Tabloid phone hacking scandal involving kidnapped girl roils Britain

[Gups]

Yes; it is absolutely disgusting that they deleted messages.

Not that I can get all "up in arms" about it; the way the story will be dragged out to ensure as much publicity (and sales and advertising revenue) as possible is as much gutter journalism as any of the phone hacking that took place - EXCEPT for the message deletion, that is.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that these "latest revelations" had been known at the time the previous "revelations" in this long running saga were printed, but that the release of them was delayed to try and milk the story.

The standard of the British press these days disgusts me; even the broadsheets have devolved into an entity little better than a tabloid when it comes to a "big story" (witness the Daily Telegraph's milking of the Parliamentary Expenses scandal.)

Disagree. Milking the story is nowhere near as bad as hacking phones on private individuals (illegal) and bribing police officers (also lillegal). This differs from he Telegraph's milking of the expenses scandal, in that no paper appears to have a monopoly on the story. The news is coming in drips and drabs as individuals are contacted by the police to warn them that their phones were hacked.

The story is also being given legs by (1) advertisers pulling out from NOTW (2) the News International takeover of Sky (3) the continuing  support Brooks has from Murdoch.

This latter is interesting. Not only is it patently obvious that she knew of the hacking (it was clearly NOTW SOP) but Murdoch has actually put her in charge of the internal "investigation". Extraordinary.

Obviously New International will lose a lot of money over this, but the real hope is that some hacks and some executives, preferably including Brooks and James Murdoch spend a bit of time inside and that NI lose the Sky takeover as a result of the public outcry.

[mongers]

Yes; it is absolutely disgusting that they deleted messages.

Not that I can get all "up in arms" about it; the way the story will be dragged out to ensure as much publicity (and sales and advertising revenue) as possible is as much gutter journalism as any of the phone hacking that took place - EXCEPT for the message deletion, that is.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that these "latest revelations" had been known at the time the previous "revelations" in this long running saga were printed, but that the release of them was delayed to try and milk the story.

The standard of the British press these days disgusts me; even the broadsheets have devolved into an entity little better than a tabloid when it comes to a "big story" (witness the Daily Telegraph's milking of the Parliamentary Expenses scandal.)

Disagree. Milking the story is nowhere near as bad as hacking phones on private individuals (illegal) and bribing police officers (also lillegal). This differs from he Telegraph's milking of the expenses scandal, in that no paper appears to have a monopoly on the story. The news is coming in drips and drabs as individuals are contacted by the police to warn them that their phones were hacked.

The story is also being given legs by (1) advertisers pulling out from NOTW (2) the News International takeover of Sky (3) the continuing  support Brooks has from Murdoch.

This latter is interesting. Not only is it patently obvious that she knew of the hacking (it was clearly NOTW SOP) but Murdoch has actually put her in charge of the internal "investigation". Extraordinary.

Obviously New International will lose a lot of money over this, but the real hope is that some hacks and some executives, preferably including Brooks and James Murdoch spend a bit of time inside and that NI lose the Sky takeover as a result of the public outcry.

Indeed.

Andreas Whittam Smith: If we don't act now, worse will follow

I am going to describe how action should be swiftly taken to curb Rupert Murdoch and his newspapers now that supposition and dark suspicion have become proven fact. News International, a large and powerful media organisation, Mr Murdoch's company, systematically invades people's privacy through phone hacking, corrupts the police by making large payments to individual officers, and compromises fair trials as a result of publishing reports that are likely to prejudice juries.


It operates without restraint and has no sense of right or wrong. It doesn't yet represent the same threat to British society as the Italian mafia does to Italy. But there are sufficient similarities to tell us that if we don't act now, worse will follow. For unchecked, News International's illegal practices would grow ever more far reaching, more police officers would be suborned, more trials ruined. And more politicians would be bent to Mr Murdoch's will
......

rest of opinion here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andreas-whittam-smith/andreas-whittam-smith-if-we-dont-act-now-worse-will-follow-2307923.html

[Richard Hakluyt]

Gups is correct of course; there is a big difference between routine bad taste and complete disregard for the laws of the land.

[KRonn]

Disagree. Milking the story is nowhere near as bad as hacking phones on private individuals (illegal) and bribing police officers (also lillegal). This differs from he Telegraph's milking of the expenses scandal, in that no paper appears to have a monopoly on the story. The news is coming in drips and drabs as individuals are contacted by the police to warn them that their phones were hacked.

The story is also being given legs by (1) advertisers pulling out from NOTW (2) the News International takeover of Sky (3) the continuing  support Brooks has from Murdoch.

This latter is interesting. Not only is it patently obvious that she knew of the hacking (it was clearly NOTW SOP) but Murdoch has actually put her in charge of the internal "investigation". Extraordinary.

Obviously New International will lose a lot of money over this, but the real hope is that some hacks and some executives, preferably including Brooks and James Murdoch spend a bit of time inside and that NI lose the Sky takeover as a result of the public outcry.

Wow, these have been nasty, ugly acts these guys have been doing. They will deserve some prison time, loss of contracts, and more. Plus I have to think that some of the people having their phones hacked will pursue some hefty civil lawsuits.

[Richard Hakluyt]

News International is going to close the paper :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733

[Gups]

Wow. Really didn't see that coming.

[Agelastus]

Gups is correct of course; there is a big difference between routine bad taste and complete disregard for the laws of the land.

Since complete disregard for the laws of this land extends to the leader of the Labour Party (who demonstrated either yesterday or today that he had no understanding of the concept of "sub judice") I again state that I am nowhere near as worked up about this as the majority of people seem to be.

And somebody beat me to the "News of the World" closure...just spotted that as Breaking News on BT Yahoo...

Of course, since that leaves a gap in News International's line-up, either a "Sunday Sun" or a "New Launch" should be due within the month.

[mongers]

Wow. Really didn't see that coming.

Same here, though I still await wrongdoers being up brought to book.

[Gups]

Millipede has been hacking phones and bribing cops?

You should phone the NOTW newsdesk with revelation this good.

PS I suspect that you don't know the meaning of sub judice. Hint: a matter being investigated by the police is not sub judice. 2nd hit: Sub judice doesn't exist in any legal sense since the contempt of court act 3rd hint: statements in Parliament have privilige and cannot and never have been capable of being sub judice.

[mongers]

So the 'News Of The World' has gone tits up.

I'll get my coat. 

[Valmy]

brought to book.

Woah.  New idiom.

[The Brain]

  So much for free speech.

[mongers]

brought to book.

Woah.  New idiom.

Really, its relatively common over here.

I nearly posted "up in front of the beak", would that be new to you as well ?

[Warspite]

Wow. Really didn't see that coming.

I eagerly await the launch of the Sun on Sunday.

[Agelastus]

...

PS I suspect that you don't know the meaning of sub judice. Hint: a matter being investigated by the police is not sub judice. 2nd hit: Sub judice doesn't exist in any legal sense since the contempt of court act 3rd hint: statements in Parliament have privilige and cannot and never have been capable of being sub judice.

I would note that several civil cases are currently being heard, a journalist has been arrested back in May thus initiating one of the conditions of the act -

Under Section 2 of the Act, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there's an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons

And that while I am all to well aware of parliamentary privilege, had his demand been accepted it would have certainly been prejudicial to ongoing criminal proceedings. He's at the least an idiot for suggesting it.


-----------------------

I'm also somewhat curious as to why Wikipedia seems to feel that the concept of Sub Judice specifically no longer applies to journalists due to the Act in question, as that implies the concept still applies to anyone who is not a journalist. That doesn't make a great deal of sense to me...