So if the subs, editors and proprietors did not know, should they have known? Liars or Fools? is the question I have until now not been able to answer.
All the companies I've worked for, and businesses I have been involved in suggests to me that you should know, but its not like that in journalism and newspapers for very, very good ethical reasons. (hat tip to Tim)
One thing that struck me from yesterdays botched up show trial, was how the MPs who I suggest have very little experience of the business and corporate world (without checking) seemed to think that Rupert was the captain of the ship and thus responsible. this is a odd way of thinking how such organisations function. A better way of thinking about it is to think that News International is a battle group, and Rupert is the Admiral of the fleet,each ship has its captain, responsible for what happens on that ship. So yes Rupert has overall responsibility, but not direct responsibility. Unless of course he gave the order, which I doubt.
I have also used private detectives from time to time, and one thing you don't do is ask them their sources, not that they would tell you. I think this will be the main focus of the inquiry. Of course any direct employee of NoTW is going to be supported legally until found guilty, this is the mistake NoTW made by bringing these people inhouse.
Rupert and thus NI might come out of this very much stronger, I think the case against him and NI is weak. Vice admiral James? he is in a different place.
As said before, when the focus of all this becomes Private Eyes, the biggest can of worms in the history of the British establishment will be opened. Business spying on businesses, law firms spying on law firms, people in jail on evidence from phone hacking (if hacking it is?) the list and story will go on for years.