***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
A thread to accommodate debate on the current scandal.
It was of little interest to me and to be honest I giggled at the indignation of celebrities wringing their hands in despair.....however after the revelation of the hacking of poor Miss Dowler's phone by people acting on behalf of hacks from the News of the World, it has gone beyond the pale. I, for one, will ditch my connections with consumer products from Murdoch's empire.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 8 Jul 11 at 10:28
|
I presume you will ditch your connections with the providers of Ex directory telephone numbers to them, as well then?
Shouldn't we also be asking why the Police were able to take payment for information?
Was that above board, if so it's very wrong.The blame for this lies in more than one persons lap, I'm afraid.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 09:07
|
|
Pat, I don't understand the reference to ex-directory phone numbers. Have I missed something?
|
I listened to an interview on BBC TV early this morning and apparently a lot of the phone numbers were Ex directory numbers given, in the hope that some news would be forthcoming of their relatives, after the London bombings.
Pat
|
PU - Agreed.
When it was two bit politicians, self obsessed celebrities, half-witted footballers or minor royals; then they got what they deserved - more or less.
The latest revelations are an absolute disgrace. Why we ever let Murdoch - a foreigner - get so much power in the media I fail to understand.
I fear that the government will rush through some legislation which we can repent at our leisure.
Last edited by: Duncan on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 09:08
|
Ford pulls all advertising from News of the World pending the outcome of enquiries, with others considering their position:
tinyurl.com/6yyqfjd
So many people complain about the gutter press in this country, and then go out and buy a tabloid 'newspaper' every day.
The only way the gutter press will ever change its behaviour, draconian legislation aside, is for its readership as well as its advertisers to stop giving it money.
Last edited by: DP on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 09:15
|
>>
>> So many people complain about the gutter press in this country, and then go out
>> and buy a tabloid 'newspaper' every day.
>>
>> The only way the gutter press will ever change its behaviour, draconian legislation aside, is
>> for its readership as well as its advertisers to stop giving it money.
>>
Totally agree, hence I don't buy newspapers.
|
>>
>> I fear that the government will rush through some legislation which we can repent at
>> our leisure.
>>
That has to be a major risk, we might well end up with legislation that would have made the investigation of MP's expenses, for example, difficult or illegal.
|
I cant for the life of me understand what they were up to. What was the goal? If they found anything they couldn't publish it as the act of hacking would be uncovered, ditto they couldn't tell the police if they found anything useful to the enquiry.
Its one thing to find smut and gossip on celebs, but to actively impede and intrude on a murder enquiry and all the people involved? - to hack in to the increasingly desperate messages from the family is nothing short of macabre gruesome voyeurism.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 09:15
|
Reports now are that Mulcaire had 11,000 pages of notes on his hacking activity. Yet no action was taken except in relation to any intercepts except those of Princes William & Harry.
Why? Were senior people too close to News International? Did they fear that stirring the hornets would bring exposure of their own peccadilloes?
The Met and the CPS have a lot of questions to answer.
|
"Its one thing to find smut and gossip on celebs"
That view surely is perhaps where the problem lies. If you have a law you must apply it equally to all. It is not OK to say "she's a footballer's wife and therefore fair game, let's hack her phone". Everyone is entitled to the protection of the law. You cannot operate a dual system depending on the perceived moral worth of the individual. Take that line and it's the start of a slippery slope that ends up where we are now.
|
I hope News of the World goes down in flames, celebs etc, fair game if you misbehave in public life, but ordinary members of the pubic in such terrible circumstances is deplorable.
Seize em!
|
|
Murdoch should go with it (In flames I mean.) I bet you he won't.
|
...I cant for the life of me understand what they were up to. What was the goal? If they found anything they couldn't publish it as the act of hacking would be uncovered...
For a hard news story, the information is absolutely invaluable because it enables you to ask the right questions of the official sources.
The answers to those questions - which you know already - put your story on the record and make it useable.
During an investigation, a policeman - whether on your payroll or not - is unlikely to lie in answer to a direct question, but often will not volunteer the information unless asked.
Running the information past the official sources has two other benefits, it's another accuracy check - just because it's been hacked off a phone doesn't make it right.
And in the case of a crime story, it's a way of checking the story won't knacker the investigation.
To give a simple example, during a high-profile murder case I heard - it matters not how - that police had made an arrest.
The police would have released that information, probably later that same day, but because we knew of it earlier, we were able to ask: "Has an arrest been made?", get confirmation, and get the story out before the competition.
|
How did they 'hack' into their 'phones?
Was it a simple case of the 'phones owner not bothering to change the standard PIN, thus allowing anyone to access their voicemail? If so, then I've not much sympathy.
|
...Was it a simple case of the 'phones owner not bothering to change the standard PIN, thus allowing anyone to access their voicemail?...
In most cases, yes - as I understand it.
I'm told it's relatively easy to access a mobile's voicemail if the user has not changed the settings out of the box.
I've never bothered changing mine, but my protection - as for most of us - is no one would be the least bit interested in the two or three mundane messages I receive each week.
|
>> ...Was it a simple case of the 'phones owner not bothering to change the standard
>> PIN, thus allowing anyone to access their voicemail?...
>>
>> In most cases, yes - as I understand it.
>>
>> I'm told it's relatively easy to access a mobile's voicemail if the user has not
>> changed the settings out of the box.
Its more than relatively easy, its a complete doddle. Even if the Pin number has been changed, most people use keypad patterns that are relatively easy to guess.
The same applies to your pin for the cashcard.
|
>> How did they 'hack' into their 'phones?
>>
>> Was it a simple case of the 'phones owner not bothering to change the standard
>> PIN, thus allowing anyone to access their voicemail? If so, then I've not much sympathy.
>>
I don't think the phones would've been hacked at all, I assume the voicemail number was obtained/guessed and as you say the default voicemail PIN used.
|
A bit of background re phone access.
"Who, What, Why: Can phone hackers still access messages?"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14044499
|
"...during a high-profile murder case I heard - it matters not how - that police had made an arrest."
While you probably meant the words "it matters not how" to convey that the way you obtained the information is irrelevant to the point you are making, your choice of words is unfortunate.
The whole point of the debate is that it does indeed matter how the information is obtained and people are beginning to feel that "investigative journalism" might sometimes be for the benefit of newspapers rather than the public.
|
...that "investigative journalism" might sometimes be for the benefit of newspapers rather than the public...
Sometimes? I would say 'usually'.
It's all about consequences, my case was harmless because all it achieved was the earlier release of information which would inevitably have been made public later.
There are plenty of cases in which the News of the World's investigative techniques - including phone hacking - have exposed wrongdoing and/or resulted in a criminal conviction.
Those cases are a win situation all round, the paper gets a good story and a circulation boost, and the public gets a criminal brought to justice.
No one complains about the paper's methods in those cases.
|
>> No one complains about the paper's methods in those cases.
That's a dreadful generalisation and assumption.
I, for one, believe a criminal conviction can't be used to justify criminal or immoral behaviour in obtaining that conviction and I hope I'm right in saying that British courts would reject the presentation of evidence obtained by foul means. Stand to be corrected.
|
...I'm right in saying that British courts would reject the presentation of evidence obtained by foul means. Stand to be corrected...
They might if they knew about it.
What tends to happen is NoW does its dastardly work, passes the information onto the police, which enables them to ask the right questions of the criminal.
A runnable case is then presented to the court.
And if there's a guilty plea, which there often is, there is even less scrutiny of how the evidence is obtained because the evidence itself is admitted, as in not challenged.
|
"There are plenty of cases in which the News of the World's investigative techniques - including phone hacking - have exposed wrongdoing and/or resulted in a criminal conviction."
I've only just seen this (been out most of the day) and some other posts have covered more or less the point I would make, which is that Iffy's statement here gets perilously near saying, "The ends justify the means." That is a very dodgy moral position to be in.
One thing that comes out of Iffy's postings in this thread is the ambiguity of his attitude. He has a certain enthusiasm when it comes to explaining the inside world of journalism's methods of obtaining information and the subsequent use of that information.
However: "It's all about consequences, my case was harmless because all it achieved was the earlier release of information which would inevitably have been made public later." So sometimes cases of this sort are NOT harmless.
"No one complains about the paper's methods in those cases." So are the dubious practices OK as long as no-one complains?
I'm afraid the picture that emerges is that journalists will be prepared to compromise in their search for sellable news. Iffy says at one point that probably no more than one or two NoW journalists were involved in hacking, then in the next breath says he's surprised that no other newspapers are implicated.
As an apologist for the news industry, he will (I'm afraid) reinforce people's prejudices about certain aspects of standards in the press. I think a lot of the public are being given much food for thought.
|
...Iffy says at one point that probably no more than one or two NoW journalists were involved in hacking, then in the next breath says he's surprised that no other newspapers are implicated...
I thought that point was fairly clear, only a handful of people at the NoW would have known anything about the phone hacking and if, as seems likely, other papers had a go, only a handful of people on those papers would have known anything about it.
That puts matters in perspective, 95 per cent of NoW staff are not involved in hacking, so it also opens the question of an appropriate punishment.
If one or two teachers at a school are caught kiddie-fiddling, you don't sack/imprison the whole staff and close the place.
|
>> If one or two teachers at a school are caught kiddie-fiddling, you don't sack/imprison the
>> whole staff and close the place.
No but you sack the head for lack of supervision. And if its endemic at that establishment, yes you do close the place. Its happened.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 17:26
|
1) "...only a handful of people at the NoW would have known anything about the phone hacking..." I think one is entitled to be sceptical about that. It sounds like the standard get-out argument for anyone higher up the line - "Oh, it was a one-off", or "He's a loose cannon."
2) "If one or two teachers at a school are caught kiddie-fiddling, you don't sack/imprison the whole staff and close the place."
If that's aimed at me, Iffy, you're vastly over-stating my position. I was saying that even if it's a minority of journos with dirty hands, the public perception is that the whole profession, or at least the entire staff of a particular newspaper, is tarnished. Similarly, it takes only a couple of bad teachers at a school to ruin its reputation.
I have no idea of an appropriate punishment, but I would welcome a categorical condemnation of phone-hacking from you.
|
...I was saying that even if it's a minority of journos with dirty hands, the public perception is that the whole profession, or at least the entire staff of a particular newspaper, is tarnished...
I agree, my only point is that it's not very fair, but hey, no one said life was meant to be fair.
In that sense those NoW hacks - however many there turns out to be - have done the profession a grave disservice.
Although I doubt many public minds will have been changed, those who think all journalists are scum have happily had their beliefs confirmed, and those who think more rationally that some are scum, but the majority are not, will continue to think that way.
As has been mentioned earlier, what we hacks probably have to look forward to is some extra regulation, or well-meaning but ill-thought out in haste new laws, which will almost certainly miss their intended target.
|
"...I would welcome a categorical condemnation of phone-hacking from you."
Well, that fell on stony ground, for a start.
The Times reports today (July 7th) that five journalists are expected to be arrested. If we assume a worst-case scenario and these are all from the NoW and all are guilty of phone-hacking, that means approximately 25% of that paper's journalists were/are possibly involved, a minority maybe, but a sizeable one.
This is by now looking to be a far bigger problem than Iffy was suggesting yesterday.
I find it impossible to believe that no-one further up the management line knew what was going on. Rebekah Brooks's public hand-wringing will have done little to convince the cynics.
|
I suspect it was by no means confined to the News of the World.
This story has been dragging on for months but in a very low key manner and most papers were curiously not interested in pursuing it. (With the honourable exceptions of the Guardian and more recently the Independent).
I don't expect it will be long before other papers are found to have been up to the same game.
|
>> As an apologist for the news industry, he will (I'm afraid) reinforce people's prejudices about certain aspects of standards in the press. I think a lot of the public are being given much food for thought.
I'm not accusing you of it FocalPoint, but a load of humbug is talked about all this. If 'the public' could think there wouldn't be these tabloid papers, prurient, mischievous, cruel and mean-spirited, each painting its own highly-coloured dirty child's vision of what life is like and what is going on in the world. They are there, and outsell the few remaining, highly compromised proper newspapers, because they are what 'the public' wants.
Newsgathering, reporting, even investigative stuff, is a perfectly respectable profession followed by serious and principled people (among others of course). It's a bit rough and ready at the sharp end, and even proper hacks are often tempted, sometimes forced, into cutting corners.
But there's a world of difference between journalism and the sort of simulacrum of journalism produced by the flash-suited, disagreeable barrow boys and girls of the front-end red tops (of course even they have some token good hacks). They do earn a lot of money though, and it must be good fun if you are that sort of carphound.
|
"I'm not accusing you of it FocalPoint, but a load of humbug is talked about all this."
I take the point entirely, AC. The public generally laps up the salacious tittle-tattle served up by certain sections of the press.
I'm just wondering, though, whether the lumpen sensibilities of even these readers has been shaken over the latest claims involving the families of Millie Dowler, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.
|
>> whether the lumpen sensibilities of even these readers has been shaken over the latest claims involving the families of Millie Dowler, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.
Could well have been. But memories are as short as goldfish memories.
My own take on this is that you can't blame hacks for bribing, bugging etc. if all the others do. Those are just shady information-gathering techniques. There's nothing particularly polite about buttonholing people and firing questions at them come to that. The profession does have a rough and ready side.
No, what really matters is what is done, if anything, with the information. That's where wisdom and decency come in with hacks and more importantly editors.
My wife was shocked and disagreed strongly. She felt there was no chance such information wouldn't be misused.
Doubtless her assessment of human nature is shrewder than mine. But then she's never done any hacking. Most people who have have found out things they haven't used.
|
More from Danny Baker this morning:
"According to gormless Daily Mail Online editors, the biggest story in Britain right now is two members of the Royal Family in a canoe."
|
...According to gormless Daily Mail Online editors, the biggest story in Britain right now is two members of the Royal Family in a canoe."...
Oh dear, I quite like some of Baker's patter, but all that statement proves is he knows nothing of the nature of news.
Here's just a few things the Mail's online editors will be thinking about:
They've nothing new - yet - on the hacking story, so the 7/7 line remains on the front page, but is not the lead.
They do have something new, but don't want to give the shop away, so the new story is not published online until much later in the day, leaving the others little time to react for their print editions.
Lots of interest among our readers in Wills and Kate, particularly Kate, and oh look, some nice fresh pics have just landed showing her looking bonny as always.
Hacking is bound to be mentioned at PM's questions, so we will update the story then and probably make it the lead item again.
|
The biggest losers to come out of this are the Press Complaints Commission. They investigated the hacking .. found nothing. Then they complain the NOTW lied to them..
So what do they do? Fine them lots of money? Say they are despicable? Ban the Editor for lying?
Nope.. They do nothing.
And remember this is the self appointed watchdog of the Press,, aimed to watch over them and prevent the Government having an excuse for legislation...
Well.. they are exposed as a complete waste of space. (I am so surprised.. not). Like Adam and Eve have lost their figleaves...
No Government WANTS to legislate on the Press... If the PCC had any sense they would be suspending all the NOTW former Editors and balcklisting them and.. oh they can't do that!
|
...Well.. they are exposed as a complete waste of space...
The compliance level with the PCC code for editors is massively high, even in the NoW, let alone in the hundreds of other papers which never darken the PCC's door from one year to the next.
So do you say the police are waste of space because they cannot catch one rapist?
Or do you say they are doing their job because 99.99 per cent of the population never rape anyone?
|
Iffy,
You say compliance with the PCC code is massively high. Is there any source for that assertion?
I suspect that you're right at the local level but if complied with the code would kill most 'kiss & tell' stone dead; yet they keep on coming.
|
|
How long before Rebekah Brooks has to fall on her sword? I reckon by the weekend at the latest, but probably in the next 24 hours.
|
Stop buying these papers over two million customers says it all.
|
...You say compliance with the PCC code is massively high. Is there any source for that assertion?..I suspect that you're right at the local level but if complied with the code would kill most 'kiss & tell' stone dead; yet they keep on coming...
I don't see where in the code kiss and tell is expressly forbidden, particularly when the interests of the teller are taken into account.
But perhaps that's an argument for another day.
My point about code compliance is this scandal involves a comparatively tiny number of journalists.
Doesn't make it right, of course, but if the bloke in the office next to you is caught pinching, you are not going to accept any responsibility for it, and why should you?
People overestimate the number of staff in a national newspaper, but there might be 20 or 30 hacks knocking around the NoW.
Of those, probably no more than one or two were involved in hacking.
Journalists are lone wolves, the rest won't know a lot more of what's gone on than what they've been reading in the papers in the last few days.
What has surprised me is no other paper has yet been implicated.
The other newsdesks will have known that phone hacking was providing good stories for the NoW, and it is highly likely the other papers would have had a dabble.
|
"The compliance level with the PCC code for editors is massively high, even in the NoW, let alone in the hundreds of other papers which never darken the PCC's door from one year to the next."
Thanks Iffy for confirming my point that the PCC ARE a waste of space.
|
>> so the 7/7 line remains
>> on the front page, but is not the lead.
Yes, of course. Two leeches in a canoe is a far bigger story.
|
As if I needed yet another reason why I don't buy newspapers - local or national. They're all full of crap, cannot be trusted and are headed up by overblown, overpaid empire building pious morons who claim a moral highground in their editorials.
They get no income from me!
|
In March the case was dropped against three suspects in the murder of a private eye found in a South London car park with an axe buried in his head. 'Police corruption' was said by Scotland Yard to have helped sabotage the case.
I understand that the suspects were, er, private eyes with connections to the News of the World.
Did the Flame-Haired Temptress commission a wet job? I think we should be told. Far more interesting than the whingeing of giant rabbits and rich'ores over disclosures about their dreary, exhibitionist private lives.
|
Oo, a gong.
Presumably "Wills" or "Waity" log on here to check out the chat. Or someone else is feigning offence on their behalf.
|
>> They do have something new, but don't want to give the shop away, so the
>> new story is not published online until much later in the day, leaving the others
>> little time to react for their print editions.
More from Danny:
"Mail Online still leading with royals in a canoe. Says they are "canoe-deling". It's like a parallel universe isn't it? A big gormless one."
What time do you think the Mail will release their big, massive, earth shattering exposé, Iffy?
|
...What time do you think the Mail will release their big, massive, earth shattering exposé, Iffy?...
As I said, they might not have one.
Although they have updated the story with a line about Brooks 'personally commissioning' the gumshoe, and all the other stuff that's emerging today.
But all this prattling from you and Baker about where the story appears on the Mail's front page just makes you look stupid.
This is how it was almost certainly worked out:
We need a strong pic for the front page of the website.
The hacking story doesn't lend itself to that, there's no new pics, about the best is a file shot of the flame-haired Rebekah.
So we use the Harry and Kate canoe pic big - it's wide so it can go across the top - and use the hacking as the lead story, with a smaller pic of Rebekah.
If you know anything about news values/page layout, it's the obvious thing to do.
Which is why they've done it.
|
The Telegraph, Guardian and presumably Indy as well are running the story as a live commentary. Difficult to seperate the (lack of) coverage in the tabloids from the belief that they were all at it.
OTOH tha Mail's website at least works and I can see Iffy's point about a headline picure. The Express site by contrast is slow to load and seems simply to consists of dozens of links - no use at all.
Beaverbrook must be spinning in his grave.
|
...and I can see Iffy's point about a headline picure...
And if you want to get really technical about it, the picture is 'facing the right way', which indicates it's been taken by a snapper who knows what he's doing.
By facing the right way, I mean the faces in profile are looking 'in' to the page - from left to right.
The picture wouldn't look half as well if the canoe - and the occupants - were pointing the other way.
As regards the lack of coverage in the tabloids, I thought it was on the front of most of the paper editions.
I mentioned earlier in the thread it's likely the other papers would have had a go at phone hacking, although I think it's unlikely that would influence their coverage at this stage.
They will know that if they are found out, they will be in the same doo-doo as the NoW, whatever they print now.
|
>> And if you want to get really technical about it, the picture is 'facing the
>> right way', which indicates it's been taken by a snapper who knows what he's doing.
>>
>> By facing the right way, I mean the faces in profile are looking 'in' to
>> the page - from left to right.
>>
>> The picture wouldn't look half as well if the canoe - and the occupants -
>> were pointing the other way.
Its lesson no1 down the photography school. "Things moving must have room to move into, you don't want them looking like they are leaving the picture" Lesson 2 is the rule of thirds.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 14:56
|
...Its lesson no1 down the photography school...
Long before the days of Photoshop, it was considered acceptable to 'turn' the negative to make the face point the right way.
Only possible if there's no words or figures in the background, because they come out as a mirror image.
|
>> But all this prattling from you and Baker about where the story appears on the
>> Mail's front page just makes you look stupid.
I don't pretend to speak for Mr Baker, but if you think either he or I look stupid at the moment, then it's kind of insignificant compared to how our gutter press is looking. Bromptonaut has it pretty much right (as usual).
|
|
If this IS true and proven, all involved should serve substantial time in prison - and NOT an open one, either.
|
This report from The Washington Post is very much in line with what I heard early this morning on the BBC.
tinyurl.com/6exqf9b
In view of this, why are we not concerned about the Met Police involvement?
Pat
|
Let's have a think.
Police are bribed by NOW journalists to give information - allegedly.
The NOW does an internal investigation and finds nothing wrong.
The police do an investigation and find nothing wrong.
The Government at the time passes anti bribery legislation which prevents companies paying other companies for contracts or help with contracts.
The same Government resists all calls for an investigation. into phone hacking.
The same Government resists all calls for an investigation into MPs' expenses.
Ditto the present Government up till now resist all calls for an investigation..
Anyone note the discrepancies? And the hypocrisy or Governments (and - especially) MPs.
Basically the Met was corrupt .. and the Government did nothing...
If the enquiry is properly carried out.. (which I doubt) there may be some highly incriminatory political emails I suspect.. .
I understand Lord Hutton will lead the new enquiry and give advice on how to lie to the public.
Last edited by: madf on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 16:06
|
That was exactly the conclusion I came to this morning madf, but thought I'd be shot down in flames if I dared to voice it:)
I'm just surprised no-one else has pointed it out before now.
Pat
|
>> The same Government resists all calls for an investigation. into phone hacking.
Is that the same government which promised a public enquiry today?
|
>>
>> >> The same Government resists all calls for an investigation. into phone hacking.
>>
>> Is that the same government which promised a public enquiry today?
>>
I said: "Ditto the present Government up till now resist all calls for an investigation..
Pedants of the world unite...
|
Iffy, I admire your reasoned and knowledgeable attempts to explain how news-gathering and presentation works, even though it might not win many friends in the present circumstances.
I wrote an explanation not dissimilar to yours above but then junked it after deciding I couldn't be bothered with the fall-out.
I now feel guilty that I was tempted to wade in on pretty much the same lines but then decided to leave it to someone more closely connected to the trade than I am these days.
|
...The same Government resists all calls for an investigation. into phone hacking...
Didn't seem much point, did there?
The royal reporter Clive Goodman and the gumshoe Mulcaire had just been sent to prison.
Up to this morning, Cameron was still saying 'let the police deal with it'.
In general terms, Tories are not big fans of public inquiries.
|
I expect a PROPER enquiry to discover all sorts of embarrassing discussions between politicians on the issue.
But I don't expect a Proper enquiry to happen: too many people have lied or tried to ignore the reality and both major political parties will end up covered in mire..
Of course I may be 100% incorrect and A Campbell and A Coulson operated with perfect discretion and were fully aware of the problems and issues and have told no lies on the issues involved /not swept things under the carpet.
I also believe in flying pigs..
It's pretty likely we have had a monumental cover up or averting of gazes as it suited all politicians not to oppose the Diirty Digger.
|
> Police are bribed by NOW journalists to give information - allegedly.
As this has been banded about by the NOW, I suspect its probably not true and just an attempt to divert blame, public gaze, and to muddy the waters.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 16:55
|
|
The NOW has allegedly given the Met a list of police names and the sums paid to them...authorised by Coulson.. (A clear attempt to divert attention from Rebecca..)
|
Coulson swype under path in The Tommy Sheridan court case that as far as he was aware no monies had been paid to the police.
If it is proved that he lied under oath then he could be in big trouble.
|
The parents of Holly and Jessica were mentioned in the phone hacking this morning, and that goes back a few years now, but as you know they are close to where I live and why my ears pricked up when I heard it.
From a very uneducated, and usually indifferent to political views, there are a few things I expect.
I expect the Met Police to be beyond reproach,
Likewise for all Police Forces
The BBC, a new government who vowed to stop crooked politicians, the CPS, and I expect the bereaved to be treated with respect.
I don't expect the NOW/Sun/DM or ANY other newspaper to be be beyond reproach, so to hear this side of the story is no shock to me.
I represent a very large amount of the *working class public, most of whom are
shocked at these revelations.
Pat
* Please don't insert 'poor' in front of that Zero, as you usually do and mock me.
I'm simply trying to explain the depth of feeling and shock held by a great many about this issue
Last edited by: pda on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 17:12
|
Pat, I am pretty much as disgusted by the NOW hacking as you are, Milly Dowler came from the street next to my Mum and where I lived for 13 years.
As far as the Met goes, let me enlighten you into a few facts, As most who lived in London knows at one time in certain areas they were the most corrupt force in the country, and anyone who came into any dealings with them knows they could, at times, be complete pfd.
However you will note I am firmly of the belief (no proof its true) that any corruption is probably very low level, and as I said most probably trotted out by the NOW to divert attention.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 7 Jul 11 at 00:34
|
>> From a very uneducated, and usually indifferent to political views, there are a few things
>> I expect.
>>
>> I expect the Met Police to be beyond reproach,
>> Likewise for all Police Forces
pda,
So do the vast numbers of people in the Police... very much inc me. There are sadly some that let the side down, I suspect there always will be.
The internal Complaints system is huge and extremely well resourced, some would say too much so (in the fact that some crimes get ignored due to very limited resources and yet some seemingly minor complaints have several detectives investigating them).
I know people in that field...and also know they generally do a good job. Nothing's perfect, but there is not widespread corruption in the British Police.
|
I appreciate that reassurance westpig, sadly it will fall on deaf ears to those who prefer to believe otherwise though.
>>There are sadly some that let the side down, I suspect there always will be.<<
Being a lorry driver on this forum, I know that feeling well:)
Pat
|
I'm not convinced there is widespread or significant corruption in the Met Police re this. I don't just say that because i'm in the Met Police, if I thought it were to be true, i'd be furious, embarrassed and..keeping my head down.
I'm not saying the odd person hasn't got an inappropriate relationship with a reporter ...but...i'm 100% convinced that sort of thing is most rare and not at all common. We have a strong, well resourced and thorough Complaints system..who would love to get their teeth in to that sort of thing...so it would be fairly unwise of anyone to do it, albeit as human nature is, some will continue to do so. Police Officers are regularly sacked for misdemeanours...and rightly so.
As far as the half hearted investigation into phone hacking, that'll be because the Old Bill weren't interested in it....not that they wanted to cover it up. Phone hacking of a few celebrities was never going to be on anyones priority crime list, so why bother putting much rsources to it?...particularly after the last Govt's micro management of the Police and the needs for endless 'results'...none of which would be serviced by investigating the NoW.
I think you'll find that the goalposts have changed now. I might be wrong..but watch this space (and 'no' I have no inside knowledge and wouldn't say anything if I did).
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 17:18
|
...It's pretty likely we have had a monumental cover up or averting of gazes...
If only it were that exciting.
Far more likely we have a handful of people on the NoW who knew about the phone hacking and two or three not very bright Metropolitan Policemen who took a few quid.
That's not clever, but talk of 'monumental cover-ups' is conspiracy theory claptrap.
|
>> and two or three not very bright Metropolitan Policemen who took a
>> few quid.
Who probably did not know much of confidence anyway, just relaying canteen gossip.
|
...Who probably did not know much of confidence anyway, just relaying canteen gossip...
Agree entirely, if we have any corruption here, it's corruption in very low places, not high ones.
The Met are also entitled to rely on my percentage argument - two or three coppers took some money, but another 5,000 (or whatever it is) did not.
|
>> The Met are also entitled to rely on my percentage argument - two or three
>> coppers took some money, but another 5,000 (or whatever it is) did not.
>>
33,000 Old Bill....and 14,000+ civilian staff
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 17:41
|
...33,000 Old Bill....and 25,000+ civilian staff...
There you go then, the NoW is, proportionately, far more corrupt and dodgy than the Met.
I find that reassuring on several levels.
|
>> ...33,000 Old Bill....and 25,000+ civilian staff...
>>
>> There you go then, the NoW is, proportionately, far more corrupt and dodgy than the
>> Met.
>>
>> I find that reassuring on several levels.
>>
I edited the civilian staff figure...14,000 civilians,plus 4,500 PCSO'S and plus 4,200 Specials...so the original figure wasn't far out.
|
For me (and no doubt many others), what incenses me is that one group of people doing their job (selling newpapers) can be seemingly so indifferent to the true suffering of others, that they just don't care (hacking Milly Dowlers phone, so that unsurprisingly her family hoped it was she that deleted the messages).
I just can't get my head around it.
Is the next sales figure that important? Ditto the bonus?
|
...(hacking Milly Dowlers phone, so that unsurprisingly her family hoped it was she that deleted the messages)...
I agree that makes no sense from a news or any other point of view, so I have never thought that was the intention.
They wanted to read the messages because there was a good possibility those texts could be developed, one way or another, into exclusive follow-up stories.
That leaves the likelihood deleting the messages was a clumsy attempt at trying to cover up the fact they'd been accessed, or a straightforward mistake, or they mistakenly deleted one and thought they'd better wipe the rest.
No justification for that sort of behaviour, particularly when they realised the Dowlers/the investigation was being misled.
|
|
It was reported yesterday that the messages were deleted because the mailbox was full and "private eye" deleted them to make room for new ones...
|
>> No justification for that sort of behaviour, particularly when they realised the Dowlers/the investigation was being misled.
I agree completely that shady information-gathering becomes interference with police enquiries and shameless mistreatment of the bereaved when it destroys evidence or what might be precious personal records.
|
The argument that knowledge of hacking was confined to a few low down types is frankly unbelievable in a well run cost conscious organisation (which ALL Murdoch papers are)...
PIs are paid Money and that has to be authorised and frequent and regular payments over years - which this is- would mean payments of tens of £ thousands - maybe £100k plus.
Any organisation like NOTW would have managerial review procedures to prevent abuse. Regular payments would be reviewed at the highest levels..
Given that the NOTW has lied about everything so far, to believe they are now telling the truth is errr naive at best....
At the very minimum the Editor would have known all about it.
|
|
I wonder if News International will be deemed a "fit and proper person" to take full ownership of BSkyB?
|
Further to my comments above.. it would appear hacking involves a minimum of "31 titles - newspapers and magazines - and 305 journalists"
So NOT an isolated and small case.. 300 journalists is a serious number...
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live
|
Seems like the BBC has picked the wrong man to report on the affair.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100095296/robert-peston-news-internationals-press-officer/
I want my licence fee back !
|
I say it again do not buy these papers they are not good enough to wipe your backside with.
|
|
certainly not good enough to eat your chips out of any more.
|
|
I used to like fish and chips out of a newspaper.Yummie.;)
|
Looks like Suralan will have an impossible task for the candidates in next week's Apprentice - selling advertising in the NOTW.
On a vaguely related note, I'm a subscriber to the Times which I quite enjoy. Morally, should I be scrapping the subscription? Part of me thinks I should; the other part of me (which is quite big, unfortunately!) doesn't give a toss what Rupert Murdoch gets up to.
Edit: Forgot a question mark.
Last edited by: Alfa Floor on Wed 6 Jul 11 at 22:37
|
|
Not when you realise how many men read the newspaper on the bog.
|
Looks like it was the Telegraph which was sitting on the exclusive:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
|
|
I could write one of those stories. All they seem to have done is list every major crime, event and disaster in the last 6 years and claim those involved "could" have had their phones hacked.
|
>> Is the next sales figure that important? Ditto the bonus?
Having read the autobiography of the 1994-5 NOTW editor, I suspect they thought it was.
Spitting Image had the right idea with their portrayal of the press (present company excepted).
|
Somebody upthread (Pat?) questioned how information like mobile/ex-directory phone numbers were obtained.
Back in 2006 the Information Commissioner published a report 'What Price Privacy' which included an account of how 'blagging' and similar acts are carried out. The ICO's follow up report 'What Price Privacy Now' published later in the same year included a list of Newspapers identified as clients of a PI caight out by an investigation known as Operation Motorman.
While the list was headed by the Mail, People and Mirror it also included the Observer, Sunday Times and London Standard.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 7 Jul 11 at 11:36
|
|
I suspect the jailing of a few journalists would give a slautary lesson to others...
|
|
Lot of hypocrisy around this issue. Journalists and their papers have an insatiable demand for sensation which fuelled by the public demand for such stories. Hypocrisy has always been an outstanding feature of the British public
|
I wonder what Lady Di would have thought of all this?
;-)
|
If you haven't seen it, today's Matt cartoon on the Terrorflag's front page sums up our current 'fit of morality' with characteristic charm. Especially recommended to dog lovers.
Easily seen on line on DT's website.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 7 Jul 11 at 14:31
|
The Telegraph's exclusive about possible phone hacking of army families might have been a non-story to some, but it has had an impact:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14061557
|
>> might have been a non-story to some
Not a non-story Iffy, just more of the same.
'This one will run and run, unfortunately.' (The Digger, accidentally bugged by large numbers of his own hacks).
|
>> Lot of hypocrisy around this issue. Journalists and their papers have an insatiable demand for
>> sensation which fuelled by the public demand for such stories. Hypocrisy has always been an
>> outstanding feature of the British public
>>
Hypocrisy is one thing. Deliberately breaking the law is another...
|
>> Hypocrisy is one thing. Deliberately breaking the law is another...
Quite. It is possible to break the law deliberately for the purest and most moral of reasons, while hypocrisy is always morally dubious.
|
Everyone is urging the police to get their act in gear.
Looks like the NoW has achieved that by dropping the bribe-taking coppers in it.
The Met are now on about 4,000 potential victims of the private eye.
They've only had the information five years, so better late than never:
tinyurl.com/625lhka
|
>> >> Hypocrisy is one thing. Deliberately breaking the law is another...
>>
>>
>> Quite. It is possible to break the law deliberately for the purest and most moral
>> of reasons, while hypocrisy is always morally dubious.
>>
>>
Hmm..
My motives for murdering my Mother in law were quite pure , Your Honour. She cooked terrible meals and encouraged my wife to do the same....
|
>> My motives for murdering my Mother in law were quite pure , Your Honour. She cooked terrible meals and encouraged my wife to do the same....
I said it was possible, madf, not that it was widespread or commonplace. I can't help feeling you haven't chosen a very good example.
One you could have chosen was: 'I refused to do rifle training because I'm a Navy medic and in fact, now I come to think of it, a bit of a pacifist.' Like the young bloke who's just been banged up for something very like that.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 7 Jul 11 at 16:36
|
>> I said it was possible, madf, not that it was widespread or commonplace. I can't
>> help feeling you haven't chosen a very good example.
An act of the utmost hypocrisy, Madf murdered his M-I-l for cooking bad food, yet he can not cook himself
|
|
And before anyone comes at me from the other direction by saying 'Is it really morally dubious to say you liked the dodgy crème brulée to avoid hurting your hostess's feelings', no it isn't. White lies to spare people pain aren't hypocrisy, they are courtesy. You have to go a long way up the sliding scale before that sort of thing becomes immoral.
|
AC
Your example is worse than mine! He volunteered for the job.. knowing full well it was an ARMED service. To then refuse to bear arms is ,, well criminal as he by joining agreed to fight for his country...
Nuff of the pedantry...
I look forwrd to the arrests.. which of course will gradualy increase as somone will blab and incriminate others...
I also (seriously) expect that if a Public Enquiry is started headed by a judge, that a number of politicians will be involved who have promised NI immunity or have effectively granted it.. That should be fun.. Tony Blair is likely to have his reputation .. (what reputation)... as will David Cameron...
The police did not do nothing purely by chance: I am sure there was a political input..
Popcorn time for three years I suspect..
|
>> The police did not do nothing purely by chance: I am sure there was a
>> political input..
Cobblers, Pure unadulterated Cobblers.
the police did nothing because no-one gave a merde about a few noncy wannabe celebs got their voicemail hacked. Why should the police bother?
Now of course its a whole new ball game, newspapers withholding evidence, and interfering in evidence in murder cases.
get your sensible hat on please.
|
|
Not one for conspiracy theories myself but this whole affair is becoming murkier by the minute. It was neither in the Murdoch empire or their political friends interest to pursue this matter, especially when it was mainly confined to "celebrities' and there certainly seems to have been at least an implicit agreement not to rock the boat by those who could be damaged by further revelations.
|
>> Cobblers, Pure unadulterated Cobblers.
>>
>> the police did nothing because no-one gave a merde about a few noncy wannabe celebs
>> got their voicemail hacked. Why should the police bother?
>>
>> Now of course its a whole new ball game, newspapers withholding evidence, and interfering in
>> evidence in murder cases.
>>
>> get your sensible hat on please.
Much of what's emerging now comes from Mulcaire's paperwork. It was in the hands of the police by 2006 but they did nothing. I don't believe there was political input but I do worry that the corrosive influence of NI was such as to blow the Met and or the CPS off course.
What would have happened if the Guardian had not go the ball rolling and kept it in sight?
|
...get your sensible hat on please...
Madf seems to want the title of c4p resident conspiracy theorist.
All conspiracy theories are a load of cobblers.
I know this because I've come across lots of conspiracy theories and they've all turned out to be a load of cobblers.
|
>>> One you could have chosen was: 'I refused to do rifle training because I'm a
>> Navy medic and in fact, now I come to think of it, a bit of
>> a pacifist.' Like the young bloke who's just been banged up for something very like
>> that.
I don't know if that was meant to be tongue in cheek, but someone who volunteers for the armed forces and then decides that - all things considered - you know what? I think I am actually a pacifist.
They don't get any sympathy from me.
|
|
It has just been reported on BBC news that next Sunday's edition of the NoW will be the last.
|
Decisive move that. The share price of the parent company was suffering due to the NOW crisis.
|
For such a small part of the News International business, the NoW was doing it damage. I suppose this is the least they could do.
I guess a lot of people have just lost their jobs but some of those will be responsible for this. Maybe a new newspaper will rise from the ashes but maybe News International won't risk that.
I wonder how closely linked the NoW and the Sun were/are... will this all spill over to another tabloid?
Edit: Wasn't the NoW one of our older papers? Didn't quite make 170 years then.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 7 Jul 11 at 17:01
|
>> It has just been reported on BBC news that next Sunday's edition of the NoW
>> will be the last.
Must have come as a terrible shock to the editor, to hear that Murdoch had pulled the plug.
Apparently he only found out when he checked his voicemail...
|
>> They don't get any sympathy from me.
I agree with both of you that a commitment should be kept, and no one should imagine that their personal feelings will always be respected if they are in the armed forces, when they run counter to the common enterprise.
But I do feel a measure of sympathy. People join up at a young, still-developing age and the experience itself often changes their opinions. People aren't brought up the way they used to be though. There's quite a widespread view that people have some sort of right to change their minds and get special treatment when they decide not to fit in. Personally I find it a bit irritating and childish, but it's the way things are these days. And of course there really are people who can't fit in, and they shouldn't be punished beyond endurance for that.
|
|
Won't be long before there is a Sunday Sun as NI fills the gap
|
|
That's sort of what I was thinking. The NoTW was a popular (but crap) Sunday tabloid so I can't see the parent company giving up on the market.
|
|
I read NoW the other day ( my nan gets it ) - its pure junk, makes Heat magazine look high brow, its no loss whatsoever, glad they shut down, its the first morally right thing they have done in some time.
|
As the stripy tiger says
Your wonderful super soaraway Sun on Sunday.
|
>> Your wonderful super soaraway Sun on Sunday.
>>
That was my take too. Screw and tell is too lucrative to be left to the Mirror group.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 7 Jul 11 at 17:27
|
Obviously more bad news to come..
As for my conspiracy theories... lets see.
Police take £100k in bribes. IT is known about in public in 2003...as Rebecca Brooks said they did. There is no enquiry.. No-one takes any interest.. (And Coulson admitted it then.. and then 6 years later denied it - under oath>> Stand by for a perjury case)
What about the politicians ? Nothing.
The Government? Nothing.
the Met ? Nothing.
Either they were all deaf and stupid or they agreed - implicitly to do nothing..
That in my view IS a conspiracy..
I'm not paranoid but when you see gross dereliction of duty by a number of indendent orgainisations - all at once - it looks like conspiracy..
I belive there is lots more to come and other newspapers will be implicated..
And then the house of cards is likely to come crashing down.
Closure of the NOTW is desperation stuff.
Last edited by: madf on Thu 7 Jul 11 at 17:35
|
>> Obviously more bad news to come..
>>
>>
>> As for my conspiracy theories... lets see.
>>
>> Police take £100k in bribes. IT is known about in public in 2003...as Rebecca Brooks
>> said they did. There is no enquiry.. No-one takes any interest.. (And Coulson admitted it
>> then.. and then 6 years later denied it - under oath>> Stand by for a
>> perjury case)
>>
>> What about the politicians ? Nothing.
>> The Government? Nothing.
>> the Met ? Nothing.
You? Nothing. you havent been whining about it for the last 8 years either have you.
|
|
Nope.. I'm not a lawyer nor a politician nor a police officer.nor a journalist. Not guilty your Honour...
Last edited by: madf on Thu 7 Jul 11 at 17:39
|
And in the meantime the indians are getting the sack and people at the top getting away with again.
Nothing changes does it? Rupert Murdochs empire is a dubious busisiness.
And he will take BskyB in the autume.
Back to the BBC support what is true British in my opinin.
|
Closing the NoW has taken me by surprise.
I did wonder if they would announce a suspension on Sunday, telling the readers they were going to clean the job up once and for all.
It is typical of newspapers and Murdoch papers in particular - decisions, big or small, are made very swiftly with minimum discussion or thinking time.
I feel sorry for the two million plus readers.
People have a close relationship with their newspaper and most of those folk will have looked forward to their NoW on a Sunday morning, whatever you or I might think about the paper.
|
One thing Iffy they won't be brainwashed on sunday.
Another week the Sun will be out on sunday and another close relationship wil start again.
Buy papers like the Independant or other quality papers they are avalable.
|
...One thing Iffy they won't be brainwashed on sunday...
That is a crass and arrogant statement.
NoW readers are just as smart - or stupid - as the rest of us.
|
>> NoW readers are just as smart - or stupid - as the rest of us.
Depends what you mean by 'the rest of us' Iffy. They may be just as stupid as you but they're not nearly as stupid as me.
|
...Depends what you mean by 'the rest of us' Iffy. They may be just as stupid as you but they're not nearly as stupid as me...
Golden rule of newspapers: never look down on or take the mick out of the readers.
That could be the reason for the closure - the proprietor thinks the relationship with the readers is irretrievably damaged.
|
>> ...Depends what you mean by 'the rest of us' Iffy. They may be just as
>> stupid as you but they're not nearly as stupid as me...
>>
>> Golden rule of newspapers: never look down on or take the mick out of the
>> readers.
or even, if you are the Sun, claim that "some fans picked the pockets of crushed victims, that others urinated on members of the emergency services as they tried to help and that some even assaulted a Police Constable whilst he was administering the kiss of life to a patient" when reporting football stadium disasters.
Seems Murdoch papers have a history of having a pop at its readership.
|
...or even, if you are the Sun, claim that "some fans picked the pockets of crushed victims...
The fans may have been Sun readers, but so might the 'crushed victims'.
Whatever story you write will upset someone.
It's a balancing act, and often the decision to use a story or not comes down to instinct, there's certainly no manual to refer to.
|
>> ...or even, if you are the Sun, claim that "some fans picked the pockets of
>> crushed victims...
>>
>> The fans may have been Sun readers, but so might the 'crushed victims'.
>>
>> Whatever story you write will upset someone.
Yeah, in that case only a drop of 55000 copies.
|
>> proprietor thinks the relationship with the readers is irretrievably damaged.
He might, and he might even give a damn. But the share price and collapse in big corporate advertising could have a tiny bit to do with it as well.
Actually the disappearance of a big-selling yellow rag will leave a yawning gap in our much-loved, much-envied, much-emulated popular culture... but the Digger will provide.
|
>> As the stripy tiger says
>>
>> Your wonderful super soaraway Sun on Sunday.
>>
I have been told that suitable names were registered acouple of days ago.
.............of the World's stablemate the Sun could be turned into a seven-day operation. ... internet domain name thesunonsunday.co.uk was registered two days ago, ...
says the Guardian
Last edited by: henry k on Thu 7 Jul 11 at 18:02
|
News of the World to close.
Websites Sun on Sunday dot com and dot co dot uk registered by persons unknown two days ago.
Change the name and do the same somehow seems rather appropriate.
|
...I have been told that suitable names were registered acouple of days ago...
I should hope so, there's no reason why the company and the honest employees should suffer for the actions of the criminal few.
On the topic of names, Sunday Sun is already taken.
It's a well-established regional Sunday, based in Newcastle.
www.sundaysun.co.uk/
|
The criminal few are at the top so they carry on as normal.
I believe this Sun news paper is not well read in Liverpool.So the standard of journalism hasn't changed a lot over the years.
|
|
By closing the title, do they avoid further exposure to legal challenges and payment of damages?
|
>> By closing the title, do they avoid further exposure to legal challenges and payment of
>> damages?
No.
|
By closing the title, do they avoid further exposure to legal challenges and payment of
>> damages? ...No...
Don't be too hasty.
As of Sunday, the NoW will cease to exist as a legal entity, which I suspect could help News International (NI) avoid legal aggro in future.
Yes, claimants will want to pin their claim on NI, but I imagine there was a wholly-owned subsidiary which published the NoW - say News of the World Ltd.
NI will want to push all claims onto the now-defunct subsidiary.
I think much will depend on what's gone before, if previous claims were paid by the subsidiary, the argument the buck stops there is much stronger.
|
|
Closing down a company does not stop the pursuit of action against them during the years of operation. As such management and board can be pursued by the law for illegality during their tenure, As far as money goes they have not declared the "company" bankrupt.
|
Recollection from the various anonymised confidentiality cases is that Murdoch press were sued as NGN.
Whatever the fate of NotW closing it won't affect the criminal liability of Coulson, Wade et al as individuals. And, even if there was a theoretical opportunity to evade civil liability I can't see 'new cleansed' company adopting the tactics of fly by night hauliers or builders.
|
I don't think any of us know enough of the law to argue the point legally.
At the very least, closure of the NoW is another hurdle for claimants to climb over.
Shutting it was a remarkable decision, even for Murdoch.
It would be a less remarkable decision if he thought it would enable him to offer firmer resistance to compo claims.
Last edited by: Iffy on Fri 8 Jul 11 at 09:19
|
>> It would be a less remarkable decision if he thought it would enable him to
>> offer firmer resistance to compo claims.
Given that the NoW was shut to prevent the scandal affecting the Murdoch empire, to then prolong the issue with bad publicity, bad faith and more court cases would be foolish, and completely negate the benefits of closing down the NoW in the first place.
Even if there is no legal basis there is good business basis.
|
|
Just checked, the NotW is not set up as a seperate company or entity, but is News Group Newspapers.
|
News of the World hacking scandal. - Pat
