Wow. Fucked up!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britain-hacking-20110706,0,2508879.story
QuoteReporting from London—
For months, Britain's scandal over scoop-hungry reporters hacking into the cellphones of celebrities and politicians drew shrugs from the general public, which viewed the affair as a rarified dispute between the rich and famous and those who write about them.
Not anymore.
Revulsion swept the nation Tuesday amid allegations that a sensationalist tabloid owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch also intercepted and tampered with voicemails left for a kidnapped 13-year-old girl whose body was later found dumped in the woods.
Britons from Prime Minister David Cameron on down declared their disgust over the accusations, the latest to hit Murdoch's weekly News of the World.
The disturbing turn in a long-running scandal has raised troubling questions about the media magnate's relationship with the British political establishment and police. It comes at a particularly sensitive time for the Australian-born Murdoch, who also operates Fox News in the U.S. and is seeking political approval to expand his already massive media empire in Britain.
News International, the British subsidiary of Murdoch's News Corp., has been scrambling for months to contain the phone-hacking affair, in part to make his bid for control over British satellite TV company BSkyB more palatable to the public.
One of Murdoch's closest confidants and senior executives, Rebekah Brooks, is now under pressure to resign over the hacking controversy. Murdoch's bid for majority ownership of BSkyB has been awaiting approval for a year from the government, amid criticism that too much power is being concentrated in the hands of a man many blame for degrading journalism, politics and public life. Those warnings have been revived by the latest revelations of phone hacking, which occurred in 2002 when Rebekah Brooks, now a senior Murdoch executive at News International, was editor of the tabloid.
The new developments heighten the pressure on both police and politicians to show greater resolve in confronting News International. Critics say the authorities have been too timid in their investigation for fear of angering Murdoch, whose business interests allow him to exert a powerful —some say baleful — influence on British society.
A News International spokesman said the company was cooperating fully with the police and would "get to the bottom" of the "very distressing allegations."
Until Tuesday, the scandal mostly involved pro athletes, political bigwigs and movie stars such as Jude Law who were among thousands of possible victims of phone hacking by Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator hired by the News of the World to ferret out information and scoops. Mulcaire and the tabloid's royal-family reporter were sent to jail in 2007 for illegally accessing private voicemails, including messages left by Princes William and Harry for their aides.
A new investigation by Scotland Yard, which was criticized for going easy on the tabloid the first time around in order to preserve its own long-cozy relationship with the paper, has resulted in the arrest of several more reporters and editors — and in the startling revelation that first began to emerge Monday evening.
In 2002, a teenager named Milly Dowler vanished in southern England, a disappearance that made national headlines and sparked a major manhunt. Her parents issued tearful pleas for her safe return, including in an interview given to the News of the World, but the 13-year-old's remains were later found in a wood. Only last month, a nightclub bouncer was convicted of her murder after a highly emotional trial.
According to the Guardian newspaper, police have discovered evidence that the News of the World hacked into Milly's voicemails after she went missing, publishing at least one story based on the information gleaned.
Making matters worse, Mulcaire allegedly deleted some of the messages to free up Milly's mailbox for more incoming calls, in the process interfering with a police investigation.
The deletions cruelly raised the Dowlers' hopes that their daughter was still alive, because they thought she had erased the messages herself. Most likely, Milly was already dead by then.
Police are now trying to determine whether the alleged hacking hampered their investigation of the kidnapping and murder, which could mean more legal woes for Mulcaire.
"This is a truly dreadful act and a truly dreadful situation," Prime Minister Cameron said Tuesday, adding that it was "quite shocking that someone could do this, actually knowing that the police were trying to find this person and trying to find out what had happened."
The Dowlers' lawyer, Mark Lewis, said the family was likely to take legal action against the News of the World. They were told of the alleged hacking in April, when the trial of Milly's killer was underway.
"Every parent's worst nightmare is happening," Lewis told the BBC. "Their daughter's been murdered, the prosecution is taking place and then they're suddenly told that there is more to come — pressure on top of pressure, relentless, relentless grief for them."
Media commentator Roy Greenslade said the new allegations have pushed the scandal onto a bigger stage, with Murdoch and News International now the target of widespread opprobrium.
"It's something which resonates with the public," Greenslade said, "unlike the previous hacking investigations into sports people and celebrities and PR agents and managers. This is something that people can identify as being an intrusion into the privacy of [ordinary] people in difficult circumstances."
In addition to public outrage, the News of the World faces tough questions as to whether Brooks, its editor at the time, knew about the alleged phone hacking.
Brooks has since been promoted to head of News International. In a statement to her staff Tuesday, she said she was "sickened" to learn that Milly's voicemails had apparently been intercepted but gave no indication she would resign, despite mounting calls for her to do so.
Besides the News of the World, Murdoch's properties include the Times of London and the Sun, Britain's bestselling tabloid, a right-wing daily whose political backing can spell success or failure for a candidate or party. That has made British politicians leery of alienating Murdoch and his subordinates.
Members of Parliament "and especially government ministers have always been running scared of Murdoch, not necessarily because of him as a person but because of the power of a media empire that has somewhere around 10 million readers a day," said Mike Jempson, the head of MediaWise, an organization that promotes media ethics. "They have put all their efforts into currying favor rather than expecting more transparency and more responsibility from his papers."
To critics, Murdoch's British publications have demeaned public discourse through such practices as paying for information, setting up stings or traps (complete with hidden microphones and cameras) of public figures, running prurient stories and pandering to the lowest common denominator. Although some other journals also indulge in the same practices, Murdoch's lead the way, critics say.
"He sets the climate, and the climate is one of 'obtain your exclusives, obtain your stories to sell more newspapers through any means possible,'" said Greenslade.
News International is now trying to reduce the fallout by persuading hacking victims who have sued the company to forgo trial and accept a financial settlement. Actress Sienna Miller, one of the highest-profile targets, accepted a formal apology from the company and $160,000 in damages last month.
The hacking scandal has become a major headache for Cameron, the British leader. His former communications director, Andy Coulson, stepped down this year after reporters began raising questions about his tenure as the News of the World's editor when Mulcaire and the royal-family reporter were jailed in 2007.
Cameron is also a personal friend of Brooks, who invited him to her home near Oxford over Christmas.
His government is still expected to approve the sale to Murdoch of BSkyB as long as the respected Sky News network is spun off to help it maintain its editorial independence. The government says the hacking controversy cannot be taken into account in its decision of whether Murdoch's purchase of BSkyB is permissible because the question is purely one of diversity of media ownership, not of moral suitability.
Ed Miliband, the leader of the opposition Labor Party, agrees that the two issues are separate. But he called Tuesday for a judicial inquiry into the hacking scandal to find out how it happened and to prevent a recurrence.
"This is the very least that is needed to restore the reputation of British journalism," Miliband told Sky News. "People will be asking where have we got to, that that was thought to be an acceptable way for parts of the British press to operate?"
Sic semper scriptoris.
Quote"This is the very least that is needed to restore the reputation of British journalism,"
:hmm:
I read about it. I hope the ensuing witchhunt also takes down that editor.
The reputation of British journalism would seem to be secure with these revelations :hmm:
Turns out they also hacked the phones of relatives of those killed on the 7 July attacks.
I gather they basically hacked every time there was a big crime. So there will be a story a day for weeks.
Unbelievably that Wade is claiming she knew nothing about it. I really hope to see some hacks and editors getting a few years inside for these.
Oh, and Coulson apparently bribed the police.
Journalists being filthy scum. A very surprising and disturbing turn of events. They are typically so full of integrity. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And fuck it! I can't read what Miliband is saying without hearing his newscaster voice in my head, repeating himself over and over and over and over and over. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 06, 2011, 02:34:07 AM
The reputation of British journalism would seem to be secure with these revelations :hmm:
LOL no kidding. The reputation would be threatened if journalists suddenly started to report in an unbiased manner, while giving out 10% of their salaries to the poor and helping old ladies across the street.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 04:16:11 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 06, 2011, 02:34:07 AM
The reputation of British journalism would seem to be secure with these revelations :hmm:
LOL no kidding. The reputation would be threatened if journalists suddenly started to report in an unbiased manner, while giving out 10% of their salaries to the poor and helping old ladies across the street.
Helping them with what?
Quote from: Gups on July 06, 2011, 03:33:33 AM
Turns out they also hacked the phones of relatives of those killed on the 7 July attacks.
I gather they basically hacked every time there was a big crime. So there will be a story a day for weeks.
Unbelievably that Wade is claiming she knew nothing about it. I really hope to see some hacks and editors getting a few years inside for these.
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. :tinfoil: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.)
You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God! the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to.
Hacking the phones of dead soldiers. Classy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43662862/ns/technology_and_science-security/
This is getting quite shocking.
Would be nice to see Murdoch took down a peg or two...
Doubt it'll happen though. He owns the politicians. :(
Quote from: Agelastus on July 06, 2011, 02:48:16 PM
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. :tinfoil:
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.
Quote from: Gups on July 07, 2011, 07:34:00 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 06, 2011, 02:48:16 PM
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. :tinfoil:
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.
QuoteAndreas 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 (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andreas-whittam-smith/andreas-whittam-smith-if-we-dont-act-now-worse-will-follow-2307923.html)
Gups is correct of course; there is a big difference between routine bad taste and complete disregard for the laws of the land.
Quote from: Gups on July 07, 2011, 07:34:00 AM
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.
News International is going to close the paper :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733
Wow. Really didn't see that coming.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 07, 2011, 10:20:24 AM
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... :glare:
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.
Quote from: Gups on July 07, 2011, 10:55:33 AM
Wow. Really didn't see that coming.
Same here, though I still await wrongdoers being up brought to book.
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.
So the 'News Of The World' has gone tits up.
I'll get my coat. :blush:
:rolleyes: So much for free speech.
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2011, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: mongers on July 07, 2011, 11:07:44 AM
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 ?
Quote from: Gups on July 07, 2011, 10:55:33 AM
Wow. Really didn't see that coming.
I eagerly await the launch of the
Sun on Sunday.
Quote from: Gups on July 07, 2011, 11:07:50 AM
...
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 -
QuoteUnder 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... :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on July 07, 2011, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2011, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: mongers on July 07, 2011, 11:07:44 AM
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 ?
That one is obsolete, however, unlike "brought to book".
The News of the World is the UK's biggest selling newspaper and has been in circulation for 168 years.
Such a big seller newspaper, and a long standing one too. Bunch of of idiotic and scandalous owners to bring it to its knees like this.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 07, 2011, 11:29:54 AM
:)
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 -
QuoteUnder 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.
A public inquiry is not a media report. Public inquiries and criminal proceedings co-exist frequently - Lockerbie, Hillsborough, Brixton riots etc etc.
Quote from: KRonn on July 07, 2011, 11:32:26 AM
The News of the World is the UK's biggest selling newspaper and has been in circulation for 168 years.
Such a big seller newspaper, and a long standing one too. Bunch of of idiotic and scandalous owners to bring it to its knees like this.
It's been shit for decades though, even before Murdoch took it over.
Quote from: Gups on July 07, 2011, 11:36:34 AM
A public inquiry is not a media report. Public inquiries and criminal proceedings co-exist frequently - Lockerbie, Hillsborough, Brixton riots etc etc.
All of your examples being inquiries that considered extraneous issues as much as any actual criminal issues involved (why as much as who.) What extraneous issues is a public inquiry into criminal phone tapping going to study?
Quote from: Agelastus on July 07, 2011, 11:41:07 AM
Quote from: Gups on July 07, 2011, 11:36:34 AM
A public inquiry is not a media report. Public inquiries and criminal proceedings co-exist frequently - Lockerbie, Hillsborough, Brixton riots etc etc.
All of your examples being inquiries that considered extraneous issues as much as any actual criminal issues involved (why as much as who.) What extraneous issues is a public inquiry into criminal phone tapping going to study?
From the Guardian
QuoteThe prime minister told MPs on Wednesday that there may be more than one public inquiry into the affair – dealing with the police investigation and media behaviour. He is believed to be in dispute behind the scenes with his deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, who has called for a judge to preside over at least one of the inquiries.
Miliband made the case for just one public inquiry to be conducted, led by a judge, with powers to compel witnesses and a remit that covered all the main issues to do with newspaper industry practices and the relationship between the police and newspapers.
QuoteThe BBC has reported that the URL TheSunOnSunday.co.uk (and .com) were registered two days ago by an unknown company.
What a stunner... :hmm:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/news-of-the-world-to-close-down.html
What if Murdoch buys Languish and publishes a Best Of... every Sunday?
Quote from: Gups on July 07, 2011, 11:49:50 AM
From the Guardian
QuoteThe prime minister told MPs on Wednesday that there may be more than one public inquiry into the affair – dealing with the police investigation and media behaviour. He is believed to be in dispute behind the scenes with his deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, who has called for a judge to preside over at least one of the inquiries.
Miliband made the case for just one public inquiry to be conducted, led by a judge, with powers to compel witnesses and a remit that covered all the main issues to do with newspaper industry practices and the relationship between the police and newspapers.
:sigh:
So Labour still believe in the "one big one" model...maximum possible remit, maximum possible length, maximum possible waste of public money...nothing ever changes...
Seriously, Gups, do you actually think a Public inquiry is even remotely necessary?
Haven't really thought about it, but it seems likely that one inquiry would be cheaper than two. Not sure why your picking on the hapless Milliband rather than the coalition since every party seems to want an inquiry.
In any event asking for one is not sub judice!
I do think newspapers need a good kicking. I'd like a replacement to the toothless PCC as part of an overall reform of libel laws.
I also think there should be reform of how criminal investigations and trials are reported and about the relationship between the press and the police generally.
Quote from: Gups on July 07, 2011, 12:09:54 PM
In any event asking for one is not sub judice!
Don't start implying that "complete disregard for the laws of this land" does not extend "to the leader of the Labour Party!" That would make Agelastus's comment hysterical nonsense, and we know he is incapable of that.
I really hope the authorities get their fingers out and move quickly on this. Murdoch is walking right on the edge of the law to try and cover his tracks whilst the police drag their heels.
Apparently closing down the News of the World so quickly is so he is free to destroy their records.
http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2011/07/07/is-murdoch-free-to-destroy-tabloids-records/
QuoteIs Murdoch free to destroy tabloid's records?
Here's some News of the World news to spin the heads of American lawyers. According to British media law star Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (whom The Times of London has dubbed "Mr Media"), Rupert Murdoch's soon-to-be shuttered tabloid may not be obliged to retain documents that could be relevant to civil and criminal claims against the newspaper—even in cases that are already underway. That could mean that dozens of sports, media, and political celebrities who claim News of the World hacked into their telephone accounts won't be able to find out exactly what the tabloid knew and how it got the information.
If News of the World is to be liquidated, Stephens told Reuters, it "is a stroke of genius—perhaps evil genius."
Under British law, Stephens explained, all of the assets of the shuttered newspaper, including its records, will be transferred to a professional liquidator (such as a global accounting firm). The liquidator's obligation is to maximize the estate's assets and minimize its liabilities. So the liquidator could be well within its discretion to decide News of the World would be best served by defaulting on pending claims rather than defending them. That way, the paper could simply destroy its documents to avoid the cost of warehousing them—and to preclude any other time bombs contained in News of the World's records from exploding.
"Why would the liquidator want to keep [the records]?" Stephens said. "Minimizing liability is the liquidator's job."
That's a very different scenario, Stephens said, from what would happen if a newspaper in the U.S. went into bankruptcy. In the U.S., a plaintiff (or, for that matter, a criminal investigator) could obtain a court order barring that kind of document destruction. In the U.K., there's no requirement that the estate retain its records, nor any law granting plaintiffs a right to stop the liquidator from getting rid of them.
Wow, that's amazing. I can't believe that issue hasn't been addressed by Parliament before now.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 07, 2011, 06:53:58 PM
Wow, that's amazing. I can't believe that issue hasn't been addressed by Parliament before now.
Why would it have been?
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 01:21:54 PM
Quote from: Gups on July 07, 2011, 12:09:54 PM
In any event asking for one is not sub judice!
Don't start implying that "complete disregard for the laws of this land" does not extend "to the leader of the Labour Party!" That would make Agelastus's comment hysterical nonsense, and we know he is incapable of that.
:zzz
Dear boy, you really need to come up with some new material...
Gups, is that thing about the liquidators accurate?
Quote from: Gups on July 07, 2011, 12:09:54 PM
Haven't really thought about it, but it seems likely that one inquiry would be cheaper than two.
That would depend entirely on the terms of reference; multiple inquiries would have clearly limited remits. That's not what Milliband is calling for.
Quote from: Gups on July 07, 2011, 12:09:54 PMNot sure why your picking on the hapless Milliband rather than the coalition since every party seems to want an inquiry.
I feel sorry for the Liberal Democrats these days; they're trying their hardest to prove Coalitions work to the British electorate and half their voters have abandoned them. They don't get a free pass from me (I still can't stick most of their policies) but they've always stood for electoral reform that would lead to more coalitions, yet the first time they enter one their own voters cry foul!!! It'd make me weep if I'd actually had a smidgeon more faith in the British electorate.
And I don't think Cameron wants an inquiry anyway; he's being pushed into it by his Coalition partners and the way these latest allegations seem to be causing a genuine stir (as the previous two or three or more sets of allegations didn't.) Don't forget he himself could catch more political fallout due to Andy Coulson if this issue drags on.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 07, 2011, 11:30:49 AM
Quote from: mongers on July 07, 2011, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 07, 2011, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: mongers on July 07, 2011, 11:07:44 AM
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 ?
That one is obsolete, however, unlike "brought to book".
I've heard the expression "brought to book" before. Never thought of it as particularly British, just really archaic.
I've never heard "up in front of the beak".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 07, 2011, 07:34:55 PM
Gups, is that thing about the liquidators accurate?
Almost certainly not. AFAIK NOTW is not an individual company, it is owned by New International, which is not being liquidated. If it was a company it couldn't be dissolved as easily as all that.
Mark Stephens (who I've crossed swords with on quite a few occasions, you may recall that he was Julian Assange's solicitor) is talking out of his arse as usual. He's a libel/media lawyer. I doubt he knows the first think about insolvency law.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 07, 2011, 07:33:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 07, 2011, 01:21:54 PM
Quote from: Gups on July 07, 2011, 12:09:54 PM
In any event asking for one is not sub judice!
Don't start implying that "complete disregard for the laws of this land" does not extend "to the leader of the Labour Party!" That would make Agelastus's comment hysterical nonsense, and we know he is incapable of that.
:zzz
Dear boy...
The last time someone called Grumbler "dear boy" was by a man with a fine beard who constantly talked about how proud he was of his young mentee for having voluntered to fight on the new wall of wood. And that he looked forward to initiating Grumbler to manhood.
Quote from: Octavian on July 08, 2011, 02:27:33 AM
...of his young mentee for having voluntered to fight on the new wall of wood...
:D
I actually had to look up mentee in a dictionary; bravo good sir! :hug:
Oh, and Andy Coulson's been arrested.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/notw-closes-ex-editor-arrested-055104409.html
Some observations.
This "phone hacking" basically involves you knowing someone's mobile phone number and guessing their voicemail password. It's usually still set to the carrier's default, which is usually something like 1111. Did you know you can dial into your voicemail from anywhere? No, why would you, it's a MOBILE phone right? Find out how to do it and disable it or reset your password.
There are now 200 journalists on an already overfull job market, not to mention associated sales and administrative teams, 95% of whom had nothing to do with the phone hacking scandal nor knew anything about it.
The best thing Rebekah Brooks ever did was to beat up Ross Kemp. Not that I'm not jealous that she's the same age as me and at the very heights of journalism.
Anyone prepared to place a bet that "The Sun On Sunday" will launch within two months? The domain name was taken two days ago.
Though The Sun has copped some flack, no-one seems to be suggesting the public boycotts News International's other publications. The Times, anyone? Same leadership and shared stories from shared sources.
I wouldn't say Brooks is at the very heights of journalism. I think she'll be arrested soon.
There are lots of people saying that NI shoudl be boycotted, including sky (though nobody ever suggests boycotting Random House for some reason). I myself am taking the hugely principled stance of cancelling my subcription the very instant the cricket season is over.
I've been boycotting their stuff for years........and another thing, England's test series should be broadcast by the BBC.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 07, 2011, 07:33:46 PM
Dear boy, you really need to come up with some new material...
Grandpa, as long as you keep making new silly statements, I have all the new material I need. :bowler:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 08, 2011, 08:46:25 AM
I've been boycotting their stuff for years........and another thing, England's test series should be broadcast by the BBC.
They should, but they aren't. That's down to the BBC as much as anyone else.
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2011, 08:52:30 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 07, 2011, 07:33:46 PM
Dear boy, you really need to come up with some new material...
Grandpa, as long as you keep making new silly statements, I have all the new material I need. :bowler:
:bowler: ????
Besides, I'm not Clive Dunn... :P
Quote from: Brazen on July 08, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
This "phone hacking" basically involves you knowing someone's mobile phone number and guessing their voicemail password. It's usually still set to the carrier's default, which is usually something like 1111. Did you know you can dial into your voicemail from anywhere? No, why would you, it's a MOBILE phone right? Find out how to do it and disable it or reset your password.
Actually, I've never owned a mobile and yet I did know that...does that make me odd?
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 08, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
This "phone hacking" basically involves you knowing someone's mobile phone number and guessing their voicemail password. It's usually still set to the carrier's default, which is usually something like 1111. Did you know you can dial into your voicemail from anywhere? No, why would you, it's a MOBILE phone right? Find out how to do it and disable it or reset your password.
Actually, I've never owned a mobile and yet I did know that...does that make me odd?
No, it's your fascination with anime that makes you odd.
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:38:36 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 08, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
This "phone hacking" basically involves you knowing someone's mobile phone number and guessing their voicemail password. It's usually still set to the carrier's default, which is usually something like 1111. Did you know you can dial into your voicemail from anywhere? No, why would you, it's a MOBILE phone right? Find out how to do it and disable it or reset your password.
Actually, I've never owned a mobile and yet I did know that...does that make me odd?
No, it's your fascination with anime that makes you odd.
I don't make fun of your fascination with Curling, do I? :(
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:45:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:38:36 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 08, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
This "phone hacking" basically involves you knowing someone's mobile phone number and guessing their voicemail password. It's usually still set to the carrier's default, which is usually something like 1111. Did you know you can dial into your voicemail from anywhere? No, why would you, it's a MOBILE phone right? Find out how to do it and disable it or reset your password.
Actually, I've never owned a mobile and yet I did know that...does that make me odd?
No, it's your fascination with anime that makes you odd.
I don't make fun of your fascination with Curling, do I? :(
Why not? Everyone else does. :scots:
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:51:15 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:45:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:38:36 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 08, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
This "phone hacking" basically involves you knowing someone's mobile phone number and guessing their voicemail password. It's usually still set to the carrier's default, which is usually something like 1111. Did you know you can dial into your voicemail from anywhere? No, why would you, it's a MOBILE phone right? Find out how to do it and disable it or reset your password.
Actually, I've never owned a mobile and yet I did know that...does that make me odd?
No, it's your fascination with anime that makes you odd.
I don't make fun of your fascination with Curling, do I? :(
Why not? Everyone else does. :scots:
I have Scottish inlaws.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 12:00:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:51:15 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:45:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:38:36 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 08, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
This "phone hacking" basically involves you knowing someone's mobile phone number and guessing their voicemail password. It's usually still set to the carrier's default, which is usually something like 1111. Did you know you can dial into your voicemail from anywhere? No, why would you, it's a MOBILE phone right? Find out how to do it and disable it or reset your password.
Actually, I've never owned a mobile and yet I did know that...does that make me odd?
No, it's your fascination with anime that makes you odd.
I don't make fun of your fascination with Curling, do I? :(
Why not? Everyone else does. :scots:
I have Scottish inlaws.
You're married? I did not know that.
Do your inlaws curl? :scots:
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:51:15 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:45:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:38:36 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 08, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
This "phone hacking" basically involves you knowing someone's mobile phone number and guessing their voicemail password. It's usually still set to the carrier's default, which is usually something like 1111. Did you know you can dial into your voicemail from anywhere? No, why would you, it's a MOBILE phone right? Find out how to do it and disable it or reset your password.
Actually, I've never owned a mobile and yet I did know that...does that make me odd?
No, it's your fascination with anime that makes you odd.
I don't make fun of your fascination with Curling, do I? :(
Why not? Everyone else does. :scots:
eh! I resent that. I love curling. Hell, I have curling game for my DS.
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 12:04:03 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 12:00:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:51:15 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:45:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:38:36 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 08, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
This "phone hacking" basically involves you knowing someone's mobile phone number and guessing their voicemail password. It's usually still set to the carrier's default, which is usually something like 1111. Did you know you can dial into your voicemail from anywhere? No, why would you, it's a MOBILE phone right? Find out how to do it and disable it or reset your password.
Actually, I've never owned a mobile and yet I did know that...does that make me odd?
No, it's your fascination with anime that makes you odd.
I don't make fun of your fascination with Curling, do I? :(
Why not? Everyone else does. :scots:
I have Scottish inlaws.
You're married? I did not know that.
Do your inlaws curl? :scots:
Sloppy word choice on my part; having just checked it appears my extended family uses the term more extensively than is actually correct. The Scots in question are related by marriage to me via two sisters of my grandmother. My family have lived within a few miles of Corby (and it's Scottish ex-steelworkers) for over a century.
I know they drink a lot more than me; the curling I'm not so sure about.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 08, 2011, 12:04:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:51:15 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:45:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 11:38:36 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on July 08, 2011, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 08, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
This "phone hacking" basically involves you knowing someone's mobile phone number and guessing their voicemail password. It's usually still set to the carrier's default, which is usually something like 1111. Did you know you can dial into your voicemail from anywhere? No, why would you, it's a MOBILE phone right? Find out how to do it and disable it or reset your password.
Actually, I've never owned a mobile and yet I did know that...does that make me odd?
No, it's your fascination with anime that makes you odd.
I don't make fun of your fascination with Curling, do I? :(
Why not? Everyone else does. :scots:
eh! I resent that. I love curling. Hell, I have curling game for my DS.
You should try playing the real thing some time. :scots: It's one of the cheapest sports going in terms of ice time and equipment - all you need is a broom and a peice of teflon.
I'd love to take up curling. The nearest club is over an hour away though.
Curling is eminently more respectable then anime.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2011, 12:48:32 PM
Curling is eminently more respectable then anime.
Though not Norwegian curlers. <_<
http://www.facebook.com/NOCTP
Quote from: Barrister on July 08, 2011, 12:51:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2011, 12:48:32 PM
Curling is eminently more respectable then anime.
Though not Norwegian curlers. <_<
http://www.facebook.com/NOCTP
I think both sides of the anime issue would agree with you there. :lol:
The Guardian says James Murdoch and others could end up being prosecuted in the US as well. News of the World is apparently owned by US listed News Corp. If the allegations of bribing police officers for leads are true, that would mean News Corp have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/08/james-murdoch-criminal-charges-phone-hacking
(sorry to derail the curling discussion)
Btw, I heard the opinion voiced by some that this is all smoke and mirrors, since they were planning to close down NOTW (to pave the way for the Sun on Sunday) for some time.
Quote from: Brazen on July 08, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
There are now 200 journalists on an already overfull job market, not to mention associated sales and administrative teams, 95% of whom had nothing to do with the phone hacking scandal nor knew anything about it.
That could be said about employees of Arthur Andersen or Enron, too. It's a pity but I'd rather see the world perish than justice not being done.
Not to mention, unlike Arthur Andersen, NOTW was not exactly a shining example of integrity or high class journalism, even without the hacking scandal. If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. I won't be shedding tears for these people.
Quote from: Martinus on July 09, 2011, 02:19:08 AM
Btw, I heard the opinion voiced by some that this is all smoke and mirrors, since they were planning to close down NOTW (to pave the way for the Sun on Sunday) for some time.
That's not going to work for them.
Quote from: Brazen on July 08, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
This "phone hacking" basically involves you knowing someone's mobile phone number and guessing their voicemail password. It's usually still set to the carrier's default, which is usually something like 1111. Did you know you can dial into your voicemail from anywhere? No, why would you, it's a MOBILE phone right? Find out how to do it and disable it or reset your password.
Actually, if you have voicemail set up with a land-line phone, you can hack into it the same way. The only difference is that, as you point out, with a cell phone, most people wouldn't know that you can call and check your voicemail from a different number (because, after all, as you said, why would you do that) whereas with a land-line, people who have one wiith voicemail would know that you can check if from another phone.
Quote from: Martinus on July 09, 2011, 02:19:08 AM
Btw, I heard the opinion voiced by some that this is all smoke and mirrors, since they were planning to close down NOTW (to pave the way for the Sun on Sunday) for some time.
Damage control. Spinning off a corrupt subsidiary reflects so badly on the selling owners that no sane organization should try it. I love the interpretation where Murdoch's "I didn't know what was going on" doesn't seem to be enough of a defense to grant immunity from prosecution- the statement isn't reliable since he "misled" Parliament, and if he had some idea, it sounds like a very real possibility that he was simply turning a blind eye to the practice.
Quote from: Brazen on July 08, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
Some observations.
This "phone hacking" basically involves you knowing someone's mobile phone number and guessing their voicemail password. It's usually still set to the carrier's default, which is usually something like 1111. Did you know you can dial into your voicemail from anywhere? No, why would you, it's a MOBILE phone right? Find out how to do it and disable it or reset your password.
There are now 200 journalists on an already overfull job market, not to mention associated sales and administrative teams, 95% of whom had nothing to do with the phone hacking scandal nor knew anything about it.
The best thing Rebekah Brooks ever did was to beat up Ross Kemp. Not that I'm not jealous that she's the same age as me and at the very heights of journalism.
Anyone prepared to place a bet that "The Sun On Sunday" will launch within two months? The domain name was taken two days ago.
Though The Sun has copped some flack, no-one seems to be suggesting the public boycotts News International's other publications. The Times, anyone? Same leadership and shared stories from shared sources.
I'm sympathetic, but at the same time, you can't turn a blind eye to practices that far outside the domain of what's acceptable; this would be the expected outcome in the US- I worked for a company that was dissolved after the CEO embezzled $83m of venture capital- we weren't pissed at the justice system for catching up with him; we were pissed at the moron by snorting up the cash on a drugs'n'hookers binge.
Quote from: Martinus on July 09, 2011, 02:19:08 AM
Btw, I heard the opinion voiced by some that this is all smoke and mirrors, since they were planning to close down NOTW (to pave the way for the Sun on Sunday) for some time.
This must be one of those things that only make sense to Poles.
I hear some advertisers have pulled out of the company full stop.
Which is nice.
Quote from: Martinus on July 09, 2011, 02:19:08 AM
Btw, I heard the opinion voiced by some that this is all smoke and mirrors, since they were planning to close down NOTW (to pave the way for the Sun on Sunday) for some time.
I believe it has been something that has frequently been muttered about yeah, unifying their brands.
But it has always been one of those things where there was a lot of talk and what ifs posited but no actual movement towards doing it.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2011, 10:22:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 09, 2011, 02:19:08 AM
Btw, I heard the opinion voiced by some that this is all smoke and mirrors, since they were planning to close down NOTW (to pave the way for the Sun on Sunday) for some time.
This must be one of those things that only make sense to Poles.
What the fuck is your problem? Why are you stalking me, responding with some shit like that to almost every post I make? Can you go and off yourself you fat crazy fuck?
Quote from: Martinus on July 09, 2011, 11:13:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2011, 10:22:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 09, 2011, 02:19:08 AM
Btw, I heard the opinion voiced by some that this is all smoke and mirrors, since they were planning to close down NOTW (to pave the way for the Sun on Sunday) for some time.
This must be one of those things that only make sense to Poles.
What the fuck is your problem? Why are you stalking me, responding with some shit like that to almost every post I make? Can you go and off yourself you fat crazy fuck?
I only notice you and respond to your posts when you say stupid things. Unfortunately that means I respond to "almost every post" you make.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shepardworld.us%2Fshep%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F02%2FJoker-popcorn.gif&hash=df342120d20d0755615eee2a4670a5ec8b40b758)
Is Raz fatter than Martinus?
It's The Sun What Did It:
http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=sunonsunday.co.uk&WHOIS+Submit.x=0&WHOIS+Submit.y=0 (http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=sunonsunday.co.uk&WHOIS+Submit.x=0&WHOIS+Submit.y=0)
Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2011, 11:23:19 AM
I only notice you and respond to your posts when you say stupid things. Unfortunately that means I respond to "almost every post" you make.
What he said there wasn't stupid at all.
Quote from: mongers on July 09, 2011, 03:02:21 PM
It's The Sun What Did It:
http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=sunonsunday.co.uk&WHOIS+Submit.x=0&WHOIS+Submit.y=0 (http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=sunonsunday.co.uk&WHOIS+Submit.x=0&WHOIS+Submit.y=0)
So, since this URL has now been referred to by myself, Brazen and now Mongers, I think we can be fairly sure that the "Sun on Sunday" is due for launch within the next couple of weeks.
Probably with a large proportion of ex-NoTW staffers on the payroll.
Quote from: Brazen on July 08, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
The best thing Rebekah Brooks ever did was to beat up Ross Kemp. Not that I'm not jealous that she's the same age as me and at the very heights of journalism.
Chris Bryant says he met them at an event, while they were still together. Brooks said 'shouldn't you be on Clapham Common at this time of night?'. Ross Kemp turned to her and said 'shut up you homophobic cow.' Happy marriage :mellow:
This won't stop here. All the tabloids have been at it to some degree. The Guardian have done an incredible job.
On the other hand in a weird way this has brought out everything I love about the British press. The feral moral indignation mixed with commercial self-interest is just a sight to behold.
I can't wait for the death of tabloid/Murdoch newspaper's influence on UK elections; then all we're have to cope with is Facebook and googles emerging political muscle. :hmm:
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2011, 03:07:22 PM
What he said there wasn't stupid at all.
What Marty said didn't make a lot of sense and Raz is stalking him.
Smoke and mirrors suggests Murdoch engineered the phone hackery to have an excuse to close the Mirror. If by smoke and mirrors Marty meant this scandal served to hasten a move Murdoch was going to make anyway for other reasons, then that's a misuse of smoke and mirrors.
Quote from: mongers on July 09, 2011, 03:33:45 PM
I can't wait for the death of tabloid/Murdoch newspaper's influence on UK elections; then all we're have to cope with is Facebook and googles emerging political muscle. :hmm:
But...but...then voters would have to pay attention to facts and make up their own mind! :o
Who will tell them what to get angry about then?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2011, 04:06:00 PM
...an excuse to close the Mirror.
Careful Yi; could this be your political biases showing?
Quote from: Agelastus on July 09, 2011, 04:35:48 PM
Careful Yi; could this be your political biases showing?
More likely my ignorance.
Quote from: mongers on July 09, 2011, 03:33:45 PM
I can't wait for the death of tabloid/Murdoch newspaper's influence on UK elections; then all we're have to cope with is Facebook and googles emerging political muscle. :hmm:
So you want the average educational and intelligence quotient of the media (in the most general meaning of this term) sources that effect the outcome of British elections to decline even further?
Besides, the influence of the tabloids on UK elections is overstated; their average readerships are the voters least likely to change party affiliation at a general election.
Epic Headline :lol:
http://jonslattery.blogspot.com/2011/07/was-this-news-of-worlds-best-headline.html
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2011, 03:07:22 PM
What he said there wasn't stupid at all.
"I heard the opinion voiced by some" isn't exactly deathless prose. I follow Napoleon's adage and don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2011, 03:07:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2011, 11:23:19 AM
I only notice you and respond to your posts when you say stupid things. Unfortunately that means I respond to "almost every post" you make.
What he said there wasn't stupid at all.
It doesn't make sense. Newscorp discrediting itself (and ruining the careers of some it's top employees) to facilitate the replacement of one of their newspapers by another one doesn't make any sense. If Newscorp wanted to replace one paper with another they could just do so. No need to embarrass themselves while doing it. Fabricating a scandal to embarrass themselves just makes no sense.
Very good point Raz. I wish I could have thought of that. :P
Bleh.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 10, 2011, 12:55:42 PM
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2011, 03:07:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2011, 11:23:19 AM
I only notice you and respond to your posts when you say stupid things. Unfortunately that means I respond to "almost every post" you make.
What he said there wasn't stupid at all.
It doesn't make sense. Newscorp discrediting itself (and ruining the careers of some it's top employees) to facilitate the replacement of one of their newspapers by another one doesn't make any sense. If Newscorp wanted to replace one paper with another they could just do so. No need to embarrass themselves while doing it. Fabricating a scandal to embarrass themselves just makes no sense.
I didn't say they engineered the scandal, you tard. But that them axing the tabloid was already planned, so it is hardly an act of contrition they purport it to be.
Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2011, 01:24:08 PM
I didn't say they engineered the scandal, you tard. But that them axing the tabloid was already planned, so it is hardly an act of contrition they purport it to be.
I'd say the "tard" in this case is the bozo who used the idiom "smoke and mirrors" without understanding what it meant. What you are describing isn't "smoke and mirrors" at all. Please keep in mind that the misuse of idioms is
the classic symptom of tardness. :bowler:
You're an idiom. Stat.
Quote from: grumbler on July 10, 2011, 02:05:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 10, 2011, 01:24:08 PM
I didn't say they engineered the scandal, you tard. But that them axing the tabloid was already planned, so it is hardly an act of contrition they purport it to be.
I'd say the "tard" in this case is the bozo who used the idiom "smoke and mirrors" without understanding what it meant. What you are describing isn't "smoke and mirrors" at all. Please keep in mind that the misuse of idioms is the classic symptom of tardness. :bowler:
I'm reminded of the time when Marty speculated that framing your self for rape was a good political move.
QuoteIt wouldn't actually be such a bad idea for him to actually pay a woman to accuse him of rape, only so that later on she admits someone hired her to do so - knowing the French, if it turns out DSK is a victim of a plot, he could very well succeed in his bid for the Presidency.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=5140.msg261125#msg261125
Both are good examples of conspiratorial thinking you seen the East.
QuoteRebekah Brooks Savaged In Final News Of The World Crossword Clues
Even as Rebekah Brooks, the embattled head of Rupert Murdoch's British newspaper division, arrived at his London residence on Sunday afternoon, signs were everywhere that her former employees want to see her forced out of power.
One big sign? The final crossword puzzle in the News of the World, which was shut down thanks to the phone hacking scandal that has plunged Murdoch's News International into one of its gravest crises ever. Some very fishy clues managed to sneak their way past the editors (or, rather, managed to sneak their way in with the consent of the editors).
Some of the clues in the paper's Quickie crossword include "Brook," "stink" and "catastrophe."
Another crossword included the clues "criminal enterprise" and "string of recordings," which could reference both the hacking scandal and the leaked recordings of Brooks' chat with News of the World staffers. There was also "woman stares wildly at calamity." The answer to that particular clue? "Disaster." Other answers included "menace," "deplored," "stench" and "tart."
Moreover, The Guardian spotted a rather direct attack on Brooks that was posted in the Irish offices of the News of the World: a picture of her head on Adolf Hitler's body, complete with drawn-on Hitler mustache.
Even with all of the ire directed towards her, Brooks is still running News International. Murdoch professed his "total" support for her just before he flew to London to meet with her, and emerged from his residence on Sunday with his arm around her. Meanwhile, the hacking scandal shows no signs of diminishing.
Pawned. :lol: Apparently, she had Sun journalists comb the edition for any "hidden messages" but they missed the word puzzles. :P
The most recent allegations encompase The Sunday Times and The Sun as well; apparently they gained access to the medical records of one or more of former-PM Brown's children, sickening.
edit:
Apparently this illegal behaviour might be the source for The Sun revealing in 2006 that Brown's son had cystic fibrosis.
Quote from: mongers on July 11, 2011, 03:54:49 PM
The most recent allegations encompase The Sunday Times and The Sun as well; apparently they gained access to the medical records of one or more of former-PM Brown's children, sickening.
edit:
Apparently this illegal behaviour might be the source for The Sun revealing in 2006 that Brown's son haq cystic fibrosis.
Can we expect to see Rebekah Brooks hang for this (figuratively at least)? It seems like the rot has eaten through pretty much the entire Murdoch's empire in the UK and I expect the British public is calling for blood.
Quote from: mongers on July 11, 2011, 03:54:49 PM
The most recent allegations encompase The Sunday Times and The Sun as well; apparently they gained access to the medical records of one or more of former-PM Brown's children, sickening.
edit:
Apparently this illegal behaviour might be the source for The Sun revealing in 2006 that Brown's son had cystic fibrosis.
That's just fucked up! :yuk:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 11, 2011, 06:30:39 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 11, 2011, 03:54:49 PM
The most recent allegations encompase The Sunday Times and The Sun as well; apparently they gained access to the medical records of one or more of former-PM Brown's children, sickening.
edit:
Apparently this illegal behaviour might be the source for The Sun revealing in 2006 that Brown's son had cystic fibrosis.
That's just fucked up! :yuk:
Yes, more here on the allegations:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-14112097 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-14112097)
including this:
Quote
.....
On the reports on Fraser Brown having cystic fibrosis, the Brown family believe only medical staff treating their son had access to the records, and are worried they may have been accessed illegally.
A well-placed source has told the BBC that in 2006 when she was editor of the Sun, Rebekah Brooks called the Browns to inform them she knew that their son Fraser had the condition.
Friends of the Browns say the call caused them immense distress, since they were only coming to terms with the diagnosis, which had not been confirmed.
.....
When it rains, it pours.
:zzz
One thing that should be borne in mind is that Murdoch and his companies have been despised by a section of the British public for years. For example, I have refused to buy any of his products for decades, not caring to subsidise activities which I consider to be detrimental to the political health of the UK. These "revelations" confirm that the suspicions of this group were correct.
There are two other groups whose reactions are of far more importance. The general (and apolitical) public may be sufficiently disgusted to turn on Murdoch and his companies; I doubt this, they have the attention-span of an autistic hamster. The other group is the political elite which have crawled to Murdoch in order to get his support in that part of the media he controls. I think that they may maintain solidarity and give him a good kicking, apart from anything else it diverts attention fron their shortcomings and gives them a chance to be sanctimonious...................of course they may have supped with the devil to an extent that precludes such attacks :hmm:
Quote• Scotland Yard has discovered references to Brown and his wife, Sarah, in paperwork seized from Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator who specialised in phone hacking for the News of the World.
• Abbey National bank found evidence suggesting that a "blagger" acting for the Sunday Times on six occasions posed as Brown and gained details from his account.
• London lawyers Allen & Overy were tricked into handing over details from his file by a conman working for the Sunday Times.
• Details from his infant son's medical records were obtained by the Sun, who published a story about the child's serious illness.
Summary of the Brown material. It's important for a number of reasons - it's not just phone hacking, it's by the Sun and the Sunday Times, not the NOTW and Brooks is directly implicated to the extent that any last vestiges of plausibility in her denials have evaporated.
How could Murdoch possibly be any worse than the other press barons of ages past?
He's Australian.
His reach is international.
He's a Nazi.
His mother is still alive, she's 102.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2011, 09:58:14 AM
His reach is international.
He's a Nazi.
His mother is still alive, she's 102.
On the other hand, he has also increased coverage of international affairs in every paper he has taken over, and underwrites more foreign bureaus than anyone. If he goes down, there will be downsides as well as upsides.
Quote from: Gups on July 12, 2011, 02:14:31 AM
Summary of the Brown material. It's important for a number of reasons - it's not just phone hacking, it's by the Sun and the Sunday Times, not the NOTW and Brooks is directly implicated to the extent that any last vestiges of plausibility in her denials have evaporated.
Running the story at all - regardless of how the information was obtained - is enough in my book to condemn her.
Why should it surprise that anyone so lacking in basic moral fiber to begin with would be complicit in (at the least in a hear no evil sort of way) fraudulent means to obtain the information in the first place?
The problem with races to the bottom is that there is always room to go down further.
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2011, 10:51:18 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2011, 09:58:14 AM
His reach is international.
He's a Nazi.
His mother is still alive, she's 102.
On the other hand, he has also increased coverage of international affairs in every paper he has taken over, and underwrites more foreign bureaus than anyone. If he goes down, there will be downsides as well as upsides.
That may be true in the States but it certainly isn't true of the papers he took over in the UK. Foreign coverage is limited to a g-string on hot east European bird.
So what can Cameron do? Or Parliament? Do these revelations warrant criminal accusations? Or civil law suits?
I read this morning that when asked what were his priorities, Murdoch responded "her" - pointing at Brooks next to him. Caused quite a stir in Britain apparently.
Is the man that powerful that he can have sitting govt members, police officers, the royals, etc under surveillance without being challenged about it?
Time to set an example: Off with their head!
G.
Quote from: Gups on July 12, 2011, 11:34:34 AMa g-string on hot east European bird.
Wouldn't want to miss out on that!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-11-2011/have-no-fear--england-s-here?xrs=share_copy
Criminal trials Grallon, the only question is how far up the chain of command these will go.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 12, 2011, 12:35:19 AM
...................of course they may have supped with the devil to an extent that precludes such attacks :hmm:
You forget that for politicians in general gratitude has a shorter lifespan than the average mayfly - as various Labour politicians (ignoring Brown, who has a genuine grievance for once) are demonstrating.
I'm still not overly bothered by all this; the laws under which they'll be prosecuted are already in place, newspaper scandals pop up every decade or so with disturbing regularity, and I find it hard to believe that anyone is really surprised that the law has been broken rather than simply skirted given the type of story typically carried by our tabloids, or even many of the supposedly more upmarket papers.
You seem to be in complete denial Agelastus. There has never been a newspaper scandal like this before. Not even close. If you think there has been tell me what it is.
This is massive, whether you think it's boring or not. We have already seen a long-running, big-selling newspaper closed. It seems likely that various senior journalists people will be imprisoned and itmay go higher. The PCC will certainly be replaced with a body that actually regulates the press. Most importantly the real hope is that thsi candal will see the press have lost its aura, for years politicians of both parties have been scared of them.
Finally, and I never thought I'd say this,but Millipede has actually looked competent, even actually quite impressive.
That's one thing in all those 'fascist England' stories that never made sense: How they could possibly tame the British press. I guess now they'll 'regulate' them.
England prevails!
Quote from: Gups on July 12, 2011, 01:06:31 PM
You seem to be in complete denial Agelastus. There has never been a newspaper scandal like this before. Not even close. If you think there has been tell me what it is.
On the other hand, it's also only a newspaper scandal. Television 'journalists' haven't been implicated, have they?
Now this will hurt Murdoch where it counts.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/rupert-murdoch-bskyb-news-international
QuoteRupert Murdoch facing BSkyB defeat as parties unite in call to drop takeover
David Cameron backs Labour motion urging Murdoch to withdraw £8bn takeover bid in wake of phone-hacking scandal
Rupert Murdoch will face the humiliation of the Commons issuing a unanimous all-party call for his scandal-ridden News Corporation to withdraw its £8bn bid for BSkyB, the great commercial prize he has been pursuing to cement his dominance of the British media landscape.
In an extraordinary volte face David Cameron will disown the media tycoon by leading his party through the lobbies to urge him to drop the bid.
Murdoch can defy parliament and press ahead with the bid, prompting a Competition Commission inquiry, but he risks finding himself ostracised by a political class that once scrambled to bend to his wishes.
In the latest of a series of strategic coups that has left Downing Street looking flat-footed, the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, tabled a Commons motion for debate this afternoon urging News Corporation to withdraw the bid "in the public interest".
With the Liberal Democrats certain to back Labour's simple motion, the prime minister took the rare and possibly legally questionable step to row in behind the opposition, even though only the day before Downing Street insisted he and the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, must remain impartial on the takeover.
Miliband will lead the debate and will argue that the bid has to be withdrawn at least until police and judicial investigations into phone hacking and police bribery at News International have been completed. That could be 2014.
Cameron's spokesman said it was for News Corp to decide how to respond to the vote, but added "we would always expect people to take seriously what parliament says".
A spokesman for the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, said the vote represents "an extraordinary unified statement of the will of the people. It is unimaginable that any public corporation or public figure will want to ignore such a strong statement by the legislature of this country".
Clegg first called for Murdoch to withdraw the bid on Monday, when Cameron had also said he thought Rupert Murdoch's priority should be to sort out malpractices exposed in his company rather than trying to clinch what could eventually be a takeover costing roughly $15bn.
First indications suggested that the News Corp chairman will ignore the vote in parliament, and will turn down an invitation to give evidence to the culture select committee next Tuesday.
In London, BSkyB's shares fell another 3% to 692p because investors fear Murdoch's bid could be delayed indefinitely or scrapped altogether.
News Corp, which owns 39% of BSkyB, is determined to keep the lucrative bid alive and on Monday withdrew its proposal to spin off Sky News as a financially and editorially independent unit. The move effectively forced Hunt to refer the bid to the Competition Commission.
The switch in tactics gave Murdoch the chance to capture BSkyB before a police investigation or judicial inquiry had been completed. A Competition Commission inquiry can only last six months, with a possible three-month extension, before a recommendation must be referred to Hunt. Hunt will abstain in the vote in an effort to preserve his political impartiality over the bid.
Privately Downing Street is frustrated at the way Miliband has shaped the political agenda in the past week, and Cameron will try to regain the initiative by setting out the terms of reference of two inquiries into the crisis.
Cameron is likely to announce the judge-led inquiry will go wider than previously thought, looking at the police investigation into phone hacking, and other malpractice throughout the newspaper industry, relations between press and politicians, the inadequacy of the original police investigation and wider issues of corporate governance.
Cameron and Clegg met Miliband in the Commons on Tuesday evening to discuss the terms of reference of the judicial inquiry. Afterwards, Labour said Cameron had acknowledged that the main judge-led inquiry, with witnesses giving evidence under oath, will have to be given a wide remit. A second inquiry into media ethics is likely to be seen as a subsidiary narrow inquiry.
Cameron also held discussions with John Whittingdale, the chairman of the culture select committee, and Keith Vaz, the chairman of the home affairs select committee. Vaz's committee criticised John Yates, the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, on Tuesday for his handling of the investigation into phone hacking.
Cameron is also expected to announce plans to strengthen transparency rules over meetings between ministers and media figures, including for the first time private social meetings. Until now ministers have declined to publish details of meetings with senior media figures, save those that are defined as business meetings. Ministers are also looking at new rules designed to oversee the future employment of former senior police officers. Andy Hayman, the Met's assistant commissioner in charge of the investigation into News International in 2005-6, subsequently ended up in News International employment.
The judicial inquiry is likely to look at why the last Labour government failed to launch an inquiry into phone hacking at News International. Supporters of Gordon Brown are furious that the cabinet secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell objected to Brown's private urging for a judicial inquiry in 2010. Labour backbencher Chris Bryant tabled a question asking Cameron "to publish the advice provided by the then cabinet secretary in early 2010 to the then prime minister on the case for a statutory public inquiry into the phone hacking scandal."
The debate will see an intense political battle between the Conservatives and Labour over which party did least to distance themselves from the Murdoch group.
The Lib Dems will relish reminding the public they shunned Murdoch, with its three most senior figures outside government writing to Murdoch to accuse him of tainted journalism.
The party's deputy leader, Simon Hughes, writes: "People working for your company have sought to cover up the many wrongs which it has committed. Your company has been accused of lying to the Press Complaints Commission, by its chair.
"Only yesterday the police accused News International of trying to undermine the ongoing police investigation into the affair. News International is simply no longer respected in this country.
"Given the history of the last six or more years, it should be of little surprise to you that many people in this country have no desire to have any more of our media fall into your hands, tainted as News International is by a history of completely unacceptable journalistic practices."
Quote from: Gups on July 12, 2011, 01:06:31 PM
You seem to be in complete denial Agelastus. There has never been a newspaper scandal like this before. Not even close. If you think there has been tell me what it is.
This is massive, whether you think it's boring or not. We have already seen a long-running, big-selling newspaper closed. It seems likely that various senior journalists people will be imprisoned and itmay go higher. The PCC will certainly be replaced with a body that actually regulates the press. Most importantly the real hope is that thsi candal will see the press have lost its aura, for years politicians of both parties have been scared of them.
Finally, and I never thought I'd say this,but Millipede has actually looked competent, even actually quite impressive.
And if you really believe we're seeing a sea change as you describe, then I've got some nice land in Florida to sell you.
Newspapers have closed before (and in this case there's even a clone on the immediate horizon to replace it!) Journalists have been jailed for corrupt practices before. The odds of the public inquiry recommending the PCC be abolished is vanishingly low, both because of the Freedom of Press connotations and because it would be yet another QUANGO when the current government is culling them*. And politicians will be scared of newspapers (and all forms of media) as long as people continue to buy them; that fear you're talking about has been around for at least two hundred years.
All I can repeat is that I'm not particularly bothered by the scandal. The only thing I hope for is that the Inquiries don't prove to be that costly given the waste of tim I believe them to be.
----------------------
As for "Millipede" looking competent, that's not hard to do when all three main parties are singing from the same hymn sheet. Not that I've ever considered him incompetent myself; my problems with him (apart from political views) relate to his "baggage" (the unions that supported him.)
Of course, he's also part of the current "class" of politicians who've never done anything much but politics (a group that includes Cameron, one of the reasons I'm not his biggest fan either.) I suppose I'm old fashioned in thinking that a politician is more well rounded and capable if he actually has demonstrated skills and talent outside of politics, though :(.
-----------------------
As for previous scandals, Google-fu's not helping me at the moment (for obvious reasons) so I'll have to delay my reply on that issue.
-----------------------
*Although a law making all newspapers subject to the PCC and forcing them to pay subscriptions would be welcome as one of the biggest newspaper groups withdrew itself from the PCC's jurisdiction a couple of years ago.
Edit: And damn me for having my reply screen open for over an hour.
Pulled from Tim's post.
QuoteCameron is likely to announce the judge-led inquiry will go wider than previously thought, looking at the police investigation into phone hacking, and other malpractice throughout the newspaper industry, relations between press and politicians, the inadequacy of the original police investigation and wider issues of corporate governance.
What a waste of time and money; the broader the reference the less the chance of action or positive change simply because of the increased potential for controversy (or, more explicitly, the wider the remit, the more vested interests involved.) :bleeding:
Quote from: Agelastus on July 12, 2011, 06:34:48 PM
Of course, he's also part of the current "class" of politicians who've never done anything much but politics (a group that includes Cameron, one of the reasons I'm not his biggest fan either.) I suppose I'm old fashioned in thinking that a politician is more well rounded and capable if he actually has demonstrated skills and talent outside of politics, though :(.
Surely you must know that can never be. In the information age, only those who have planned on a run for office from their youth can make it. And if you make a mistake once, you're done. Besides, the truly talented avoid public service like the plague, as dealing with a predatory media isn't worth it.
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 06:57:56 PM
Surely you must know that can never be. In the information age, only those who have planned on a run for office from their youth can make it. And if you make a mistake once, you're done. Besides, the truly talented avoid public service like the plague, as dealing with a predatory media isn't worth it.
And what this tells me is how a self trumpeted elite should be harshly brought to heel when it's become so entirely parasitical as to be detrimental to the very survival of the body politic that gave it birth.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on July 12, 2011, 08:11:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 06:57:56 PM
Surely you must know that can never be. In the information age, only those who have planned on a run for office from their youth can make it. And if you make a mistake once, you're done. Besides, the truly talented avoid public service like the plague, as dealing with a predatory media isn't worth it.
And what this tells me is how a self trumpeted elite should be harshly brought to heel when it's become so entirely parasitical as to be detrimental to the very survival of the body politic that gave it birth.
The problem is the body politic, not the elite.
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 08:12:45 PM
The problem is the body politic, not the elite.
Partly yes, in the sense that the relationship between the elite and the body politic its meant to serve, is a dual way dynamic. However considering the disproportion between the means available to the elite and those available to the body politic this puts the 'burden of truth' - or the burden of service - so to speak, on the shoulders of the members of the elite.
They have more - therefore they should serve in the measure of their means.
That is why to see one of those, Murdoch in this case, presuming to be above the law, officiously if not officially, is damning evidence of his hubris. And such hubris should be brought low - regularly.
G.
Murdoch presumes he's above the law? I haven't seen any indications of that.
So, what mechanism of enforcing that service are you suggesting?
Apparently senior police officers were hacked in '06 and blackmailed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/europe/12yard.html?_r=1
Quote from: Neil on July 12, 2011, 10:09:45 PM
So, what mechanism of enforcing that service are you suggesting?
I'm partial to gas chambers and ovens personally. There's something about people squirming and screaming while they suffocate, when yesterday they thought they were on top of the world, that I find immensely satisfying. The upside is to terrorize those left alive into obedience. The downside however is this needs to be used sparingly, otherwise it loses its impact over time.
G.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2011, 10:56:29 PM
Apparently senior police officers were hacked in '06 and blackmailed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/europe/12yard.html?_r=1
Oh dear, it does get better with each revelation. :lol:
I do enjoy seeing Murdoch thus compromised. He was apparently planning to bid for the largest Polish private information network to be auctioned soon, but hopefully the scandal can keep him occupied elsewhere.
Quote from: Grallon on July 13, 2011, 06:33:59 AMI'm partial to gas chambers and ovens personally. There's something about people squirming and screaming while they suffocate, when yesterday they thought they were on top of the world, that I find immensely satisfying. The upside is to terrorize those left alive into obedience. The downside however is this needs to be used sparingly, otherwise it loses its impact over time.
Staying classy, I see.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2011, 10:56:29 PM
Apparently senior police officers were hacked in '06 and blackmailed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/europe/12yard.html?_r=1
It doesn't say they were blackmailed. Christ a 10 word summary and you can't even get it right.
QuoteEarly day motion 2054
NEWS OF THE WORLD
* Session: 2010-11
* Date tabled: 11.07.2011
* Primary sponsor: Mitchell, Austin
* Sponsors:
o Clark, Katy
o McDonnell, John
o Riordan, Linda
o Singh, Marsha
o Williams, Hywel
That this House condemns the sacking of over 200 journalists and staff at the News of the World (NotW); supports the National Union of Journalists in its campaign to help journalists facing compulsory redundancy at the NotW; believes that shutting the NotW is an act of political opportunism by News International (NI); notes that the Chief Executive of NI, Rebekah Brooks, was Editor of theNotW at a time when alleged hacking of mobile telephones was underway; calls for a full public investigation into the apparent systematic abuses at the top of the operation run by both Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson; and welcomes the referral to the Competition Commission of the takeover of BSkyB by News Corporation.
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/2054 (http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/2054)
:bleeding:
So you mean Politicians aren't happy that people lost their jobs? That's newwwwwwwwwwww!
I lost my job working for Enron and I wasn't the one selling shares against non-existent products and services.
Quote from: Martinus on July 13, 2011, 07:32:59 AM
Quote from: Grallon on July 13, 2011, 06:33:59 AMI'm partial to gas chambers and ovens personally. There's something about people squirming and screaming while they suffocate, when yesterday they thought they were on top of the world, that I find immensely satisfying. The upside is to terrorize those left alive into obedience. The downside however is this needs to be used sparingly, otherwise it loses its impact over time.
Staying classy, I see.
That is exactly the sort of thing that you would post. You do realize that in his head, it's all non-homosexuals who are getting murdered, right?
No doubt Ageslatus still thinks this is a storm in a teacup.
Must be a nighmare in that boardroom right now. Qonder what they're going to do. The real problem is that there's no end in sight to this. The police reckon that only a few hundered out of 4,000 or so victims have been contacted. There's probably going to be a number of trials and a number more arrests. There's a judicial inquiry.
And if the rumours that the 9/11 victims were hacked too, there'll be a shitstorm in the States to come.
Quote from: Gups on July 13, 2011, 07:39:54 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2011, 10:56:29 PM
Apparently senior police officers were hacked in '06 and blackmailed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/europe/12yard.html?_r=1
It doesn't say they were blackmailed. Christ a 10 word summary and you can't even get it right.
Seems implied
QuoteShortly after Scotland Yard began its initial criminal inquiry of phone hacking by The News of the World in 2006, five senior police investigators discovered that their own cellphone messages had been targeted by the tabloid and had most likely been listened to.
The disclosure, based on interviews with current and former officials, raises the question of whether senior investigators feared that if they aggressively investigated, The News of the World would punish them with splashy articles about their private lives.
News Corporation shareholders are sticking the boot in too :
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010767/shareholders-sue-news-corp-over-news-of-the-world-scandal/
Tim, no it doesn't. "Raises questions" means there's no evidence at all and the paper doesn't want to make the accusation of his own bat. And even that sentence doesn't imply blackmail, it implies that officers might have held back on their investigations. Blackmail means something else entirely.
See, Tim's assumption is the sort of thing journalists should really be sacked for and what the writer of the article very correctly avoided. Note that even "the disclosure" is the subject of the questions that are raised rather than implicating any individual or group of individuals.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 13, 2011, 09:43:27 AM
News Corporation shareholders are sticking the boot in too :
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010767/shareholders-sue-news-corp-over-news-of-the-world-scandal/
Yay. It's finally coming all crashing down. What a beautiful catastrophe. :lol:
Several Senators have called for an investigation on the 9/11 hacking claims.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/13/us-senators-phone-hacking-inquiry
Maybe he's keeping Brooks around so he can sacrifice her at the appropriate time. After all, the scandal hasn't blown itself out yet.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2011, 06:25:41 PM
Several Senators have called for an investigation on the 9/11 hacking claims.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/13/us-senators-phone-hacking-inquiry
Of course they are. There are few people more loathsome than US Senators.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 09:42:54 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2011, 06:25:41 PM
Several Senators have called for an investigation on the 9/11 hacking claims.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/13/us-senators-phone-hacking-inquiry
Of course they are. There are few people more loathsome than US Senators.
These few people include Murdoch and Rebekah Brook, though,
So, Murdoch said that he will accede to the summons from the Parliament (after originally sending a fuck you letter) after they threatened to charge him with the contempt of the parliament, and now FBI has started a separate investigation.
Fuck, I may start to believe in God again. :lol:
What kind of chilling effect is this going to have on investigative journalism - to the extent that even exists anymore?
Quote from: Martinus on July 14, 2011, 03:29:45 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2011, 09:42:54 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 13, 2011, 06:25:41 PM
Several Senators have called for an investigation on the 9/11 hacking claims.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/13/us-senators-phone-hacking-inquiry
Of course they are. There are few people more loathsome than US Senators.
These few people include Murdoch and Rebekah Brook, though,
They haven't really done anything that bad.
These are tabloids not investigative journalism outlets. In fact a lot of it was brought to light because of investigative journalism from the Guardian.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 03:44:41 PM
What kind of chilling effect is this going to have on investigative journalism - to the extent that even exists anymore?
Probably the same chilling effect it would have on bribery.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 04:47:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 03:44:41 PM
What kind of chilling effect is this going to have on investigative journalism - to the extent that even exists anymore?
Probably the same chilling effect it would have on bribery.
Not sure about that. It wasnt until recently that investigative reporters were lauded for doing whatever was necessary to break the big story. Now Marti is quite right that the papers in question are tabloids but to what extent are genuine investigative reporters going to make sure they do not cross lines of acceptability in pursuit of stories were there is a genuine public interest.
Quote from: Martinus on July 14, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
These are tabloids not investigative journalism outlets.
Ok but protections of a free press only go to those we think are worthy? Seems a difficult concept.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 05:05:49 PM
Ok but protections of a free press only go to those we think are worthy? Seems a difficult concept.
What protections of free press allow journalists to break the law? This doesn't seem a difficult concept at all.
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2011, 05:47:54 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 05:05:49 PM
Ok but protections of a free press only go to those we think are worthy? Seems a difficult concept.
What protections of free press allow journalists to break the law? This doesn't seem a difficult concept at all.
Well journalists will frequently refuse to answer questions under oath in order to "protect their sources", when such priviledge is given little to no legal protection.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 05:05:49 PM
Ok but protections of a free press only go to those we think are worthy? Seems a difficult concept.
The freedom to run any story they like? That's not at issue. The issue is the (probably)
systematic invasions of privacy to get information for those stories- that was never protected in the first place. They broke laws in the pursuit of a scoop, got caught, and some are trying to blur this into a press freedoms issue, when it is and always has been an ethics (or lack thereof) issue.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 05:55:35 PM
Well journalists will frequently refuse to answer questions under oath in order to "protect their sources", when such priviledge is given little to no legal protection.
I seem to remember people getting prison sentences for doing that in the US...
Quote from: Martinus on July 14, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
These are tabloids not investigative journalism outlets. In fact a lot of it was brought to light because of investigative journalism from the Guardian.
And that is not really the issue. Breaking the law in any sort of journalism to get a story is, you know, breaking the law.
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 07:02:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 14, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
These are tabloids not investigative journalism outlets. In fact a lot of it was brought to light because of investigative journalism from the Guardian.
And that is not really the issue. Breaking the law in any sort of journalism to get a story is, you know, breaking the law.
Indeed. And lawbreakers should be punished, especially if they are journalists.
The bitch has resigned. :bowler:
They'd better get Piers Morgan too :mad:
I thought we'd managed to export Piers to the states?
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2011, 08:01:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 14, 2011, 07:02:01 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 14, 2011, 03:53:38 PM
These are tabloids not investigative journalism outlets. In fact a lot of it was brought to light because of investigative journalism from the Guardian.
And that is not really the issue. Breaking the law in any sort of journalism to get a story is, you know, breaking the law.
Indeed. And lawbreakers should be punished, especially if they are journalists.
Journalistic codes often clash with the law and form a legal grey area. From a rather good article on the subject:
QuoteThe codes of journalism appear to be very clear. The UK National Union of Journalists took the initiative in drawing up a code of ethics in 1936 and it is the bedrock of the language of the code of practice set down by the Press Complaints Commission. Article 7 of the NUJ rulebook states: "A journalist shall protect confidential sources of information." The obligation brooks no qualification. The duty is deontological. In philosophical terms this means that not protecting the source is always wrong.
The PCC code is also categorical. Article 15 on confidential sources states: "Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information." As with the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution, the confidentiality rule does not explain how it should be applied in different contexts. Nor does it allow any public interest exception to its clause on confidentiality. The NUJ code permits transgressions on the basis of the public interest. This includes "preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation" and "exposing hypocritical behaviour by those holding high office".
British law on journalists' sources is teleological or morally consequentialist. In other words, the absolute rule is compromised, and as a result journalism is vulnerable to the attentions of the judicial balancing exercise. Section 10 of the 1981 Contempt of Court Act states: "No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that it is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime."
The Guardian's then editor Peter Preston paid a heavy price for thinking in 1984 that this would be legal protection for the story his paper had published on the arrival of Cruise missiles at Greenham Common. The source had been civil servant Sarah Tisdall, who had anonymously leaked a document. The codes did not provide specific guidance on the obligation to unknown sources for sensitive documents. But British journalism learned a horrible lesson.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 15, 2011, 05:35:39 AM
I thought we'd managed to export Piers to the states?
:mad:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 05:04:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2011, 04:47:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2011, 03:44:41 PM
What kind of chilling effect is this going to have on investigative journalism - to the extent that even exists anymore?
Probably the same chilling effect it would have on bribery.
Not sure about that. It wasnt until recently that investigative reporters were lauded for doing whatever was necessary to break the big story. Now Marti is quite right that the papers in question are tabloids but to what extent are genuine investigative reporters going to make sure they do not cross lines of acceptability in pursuit of stories were there is a genuine public interest.
Seems like an easy enough divide to me. Investigating if a politician is diverting funds is clearly in the public interest. Whether his kids have cystic fibrosis is definitely not.
A journo that releases the first story should be commended, his sources protected. The second should end with everyone involved behind bars.
Maybe I should write a nuclear engineer code and try to gain support for considering it to be on the same level as law.
Quote from: Gups on July 12, 2011, 01:06:31 PM
Finally, and I never thought I'd say this,but Millipede has actually looked competent, even actually quite impressive.
This has been the biggest shock of the week.
QuoteThey'd better get Piers Morgan too
Cannot wait :mmm:
I can't believe how this story's developed in such a short space of time. Does anyone have a good idea why's Les Hinton gone and does that affect the US operations?
Edit: Also I love this 2011 trend of octogenarian nepotists watching their empire's collapse. I've seen several Arab writers note that Murdoch's sacked his PM, re-shuffled his cabinet, bungled his first address ('we've made minor mistakes'). Next he'll blame foreign interference and al-Qaeda I think...
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 15, 2011, 07:04:52 PM
Quote from: Gups on July 12, 2011, 01:06:31 PM
Finally, and I never thought I'd say this,but Millipede has actually looked competent, even actually quite impressive.
This has been the biggest shock of the week.
QuoteThey'd better get Piers Morgan too
Cannot wait :mmm:
I can't believe how this story's developed in such a short space of time. Does anyone have a good idea why's Les Hinton gone and does that affect the US operations?
Edit: Also I love this 2011 trend of octogenarian nepotists watching their empire's collapse. I've seen several Arab writers note that Murdoch's sacked his PM, re-shuffled his cabinet, bungled his first address ('we've made minor mistakes'). Next he'll blame foreign interference and al-Qaeda I think...
:lol:
I like the comparison.
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 05:55:35 PM
Well journalists will frequently refuse to answer questions under oath in order to "protect their sources", when such priviledge is given little to no legal protection.
And they frequently go to jail for it, as lawbreakers. I can see journalists deciding to pay the penalty for breaking the law as a matter of rational self-interest. But that has nothing to do with freedom of the press.
Wow! Heads are starting to roll.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/15/les-hinton-rupert-murdoch
QuoteLes Hinton resigns from News Corp
Hinton, who has worked for Murdoch for over 50 years, told staff at the Wall Street Journal he had no option but to resign
Lisa O'Carroll
guardian.co.uk, Friday 15 July 2011 21.34 BST
Rupert Murdoch's righthand man Les Hinton has resigned in the latest shock development of a saga still threatening to engulf the newspaper and TV mogul's empire.
Hinton, who has worked for the media baron for more than 50 years, told staff at the Wall Street Journal he had no option but to resign.
"It is a deeply, deeply sad day for me.
"When I left News International in December 2007, I believed that the rotten element at the News of the World had been eliminated.
"That I was ignorant of what apparently happened is irrelevant," he wrote in a letter to staff adding: "I feel it is proper for me to resign from News Corp."
Hinton headed Murdoch's British newspaper arm, News International, when the phone-hacking allegations first arose.
His resignation comes just hours after his successor in the UK, Rebekah Brooks, fell on her sword as Murdoch made attempts to draw a line under the scandal.
Hinton had come under increasing scrutiny recently as a cascade of allegations indicated the problems at the centre of the scandal were more widespread than he had twice led a parliamentary committee to believe.
In 2007 and 2009, he told a select committee that the company had carried out a full investigation into the matter and was convinced just one of its journalists was involved.
Murdoch said: "Les and I have been on a remarkable journey together for more than 52 years. That this passage has come to an unexpected end, professionally, not personally, is a matter of much sadness to me."
Hinton was parachuted into New York in 2007 after Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal and tasked with transforming the paper into the "Financial Times of America".
A trusted and discreet lieutenant of Murdoch's, he said in a statement that he had "watched with sorrow from New York as the News of the World story unfolded".
"The pain caused to innocent people is unimaginable. That I was ignorant of what apparently happened is irrelevant and in the circumstances I feel it is proper for me to resign from News Corp and apologise to those hurt by the actions of News of the World."
He added that "his testimonies" before the culture, media and sport select committee "were given honestly".
At the heart of the scandal were News International's claims that the phone-tapping was the work of a "rogue reporter" - royal reporter Clive Goodman.
In his statement, Hinton says at the time he believed that to be the case.
"When I appeared before the committee in March 2007, I expressed the belief that Clive Goodman had acted alone, but made clear our investigation was continuing. In September 2009, I told the committee there had never been any evidence delivered to me that suggested the conduct had spread beyond one journalist.
"If others had evidence that wrongdoing went further, I was not told about it."
Hinton has spent his entire career working for Murdoch, beginning as a reporter at the Adelaide News and rising through the ranks until he was tapped to run News International in 1995 – and later Dow Jones – which made him responsible for the News of the World during the years when the phone hacking took place.
Tall, trim and debonair, with rimless glasses and waves of silver hair, Hinton has a reputation for being level-headed and insightful, and has won praise for balancing out some of the stormier personalities within including Murdoch himself.
"He runs interference for Rupert," said one source who knows both men. "He's a very nice guy – congenial, easy going and smart."
Hinton lives in an elegant townhouse – fitted out with a jacuzzi and a deck – on Manhattan's upper east side with his wife, Kath, a former aide to Gordon Brown.
He started his career as a teenager checking copy at Murdoch's first paper, the Adelaide News in Australia. Among his duties were fetching the boss's lunch.
Rising through the ranks until he was tapped to run News International, he was equally at home with the celebrity culture of the tabloids as he was with spreadsheets and boardroom power-plays.
He was liked by staff, particularly by journalists who felt he understood their trade, but he rarely courted publicity. His motto was: "The lower your profile, the longer your longevity in Rupert's court."
It was with reluctance the 67-year-old executive went to the US in 2007. He was given little choice by Murdoch, who rewards loyalty handsomely.
As Murdoch crossed the globe over the next 50 years acquiring newspapers and TV stations, Hinton was never far away.
"Rupert would not be where he is today if he had not recognised talent," Boston Herald publisher Patrick Purcell said in introducing Hinton, an old friend, before a speech to an executive club in March.
Hinton replied: "If Rupert Murdoch asked me to get his lunch," he quipped in his speech, "I still will."
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 15, 2011, 07:04:52 PM
I can't believe how this story's developed in such a short space of time.
I thought so too but then noticed that Guardian originally accused NotW of the very thing in 2009. We are just seeing a climax of a long process.
Quote from: Martinus on July 16, 2011, 04:44:28 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 15, 2011, 07:04:52 PM
I can't believe how this story's developed in such a short space of time.
I thought so too but then noticed that Guardian originally accused NotW of the very thing in 2009. We are just seeing a climax of a long process.
Apparently Scotland Yard had all the evidence but was sitting on it. Only after the Guardian dug up more and put it on the front page did they do anything with it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43781013/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/
Quote"When I appeared before the committee in March 2007, I expressed the belief that Clive Goodman had acted alone, but made clear our investigation was continuing. In September 2009, I told the committee there had never been any evidence delivered to me that suggested the conduct had spread beyond one journalist.
"If others had evidence that wrongdoing went further, I was not told about it."
Hinton replied: "If Rupert Murdoch asked me to get his lunch," he quipped in his speech, "I still will."
:hmm:
Rebekah Brooks arrested. :yeah:
Millipede calls for dismantling of the UK Murdoch's empire due to competition and media plurality reasons.
The swings just keep coming. Will they arrest James Murdoch next?
Quote from: Martinus on July 17, 2011, 10:19:41 AM
Millipede calls for dismantling of the UK Murdoch's empire due to competition and media plurality reasons.
And that's where he goes off the rails.
Not really. Concentration of power is bad, as this case aptly demonstrates. Requiring that nobody owns more than x% of a country's media is no different than similar regulations in banking or other strategic sectors.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 17, 2011, 12:25:17 PM
Not really. Concentration of power is bad, as this case aptly demonstrates. Requiring that nobody owns more than x% of a country's media is no different than similar regulations in banking or other strategic sectors.
There is a difference between saying "nobody should own more than x% of a Britain's media" and saying "Rupert Murdoch's media empire should be dismantled." IIRC, the owners of the Daily Mail (?) own a bigger share of the British media than does New International.
Not that I would mind seeing Murdoch getting the chop, but I think that it cannot justified solely on the grounds that he is personally dislikable.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 17, 2011, 12:25:17 PM
Not really. Concentration of power is bad, as this case aptly demonstrates. Requiring that nobody owns more than x% of a country's media is no different than similar regulations in banking or other strategic sectors.
What does hacking phones have to do with concentration of media?
At any rate, Murdoch is powerful, but there's plenty of other voices in the UK media.
Quote from: Neil on July 17, 2011, 01:03:03 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on July 17, 2011, 12:25:17 PM
Not really. Concentration of power is bad, as this case aptly demonstrates. Requiring that nobody owns more than x% of a country's media is no different than similar regulations in banking or other strategic sectors.
What does hacking phones have to do with concentration of media?
Nothing per se. He is down and it is a perfect moment to strike.
Quote from: grumbler on July 17, 2011, 01:00:25 PM
There is a difference between saying "nobody should own more than x% of a Britain's media" and saying "Rupert Murdoch's media empire should be dismantled."
[/quote]
I have seen him quoted saying the former, not the latter.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner's resigned over perceived corruption/collusion between NewsCorps and the Police :mellow:
Edit: He apparently said his integrity was intact and implied that he'd done less wrong hiring former NC executive Neil Wallis than David Cameron had hiring Andy Coulson. From the (ex) top policeman in the country that's a big charge.
Quote from: Martinus on July 17, 2011, 10:19:41 AM
Rebekah Brooks arrested. :yeah:
Arrest as in we have enough evidence to charge you with a crime, or something else?
Quote"The MPS [Metropolitan police service] has this afternoon, Sunday 17 July, arrested a female in connection with allegations of corruption and phone hacking.
"At approximately 12.00 a 43-year-old woman was arrested by appointment at a London police station by officers from Operation Weeting [phone hacking investigation] together with officers from Operation Elveden [bribing of police officers investigation]. She is currently in custody.
"She was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications, contrary to Section1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977 and on suspicion of corruption allegations contrary to Section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906.
"The Operation Weeting team is conducting the new investigation into phone hacking.
"Operation Elveden is the investigation into allegations of inappropriate payments to police. This investigation is being supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
"It would be inappropriate to discuss any further details regarding these cases at this time."
She's still in custody I think :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2011, 02:50:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 17, 2011, 10:19:41 AM
Rebekah Brooks arrested. :yeah:
Arrest as in we have enough evidence to charge you with a crime, or something else?
I assume so. I dont know the British legal system well enough, but seeing how it is reported everywhere, I assume it is not just being asked some questions. I bet she will soon be helping the police with their inquiries. :P
Since when has ignorance of the law stopped you from commenting.
Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2011, 03:52:49 PM
Since when has ignorance of the law stopped you from commenting.
Im on vacation. I only ignorantly comment on law when I am being paid.
Quote from: Martinus on July 17, 2011, 03:53:46 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 17, 2011, 03:52:49 PM
Since when has ignorance of the law stopped you from commenting.
Im on vacation.
Then shouldn't you be off sucking some random blokes toes and not posting on languish.
Im taking it easy. I fainted from heat while walking on the side walk near the sea yesterday. Lasted only like 20 seconds but was one of the most scary experiences in my life. I sat down to catch my breath... and found myself flat on the pavement some time later. :ph34r:
You should wear some headgear in the Spanish sun. Preferably not a pasta strainer, mind you.
Quote from: Martinus on July 17, 2011, 03:58:35 PM
Im taking it easy. I fainted from heat while walking on the side walk near the sea yesterday. Lasted only like 20 seconds but was one of the most scary experiences in my life. I sat down to catch my breath... and found myself flat on the pavement some time later. :ph34r:
Stupid drunken Poles.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2011, 06:17:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 17, 2011, 03:58:35 PM
Im taking it easy. I fainted from heat while walking on the side walk near the sea yesterday. Lasted only like 20 seconds but was one of the most scary experiences in my life. I sat down to catch my breath... and found myself flat on the pavement some time later. :ph34r:
Stupid drunken Poles.
Maybe he should get a scooter, just like all the other obese people.
Quote from: LaCroix on July 17, 2011, 06:45:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2011, 06:17:14 PMStupid drunken Poles.
:huh:
I'm suggesting he didn't pass out from the heat. I'm suggesting he passed out in the typical Slavic fashion.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2011, 08:20:02 PM
I'm suggesting he didn't pass out from the heat. I'm suggesting he passed out in the typical Slavic fashion.
again- :huh:
Love the title of this editorial, wouldn't see a title like that in the US.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/18/paul-stephenson-resignation-phone-hacking
QuoteSir Paul's Parthian shot
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2011, 08:20:02 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on July 17, 2011, 06:45:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2011, 06:17:14 PMStupid drunken Poles.
:huh:
I'm suggesting he didn't pass out from the heat. I'm suggesting he passed out in the typical Slavic fashion.
Mine was funnier because I suggested that Martinus was too fat to walk around in the heat. Like a Wal-Mart customer.
QuotePage last updated at 09:50 GMT+01:00, Monday, 18 July 2011
Pressure on PM as Met chief quits
The prime minister had to cut back his trip to Africa because of the scandal
Prime Minister David Cameron is facing renewed questions over the phone-hacking scandal after the head of the Metropolitan Police resigned.
Sir Paul Stephenson was criticised for hiring ex-News of the World executive Neil Wallis as an adviser.
Sir Paul said his integrity was intact, but referred to the PM's former aide Andy Coulson. The ex-NoW editor and Mr Wallis have been questioned by police.
Home Secretary Theresa May said no pressure was put on Sir Paul to quit.
But Labour shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the link between Sir Paul and Mr Wallis hindered Sir Paul's work.
Meanwhile Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive who had been editor of the News of the World when the alleged hacking took place, was arrested and released on bail on Sunday as part of the investigation.
The questions threaten to overshadow the PM's trade visit to Africa - which he has had to cut from five days to two.
Potential suspect
At the weekend, Sir Paul was criticised for having hired former News of the World executive Neil Wallis as an adviser.
Mr Wallis was arrested and released on bail on Thursday on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications.
In his resignation statement, the outgoing Met Police chief suggested that Mr Cameron's relationship with Mr Coulson, his former Downing Street director of communications, had caused him difficulties.
Mr Coulson, who resigned from the No 10 job and earlier as News of the World editor over the scandal, was subsequently arrested and bailed over his alleged involvement in paying police officers and phone hacking.
In his resignation statement, Sir Paul said: "Unlike Mr Coulson, Mr Wallis had not resigned from News of the World or, to the best of my knowledge been in any way associated with the original phone hacking investigation."
He went on: "Once Mr Wallis's name did become associated with Operation Weeting, I did not want to compromise the prime minister in any way by revealing or discussing a potential suspect who clearly had a close relationship with Mr Coulson.
Sir Paul Stephenson resigned early on Sunday evening
"I am aware of the many political exchanges in relation to Mr Coulson's previous employment - I believe it would have been extraordinarily clumsy of me to have exposed the prime minister, or by association the home secretary, to any accusation, however unfair, as a consequence of them being in possession of operational information in this regard. Similarly, the mayor.
"Because of the individuals involved, their positions and relationships, these were I believe unique circumstances."
The shadow home secretary said if the Sir Paul felt that the "compromised relationship" between the prime minister and Mr Coulson "prevented him from telling the home secretary what was happening" and discussing operational matters with the home secretary, it meant the Met commissioner had been put in "an extremely difficult situation".
Ms Cooper said there were questions about Mr Coulson's role in the phone-hacking scandal and "the prime minister's judgement in appointing him and continuing to keep that relationship up".
The home secretary told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that both she and the prime minister had been clear that "the Metropolitan Police must investigate all allegations and investigate all evidence and take it as far as it goes".
"If the Metropolitan Police found, at any stage, that they have a potential conflict of interest, I think it's right for them to be transparent about that," she said.
BBC Radio 4's chief political correspondent Norman Smith said Sir Paul seemed to seek to push the focus back onto Downing Street by highlighting the prime minister's decision to recruit Mr Coulson, a move that has infuriated No 10.
He said it was Mr Cameron's links to Mr Coulson which still threaten to cause the most damage to the prime minister over the hacking scandal.
Downing Street insist their hands are clean and that the prime minister only found out Sir Paul's plans half an hour before he made his televised resignation statement.
Our correspondent says it was clear that there was immense political pressure on Sir Paul after the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, told him that his confidence in him had been severely shaken.
Aides to the mayor say while Mr Johnson did not march Sir Paul to the door with a gun to his head, it was made clear that it would be extremely difficult for Sir Paul to win back the mayor's and the public's confidence, our correspondent said.
One aide to the mayor said: "There was no way back."
David Cameron said he respected and understood Sir Paul's decision to resign as head of Scotland Yard.
He then urged the Metropolitan Police to continue to do "everything possible" to proceed with the investigation.
'Untouchable'
The prime minister is currently in South Africa on a trip planned to boost trade with emerging African economies.
The BBC's deputy political editor James Landale said the trip had been cut back from five days to two so that the PM could focus on the hacking row after being criticised by MPs for being in Afghanistan when the scandal initially broke.
Number 10 said the trip had been shortened "simply because the prime minister has other things he wants to be focused on".
The home secretary is set to make a statement to the House of Commons later over the links between the Met and News International.
And Labour leader Ed Miliband is to blame the scandal on a culture of "irresponsibility" that also led to the banking crisis and MPs' abuse of their expenses.
In a speech later, he will say that all three episodes were caused by some of the most powerful people in society thinking they were "untouchable" and could act as they pleased.
BBC © 2011
I may be wrong about the UK politics, but this kind of public utterances from a departing top official against his former boss seem pretty damning.
Quote from: Neil on July 17, 2011, 08:37:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2011, 08:20:02 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on July 17, 2011, 06:45:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 17, 2011, 06:17:14 PMStupid drunken Poles.
:huh:
I'm suggesting he didn't pass out from the heat. I'm suggesting he passed out in the typical Slavic fashion.
Mine was funnier because I suggested that Martinus was too fat to walk around in the heat. Like a Wal-Mart customer.
LOL you ass. Anyway, the way it went. I was on the sidewalk near the sea, pretty much at midday and suddenly had a great idea to walk on a low wall between it and the beach (yeah, like a 5 y.o. :rolleyes: ). I slipped and jumped off it and thought I hurt my ankle. Then I started to feel a bit dizzy from pain/shock so I thought I will sit for a moment on the wall until I feel better...
Then I find myself thinking "is it time to wake up yet? Where am I? What is going on?" and I open my eyes and find myself sprawled on the pavement, face down, with a bruise on my cheek (I look as if I was in a fight) and people gathering around me asking if I'm fine.
Maybe you were gay-bashed and repressed the memory due to the trauma? Surely that would be the most dramatic conclusion, right?
And the original whistleblower is found dead. This is getting interesting. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2011, 01:56:07 PM
And the original whistleblower is found dead. This is getting interesting. :lol:
In all probability he died of long term alcoholism.
The Assistant Commissioner just resigned.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=14100762
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 18, 2011, 07:14:45 PM
The Assistant Commissioner just resigned.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=14100762
Old news, that's at least 12 hours old. :P
Some in the Westminster village wisper that David Cameron might have to resign. :gasp:
Quote from: mongers on July 18, 2011, 07:16:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 18, 2011, 07:14:45 PM
The Assistant Commissioner just resigned.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=14100762
Old news, that's at least 12 hours old. :P
Wasn't mentioned here yet! :P
How about this then, a computer, phone and records where found in the trash near Rebekah Brooks house.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/mystery-bag-bin-rebekah-brooks
Hopefully the Guardian gets closed down for picking through people's garbage.
And now we have a dead man talking on our arms. Police says they ignore the cause of this suicide. :ph34r:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sean-hoare-news-of-the-world-whistleblower-found-dead-guardian-reports/2011/07/18/gIQAqQ96LI_blog.html
QuoteSean Hoare, News of the World whistleblower, found dead, Guardian reports
By Melissa Bell
The Guardian reports that Sean Hoare, the former News of the World reporter who first claimed that Andy Coulson knew of phone hacking by his staff, has been found dead at his home. The police told the Guardian that they do not know how Hoare died, but do not believe the cause of death to be suspicious.
Hoare gave an interview to the New York Times in 2010 that bolstered allegations the phone hacking was a widespread and accepted practice at the tabloid. He also said that Coulson encouraged the practice. Hoare was let go from the News of the World for problems related to drinking and drugs.
Hoare had been in contact with the Guardian and the New York Times only last week, stating that the News of the World staff used police technology to track phones.
Quote from: Neil on July 18, 2011, 07:35:51 PM
Hopefully the Guardian gets closed down for picking through people's garbage.
It was the cops.
Darken, why don't you also post the story about the murdered girl's phone being hacked while you are at posting old stuff?
Some twat has just tried to hit Rupert Murdoch in the face with a 'custard pie'. :rolleyes:
edit:
man being held outside committee room by police, appears to have shaving foam on his own face.
Quote from: mongers on July 19, 2011, 11:01:36 AM
Some twat has just tried to hit Rupert Murdoch in the face with a 'custard pie'. :rolleyes:
edit:
man being held outside committee room by police, appears to have shaving foam on his own face.
Sounds like somebody tried to reenact Mavolio Bent's little scene from
Making Money. :P
According to the Guardian the trouble maker was a "UK-uncut activist", or knobhead to use a more colloquial term.
Quote from: grumbler on July 15, 2011, 07:55:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 14, 2011, 05:55:35 PM
Well journalists will frequently refuse to answer questions under oath in order to "protect their sources", when such priviledge is given little to no legal protection.
And they frequently go to jail for it, as lawbreakers. I can see journalists deciding to pay the penalty for breaking the law as a matter of rational self-interest. But that has nothing to do with freedom of the press.
:lol:
So freedom of the press has nothing to do with the freedom to investigate without fear? Doesnt that make the freedom to report what they want ring a bit hollow.
Did you read Brazen's post?
The thing that raises a concern in the case is everyone loves to beat up on Murdoch and hail Privacy Rights as being supreme. But if privacy is a supreme right then how could a free press remain a meaningful institution? Are we really condemned to live in a world where news rooms are even more reliant on press releases for the "news" because nobody wants to dig for a story for fear of fighting a privacy violation case.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 11:58:50 AM
:lol:
So freedom of the press has nothing to do with the freedom to investigate without fear? Doesnt that make the freedom to report what they want ring a bit hollow.
Did you read Brazen's post?
The thing that raises a concern in the case is everyone loves to beat up on Murdoch and hail Privacy Rights as being supreme. But if privacy is a supreme right then how could a free press remain a meaningful institution? Are we really condemned to live in a world where news rooms are even more reliant on press releases for the "news" because nobody wants to dig for a story for fear of fighting a privacy violation case.
Because reporting on individuals serves no public interest other than schadenfreude. An institution should be transparent and be able to be reported on without reprisal because their affairs are matters of public interest. The biggest problem is that no government I know of has made the distinction between the two concepts yet.
Reporting on private individuals should be restrained. Murdoch's legal troubles right now are a matter of public interest since his disappearance could and probably would send an enormous mesh of companies into a downward spiral; victims of crime shouldn't be bothered when the only tangible end to the investigation is the exposure of the subject to fresh psychological trauma.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 11:58:50 AM
:lol:
So freedom of the press has nothing to do with the freedom to investigate without fear? Doesnt that make the freedom to report what they want ring a bit hollow.
Did you read Brazen's post?
The thing that raises a concern in the case is everyone loves to beat up on Murdoch and hail Privacy Rights as being supreme. But if privacy is a supreme right then how could a free press remain a meaningful institution? Are we really condemned to live in a world where news rooms are even more reliant on press releases for the "news" because nobody wants to dig for a story for fear of fighting a privacy violation case.
Freedom of the Press has to do with the freedom to print what they want. It does not confer "extra rights", such as the right to lie to the police, or trespass or obstruct a criminal investigation. A reporter can't break into a military base and film the construction of secret aircraft. Well he can, but he very well may be prosecuted for it.
In many European jurisdictions, the press is definitely not at liberty to print anything they want, or even anything true they want. They need to show a public interest or can be sued.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 19, 2011, 02:14:27 PM
Reporting on private individuals should be restrained.
Just think about your position for a moment. Are you saying that the press should only report on government actors? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do not mean to include private corporations (who are individuals under the law) as people who should be protected by such a ban. But even then do you really think that a private individual should have a bubble protecting them from the prying eyes of reporters. What if the person carries on business not as a private company but as sole proprietor and engages in all kinds of nasty business that would be in the pubic interest to report - I dont think you would support a ban on such reporting.
Quote from: Martinus on July 19, 2011, 02:30:31 PM
In many European jurisdictions, the press is definitely not at liberty to print anything they want, or even anything true they want. They need to show a public interest or can be sued.
Exactly the situation I wish to avoid.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 19, 2011, 02:21:17 PM
Freedom of the Press has to do with the freedom to print what they want. It does not confer "extra rights", such as the right to lie to the police, or trespass or obstruct a criminal investigation. A reporter can't break into a military base and film the construction of secret aircraft. Well he can, but he very well may be prosecuted for it.
That is the red herring Grumbler started us off on. As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn. Going back to my main point - to what extent will the public reaction in this case deter reporters and new agencies from pushing those lines to get a story even Marti would agree is in the public interest to report.
Quote from: Martinus on July 19, 2011, 02:30:31 PM
In many European jurisdictions, the press is definitely not at liberty to print anything they want, or even anything true they want. They need to show a public interest or can be sued.
Yes, but many European jurisdictions don't have freedom of the press.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 03:04:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 19, 2011, 02:21:17 PM
Freedom of the Press has to do with the freedom to print what they want. It does not confer "extra rights", such as the right to lie to the police, or trespass or obstruct a criminal investigation. A reporter can't break into a military base and film the construction of secret aircraft. Well he can, but he very well may be prosecuted for it.
That is the red herring Grumbler started us off on. As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn. Going back to my main point - to what extent will the public reaction in this case deter reporters and new agencies from pushing those lines to get a story even Marti would agree is in the public interest to report.
Okay, then I don't understand what you mean by "freedom to investigate without fear". These grey areas are typically illegal acts that journalists simply aren't prosecuted for very often.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 19, 2011, 03:25:48 PM
Okay, then I don't understand what you mean by "freedom to investigate without fear". These grey areas are typically illegal acts that journalists simply aren't prosecuted for very often.
I think you just answered your own question.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 03:26:37 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 19, 2011, 03:25:48 PM
Okay, then I don't understand what you mean by "freedom to investigate without fear". These grey areas are typically illegal acts that journalists simply aren't prosecuted for very often.
I think you just answered your own question.
Okay, so reiterate your argument. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I still don't understand your postion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 11:58:50 AM
:lol:
So freedom of the press has nothing to do with the freedom to investigate without fear?
Nothing to do with it? Of course not! What kind of silly question is that! :lol:
QuoteDoesnt that make the freedom to report what they want ring a bit hollow.
Doesn't your strawman make blah blah freedom ring hollow? No. It is just a silly strawman. No one but you is even proposing such a thing.
What people propose is that reporters fear to break the law, just as anyone else does. Sometimes they will decide to break the law anyway, as a matter of cost-benefit analysis, but this doesn't have anything to do with press freedoms (which are not freedoms to break laws in any country of which I am aware). In this, reporters are no different than anyone else, and have to pay the price if they don't get away with it, just like everyone else.
QuoteDid you read Brazen's post?
Yes. Did you?
QuoteThe thing that raises a concern in the case is everyone loves to beat up on Murdoch and hail Privacy Rights as being supreme. But if privacy is a supreme right then how could a free press remain a meaningful institution?
Who is arguing that privacy is "supreme right" over a free press? Name some names, and let's see if they compromise "everybody." I'll bet there isn't even a majority on Languish who think that there should be no free press.
QuoteAre we really condemned to live in a world where news rooms are even more reliant on press releases for the "news" because nobody wants to dig for a story for fear of fighting a privacy violation case.
No.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 03:04:42 PM
As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn.
Other than confidential sources (which I saw Brazen raise), what are the gray areas?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 03:02:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 19, 2011, 02:30:31 PM
In many European jurisdictions, the press is definitely not at liberty to print anything they want, or even anything true they want. They need to show a public interest or can be sued.
Exactly the situation I wish to avoid.
Don't see why. Conflicting interests need to be balanced out.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 03:04:42 PM
As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn.
Other than confidential sources (which I saw Brazen raise), what are the gray areas?
Publishing medical records of people, for example.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 03:04:42 PM
Going back to my main point - to what extent will the public reaction in this case deter reporters and new agencies from pushing those lines to get a story even Marti would agree is in the public interest to report.
Is that a question, or a main point?
If a question, the answer is almost certainly "not at all." Reporters generally are not quivering in fear lest it be discovered that they, too, erased the phone messages of murder victims or bribed police to get tips on stories. Those kinds of acts are way over the line, as is wiretapping, playing other peoples' private phone messages, and the like. News people generally are not lawbreakers in any manner not shared with the population at large. They don't need to be, to do their jobs. The exception comes when reporters promise confidentiality to sources, when providing such confidentiality is against the law. Then, reporters have to decide whether to reveal their sources or go to jail. Their codes of professional ethics generally require them to go to jail. I'm okay with that.
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 04:40:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 03:04:42 PM
Going back to my main point - to what extent will the public reaction in this case deter reporters and new agencies from pushing those lines to get a story even Marti would agree is in the public interest to report.
Is that a question, or a main point?
If a question, the answer is almost certainly "not at all." Reporters generally are not quivering in fear lest it be discovered that they, too, erased the phone messages of murder victims or bribed police to get tips on stories. Those kinds of acts are way over the line, as is wiretapping, playing other peoples' private phone messages, and the like. News people generally are not lawbreakers in any manner not shared with the population at large. They don't need to be, to do their jobs. The exception comes when reporters promise confidentiality to sources, when providing such confidentiality is against the law. Then, reporters have to decide whether to reveal their sources or go to jail. Their codes of professional ethics generally require them to go to jail. I'm okay with that.
Indeed. I'm surprised this even needs to be explained/discussed.
Quote from: Martinus on July 19, 2011, 04:39:25 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 03:04:42 PM
As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn.
Other than confidential sources (which I saw Brazen raise), what are the gray areas?
Publishing medical records of people, for example.
I can imagine that there are cases where medical information is in the public interest. If a political candidate is imminently dying of cancer, for instance, the public presumably has a "right to know." If some housemother is, then there is no "right to know."
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 04:43:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 19, 2011, 04:39:25 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 03:04:42 PM
As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn.
Other than confidential sources (which I saw Brazen raise), what are the gray areas?
Publishing medical records of people, for example.
I can imagine that there are cases where medical information is in the public interest. If a political candidate is imminently dying of cancer, for instance, the public presumably has a "right to know." If some housemother is, then there is no "right to know."
Indeed, that's what makes it a grey area (unless I misunderstand what this means in English).
It becomes more grey when you for example deal with a child of the prime minister.
Quote from: Martinus on July 19, 2011, 04:39:25 PM
Publishing medical records of people, for example.
There are laws governing this issue. Unless there is some specific ambiguity in those laws, there is no gray area.
In the US, HIPAA protects medical records at the federal level but media outlets are not covered organizations.
At the state level, there is a common law doctrine of publication of private facts, which in theory could create ambiguity, except that as a practical matter, it is almost impossbile for a plaintiff to succeed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 19, 2011, 03:04:42 PM
As Brazen already pointed out there are a lot of grey areas and reporters, and their counsel, often struggle with where the line actually should be drawn.
Other than confidential sources (which I saw Brazen raise), what are the gray areas?
Privacy laws are relatively recent. Their boundaries are still being litigated in this jurisdiction and I assume all issues have not yet been determined in other jurisidictions either. Given the strong visceral public reaction against the violation of privacy in this case to what extent will newsrooms shy away from anything that might approach an allegation of breach of privacy in future. To what extent will there be a chilling effect on investigative journalism which is already poorly funded.
Quote from: Martinus on July 19, 2011, 04:44:18 PM
Indeed, that's what makes it a grey area (unless I misunderstand what this means in English).
It becomes more grey when you for example deal with a child of the prime minister.
No, no it doesn't.
Quote from: Martinus on July 19, 2011, 04:44:18 PM
Indeed, that's what makes it a grey area (unless I misunderstand what this means in English).
No not really. The question is: under what circumstances would a media outlet want to publish someones medical information? And the answer is: only if there is something about the person or the information that makes it newsworthy. But if it is newsworthy, then at least under US it is protected.
So in amongst the vague, uncertain and detacted testimony of this frail of man ( I presume an act), was there a smoking gun moment ?
For me it's when Murdoch senior went back to answer the question about the backdoor entry into No.10 for a meeting with Cameron, Murdoch suddenly became lucid and made a point of saying it was a meeting just after the general election, that they'd had tea as a thank you for help (presumably in the election) and they discussed nothing else.
He was quite clear on that point, so I'm of the opinion that Murdoch and the PM did infact discuss other things and if so what were they; was Murdoch trying to protest the PM ?
Haven't found a video of this, but here's part of the transcript from the guardian website:
Quote3.07pm: JS: Ok. Again, Mr Murdoch, have you ever imposed any pre-conditions...
RM: Which visit to Downing Street are you talking about?
JS: Just following the last general election.
RM: I was invited within days to have a cup of tea to be thanked for the support by Mr Cameron, no other conversation took place. It lasted minutes.
Does smoking gun mean something different in the UK than it does in the US?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 19, 2011, 05:29:33 PM
Does smoking gun mean something different in the UK than it does in the US?
We don't have guns over here, I think more of a euphemism for oral sex. :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2011, 04:54:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 19, 2011, 04:39:25 PM
Publishing medical records of people, for example.
There are laws governing this issue. Unless there is some specific ambiguity in those laws, there is no gray area.
In the US, HIPAA protects medical records at the federal level but media outlets are not covered organizations.
At the state level, there is a common law doctrine of publication of private facts, which in theory could create ambiguity, except that as a practical matter, it is almost impossbile for a plaintiff to succeed.
I thought we were talking about principles, not specifics of the US federal law (which, in addition to the fact that many participants in the discussion are not familiar with it, is not really an object of this thread at all since the whole thing happened in the UK).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2011, 04:59:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 19, 2011, 04:44:18 PM
Indeed, that's what makes it a grey area (unless I misunderstand what this means in English).
No not really. The question is: under what circumstances would a media outlet want to publish someones medical information? And the answer is: only if there is something about the person or the information that makes it newsworthy. But if it is newsworthy, then at least under US it is protected.
"Newsworthy" is something else than "in public interest", especially in the scandal/celebrity culture we live in. I'm rather glad the simple fact that something is "newsworthy" is not enough in most EU countries.
Quote from: mongers on July 19, 2011, 05:32:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 19, 2011, 05:29:33 PM
Does smoking gun mean something different in the UK than it does in the US?
We don't have guns over here, I think more of a euphemism for oral sex. :P
So your question was "So in amongst the vague, uncertain and detacted testimony of this frail of man ( I presume an act), was there an oral sex moment ?"
And your answer is yes?
Who was the suckee in your fantasy; Cameron or Murdock?
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 05:51:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 19, 2011, 05:32:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 19, 2011, 05:29:33 PM
Does smoking gun mean something different in the UK than it does in the US?
We don't have guns over here, I think more of a euphemism for oral sex. :P
So your question was "So in amongst the vague, uncertain and detacted testimony of this frail of man ( I presume an act), was there an oral sex moment ?"
And your answer is yes?
Who was the suckee in your fantasy; Cameron or Murdock?
What error message is the above, anyone help ?
I think it's a sense of humour failure, but iirc that module was stripped when they upgrade the power supply to steam.
Quote from: mongers on July 19, 2011, 05:55:02 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 05:51:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 19, 2011, 05:32:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 19, 2011, 05:29:33 PM
Does smoking gun mean something different in the UK than it does in the US?
We don't have guns over here, I think more of a euphemism for oral sex. :P
So your question was "So in amongst the vague, uncertain and detacted testimony of this frail of man ( I presume an act), was there an oral sex moment ?"
And your answer is yes?
Who was the suckee in your fantasy; Cameron or Murdock?
What error message is the above, anyone help ?
I think it's a sense of humour failure, but iirc that module was stripped when they upgrade the power supply to steam.
Yes, it is a failure of your sense of humor. :lol:
You said a silly thing, and when I noted how silly it was, you still didn't get it.
Don't worry about it. Just avoid using the term "smoking gun" in the future. It has nothing to do with oral sex.
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 06:29:07 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 19, 2011, 05:55:02 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 05:51:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 19, 2011, 05:32:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 19, 2011, 05:29:33 PM
Does smoking gun mean something different in the UK than it does in the US?
We don't have guns over here, I think more of a euphemism for oral sex. :P
So your question was "So in amongst the vague, uncertain and detacted testimony of this frail of man ( I presume an act), was there an oral sex moment ?"
And your answer is yes?
Who was the suckee in your fantasy; Cameron or Murdock?
What error message is the above, anyone help ?
I think it's a sense of humour failure, but iirc that module was stripped when they upgrade the power supply to steam.
Yes, it is a failure of your sense of humor. :lol:
You said a silly thing, and when I noted how silly it was, you still didn't get it.
Don't worry about it. Just avoid using the term "smoking gun" in the future. It has nothing to do with oral sex.
Epic woosh on your part.
But do carry on, you're probably amusing others.
Quote from: mongers on July 19, 2011, 06:37:30 PM
Epic woosh on your part.
But do carry on, you're probably amusing others.
Oh, this is amusing others, and that fact that you don't get it amuses me.
So, every one here wins. Except you, of course, but we cannot have
everything. :bowler:
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2011, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 19, 2011, 06:37:30 PM
Epic woosh on your part.
But do carry on, you're probably amusing others.
Oh, this is amusing others, and that fact that you don't get it amuses me.
So, every one here wins. Except you, of course, but we cannot have everything. :bowler:
Grumbler continues to plough is lonely furrow. :cool:
One Torygraph columnist says Cameron is in danger:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/maryriddell/100097802/wallis-and-cameron-is-this-the-smoking-gun/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/maryriddell/100097802/wallis-and-cameron-is-this-the-smoking-gun/)
Someone on CNN has called it "UK Watergate". Not sure if this is not an exaggeration but will see. For now it is pretty to watch. :P
Quote from: Martinus on July 20, 2011, 03:27:23 AM
Someone on CNN has called it "UK Watergate".
:bleeding:
This watergate fetishism is getting ridiculous, next time there's a big scandal I'm going to name it the ________dome scandal. That'll make just as much sense.
Oops. It's bad when your lawyers turn on you:
QuoteThe law firm hired by News International in 2007 to review allegations of phone hacking says it is being prevented from responding to "inaccurate" comments made by James Murdoch. Mr Murdoch said a letter written by the law firm made executives at News International believe that hacking was a "matter of the past". Harbottle and Lewis says it is not being allowed to breach client confidentiality.
:D
And Australia now joins the fray:
QuoteAustralian Prime Minister Julia Gillard says the Australian arm of News Corp will have to answer "hard questions"
Quote from: Martinus on July 19, 2011, 05:37:47 PM
I thought we were talking about principles, not specifics of the US federal law (which, in addition to the fact that many participants in the discussion are not familiar with it, is not really an object of this thread at all since the whole thing happened in the UK).
We are talking about legal gray areas. That by nature involves specific laws, not principles.
Ifyou want to talk about UK law, go ahead and talk about UK law. The invasion of privacy laws are stricter there than in the US - a fact that came out during the Mosely thread. But again, it is by no means clear to me there are significant gray areas there - other than the potential ambiguity that may result from the possibility of appealing to Strasbourg
Quote from: Martinus on July 19, 2011, 05:39:53 PM
"Newsworthy" is something else than "in public interest", especially in the scandal/celebrity culture we live in. I'm rather glad the simple fact that something is "newsworthy" is not enough in most EU countries.
Many people are hostile to the concept of freedom of speech, and to a certain extent, the legal frameworks in many European countries (UK notably among them) reflect that hostility. What is interesting, and yet also predictable, is that stricter regulation of what the press can say has tended to make the press less responsible, not more. When you allow the State to define what is news ("in the public interest") and what is not, you not only make a mockery of freedom of the press and speech, you relieve that particular buck from stopping at the doors of the editors. As horrible and obnoxious as the US media often gets, it rarely reaches the depth of the Brit tabloids, or the likes of Bild. No accident that, IMO
Quote from: Martinus on July 20, 2011, 03:27:23 AM
Someone on CNN has called it "UK Watergate". Not sure if this is not an exaggeration but will see. For now it is pretty to watch. :P
Which only goes to show the low intelligence of UK journalists.
Present company excepted, of course.
Quote from: Neil on July 20, 2011, 05:24:54 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 20, 2011, 03:27:23 AM
Someone on CNN has called it "UK Watergate". Not sure if this is not an exaggeration but will see. For now it is pretty to watch. :P
Which only goes to show the low intelligence of UK journalists.
Present company excepted, of course.
Is CNN run by UK journalists?
I didn't realize Rupert's chinaman girl wife had such high principles.
She befriends an American couple in China, who teach her English and sponsor her for a student visa. She bangs the husband and marries him after he gets a divorce. She stays married long enough to get a green card, then bangs another dude and divorces the first sap. Gets an MBA at Yale, starts working at News Corp., and ditches the second sap to marry Rupert.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 20, 2011, 06:27:48 PM
I didn't realize Rupert's chinaman girl wife had such high principles.
She befriends an American couple in China, who teach her English and sponsor her for a student visa. She bangs the husband and marries him after he gets a divorce. She stays married long enough to get a green card, then bangs another dude and divorces the first sap. Gets an MBA at Yale, starts working at News Corp., and ditches the second sap to marry Rupert.
That is the American way.
I just hope that our own little Yakie doesn't get hurt. :(
Quote from: Martinus on July 20, 2011, 05:54:09 PM
Is CNN run by UK journalists?
It has UK journalists. The moron who posted the first new about CNN reporting just said that it was "Someone on CNN." Kinda stupid to just say "someone," but it could easily have been "someone" from the UK. :bowler:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 20, 2011, 06:37:51 PM
I just hope that our own little Yakie doesn't get hurt. :(
Thank you for your concern :hug:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 20, 2011, 04:36:04 PM
Many people are hostile to the concept of freedom of speech, and to a certain extent, the legal frameworks in many European countries (UK notably among them) reflect that hostility. What is interesting, and yet also predictable, is that stricter regulation of what the press can say has tended to make the press less responsible, not more. When you allow the State to define what is news ("in the public interest") and what is not, you not only make a mockery of freedom of the press and speech, you relieve that particular buck from stopping at the doors of the editors. As horrible and obnoxious as the US media often gets, it rarely reaches the depth of the Brit tabloids, or the likes of Bild. No accident that, IMO
Certainly no accident. But IMO the market rather than the law. American papers by and large are local monopolies, European papers are not.
The common law on privacy is a developing field. There is no legislation as such save that the European Convention on Human Rights provides certain rights which can be interpreted as giving a right to privacy. These rights have been interpreted in an arguably too strong manner by high court judges in the UK but I would argue that is because of the excesses of the tabloids rather than the other way round. If the right to privacy is the cause of tabloid excesses (which is so counter-intuitive an argument it should require a strong evidential base) then why do we not see such excesses elsewhere in Europe?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 20, 2011, 06:27:48 PM
I didn't realize Rupert's chinaman girl wife had such high principles.
She befriends an American couple in China, who teach her English and sponsor her for a student visa. She bangs the husband and marries him after he gets a divorce. She stays married long enough to get a green card, then bangs another dude and divorces the first sap. Gets an MBA at Yale, starts working at News Corp., and ditches the second sap to marry Rupert.
Sounds just like any other manipulative, sinister Asian chick.
Quote from: Gups on July 21, 2011, 03:32:10 AM
These rights have been interpreted in an arguably too strong manner by high court judges in the UK but I would argue that is because of the excesses of the tabloids rather than the other way round. If the right to privacy is the cause of tabloid excesses (which is so counter-intuitive an argument it should require a strong evidential base) then why do we not see such excesses elsewhere in Europe?
Who said we don't? I mentioned Bild in my post -- they are certainly the "equal" the British tabloids in terms of irresponsibility and least common denomimator reporting. While I am not familiar with the European press in other countries due to lack of exposure, I would not accept the proposition that similar problems do not exist in the absence of any proof. One exception is France, where the level of de facto political control over the press is so deep that it operates as a prior restraint.
I don't think the argument is as counter-intuitive as you suggest - one sees this dynamic elsewhere. Strict drug laws don't destroy the drug trade; they just make it more dangerous. What happened at NOTW is illustrative. In the face of strong privacy rule that threatened the tabloid's competitive position, reporters ratcheted their intrusive behavior up rather than down. Intrusive tactics were hidden from view by the use of intermediaries to do dirty work and wink-wink, nod-nod between line reporters and immediate supervisors. Meanwhile at the editorial and corporate levels, managers simultaneously put intense pressure on reporters to deliver juicy scoops, while choosing to remain in deliberate ignorance about the methods used to get those results. But once this kind of activity gets pushed into the margins, it becomes entirely uncontrolled, and the worst abuses become possible. Perhaps even probable.
Joan, just so we're clear what privacy rule are you taking about?
The phone hacking predates the Human Rights Act and the judicial interpretation of article 8 of the European Convention.
I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion. Am I missing something?
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2011, 11:08:24 AM
I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion. Am I missing something?
The actual hacking thing seemed over blown to me (funnily enough overblown by competing tabloids lol) but all the top cops and politics attached to the murdoch empire seems to be the big thing now.
Nobody was that bothered about the hacking until the Millie Dowler revelation. I think that disgusted a lot of people.
Quote from: HVC on July 21, 2011, 11:12:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2011, 11:08:24 AM
I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion. Am I missing something?
The actual hacking thing seemed over blown to me (funnily enough overblown by competing tabloids lol) but all the top cops and politics attached to the murdoch empire seems to be the big thing now.
Is Murdoch reviled that much in the UK?
Quote from: Gups on July 21, 2011, 10:17:19 AM
Joan, just so we're clear what privacy rule are you taking about?
The phone hacking predates the Human Rights Act and the judicial interpretation of article 8 of the European Convention.
I haven't seen any references to hacking occuring prior to the Dowling case.
In any event, the common law tort of breach of confidence is of long vintage. In the Mosely case, the Queens Bench acknowledged that the breach of confidence tort formed the basis of Mosely's claim and noted that the equitable reach of the tort had been judicially expanded prior to the HRA.
The libel laws canalso be used (abused) to a similar purpose, in those cases where it can be contended that the matters revealed have not been reported in strict accuracy.
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2011, 11:26:32 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 21, 2011, 11:12:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2011, 11:08:24 AM
I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion. Am I missing something?
The actual hacking thing seemed over blown to me (funnily enough overblown by competing tabloids lol) but all the top cops and politics attached to the murdoch empire seems to be the big thing now.
Is Murdoch reviled that much in the UK?
Imagine if Fox News was caught hacking into a dead white girl's phone. Enough people would be repulsed that they would be less inclined to come to their defence when the political left showed up to legislate them out of existance and punish anyone who had anything to do with stories that they didn't like.
Quote from: Neil on July 21, 2011, 12:08:40 PM
Imagine if Fox News was caught hacking into a dead white girl's phone. Enough people would be repulsed that they would be less inclined to come to their defence when the political left showed up to legislate them out of existance and punish anyone who had anything to do with stories that they didn't like.
Are you kidding? Think of the ratings!
Quote from: Neil on July 21, 2011, 12:08:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2011, 11:26:32 AM
Is Murdoch reviled that much in the UK?
Imagine if Fox News was caught hacking into a dead white girl's phone. Enough people would be repulsed that they would be less inclined to come to their defence when the political left showed up to legislate them out of existance and punish anyone who had anything to do with stories that they didn't like.
So they hate him, then?
Murdoch is hated by the British left. A large part of the public is fairly disgusted with tabloid journalism in general. When one of his papers was revealed to have systematically broken the law and also hacked in to a murdered girl's voicemail, then there is nobody who will choose to defend him from his detractors.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 21, 2011, 01:16:02 PM
Murdoch is hated by the British left. A large part of the public is fairly disgusted with tabloid journalism in general. When one of his papers was revealed to have systematically broken the law and also hacked in to a murdered girl's voicemail, then there is nobody who will choose to defend him from his detractors.
First they came for the corrupt politicos involved in sex scandals,
And I didn't speak out because I wasn't a corrupt politico involved in sex scandals.
Then they came for asshole Internet trolls and phone hackers,
And I didn't speak out because I wasn't an asshole Internet troll or phone hacker.
Then they came for the scumbag media moguls,
And I didn't speak out because I wasn't a scumbag media mogul.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
:(
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2011, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 21, 2011, 12:08:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2011, 11:26:32 AM
Is Murdoch reviled that much in the UK?
Imagine if Fox News was caught hacking into a dead white girl's phone. Enough people would be repulsed that they would be less inclined to come to their defence when the political left showed up to legislate them out of existance and punish anyone who had anything to do with stories that they didn't like.
So they hate him, then?
Absolutely. They'll stop at nothing to bring him down. After all, the British left just lost an election, and I'm sure they'd like to see that overturned if possible.
Rubbish there's plenty of people on the right, like me (one-nation tory*), who detest the murdoch empire.
edit:
* my bad, that makes me left wing doesn't it ? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2011, 11:08:24 AM
I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion. Am I missing something?
Bribery of Police Officers?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2011, 11:08:24 AM
I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion. Am I missing something?
Bribery of Police Officers?
Justified in spreading the Conservative gospel.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2011, 06:31:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2011, 11:08:24 AM
I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion. Am I missing something?
Bribery of Police Officers?
Justified in spreading the Conservative gospel.
I don't think the two are related.
Not looking good for James Murdoch
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/james-murdoch-select-committee-evidence
Quote
James Murdoch misled MPs, say former NoW editor and lawyer
Colin Myler and Tom Crone challenge News Corp executive's statement to MPs at phone-hacking hearing
* Lisa O'Carroll and Patrick Wintour
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 20.02 BST
James Murdoch has been accused of misleading the parliamentary select committee this week in relation to phone hacking, igniting yet another fire for the embattled News International boss to extinguish.
In a highly damaging broadside, two former News of the World senior executives claimed the evidence Murdoch gave to the committee on Tuesday in relation to an out-of-court settlement to Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association, was "mistaken".
The statement came as something of a bombshell to the culture, sport and media select committee, which immediately announced it would be asking Murdoch to explain the contradiction.
Colin Myler, editor of the paper until it was shut down two weeks ago, and Tom Crone, the paper's former head of legal affairs, said they had expressly told Murdoch of an email that would have blown a hole in its defence that only one "rogue reporter" was involved in the phone-hacking scandal.
This contradicts what Murdoch told the committee when questioned on Tuesday.
The existence of the email, known as the "for Neville" email because of its link to the paper's former chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck, is thought to have been critical in News International's decision to pay out around £700,000 to Taylor in an out-of-court settlement after he threatened to sue the paper.
James Murdoch is standing by his version of events. A statement issued by News Corporation said: "James Murdoch stands by his testimony to the select committee."
In their statement, Myler and Crone challenged this: "Just by way of clarification relating to Tuesday's Culture, Media Select Committee hearing, we would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken.
"In fact, we did inform him of the 'for Neville' email which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor's lawyers."
John Whittingdale, the chairman of the culture, sport and media select committee, said: "We as a committee regarded the 'for Neville' email as one of the most critical pieces of evidence in the whole inquiry. We will be asking James Murdoch to respond and ask him to clarify."
He added that "it was seen as one of the few available pieces of evidence showing that this activity was not confined just to Clive Goodman", the only journalist on the paper to have been prosecuted – and jailed – in relation to phone hacking so far.
The email is believed to have been critical in News International's decision to pay Taylor such a large sum of money.
If it had got out in a full-blown court case brought by the Profession Footballers' Association chief executive it would have blown a hole in News International's claim that only one reporter was involved in hacking.
James Murdoch claimed to the MPs that this email had been concealed from him by two company executives, Crone and Myler, when he was persuaded to sign off the secret deal with Taylor.
Earlier this month James Murdoch acknowledged he was wrong to settle the suit, saying he did not "have a complete picture of the case" at the time.
He repeated this on Tuesday at the select committee when he was asked by Labour MP Tom Watson: "When you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the full Neville email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?"
To this James Murdoch answered: "No, I was not aware of that at the time."
Watson went on to ask him why then had he paid an "astronomical sum" to Taylor.
James Murdoch replied: "There was every reason to settle the case, given the likelihood of losing the case and given the damages – we had received counsel – that would be levied."
With parliament in recess, it is unlikely but not unprecedented for a select committee to hold a special evidence session to clarify the issue.
Witnesses in the case have been given very strict instructions before giving evidence to tell the truth, although witnesses do not give evidence under a specific oath.
James Murdoch told the committee that his advisers had urged him to adopt a strategy of telling the truth when he spoke to the committee.
In its 2010 report the culture, sport and media select committee, in discussing the Gordon Taylor settlement, wrote: "The settlements were authorised by James Murdoch, executive chairman of News International, following discussions with Colin Myler and Tom Crone".
It did not specifically state whether Murdoch had been shown the "for Neville" email before making the settlement, but does state Murdoch was authorised to make the payment without bringing the issue to the News International board.
Quote from: Neil on July 21, 2011, 06:56:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2011, 06:31:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2011, 11:08:24 AM
I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion. Am I missing something?
Bribery of Police Officers?
Justified in spreading the Conservative gospel.
I don't think the two are related.
American conservatives view money as a form of free speech. Bribery is simply their way of communicating with people.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2011, 08:29:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 21, 2011, 06:56:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2011, 06:31:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 21, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2011, 11:08:24 AM
I haven't followed this thing too closely and I haven't read all of this thread, but this thing seems to have been blown a bit out of proportion. Am I missing something?
Bribery of Police Officers?
Justified in spreading the Conservative gospel.
I don't think the two are related.
American conservatives view money as a form of free speech. Bribery is simply their way of communicating with people.
Since this is the UK, I don't think your point is relevant.
When are my points ever relevant?
These background checks sound so intense they're creepy. I understand why they do them, but I'd never want a job where I have to go through that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/andy-coulson-security-clearance-vetting
QuoteAndy Coulson's limited security clearance at No 10 'breathtaking'
Tony Blair's deputy political spokesman says it would have been extremely difficult to operate with Coulson's clearance level
* Robert Booth, Patrick Wintour and James Ball
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 20.20 BST
It was the £140,000-a-year job that placed Andy Coulson at the heart of British power. But the former News of the World editor's predecessors as prime ministerial spin doctor were stumped as to how he could have done the job with only limited security clearance befitting a far more junior civil servant.
As the Cabinet Office faced growing pressure to explain why Coulson had not been cleared to the same security level as other recent Downing Street advisers, former No 10 staff told how they could not have operated on issues ranging from Afghanistan to the economy without the rigorous "developed vetting" process they underwent. This was aimed at uncovering lies and anything that could make an official susceptible to blackmail.
Lance Price, Tony Blair's former deputy political spokesman, said Coulson's lower level of security clearance would have made it almost impossible to advise on issues including Nato,European security, Afghanistan, the terror threat to the UK and the situation in Northern Ireland.
"I find it breathtaking that the director of communications would have anything less than the full level of security, because in that kind of job you have to be able to see and assess just about everything that passed the prime minister's desk in terms of communications strategy and how it might impact," Price said.
"I would see papers relating to negotiations in Northern Ireland which were pretty sensitive, I attended private meetings with Tony Blair in Washington with Bill Clinton and the secretary of state for defence. The implication of him not having the highest level of vetting is that there would have been quite a lot of papers he wouldn't have been able to see. Even in my work, it would have been extremely difficult to have done the job properly and I was in a less senior position than Coulson."
Alastair Campbell, Blair's former press secretary, said it was "quite odd" that Coulson was not vetted at a higher level, explaining how he was only able to read some of the most sensitive material passing through No 10 because of rigorous vetting that Coulson did not undertake.
"Essentially it was understood that Jonathan Powell [Blair's chief of staff] and I, in addition to other senior civil servants, were able to attend any meeting and see any papers that went to the prime minister. It is very hard to see how you could do the press and strategy job, particularly on foreign affairs, without being fully in the picture. You had to be trusted with all the information and then know how much you were entitled to divulge.
"For example, I don't see how Coulson could have attended Cameron's meeting with President Obama in Washington in 2010, when they discussed Afghanistan, the Middle East, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the economy, without developed vetting. A lot of the material about the economy, one of the biggest issues of the day, also required developed vetting."
Coulson was cleared to "security check" level, a standard that grants regular access to material classified as secret, but only "occasional, controlled access" to top-secret documents. Roles involving unsupervised access to top-secret material require higher-level developed vetting, according to official guidance. It involves an extra questionnaire, criminal record, security services and credit reference checks, and an extended, typically three-hour interview, plus reference checks by phone or in person.
"We have to look at your loyalty, honesty and reliability, and whether you could be particularly vulnerable to bribery or blackmail," the guidance states. "We will question you about your wider family background (relationships and influences), past experiences (if any) of drug taking, financial affairs, general political views (though not which party you support), hobbies, foreign travel and so on."
A senior former Downing Street official said: "The grilling you receive is intense, highly detailed and incredibly personal – for example, going through a very long list of sexual practices and being asked what you had and hadn't done. Answer yes to any one of them and you'd be required to give full details: when, with whom, how recently, and so on.
"If one incident stands out on your employment or financial or family record, you could spend up to an hour under intense scrutiny about that one thing. They then go and interview at least one of your closest friends to see if their answers tally up with yours. It's impossible to 'prep' your friends for their interviews because you can't remember everything you said. Your only option is to tell the complete truth to the interviewer and tell your friends to do the same."
John McTernan, Blair's former political secretary, said that when he was subject to developed vetting, investigators asked his friend: "Have you seen Mr McTernan drunk? How do you think he manages his money? Does he gamble? And when he's drunk, what's he like with his children?"
McTernan wrote in the Daily Telegraph: "Did they really not probe the possibility that Coulson's past might impact on his proposed role? It seems so unlikely. Did the PM, or his team, do no due diligence on Coulson?"
Vetting levels
Strap' classification
Used for particularly sensitive information, and is sub-divided into three levels of access: documents have a cover sheet that must be signed each time they are accessed.
Developed vetting (DV)
Required for any officials with routine or unsupervised access to top-secret material. To receive this level of clearance, applicants must complete a 53-page assessment form. That is then verified with a three-hour interview, and references are cross-checked. The process can be expedited to a few weeks, but can take up to six months.
Security check (SC)
Grants routine access to secret material, but only occasional supervised access to top-secret documents. Applicants fill out a 29-page form and are subject to security and credit reference checks. The process typically takes just a few weeks, but can be completed faster.
Counter-terrorism check (CTC)
Basic security check for people in close proximity to public figures, or with access to low-level sensitive information. Applicants have their criminal records and other security information checked.
The security checks aren't that creepy; it's all clearly explained at the start and the candidate knows what they're getting into.
That said, it was annoying when I had to start unearthing long-lost family information for my brother's DV application. <_<
Background Investigations (as they are called in the US) are a pain for the investigators, but not for the person being investigated (once past the initial paperwork and interview).
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2011, 05:50:02 AM
Background Investigations (as they are called in the US) are a pain for the investigators, but not for the person being investigated (once past the initial paperwork and interview).
It can be an odd experience for your friends & former co-workers, but yeah otherwise pretty painless unless you're worried about them finding something.
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2011, 11:23:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2011, 05:50:02 AM
Background Investigations (as they are called in the US) are a pain for the investigators, but not for the person being investigated (once past the initial paperwork and interview).
It can be an odd experience for your friends & former co-workers, but yeah otherwise pretty painless unless you're worried about them finding something.
Well it depends what you mean by being worried. I wouldn't want someone interviewing the guys whose toes I sucked, for example, even if it is not something I would "worry about being found".
Mine would be rather dull, since I don't do anything. Though they would probably consider the occasional psychotic episode a deal breaker.
Quote from: Martinus on July 22, 2011, 12:55:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 22, 2011, 11:23:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2011, 05:50:02 AM
Background Investigations (as they are called in the US) are a pain for the investigators, but not for the person being investigated (once past the initial paperwork and interview).
It can be an odd experience for your friends & former co-workers, but yeah otherwise pretty painless unless you're worried about them finding something.
Well it depends what you mean by being worried. I wouldn't want someone interviewing the guys whose toes I sucked, for example, even if it is not something I would "worry about being found".
As a former background investigator for the po-po, the problem isn't whether you sucked toes, but if that particular instance of sucking toes would have put you in the position of being compromised in some way in the position you've applied for.
In short, it's not what you've done, it's whether what you've done (or doing) could conceivably put you in a compromising position. If the determination is that it won't, or hasn't, then the issue becomes a bit moot. Sometimes.
I understand that, I just think it would be personally embarrassing to discuss that. :P
Quote from: derspiess on July 21, 2011, 11:26:32 AMIs Murdoch reviled that much in the UK?
I like Rupert personally.
It may help to remember that Britain still has press tycoon-ish attitudes in a lot of our papers. The Daily Mail doesn't attack the owner of the Daily Express for owning a number of porn mags and the Daily Express doesn't attack the Daily Mail for its history of supporting Nazis (literally) and so on. The press went quiet on this story, with the exception of the Guardian (and Rebekah Brooks said she wanted to crush the Guardian and have the editor on his knees), for years because many papers had done similar things. That's now starting to come out.
But, fundamentally, it's liks a very small tank filled with sharks and Murdoch started bleeding first.
In other news the allegations have now turned to the Mirror. And a step closer to Piers :mmm:
I think Guardian's journalists should get some prize for the whole thing.
For Guardian journalists sanctimoniousness is sufficient reward :D
I actually once wrote a letter (well, an email) to the Guardian. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Martinus on July 23, 2011, 03:27:37 AM
I think Guardian's journalists should get some prize for the whole thing.
They'll probably get a British Press Award.
http://www.slate.com/id/2114852/entry/2114932
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 23, 2011, 04:10:40 AM
For Guardian journalists sanctimoniousness is sufficient reward :D
No shit.
"The whole world knows I'm smirking smugly at this moment. They just know."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2011, 10:47:11 PM
As a former background investigator for the po-po, the problem isn't whether you sucked toes, but if that particular instance of sucking toes would have put you in the position of being compromised in some way in the position you've applied for.
In short, it's not what you've done, it's whether what you've done (or doing) could conceivably put you in a compromising position. If the determination is that it won't, or hasn't, then the issue becomes a bit moot. Sometimes.
What about hearing voices?
Quote from: Martinus on July 23, 2011, 03:27:37 AM
I think Guardian's journalists should get some prize for the whole thing.
They might, but the havoc that this has wreaked on rival papers and the profile of the story is likely the primary reward.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwearefuntastic.net%2Fimageserver%2F_urlhatsegeaen3%2Fimg%2F275wiepassena.jpg&hash=02d8be7854d8a7150dc207cf84b2424a8a2892b0)
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2011, 11:01:27 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 22, 2011, 10:47:11 PM
As a former background investigator for the po-po, the problem isn't whether you sucked toes, but if that particular instance of sucking toes would have put you in the position of being compromised in some way in the position you've applied for.
In short, it's not what you've done, it's whether what you've done (or doing) could conceivably put you in a compromising position. If the determination is that it won't, or hasn't, then the issue becomes a bit moot. Sometimes.
What about hearing voices?
It's OK if I can hear them too.
Well they're screwed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/16/phone-hacking-now-reporter-letter
QuotePhone hacking: News of the World reporter's letter reveals cover-up
Disgraced royal correspondent Clive Goodman's letter says phone hacking was 'widely discussed' at NoW meetings
* Nick Davies
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 August 2011 12.34 BST
Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and their former editor Andy Coulson all face embarrassing new allegations of dishonesty and cover-up after the publication of an explosive letter written by the News of the World's disgraced royal correspondent, Clive Goodman.
In the letter, which was written four years ago but published only on Tuesday, Goodman claims that phone hacking was "widely discussed" at editorial meetings at the paper until Coulson himself banned further references to it; that Coulson offered to let him keep his job if he agreed not to implicate the paper in hacking when he came to court; and that his own hacking was carried out with "the full knowledge and support" of other senior journalists, whom he named.
The claims are acutely troubling for the prime minister, David Cameron, who hired Coulson as his media adviser on the basis that he knew nothing about phone hacking. And they confront Rupert and James Murdoch with the humiliating prospect of being recalled to parliament to justify the evidence which they gave last month on the aftermath of Goodman's allegations. In a separate letter, one of the Murdochs' own law firms claim that parts of that evidence were variously "hard to credit", "self-serving" and "inaccurate and misleading".
Goodman's claims also raise serious questions about Rupert Murdoch's close friend and adviser, Les Hinton, who was sent a copy of the letter but failed to pass it to police and who then led a cast of senior Murdoch personnel in telling parliament that they believed Coulson knew nothing about the interception of the voicemail of public figures and that Goodman was the only journalist involved.
The letters from Goodman and from the London law firm Harbottle & Lewis are among a cache of paperwork published by the Commons culture, media and sport select committee. One committee member, the Labour MP Tom Watson, said Goodman's letter was "absolutely devastating". He said: "Clive Goodman's letter is the most significant piece of evidence that has been revealed so far. It completely removes News International's defence. This is one of the largest cover-ups I have seen in my lifetime."
Goodman's letter is dated 2 March 2007, soon after he was released from a four-month prison sentence. It is addressed to News International's director of human resources, Daniel Cloke, and registers his appeal against the decision of Hinton, the company's then chairman, to sack him for gross misconduct after he admitted intercepting the voicemail of three members of the royal household. Goodman lists five grounds for his appeal.
He argues that the decision is perverse because he acted "with the full knowledge and support" of named senior journalists and that payments for the private investigator who assisted him, Glenn Mulcaire, were arranged by another senior journalist. The names of the journalists have been redacted from the published letter at the request of Scotland Yard, who are investigating the affair.
Goodman then claims that other members of staff at the News of the World were also hacking phones. Crucially, he adds: "This practice was widely discussed in the daily editorial conference, until explicit reference to it was banned by the editor." He reveals that the paper continued to consult him on stories even though they knew he was going to plead guilty to phone hacking and that the paper's then lawyer, Tom Crone, knew all the details of the case against him.
In a particularly embarrassing allegation, he adds: "Tom Crone and the editor promised on many occasions that I could come back to a job at the newspaper if I did not implicate the paper or any of its staff in my mitigation plea. I did not, and I expect the paper to honour its promise to me." In the event, Goodman lost his appeal. But the claim that the paper induced him to mislead the court is one that may cause further problems for News International.
Two versions of his letter were provided to the committee. One which was supplied by Harbottle & Lewis has been redacted to remove the names of journalists, at the request of police. The other, which was supplied by News International, has been redacted to remove not only the names but also all references to hacking being discussed in Coulson's editorial meetings and to Coulson's offer to keep Goodman on staff if he agreed not to implicate the paper.
The company also faces a new claim that it misled parliament. In earlier evidence to the select committee, in answer to questions about whether it had bought Goodman's silence, it had said he was paid off with a period of notice plus compensation of no more than £60,000. The new paperwork, however, reveals that Goodman was paid a full year's salary, worth £90,502.08, plus a further £140,000 in compensation as well as £13,000 to cover his lawyer's bill. Watson said: "It's hush money. I think they tried to buy his silence." Murdoch's executives have always denied this.
When Goodman's letter reached News International four years ago, it set off a chain reaction which now threatens embarrassment for Rupert and James Murdoch personally. The company resisted Goodman's appeal, and he requested disclosure of emails sent to and from six named senior journalists on the paper. The company collected 2,500 emails and sent them to Harbottle & Lewis and asked the law firm to examine them.
Harbottle & Lewis then produced a letter, which has previously been published by the select committee in a non-redacted form: "I can confirm that we did not find anything in those emails which appeared to us to be reasonable evidence that Clive Goodman's illegal actions were known about and supported by both or either of Andy Coulson, the editor, and Neil Wallis, the deputy editor, and/or that Ian Edmondson, the news editor, and others were carrying out similar illegal procedures."
In their evidence to the select committee last month, the Murdochs presented this letter as evidence that the company had been given a clean bill of health. However, the Metropolitan police have since said that the emails contained evidence of "alleged payments by corrupt journalists to corrupt police officers". And the former director of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, who examined a small sample of the emails, said they contained evidence of indirect hacking, breaches of national security and serious crime.
In a lengthy reply, Harbottle & Lewis say it was never asked to investigate whether crimes generally had been committed at the News of the World but had been instructed only to say whether the emails contained evidence that Goodman had hacked phones with "the full knowledge and support" of the named senior journalists. The law firm reveals that the letter was the result of a detailed negotiation with News International's senior lawyer, Jon Chapman, and it refused to include a line which he suggested, that, having seen a copy of Goodman's letter of 2 March: "We did not find anything that we consider to be directly relevant to the grounds of appeal put forward by him."
In a lengthy criticism of the Murdochs' evidence to the select committee last month, Harbottle & Lewis says it finds it "hard to credit" James Murdoch's repeated claim that News International "rested on" its letter as part of their grounds for believing that Goodman was a "rogue reporter". It says News International's view of the law firm's role is "self-serving" and that Rupert Murdoch's claim that it was hired "to find out what the hell was going on" was "inaccurate and misleading", although it adds that he may have been confused or misinformed about its role.
Harbottle & Lewis writes: "There was absolutely no question of the firm being asked to provide News International with a clean bill of health which it could deploy years later in wholly different contexts for wholly different purposes ... The firm was not being asked to provide some sort of 'good conduct certificate' which News International could show to parliament ... Nor was it being given a general retainer, as Mr Rupert Murdoch asserted it was, 'to find out what the hell was going on'."
The law firm's challenge to the Murdochs' evidence follows an earlier claim made jointly by the paper's former editor and former lawyer that a different element of James Murdoch's evidence to the committee was "mistaken". He had told the committee that he had paid more than £1m to settle a legal action brought by Gordon Taylor of the Professional Footballers Association without knowing that Taylor's lawyers had obtained an email from a junior reporter to the paper's chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, containing 35 transcripts of voicemail messages. Crone and the former editor, Colin Myler, last month challenged this.
In letters published by the committee, the former News of the World lawyer repeats his position. He says this email was "the sole reason" for settling Taylor's case. He says he took it with him to a meeting with James Murdoch in June 2008 when he explained the need to settle: "I have no doubt that I informed Mr Murdoch of its existence, of what it was and where it came from."
Myler, in a separate letter also published on Tuesday, endorses Crone's account. Their evidence raises questions about James Murdoch's failure to tell the police or his shareholders about the evidence of crime contained in the email.
Watson said that both Murdochs should be recalled to the committee to explain their evidence. Hinton, who resigned last month, may join them. Four days after Goodman sent his letter, Hinton gave evidence to the select committee in which he made no reference to any of the allegations contained in the letter, but told MPs: "I believe absolutely that Andy [Coulson] did not have knowledge of what was going on". He added that he had carried out a full, rigorous internal inquiry and that he believed Goodman was the only person involved.
Commenting on the evidence from the select committee, a News International spokesperson said: "News Corporation's board has set up a management and standards committee, chaired by independent chairman Lord Grabiner, which is co-operating fully with the Metropolitan police and is facilitating their investigation into illegal voicemail interception at the News of the World and related issues.
"We recognise the seriousness of materials disclosed to the police and parliament and are committed to working in a constructive and open way with all the relevant authorities."
Yep. Cliff notes:
1. The NOTW's royal correspondent whose phone hacking sparked all of this off and who was jailed wrote a letter in 2007 appealing against his dismissal. The letter said it was unfair to dismiss him because hacking was widely discussed at editorial meeting and that he had a deal with the paper that he would keep quiet about this at his trial provided they kept his job open for him.
This is in dieect contradiction to NI's assurances that senior management knew nothing.
2. For ages NI have been blaming a firm of lawyers, Harbottle and Lewis, who they say were instructed to undertake a thorough investigation into the documentation to see if the hacking was authorised higher up the food chain and gave the NOTW a clean bill of health. Harbottle & Lewis could say nothing as they owed a duty of confidentiality to their client. Under pressure NI released them from this duty and it turns out they were only instructed on much narrower grounds (relating to Goodman's dimissal) i.e. NI had simply lied.
What amazes me is that NI thought they could get away with this given the amount of scrutiny over the last few months.
Hah!
Think any of the high ups will get as much as the looter who stole a pack of mineral water (i.e. 5 months of unsuspended prison sentence) or will they be treated leniently on account of being Cameron's buddies?
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2011, 03:50:22 PM
Think any of the high ups will get as much as the looter who stole a pack of mineral water (i.e. 5 months of unsuspended prison sentence) or will they be treated leniently on account of being Cameron's buddies?
What do you think :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2011, 03:50:22 PM
Think any of the high ups will get as much as the looter who stole a pack of mineral water (i.e. 5 months of unsuspended prison sentence) or will they be treated leniently on account of being Cameron's buddies?
Politics trump friendship. If it's in his political interest to hammer them, he'll hammer them.
Quote from: Martinus on August 17, 2011, 03:50:22 PM
Think any of the high ups will get as much as the looter who stole a pack of mineral water (i.e. 5 months of unsuspended prison sentence) or will they be treated leniently on account of being Cameron's buddies?
One of Cameron's buddies stole a pack of mineral water?