Looks like News Corp's allegedly highhanded casual approach to giving evidence under oath is rapidly unraveling.

Only News Corp employees and owners have made such willful and allegedely mendacious attacks (ie he declared war on me so he got what he deserved) on public persons in alleged attempts to diminish them.

Andy C arrested twice, Rebekah B - is that only once for her ?

If Gordon B's fairly concise evidence today at Leveson, supported by his Civil Servant's precise record of when calls were made and what correspondence took place, is in anyway even half-accurate, it could make difficulties for Rupert M's efforts to substantiate his evidence as being accurate. Even News Corp's QC today looked uncomfortable as he presented an insubstantially dubious end-of-session question, "that my client feels should be answered by Mr Brown". He was required to press home with the nonsense even after the Inquiry's QC had declined to take the question forward.

Perhaps whatever coaching and briefing News Corp employees were given should have included at least one session that articulated the substantial difference between giving evidence under oath on matters of fact and expressing vitriolic opinion and pontification

Perhaps the heavy hand of the boys in blue on a few more News Corp shoulders may be required before the message finally reaches home.