record of fulfilling previous contracts had been given new work. "It seemed rather surprising to me that you did not have to regard to the past performance of contractors. Why not?" she asked. "A4e … their performance on [Pathways to Work] was abysmal … Why didn't you look at past performance of contractors?" Her fellow committee member Richard Bacon, Conservative MP for south Norfolk, added: "Are you seriously saying that you could not take into account that A4e had dreadful performance in one of the immediate predecessor programmes?" He said that the company got 9% of clients into work in the Pathways to Work programme – it had been expected to deliver 30%. "Despite that seriously poor track record, are you seriously saying that is not something you could take into account?" The permanent secretary for the Department for Work and Pensions, Robert Devereux, replied: "I am saying that." He explained that because other companies, which had not been involved in providing previous welfare-to-work contracts, were also tendering for contracts, it would not have been possible to look at the past performance of companies that had previously worked in this area. He also pointed out that most of the welfare-to-work providers had underperformed during the previous scheme. A4e won five main contracts to deliver the Work Programme when the results of a tendering process were announced last April, along with a wide range of other companies including Serco, G4S and Working Links. The committee spent some time trying to establish where money paid to A4e to deliver government contracts ended up. "We have a small group of shareholders. The dividends that we pay to the shareholders reflect the personal risk that they have. Having owned a company for over 21 years, at times they have had to effectively put their own homes and mortgages on the line," Dutton told MPs. He said some of the company's profits were ploughed back into the business. Hodge said it was important to follow taxpayers' money along the chain, stating: "Your top management last year took £4.7m … you pay £11m dividends." She added: "You're one of the first examples we have had of a company which is entirely dependent on public contracts for your existence. We, in terms of looking for value for money, have an interest in following the pound. All your business is public contracts. You and Emma Harrison have to accept that there will be a different interest in the remuneration and profits made because the profits you make come from the taxes that ordinary, hard-working people pay." Civil servants told the committee that the Work Programme's new payment-by-results model would ensure that companies such as A4e would only get large payments for implementing the scheme if they got large numbers of benefit claimants into long-term, secure work. "I genuinely believe that we as providers have to perform," Dutton said. There was discussion of whether companies would be able to make money by "creaming and parking" – creaming off and helping those who are easier to help, and parking those who are unlikely to find work, having taken the initial government payment of £400 for signing them up to the scheme. Civil servants said that companies would not make money if that was the approach they took. There was some analysis of a recent National Audit Office report which suggested that the forecasts for the numbers of people that the programme could get into work were over-optimistic. Devereux said he was confident that the Work Programme would get the forecast number of people into work, despite the fact that the economic environment had significantly deteriorated since the programme was devised. Fiona Mactaggart, Labour MP for Slough, was concerned about the possibility of "job substitution" – companies delivering the Work Programme getting paid for pushing their clients into jobs that would otherwise have been filled by other jobseekers, without the need for a third-party payment. "In my constituency, a lot of people are being given work experience, unpaid, in retail, and then the retailers, I think, are being directly encouraged to employ people who have been given this one-month or two-, three-month interview process … and when they're offering jobs, a company like A4e, which operates in Slough, can say to Primark, if you want more of our free workers, I hope you are going to give our people 20-hour-week jobs. I'm sure it's not quite as overt as that, but I believe there is a risk of that happening. "How in this system do we protect against the risk of job substitution?" Devereux said that if the long-term unemployed were helped into work that was a positive development. "It is in society's interest to get people who have been out of work a long time into jobs," he said. Alan Cave, senior responsible owner for the Work Programme, told the committee: "It is an observed big change in the labour market over the past 10 years that more and more companies are using work experience as a tester of whether someone might be a full-time employee. That's the reality. The providers have become quite skilful at taking someone coming on to the programme with a very weak CV … finding them some quick blocks of work experience, which will not be paid, [but] which will greatly improve their chances of getting a job that will be paid." Welfare Unemployment Amelia Gentleman guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

• NoW head of news: culture of bullying came from editor• Did not draft emails to women in the Max Mosley case• Editor told him not to tell McCanns' PR the paper had her diary• Heather Mills: I didn't play Piers Morgan voicemail• Says she has recorded 64 hours of 'paparazzi intimidation'• Big Pictures boss Darry Lyons defends paparazzi• PCC director Stephen Abell steps down 2.56pm: Clifford came to a settlement with News International after being told by police his phone had been hacked. It was unusual in that it was negotiated with Rebekah Brooks herself. "It was over a quiet lunch … It was £220,000 a year for three years plus all my legal costs," he says. 2.52pm: PR veteran Max Clifford has taken the stand. 2.50pm: Stanistreet has now finished her evidence. 2.49pm: Stanistreet says she thinks Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre's proposal for accrediting journalists as a kind of kitemark is a "ridiculous notion". She adds that it's impractical, unworkable and would put all the blame on journalists. 2.48pm: Stanistreet says the union was in the process of kicking Webb out when he resigned. She adds that he had a press card, and has been asked to return it. 2.47pm: Stanistreet adds: "I also find it staggering that an organisation would instruct, as Webb alleges, that someone who has been working as a investigator [to join the NUJ] … the conceit of it, an organisation that does not let an independent union cross its threshold." 2.42pm: Patry Hoskins asks Stanistreet about private investigator Derek Webb, who became an NUJ member while he was undertaking surveillance for the News of the World. Stanistreet explains that the News of the World and the Sun refuse to recognise the NUJ and News International have set up their own staff organistion called NISA. This is not considered an independent organisation. Webb subimtted an application form backed by a proposer and seconder, who were both "journalists in good standing", she says. He described himself as a "freelance researcher" on the application form. Stanistreet says most freelance applications are asked to supply examples of their work, but researchers don't have bylined material. Pressed on whether Webb really qualified for membership, she says: "I don't believe he was eligible for membership of the NUJ." 2.38pm: Another testimony came from a freelancer working on casual shifts for the past four years. "The culture in most newsrooms can be really intimidating especially if you are a young journalist," they said. As a shift worker, they did the same job as others, but didn't get the same benefits and felt unable to speak out as they couldn't afford to lose their job. They said newsrooms also use a huge number of interns to work for free which undermines the journalist's chances of getting on even more. They said they haven't hacked phones "but there is someone in every newsroom who can turn round ex-directory numbers". Stantistreet says this is common in newsrooms. Some papers force shifters to take unpaid leave when they come to the end of their 12-month contract before they can employ them again. 2.37pm: Another journalist with more than 20 years' experience said a proprietor demanded anti-asylum stories, either in person or through the editor. 2.35pm: Another journalist said they added "substantiating quotes" which were "often entirely made up" to copy. If he did not, they would "magically appear" anyway. 2.34pm: Another reported discussed Islamophobia. Whenever they complained, or removed parts of the articles they were asked to write, they would somehow find that bits of the article would find their way back into the article when published. When the journalist complained, they were portrayed as the "token leftie" in the newsroom and then "targeted" to write the most stories about Islam. The journalist said they were in tears but they were nontheless their bosses continued to do this. They eventually resigned. 2.33pm: Former News of the World showbiz editor Dan Wootton has just tweeted: @benfenton This anon evidence. I was there from 2007 to 2011 and don't recognise it.Fact they don't give dates or any context is silly. — Dan Wootton (@danwootton) February 9, 2012 2.31pm: A fifth journalist has worked at the NoW and several other nationals over 25 years. They described "ritual humiliation" at the paper. 2.29pm: The Guardian's Josh Halliday has just tweeted: Another ex-NoTW journalist claims in NUJ evidence that hacking was "endemic" in industry and "tip of the iceberg" at that paper #Leveson — Josh Halliday (@JoshHalliday) February 9, 2012 2.25pm: Another ex-News of the World journalist said they had heard hearsay evidence that other papers used Trojans on computers, ie placing a computer program onto a computer in order to discover what's on a hard drive. Reading his testimony, Patry Hoskins says over six months they learned from an investigator how to construct a Trojan" and after a period of trial and error they found they could get stories using a method "better than from bugging, theft of bribery". They add that they only targeted people who worked abroad but this was to ensure they didn't draw the attention of the British police. 2.23pm: The Guardian's Josh Halliday has just tweeted: "We've all been brutalised by that organisation but doesn't mean we're not telling truth" - ex-NoTW hack anonymous statement #Leveson — Josh Halliday (@JoshHalliday) February 9, 2012 2.22pm: The journalist said they have no reason to believe things have changed. Executives talked openly about them on a newspaper they worked on; "those who objected were rebuked publicly," they added. Some of those who practised the dark arts have been promoted to senior positions, even to the most senior position on a newspaper, they claimed. 2.19pm: Stanistreet heard from a fourth journalist, who had 32 years' experience in local and regional newspapers and broadsheet and tabloid and broadcasting. This journalist is still working in newspapers and TV. They became aware of "dark arts" practised on newspapers in the 1980s. They learned journalists regularly used private investigators, met the PI and worked with him on several stories. The PI was able to furnish the journalists with Police National Computer checks, social security records and frequently provided the most up to date addresses for people which was "invaluable". 2.17pm: Clive Goodman, the former royal editor of the News of the World, said he was well paid and senior but still "came under a lot of flak" in front of 20 to 25 people at the paper's news conference. "There was no doubt in my mind, he was under intense pressure to deliver," said the anonymous witness. 2.14pm: The inquiry is back to anonymous evidence from another journalist, this time with six years' experience, including the News of the World. It describes constant bullying, including emails sent about his weight Young reporters were made wear stupid costumes for stories; they cite an example of a reporter "having to go head to toe in meat" following Lady Gaga's appearance at an awards ceremony two years ago. This was "sexist and degrading", they said. 2.13pm: Leveson says just because there are some examples of poor behaviour does not mean journalism has been tarnished; much reporting is of great value 2.11pm: Stanistreet says journalists feel that newspapers' managers have also betrayed them as they tried to pin the blame on them. 2.08pm: The journalist said the freelance situation is as bad. They said the money was terrible, freelancers were expected to use their own laptop and car. They were "expected to pull stories out of the bag just like staffers", who were on much better conditions. Quite often it was difficult to claim expenses. "Being pragmatic, if you did what Sean Hoare did or Paul McMullan did, you don't work in the iindustry again – their reputations have been trashed," they said. The journalist added that they feelsjournalists have been betrayed and have been "vilified by Leveson in the public domain". 2.04pm: The first testimony comes from a journalist with more than 30 years' experience on national titles and worked on the News of the World for three years There was "tremendous pressure"; they were given "impossible tasks" and if they didn't deliver they would be considered a failure, they said. "There was a real military chain of command and you did what you were told … if you want a career in the future you shut up and keep quiet," they said. "The culture is macho, it pervades the industry." 2.03pm: All the journalists whose evidence she has supplied are still working in the industry. The submissions have been redacted to exclude names, names of papers and specific incidents which might identify newspapers, apart from the News of the World. This follows directions given by Lord Justice Leveson. 1.59pm: Stanistreet says these are not individual journalists with a gripe against their newspaper, but a consistent picture. Some she spoke to "were too scared about their experiences being shared with the inquiry, petrified". The issues she raises in the evidence include bullying, sexual harassment and cases of journalists being put under "intolerable pressure". She says these are similar to the ones that the NUJ deals with every day; sadly the experiences are "prevalent within the industry today". 1.56pm: The inquiry has resumed and Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, is asked about anonymous evidence from members. She explains none of the 40 or so journalists she spoke to wanted to give evidence publicly. "Sadly that's not an option [to give evidence publicly]," she says. In her written submission, she says this was for fear of punishment, being "thrashed" by others in the industry and the fear of not being employed. 1.30pm: Dan Sabbagh's story on how Ian Edmondson's evidence contradicted former boss Colin Myler's testimony is now live. It says: The former news editor of the News of the World has contradicted evidence given to the Leveson inquiry by his one time editor Colin Myler over what a spokesman for the McCanns was told about the planned publication of Kate McCann's diary by the now closed Sunday tabloid in 2008. Ian Edmondson, giving evidence to the inquiry on Thursday, said he was instructed by Myler to call Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns public relations representative, and tell him only in "very woolly" terms that the newspaper would be running a story about them without giving the family any indication that the tabloid was going to publish her diaries in full. The editor's instruction, Edmondson said, was to give Mitchell the impression "that we were running a story, but not tell him specifically what story" and that "certainly don't tell him [Mitchell] that we were in possession of the complete diaries". Myler, Edmondson added, was "frightened that if Clarence knew what we had, he might take action". Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked Edmondson what was the purpose of "having an ambiguous or woolly conversation?" Edmondson replied that the purpose would be "in order to blame Clarence Mitchell that he hadn't acted properly upon instructions" if there was a row post-publication. You can read the full story here. 1.23pm: We now have a transcript of Ian Edmondson's claim that he was told by News of the World editor Colin Myler not to tell Kate McCann's PR adviser that the paper had her diaries: Jay: The McCann diary story. May I start by reminding us all of Mr Myler's version – or rather, his evidence, pardon me. Tab 8, page 89. This is part of the transcript of his evidence given on 14 December last year. Particularly at line 20, I think, but we can skim read a little bit earlier on but can I just try and get to the heart of this. The question was: "But did Mr Edmondson make it clear to you that he had made it clear to Mr Mitchell that he had the whole diary and was going to cause extracts from it to be published in the News of the World? Edmondson: That's what he led me to believe, yes. Jay: Because reading the transcript, and this is something which you didn't, of course, see at the time, the transcript of the conversation "... And then we identified the transcript." Edmondson: Mm-hm. Jay: Or maybe it's not necessary to go on, because we're then trying to interpret the transcript, about which you give clear evidence. But the gist of it is, the bit I read out between lines 20 and 24. Can I seek to deal with your evidence carefully in this way: first of all, you make it clear that your only conversation with Mr Mitchell was on Friday, 12 September 2008; is that right? Edmondson: That is right. Jay: Recalling the conversation, what is your evidence in relation to that. I think you say it's standard practice? Edmondson: Yes, it was. Jay: Were you given an instruction to do so on this occasion? Edmondson: I was, yes. Jay: By? Edmondson: Colin Myler. Jay: Do you know why you were given that instruction? Edmondson: Reinforcing please tape it – and it was standard practice to tape those types of phone calls and I might even say that to a reporter but I would reinforce it. Jay: But was it standard practice to make it clear to your interlocutor that the call was being recorded? Edmondson: No. Jay: And why not? Edmondson: You wouldn't get, in general terms, a true conversation. Jay: Because? Edmondson: They would play to the camera. Jay: Do you feel that it's entirely a frank and honest procedure to conduct an interview with someone but not make it clear that it's being recorded? Edmondson: Yes, I do. Jay: Because? Edmondson: Accuracy. Jay: Obviously it gives you concrete evidence (overspeaking) subject to experting what's being said, one understands that, but is there not an element of deception – or maybe I can put is slightly lower than that, because that, I think, is a slightly sort of sinister tone, but at least an element of misleading the person you're speaking to that you are recording them and therefore it might be used to (overspeaking)? Edmondson: I think that's fair. Jay: But your feeling is, well, if you did make it clear that it was being recorded, then they would do what? Edmondson: I would imagine freeze up, not talk to you freely, not talk to you honestly. They might not want to talk to you at all. A number of things. Jay: I can see that they might not want to talk to you at all, but you think if we did make it clear to them that this he were being taped, there would be more incentive to be dishonest during the course (overspeaking)? Edmondson: I would say that's fair, yes. Jay: Had there been occasions when you've had conversations with people which haven't been recorded? Edmondson: I'm sure there has been, but certainly not on a call that is paramount to a story, and something that might be used later on as evidenceThe third question which was put to you in a written notice, which we see at the bottom of page 60272, the question was this: "During the during the course of that conversation (conversation with Mr Mitchell] did you make it clear to Mr Mitchell that the News of the World had obtained a copy of Dr Kate McCann's personal diary from a source who had ... (reading to the words)... intended to write a story based on that diary quoting verbatim from it? If so, please identify with reference to the transcript of your conference where you made it clear." And then your answer, please, Mr Edmondson? Edmondson: I didn't make it clear. Jay: And you say because you were given express instructions by Mr Myler? Edmondson: Correct. Jay: When did he give you those instructions? Can you recall? Edmondson: From memory, at a meeting on Thursday of that week. Jay: Why did he give you those instructions? Edmondson: I attended a meeting with Mr Myler and Tom Crone where we discussed this story. I think we got the story to a point where I was prepared to present it to Tom and Colin, the editor. Colin gave – sorry, I beg your pardon – Tom gave his legal view, which I'm told I'm not allowed to repeat, but which dismayed, shall I say, Mr Myler. So he decided to ask me to make a call to Mr Mitchell, not make it clear what we had, telling him in general terms, basically make it very woolly. I think someone previously used the word "ambiguous" – that is absolutely spot on what he wanted. Jay: So the preferred outcome for the end point of the conversation with Mr Mitchell would be what? Edmondson: To give him the expression that we were running a story, but not tell him specifically what story, certainly don't tell him that we were in possession of the complete diaries, as we understood. There had been extracts in the diaries – of the diaries in Portuguese papers which had been translated into the English papers, but certainly not to the sent that we had. He was frightened that if Clarence knew what we had, he might take action.Well, he would do – was the fear that he would, at the very least, tell his clients, the McCanns, what was going on? Edmondson: Correct. Jay: ...and they would certainly get back to Mr Myler by phone. Edmondson: Correct. Jay: Or make an application for an injunction to stop the News of the World publishing? Is that what it amount to? Edmondson: That's exactly what it would. Jay: What was the purpose, though, of having an ambiguous or woolly conversation, as you've described? What was the you intention? That you would have Mr Mitchell's part assent? Could you put it in your own words? Edmondson: Yeah, it would be in order to blame Clarence Mitchell that he hadn't acted properly upon instructions. Jay: I see. And was that part of Mr Myler's thinking? Edmondson: That was his thinking. Jay: Was it Mr Crone's thinking? Edmondson: No. Jay: So you presumably were uneasy in carrying out these instructions? Edmondson: Yes. I had an alternative, which I presented to Mr Myler. He was the only one to have Gerry McCann's mobile number, and up until that point, he had a reasonable or very good relationship with him, and I thought he could argue that we could work collaboratively to get the diaries in the paper, and that was my suggestion. Jay: And what was Mr Myler's reaction to that suggestion? Edmondson: No. Jay: Because? Edmondson: I think he believed, from memory, and I can't be sure, that that wouldn't be a successful outcome. Jay: I understand. So you were sent out to make it call and presumably in the light of the evidence you're giving to us, you felt uneasy by what you were being asked to do? Edmondson: Yeah, I'd developed a very good relationship with Clarence and I liked him a lot. I felt very uneasy. Jay: Why did you do it then? Edmondson: I was told to. Jay: Do you feel that this was a sort of one-off, because we're looking at this one example, or do you feel it's part of a general sort of system or culture or practice, however you want to put it, and this is just one exemptfication of that? Edmondson: I must admit I can't remember an occasion of this ill be. I'm sure there was occasions where an editor both want you to effectively deceive someone, yes. Jay: So there were other occasions of deception, to use your word, but this was a particularly egregious (overspeaking)? Edmondson: I think it is, yes. 12.58pm: The inquiry is now breaking for lunch and will return at 1.55pm. 12.50pm: Stanistreet says she does not believe any of these individuals colluded in their evidence; she did not ask any of them if they had spoken to the Guardian's investigative journalist Nick Davies. Contemporaneous notes were taken of all interviews, she says, and she typed them up immediately afterwards. She did not record the interviews. Patry Hoskins gets from confirmation Stanistreet that the two of them met yesterday to discuss the interview notes. Patry Hoskins says she saw nothing that would undermine the witnesses' evidence. 12.43pm: Stanistreet is asked about her second statement, which deals with the union's appeal for journalists to give anonymous evidence to the inquiry. About 40 journalists got in touch as a result. She personally interviewed them either face to face or on the telephone. Some gave evidence in writing. Stanistreet has reported what 12 of them told her, as some individuals' feedback discussed their general views of the inquiry so far; others didn't want their evidence shared, even in confidence. She says she didn't reject any examples of positive comments. "Sadly I haven't had a queue of journalists wanting to share news of great experiences in the newsroom," she adds. 12.43pm: "It's vital that journalists have the protection of an independent trade union within their workplace," says Stanistreet. Some papers are hostile to the NUJ, she adds. 12.38pm: In her opening statement Stanistreet says the NUJ has campaigned for a conscience clause for many years and everything she has heard at the inquiry to date shows how vital it is that every journalist has such protection. 12.36pm: Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, has taken the stand. She is being questioned by Carine Patry Hoskins, junior counsel to the inquiry. 12.36pm: Mills has now completed her evidence. 12.33pm: Mills says there needs to be "huge penalties, not these small amounts that don't make any difference to large organisations". She says the PCC needs to be "absolutely 100% changed". She adds the new regulator also needs to take account that the expense of taking a newspaper is prohibitive for most of the public. Mills adds that all photographers should be licensed, and they could be struck off if they harass people. She adds: The biggest problem is they [the public] feel helpless … I feel if all photographers, paps, are llicensed and that no newspaper can use a photograph unless it's from a licensed photographer … then they can be struck off should they cross the line in that area. 12.33pm: Mills says that Sunday Mirror editor Tina Weaver ran a story accusing her of misdirecting charity money even though she was told it was untrue. 12.29pm: Mills says she complained to the PCC many times. Initially she was unaware of the body and launched libel actions. She praises the work of the PCC director, Stephen Abell, who she says tried to act as a mediator. However, she says editors were judging themselves on the PCC and complaints only resulted in "postage stamp" sized apologies. 12.28pm: Mills says newspapers only give "postage stamp" sized apologies even after going to court. Until there is a disincentive for them to write so many lies and untruths and abusive comments, it's going to continue. If I was an editor and I knew I was going to be embarrassed every week with front-page apologies I would make sure every story was correct. 12.25pm: Mills said coverage of her in the press was fine until she met Paul McCartney in 1999 and then it was "'one-legged bitch', 'cow' and every gutter word you can think of". 12.24pm: Ian Edmondson's witness statement has now been published on the Leveson inquiry website. 12.20pm: On the video, Showed photographers are shown apparently trying to get a shot of Mills's house through a fence. One photographer apparently says "we don't just turn up … we do it because we are being asked to do it". They are also shown chasing her when driving, and there is the dramatic noise of screeching tyres and a car smash. Mills makes statements on the DVD about pursuit, pacticularly by one car, which she says has followed her from Kent to Dorset. 12.19pm: The inquiry has now resumed and is watching Mills's DVD of alleged harassment by photographers. 12.10pm: Financial Times media correspondent Ben Fenton has just tweeted: [Leveson taking break ostensibly to get the sound working, but possibly because FA press conference on Capello is about to start - joke ] — Ben Fenton (@benfenton) February 9, 2012 12.07pm: The inquiry is now taking a short break while it prepares to show Mills's DVD. 12.05pm: Mills talks about harassment of herself and her family. She says she was assaulted in Brighton and she was told she needed to get evidence by police because the photographers can legally stand outside the door. She then proceeded to film everything; she has 65 hours of abuse and harassment by the paparazzi. There are awful things, going over pavements when mothers are pushing prams … we have 60-odd hours of video footage if the court ever needs to see that. 12.01pm: Jay asks about a 2006 article written by Piers Morgan in the Daily Mail in which he said he had listened to a message McCartney left on Mills's mobile phone – but refused to reveal his source. She says she never shared her voicemails with anyone. Asked if she ever gave Morgan permission to listen to the recording, she replies: "Never ever." Jay asks: "Speaking more widely, and it will be my last question on this topic: did you have any reason for sharing a voicemail message with Mr Morgan?" Mills replies: No, never. I can't quite believe that he would even try and insinuate, a man that's written nothing but awful things about me for years, would absolutely relish in telling the court if I had personally played a voicemail message to him. 11.57am: Mills says she was contacted by a former Trinity Mirror employee later that day who said had heard the message. The employee said the paper had she had had an argument with McCartney and it had heard him singing on her phone. She said that they could only know that if they had been listening to her messages, and the employee laughed. Jay makes it clear that this person was a Trinity Mirror employee, not Piers Morgan or anyone then working for him at the Daily Mirror. The story was never reported. 11.50am: Mills is asked about a voicemail left for her by her then husband Sir Paul McCartney. Piers Morgan claimed in his book that he had heard the voicemail, which has given rise to allegations that it was obtained by phone hacking. Morgan was asked in his evidence about the incident. Mills says in February 2001 she was on holiday with McCartney. There was an earthquake in Gujerat and she that she wanted to help with prosthetic limbs as she had previously helped in Yugoslavia in this area. She made contact with Phil Hal, then the editor of Hello! magazine, pretty soon after she had returned from India. She had had a relationship with the magazine – every time they did a story with her they would make a donation to her chosen charity. She did not know Hall but set up a meeting. He said they needed some pictures if she was going on the trip and he put a photographer on the story. She started researching what was needed for the trip. She had a row with McCartney and went to stay with a friend. When she got up there were about 25 messages from McCartney. They said "would I come back and one of them said, please forgive me and sang a little ditty of one of his songs onto voicemail. That afternoon I went back and all was forgiven." She then deleted the messages; she never recorded them. Mills was later shown evidence by detactives from Operation Weeting that the private voicemail messages of her and her sister were hacked. "We were shown my PIN numbers, PUK numbers over three different telephones over a period of five or six years," she says. She said she can't say if they related to the Vodafone mobile she had in early 2001 because the police wouldn't given them the evidence. 11.49am: Mills has submitted two statements – 20 January and 6 February – and a DVD which the inquiry is going to look at later. 11.46am: Heather Mills is now taking the stand 11.43am: Sky's Michael Greenfield has just tweeted: Heather Mills has just arrived in the courtroom #Leveson — Michael Greenfield (@SkyGreenfield) February 9, 2012 11.40am: The Guardian's head of media and technology, Dan Sabbagh, asked Lily Allen on Twitter what she thought of Darry Lyons's evidence: Would love to know what the likes of Sienna Miller, @mrslrcooper and others think of this Big Pictures shambles. — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) February 9, 2012 She replied: @dansabbagh not much — lilyrosecooper (@MrsLRCooper) February 9, 2012 11.35am: Here is a summary of this morning's evidence so far: • The former News of the World head of news, Ian Edmondson, has said that the culture of bullying at the paper came from the editor. • He said he did not draft emails to women in the Max Mosley case, contradicting chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck's evidence. • He said the editor told him not to tell Kate McCann's PR the paper had her diary. • Big Pictures boss Darryn Lyons said celebrities use the paparazzi to promote themselves. 11.34am: Edmondson has now completed his testimony and the inquiry is taking a short break. 11.34am: Leveson asks Edmondson some more questions about the Kate McCann diary. Did he or did not make it clear to Clarence Mitchell that he had the entire diary? "No," says Edmondson. 11.32am: The News of the World was an "autocratic" organisation, says Edmondson. Leveson asks if there was bullying even if staff were in a senior position. Edmondson replies: Yes … It is not a democracy at a newspaper – autocratic. 11.30am: Edmondson says Colin Myler was part of the culture of bullying. "If there wasn't a culture of bullying", then you would have seen a different type of paper, an "alternative product", he adds. He is asked if there was bullying at the Sunday People where he had worked previously. "Nowhere near: there were elements of, but it's a considerably smaller paper," he replies. 11.29am: Jay asks if this means the culture of bullying comes from the editor. Edmondson responds "yes", but says he does not want to go into detail. Jay says he can understand his diffidence. 11.28am: Edmondson is asked more about bullying. Edmondson says he has an employment tribunal hearing coming up and his answer may cross over into that. He says the entire culture of the paper came from the editor. Every part of the paper is dictated by the editor of the paper … you don't do anything unless you are told to do something. 11.25am: Edmondson says the culture at the paper changed when Myler took over and throughout the industry "for obvious reasons". The paper's staff were given seminars on the PCC and legal briefings. He is asked whether before Myler's arrival in 2007, there was bullying or unethical behaviour at the paper. Edmondson says it's on the record that mistakes were made; the culture of the paper changed on Myler's arrival. Jay makes it clear that he wants Edmondson to answer in terms of everything but phone-hacking, which he cannot ask him about. Edmondson says there were was huge pressure to get stories. For everyone one story you get in the paper, nine would be thrown away. 11.24am: The Guardian's head of media and technology, Dan Sabbagh, has just tweeted: This is a big Leveson moment. Edmondson offering a clear account that Colin Myler took the key decision as regards McCann diary publication. — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) February 9, 2012 11.22am: Edmondson says the paper deceived the McCanns. "I can't remember an occasion of this ilk," he adds. "I'm sure there were occasions when an editor would want you to effectively deceive someone, yes." Asked by Jay if there were other occasions an editor would want to deceive someone, but this was a particularly egregious example, he replies: "I think so, yes." 11.20am: Edmondson agrees with Jay that the thinking behind this was to prevent the story being injuncted. He told Myler, who had Gerry McCann's telephone number, that they could have worked "collaboratively" with the McCanns but Myler said this wouldn't work. 11.18am: Edmondson says he was told to "not make it clear what we had, tell him in general terms, something woolly". He adds: … to give him the impression we were running a story, but not tell him what story, certainy not tell him we were in possesion of the complete diaries. There had been publication of extracts of the diaries in Portugal but not to the extent we had; he was frightened he [Mitchell] would take action. 11.16am: Jay asks about the News of the World's publication of Kate McCann's diary without her permission. Edmondson says he was instructed by Myler to record a call with the McCanns' press adviser at the time, Clarence Mitchell, regarding the diary. He adds that recording such calls was standard practice. He says that, on the instruction of Myler, he did not make it clear in the call that the paper had a copy of the diary. He says he was uncomfortable about this, as he was friends with Mitchell. "I liked Mitchell a lot. I felt uneasy, but I did what I was told." 11.15am: Edmondson says he expressed "very considerable surprise" to Crone over the decision to use surveillance because he did not see such a story getting into the paper. He told Crone: "I hope you are paying for this." 11.14am: Webb is asked about the decision to get Webb to spy on solicitors Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris, who were acting for phone-hacking victims. Edmondson says he didn't agree with the survellance, as he didn't think it was a story. 11.09am: Jays put it to Edmondson that Webb's status as an NUJ member was just a pretence. "I don't think he was pretending to be a journalist but I get your point," says Edmondson. "This was all just a sham wasn't it?" says Jay. "I think it was, yes," says Edmondson. He adds that Myler, legal manager Tom Crone and managing editor Stuart Kuttner were aware of this pretence, to the best of his knowledge. 11.06am: Jay runs through Webb's evidence. He says Webb left the NoW's employ for about 18 months in 2007 but returned in 2009 when certain matters were resolved. Webb explains how the paper encouraged him to become a member of the NUJ after the use of private eyes was banned by editor Colin Myler in 2007. The investigator had changed his email address from "Silent Shadow" to "Shadow Watch" and was told to alter it to "Derek Webb Media". Edmondson confirms that he was aware of the ban on private eyes. He says he does remember have conversations with the editor and the managing editor about asking Webb to join the NUJ. 11.04am: Edmondson is asked more about private investigator Derek Webb. Edmondson argues Webb was a journalist because he carried out "journalistic tasks". He adds that before Webb the NoW used reporters and photographers "to carry our surveillance" and they might not have been particularly good at it, but Webb was trained in such skills. "His skills were very useful," adds Edmondson. 11.01am: Edmondson is asked what factors would be taken into account by teh News of the World when deciding the public interest in relation to celebrities' affairs. Edmondson says there would be a public interest if the celebrity has promoted a "false public image" as "wholesome" and they are doing something else in private. It might be a celebrity inviting cameras into their home, being photographed with their family, talking about their wife, saying "they would never do such a thing" and then it is revealed that they are having an affair, he adds. Edmondson says that there was little difference of approach to how the NoW dealt with politicians or celebrities. 10.59am: Edmondson is asked about use of "Silent Shadow" private investigator Derek Webb for surveilliance. Edmondson indicates that Webb was regularly used by him. He says "one of the things" Webb was used for was to see if people were having an affair; later, he says this was "the majority" of Webb's work. 10.58am: Leveson says it's very important to get to the bottom of this. Would he ever have written such an email offering anonymity if the women co-operate? "I don't like its tone," he says of the email. "From memory I saw them [the emails] some time after the Mosley case," he adds. Leveson asks: "As you read the emails now, what's your reaction to them?" "I think they are a threat," says Edmondson. Leveson: "I think we can agree about that." 10.57am: Jay says the point of the email is clear – the paper will guarantee anonymity to the women if they tell their story, but if they don't they will lose it. Edmondson says it is "very very unlikely" that he would have written tthat. "For a number of reasons: that's not the language I would have used. It wouldn't be my responsiblity or decision … It's not his decision to make those statements. What goes into the paper is down to the editor … these sorts of decisions aren't made by a news editor, or head of news or a chief reporter." 10.55am: Leveson says "it's not just the particular email, it's the thinking behind the email" – which may be constituted as blackmail – that he wants to get at. The emails were sent after the News of the World published its Max Mosley orgy story, and asked the women to tell their side of the story for the next Sunday's follow-up. "There is no doubt that Neville, or a number of reporters would have been trying to get hold of the women. That [the email] would have been a small part of it," says Edmondson. "I have got no doubt whatsoever I would have asked him to contact the women. In fact with his experience I would have had no need to … it's more likely that I would have asked him." 10.47am: Jay asks Edmondson about emails sent from Thurlbeck to women involved in the Max Mosley case. Edmondson was on holiday on the first week of the Mosley story; he is asked about week two. "I don't recall these emails being sent at all. As to who drafted them, I wasn't in the habit of drafting or dictating emails," he says. Thurlbeck told the inquiry that Edmondson had drafted them, but the latter says that the language in the emails "didn't seem like the type of language I'd have used". 10.44am: Ian Edmondson has now taken the stand. Edmondson was the former head of news at the News of the World. He became head of news in November 2005 and left in 2011. He is being questioned by the counsel to the inquiry, Robert Jay QC. 10.38am: Lyons has now finished his testimony and the inquiry is taking a short break. 10.37am: Lyons says the atittude of celebrities is "a great worry for the industry" and that many of the celebrities will "regularly take money" for the photographs. He adds: Paparazzi in America are regularly used by managemennt and publicity agents to boost someone's profile. Where we are here in the UK is all over the place in terms of what can't we do what we can do … I think celebrities use these situations for their own self gain on a regular basis. There's two sides to every story which i hope this inquiry looks into in great detail. 10.35am: Lyons is asked about his new website, mrpaparazzi.com, which invites the public to submit their own photographs. He describes it in his witness statement as "the future". Patry Hoskins says it might be said that encouraging the public to whip out their phones and take photographs of celebrities could be seen as incitement to invade someone's privacy. Lyons says if he has any doubt about a picture, if it was "unethical or suspicious in any way", he won't publish. 10.33am: Lyons repeats that the situation is very unclear. One day celebrities will invite photographers into their homes; the next day they will complain about being photographed walking down the street. 10.31am: Lyons reveals that – like Gary Morgan of Splash Pictures, who gave evidence earlier this week – he has a "no-shoot list" but this list is based on legal cases. He says he will supply the inquiry with the list. 10.30am: Lyons says PR people for famous stars such as Mariah Carey and Paris Hilton phone him as soon as they are in town to say "she's staying here, she's staying there, they want the publicity". 10.29am: The Guardian's head of media and technology, Dan Sabbagh, has just tweeted: Lyons is right to say that it rules of celebrity snaps game have become ambiguous, that it is not clear what is legit and not. — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) February 9, 2012 10.28am: Lyons says the situation isn't clear cut – sometimes a celebrity like Lily Allen will be snapped looking lovely on the beach and she won't complain and on another ocassion she will. Often he says they want to be photographed because it boosts their PR around the world and some go as far as "taking cash with the photographers on a regular basis". If it's on their terms it's fine but if they've done the wrong thing or it's immoral and that's been recorded in history; they've been photographed they don't like it … the problem is when you are photographing someone famous these days you don't now if it's right or wrong. Others will pick and chose the times when they are promoting their record or TV show or their movie. 10.25am: Lyons asked about a complaint about photographs of JK Rowling and her children. Lyons say the pictures were taken of Rowling walking down a public street in Scotland. He says he felt there was no problem at the time and the pictures were available for use two or three years before the author's complaint. The image was downloaded from an archive and used in the Sunday Express several years later, when the complaint arose. 10.24am: Lyons is asked about a privacy action taken by Hugh Grant and Liz Hurley, who accepted £58,000 over invasion of privacy when photographers took pictures of them when on holiday on a private resort. Lyons remembers the court case, but only "very vaguely". 10.20am: Lyons is now being asked about photographs of Sienna Miller on a boat in St Tropez. Lyons says photographers have been taking pictures of celebrities in the Med on "since Brigitte Bardot was sunning herself on the beaches of St Tropez ... It was normal practice." If the photograph shows the celebrity in a good light, they won't necessarily go "legal", she said but if it "suits" them they will. 10.19am: The Guardian's head of media and technology, Dan Sabbagh, has just tweeted: Lyons better on Celebrity Big Brother. This evidence is catastrophic. Lyons is barely in control of biz of which he is chairman. — Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) February 9, 2012 10.16am: Patry Hoskins notes that there has been a string of injunctions and complaints made against Big Pictures over the past two years. She asks if any Big Pictures photographers have been disciplined. Lyons says he will have to take "secondary advice" as to whether anybody at Big Pictures has been disciplined. He adds he is rarely in the office but trusts his management to take action if needed. He is currently filming show in Australia for four months. 10.14am: Patry Hoskins moves on to the injunction sought by Amy Winehouse. Every time she got in the car she was chased, she was jostled, said her manager at the time. "I am extremely familiar [with that] and it wasn't my company," says Lyons. "It was photographers using the name of my company and it happens on a regular basis." He said he spoke to Winehouse's manager and got an apology; he was subsequently invited to take exclusive shots of her. Lyons adds that the agency often works with celebrities and they get a high cut of pictures sold. 10.12am: Lyons is asked about an injunction taken out by Lily Allen against Big Pictures and another agency. He doesn't recall the incident the inquiry is talking about and says he is sorry he can't help. 10.09am: Leveson asks Lyons when his attitude changed. "I don't think it has changed," he says. He refers to the car shots of Prince Charles and Camilla in December 2010 when the royal-Rolls Royce came under attack from student fees rioters in central London. The car was kicked, rocked and hit with paint bombs. 10.08am: Lyons is asked about a time when he was outside the Portland Hospital in London after the Duchess of York arrived to give birth to her first child. He explains in his book that he didn't know the "car technique" and got a quick lesson from a colleague. The technique, he said was to "run at the car" and then "crash bang wallop" with a lens. He says this incident was 25 years ago; if he hadn't got the car shot he wouldn't have been employed by a newspaper again. He says things are different now. 10.03am: Patry Hoskins refers to another article in May 2009 about Amy Winehouse winning a case against photographers. "As for Sienna Miller now, I don't go near her now, and we throw away photographs of her," Lyons is quoted as saying in the article, but he goes on to question why he should not be able to snap a shot of Miller on a boat in the Mediterranean when she was allegedly involved with a married man. The articles and images which Miller sued over included coverage of the actor's alleged relationship with Balthazar Getty soon after she broke off a relationship with Welsh actor Rhys Ifans. 10.01am: Miller was awarded £53,000 in damages and costs as part of a 2008 settlement that included a ban on Big Picture photographers following her or chasing her in a car. "Do you recall that now?" asks Hoskins? "Yes," says Lyons. 9.58am: The inquiry is now discussing proceedings brought by Sienna Miller in 2008. Big Pictures paid the star a total of £53,000 in damages and costs for two legal actions, for harassment and invasion of privacy. Lyons says he "wasn't in charge of that particular action". He remembers a claim but not that specific claim, he says. 9.56am: Lyons is asked about car chases. "If there have been any incidents, my management would be pulling them in," he says. He adds he can't be responsible for the way photographs are taken in countries such as France. 9.55am: Lyons is asked about whether he would be happy to take a photograph taken by a paparazzi chasing a subject in a car. A passage in Lyons's book Mr Paparazzi says "I hope people realise that chasing for pictures has always happened." He says if someone hasn't broken the law, it would be fine to take such a photo. 9.51am: There is "no Big Pictures code of practice, no manual governing employees", says Lyons. "The employed photographers know … exactly what is expected of them," he says, adding that they work to "PCC guidelines". He says he hasn't had much time to "look over the documentation" but photographers have to make a judgment, guided by the management back at HQ. He says he has no reason to believe his photographers breach the PCC code. 9.48am: The Guardian's Roy Greenslade has reported that PCC director Stephen Abell, who gave evidence to the inquiry next week, is to leave the watchdog. Greenslade reports: Stephen Abell, director of the Press Complaints Commission for the last two years, is leaving. He will leave at the end of the month. His departure, which has been under discussion for some time, is unsurprising given that the PCC will almost certainly be reconstituted. Abell, who has spent more than 10 years with the commission, has been in charge during its most difficult period, culminating in the controversy over phone hacking. He oversaw the early departure of its previous chair, Lady Buscombe, and has worked alongside her successor, Lord Hunt, since his arrival in October last year. Hunt said he and Abell had agreed that they would work together until they "were in a position to propose a new structure for self-regulation of the press." You can read the full story here. 9.46am: Lyons says Big Pictures "turns over 3,000 to 3,500 pictures a day". He is being asked what kind of photographs, if any would he object. Extreme nudity, extreme situations where we felt the photographer had crossed the line; whether it was taken on private property – those kind of examples would stick out like sore thumbs to us. Leveson asks where the line is. Lyon replies: "the PCC line". 9.44am: The Guardian's Josh Halliday, who is at the Royal Courts of Justice, has just tweeted: Lyons witness statement describes himself as "the man in the know and on the go with all things to do with celebrity" #Leveson — Josh Halliday (@JoshHalliday) February 9, 2012 9.42am: Lyons says the freelance photographers aren't regulated. They go out and get their own stories and images, and Big Pictures makes a decision. Freelancers, he adds, are not his agency's responsibility. They submit material to various newspapers, magazines and companies. 9.41am: Lyons used to be a freelance photographer. He has appeared on a BBC documentary on about the paparazzi and says he has no problem with the term. "It's only another word in the English language," he says. He employs 10 or 12 staff photographers but has more than 150 freelancers working for him worldwide. 9.38am: The Leveson hearing has begun and Darryn Lyons of Big Pictures is the first witness. He is on a video link from Australia and is being questioned by the junior counsel to the inquiry, Carine Patry Hoskins. 9.37am: Here's the latest on the Hugh Grant v Paul Dacre spat – the Guardian's David Leigh has this report. The row between Hugh Grant and the Daily Mail's editor, Paul Dacre, took a further turn on Wednesday, when the celebrity actor said he had uncovered evidence of misbehaviour by Associated Newspapers. In a fresh statement published on the Leveson inquiry website, Grant said he had obtained letters contradicting several aspects of the Mail's version of the way it had tracked down and "persistently hounded" Tinglan Hong, the mother of his newly born daughter. Mail reporters pretended to have a parcel to deliver in order to get details of a lettings agency linked to the mother's former address, according to a statement obtained by Grant. The letting agency denied subsequently handing over Hong's mobile number, which the paper obtained. Westminster register office also denies the Mail's claim that its staff had subsequently handed over details of the baby's birth, supplied privately by the hospital. Grant says in his witness statement to Leveson that it could have been illegal for the register office to supply such details. 9.36am: Heather Mills is already trending on Twitter. 9.32am: All eyes will be on Heather Mills today. She volunteered to make an appearance after the former Mirror editor Piers Morgan admitted he had listened to a message Sir Paul McCartney left on his then wife's mobile phone - but refused to reveal his source. During a tense exchange during his testimony in December, Lord Justice Leveson said the only people "lawfully" entitled to listen to the message were Mills or somebody authorised on her behalf to listen to it. Mills later issued a statement saying she never disclosed private voicemail messages from her ex-husband to morgan Mills said Morgan was using her as a "scapegoat". The episode was revealed in a column written by Morgan for the Daily Mail in 2006, about the acrimonious divorce of McCartney and Mills. Morgan recounted how he had been played the "heart-breaking" voicemail message years earlier, in which the former Beatle begged his then wife to come home after a row and sang We Can Work It Out into the answerphone. 9.30am: Welcome to the Leveson inquiry live blog – note the inquiry starts at 9.30am today. It's the final day of the first module and it's promising to be box office with Sir Paul McCartney's ex wife Heather Mills in to answer questions on that recording. The other witness of big interest today is Ian Edmondson, the former news chief of News of World although questions on phone hacking are likely to be off limits as he was arrested last April on suspicion of conspiring to unlawfully intercept communications. Also on today is Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre – recalled to answer questions about his decision to accuse Hugh Grant of trying to spread "mendacious smears" about his company. PR veteran Max Clifford is also scheduled to appear as is Darryn Lyons, the owner of picture agency Big Pictures and the NUJ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet, who is expected to be questioned about the submissions by anonymous journalists. Please note that comments have been switched off for legal reasons. Leveson inquiry National newspapers Newspapers Newspapers & magazines Lisa O'Carroll Dugald Baird guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Iraqi authorities have given 'green light to execute at will', says Human Rights Watch Iraqi authorities executed at least 65 people in the first 40 days of 2012 for various offences, including 14 on a single day, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). Joe Stork, the group's deputy Middle East director, said Iraqi authorities appeared to have given the "green light to execute at will". The New York-based advocacy group said trials often violated international standards. Many defendants were unable to challenge the evidence against them, which may include coerced confession. HRW said an Iraqi justice official said 14 people were put to death on Wednesday alone, and that further executions should be expected. "The government needs to declare an immediate moratorium on all executions and begin an overhaul of its flawed criminal justice system," said Stork. The report said Iraq authorises the death penalty for close to 50 crimes including terrorism, kidnapping and murder, but also for offences such as damage to public property. Telephone calls to Iraqi justice ministry officials to comment on the report were unanswered. Iraq primarily uses hanging as a method of execution. Iraq Capital punishment Middle East and North Africa guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

BBC News Apps Rush: Tweetbot for iPad, Ragdoll Blaster 3, Vonage Mobile, Drop Catcher ...The Guardian (blog)A selection of 17 apps for you today: Tweetbot has become many Twitter users' app of choice on iPhone, even above the official client. Now it's been beefed up for iPad, helping users switch between multiple timelines using gestures, while hiding ...Apple, Google move to tackle app store issuesBBC NewsThe App Economy Produces Twice as Many US Jobs as There Are Jobs in Apple's ...ForbesAndiamo Corporation (OTC: ANDI) Exceeds 500 iPhone AppsMarketWatch (press release)CNET -Chicago Tribune -Washington Postall 629 news articles »