From: GMAX To: J Jep Subject: FW: Daily Mail Date: Fri, II Mar 2011 00:54:16 +0000 Forwarded Message From Repl Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:40:11 -0500 To: NY Max < Subject: Fw: Daily Mail Please see below. My take:A) voluntary rules are meaningless in terms of arranging for a cessation of crap articles/stories etcB) doesn't offer redress (financial or in terms of publicity.Law here definitely provides more protection and redress if individual(s) involved in approaches from newspapers are employees or have any form of contractual relationship with target.Let's talk.Kevinx Kevin MaxwellAvenue Partners Limited35 Park LaneLondon W1K 1RBTel: From: Ross gow Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:29:24 +0000 To: GMAX > Wax: Cc: Brian Basham< ); Ross Gow< Maxwell< >; Kevin Maxwell Thompson ›; Ian Ian ; Gareth Subject: Re: Daily Mail Maz is the most devious and cunning of the bunch. However, Editors can pay for people, stories and documents. They can even pay criminals if it is in the public interest. Maz can pay who he wants for info but the Yorkshire Ripper for instance, as a convicted criminal, can't sell his story...unless in public interest cos there was say, a bent detective. Below is from PCC Code for Editors. It is not well drafted. 15 Witness payments in criminal trials i) No payment or offer of payment to a witness - or any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness - should be made in any case once proceedings are active as defined by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. EFTA00682397