New depths?

[benjii]

Piers Moron should be executed.

[Jonnyboy]

 

 

...

[Jonnyboy]

...]

[Jonnyboy]

[CB Saint]

Rupert Murdoch - the greater uniter.

 

I give him one thing, he has united public opinion. he's has united the political parties. hell, he has even managed to unite the SWF.

[Fowllyd]

Piers Moron should be executed.

 

Whilst I'm normally opposed to capital punishment, I could make an exception in his case. Though a fate in the style of Greek mythology might be more appropriate - exiled to a remote island inhabited only by people who had never heard of him, with no TV, internet or celebrities, digging a deep hole and then filling it in again every day. A Sisyphus for our times...

[Sheaf Saint]

Fox News and News Corps in the US is where the next action is apparently. The US regulatory authorities are preparing to take them to the cleaners.

 

The death of Fox News would be just wonderful.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100096708/murdoch-withdraws-bid-for-bskyb-did-parliament-force-this-or-the-us-senate/

 

Oh pleeeeeease let this be true. If this whole sorry episode results in Glenn Beck being taken off the air then it will have all been worth it IMO.

[OldNick]

I'd like to change my opinion of Hayman.

 

At the time I thought he might be genuine, but since then found out he'd had meals payed for by NI and then went to work for them.

 

That's really unprofessional at best and very dodgy at worst.

Did you see the way that has parallels to when we went into admn?

The bank manager who pulled the plug and put us into admin then appears working in a good job at the administrators.

Obviously nothing wrong there of course

[OldNick]

Ah bless, everyone's favourite Journo/celeb/author/CNN star gets drawn in....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8635674/Hacking-scandal-Piers-Morgan-should-face-questions-say-MPs.html

 

Piers Morgan caught for blabbing with his own mouth.. or rather Pen

 

Well there's a surprising twist

 

 

Not

 

It would pretty amazing if no other paper was not also involved in this practice. The Guardian may well be innocent but I suspect the tabloids have all been at it. Left or right persuasion need the stories.

[tony13579]

I seam to remember an episode of some tv show, Paparazzi?? where they were all waiting out side some celeb's gate and then had a tip off from someones answerphone that they would be at some nightclub resturant. it was a very mater of fact knowledge and method. I think they even explained how they got to the message box and had some celeb (katie price??) cursing the number of dead calls from people trying to access her number hoping to get to the mailbox.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

Piers Moron should be executed.

 

It's already half completed. They've removed his brain prior to decapitation.

[solentstars]

It would pretty amazing if no other paper was not also involved in this practice. The Guardian may well be innocent but I suspect the tabloids have all been at it. Left or right persuasion need the stories.

i think its been ripe in all the newspapers for years and i read last weekend that ken livingston was hacked by the daily mail and mail on sunday which would not be a big surprise .

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Whilst I'm normally opposed to capital punishment, I could make an exception in his case. Though a fate in the style of Greek mythology might be more appropriate - exiled to a remote island inhabited only by people who had never heard of him, with no TV, internet or celebrities, digging a deep hole and then filling it in again every day. A Sisyphus for our times...

 

That is not how you spell syphilis. However Piers, and all the Newscom team, certainly could spread the word!

[Lord Duckhunter]

i think its been ripe in all the newspapers for years and i read last weekend that ken livingston was hacked by the daily mail and mail on sunday which would not be a big surprise .

 

"In December 2006, the Information Commissioner - whose job is to protect people's privacy under the Data Protection Act - published a league table of more than 30 national newspapers and magazines which had paid private investigators for personal information.

 

It included details from police records, the DVLA, the Inland Revenue, phone companies and banks.

 

This was the week after the News of the World's royal editor Clive Goodman pleaded guilty to hacking into the phone messages of royal staff.

 

In a report to Parliament, What Price Privacy Now?, the Commissioner said a raid on one private detective's office in 2002 - called Operation Motorman - had uncovered hundreds of invoices to publications, identifying 305 journalists as recipients of personal information.

It did not name the journalists, but did list the newspapers and magazines.

The table was headed by the Daily Mail, which paid for 952 pieces of information, ordered by 58 of its staff.

Next came the Sunday People, the Daily Mirror, the Mail on Sunday and the News of the World. The BBC published the list at the time, but few newspapers did, perhaps not surprisingly.

The Observer and Sunday Times both appeared in the Information Commissioner's league table, not just tabloids."

 

 

It really does make you wonder why nothing was ever done about it before. Gordon Brown can try and take the moral high ground about rats and sewers, but he knew all about the rats way way back.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-13092573

[um pahars]

"In December 2006, the Information Commissioner - whose job is to protect people's privacy under the Data Protection Act - published a league table of more than 30 national newspapers and magazines which had paid private investigators for personal information.

 

But as is noted in one of the responses (and having worked in the media for quite a while), there is nothing odd with using and paying, a whole host of agencies, individuals, companies etc for obtaining information. Additionally, there is an allowance for using "underhand" methods to acquire information if it can be deemed to be in the public interest. There is nothing in that report that would warrant (or satisfy the requirem,ents for) a Public Inquiry.

 

I think the issue has only come to a head now as new evidence has emerged and also due to the persistence of a few MP's and a few journalists at The Guardian.

 

Up until now, NI (with the assistance of an appalling, if not complicit, Police inquiry) have managed to blag [sic] their way through it by claiming it was a one off rogue journalist (or a very small group).

 

Additionally, NIs power & influence has always been seen as being too powerful by some and it was only when public opinion supported them that politicians (of all colours) suddenly found their voice and got stuck in.

Edited 14 July, 2011 by um pahars

[Saintandy666]

i think its been ripe in all the newspapers for years and i read last weekend that ken livingston was hacked by the daily mail and mail on sunday which would not be a big surprise .

 

Oh, I'd love it if this somehow infected the Daily Mail as well.

[trousers]

Oh, I'd love it if this somehow infected the Daily Mail as well.

 

Mansize tissues for that one I'd suggest

[View From The Top]

So David Cameron has dinner with James Murdoch and Rebecca Brooks 2 days after Cable is removed from a position regarding the Sky takeover deal and the ex Exec' Editor arrested and bailed today was working for Scotland Yard 2 days a month giving advice on public speaking and PR to Yates.

 

Nothing dodgy there then.

[dune]

So David Cameron has dinner with James Murdoch and Rebecca Brooks 2 days after Cable is removed from a position regarding the Sky takeover deal and the ex Exec' Editor arrested and bailed today was working for Scotland Yard 2 days a month giving advice on public speaking and PR to Yates.

 

Nothing dodgy there then.

 

When I first heard the story I thought it was the pig we were talking about the other day.

[um pahars]

He tried to make out he wanted an enquiry into NI, but was stopped by everybody else,

 

Gus O'Donnell's memo from last year does indicate that the advice given to Brown was that it would not be feasible to launch an inquiry. Of course, the final decision was Brown's, but the evidence put in front of him made it clear that it was unlikely it would ever get off the ground.

 

Three key passages that indicated this are:

 

"Any decision to hold such an inquiry could be challenged by judicial review particularly if the inquiry were extended to the media in general and it is not inconceivable that such a challenge might succeed."

 

"While these criticisms are serious there does not appear to be any suggestion of a systematic failure by the police and it must be doubtful whether a public inquiry could shine any particular fresh light on the police's actions which were endorsed apparently by the CPS."

 

"From the limited information available it is doubtful whether this case would merit the holding of a public inquiry under the 2005 Inquiries Act."

[dubai_phil]

Gus O'Donnell's memo from last year does indicate that the advice given to Brown was that it would not be feasible to launch an inquiry. Of course, the final decision was Brown's, but the evidence put in front of him made it clear that it was unlikely it would ever get off the ground.

 

Three key passages that indicated this are:

 

"Any decision to hold such an inquiry could be challenged by judicial review particularly if the inquiry were extended to the media in general and it is not inconceivable that such a challenge might succeed."

 

"While these criticisms are serious there does not appear to be any suggestion of a systematic failure by the police and it must be doubtful whether a public inquiry could shine any particular fresh light on the police's actions which were endorsed apparently by the CPS."

 

"From the limited information available it is doubtful whether this case would merit the holding of a public inquiry under the 2005 Inquiries Act."

 

Just so I get this straight,

 

A report published in 2006 listed people who received money for private individual's information that included employees in Government Departments and the Police?

 

And that wasn't 1. Illegal, 2. Deemed worthy of investigating further?

 

Which bit of the word corruption did they not understand? And which laes did these people NOT break? Data Protection Act being one of them surely.

[Sheaf Saint]

Oh dear Rupert....

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14162545

[Sheaf Saint]

And now a former NotW deputy editor, who went to work for the Met police as a consultant, has been arrested and interrogated for his part in the whole sorry affair...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14163426

[gaz]

Rebeka Brooks has resigned as CEO of News International.

 

[tony13579]

"In December 2006, the Information Commissioner - whose job is to protect people's privacy under the Data Protection Act - published a league table of more than 30 national newspapers and magazines which had paid private investigators for personal information.

 

It included details from police records, the DVLA, the Inland Revenue, phone companies and banks.

 

This was the week after the News of the World's royal editor Clive Goodman pleaded guilty to hacking into the phone messages of royal staff.

 

In a report to Parliament, What Price Privacy Now?, the Commissioner said a raid on one private detective's office in 2002 - called Operation Motorman - had uncovered hundreds of invoices to publications, identifying 305 journalists as recipients of personal information.

It did not name the journalists, but did list the newspapers and magazines.

The table was headed by the Daily Mail, which paid for 952 pieces of information, ordered by 58 of its staff.

Next came the Sunday People, the Daily Mirror, the Mail on Sunday and the News of the World. The BBC published the list at the time, but few newspapers did, perhaps not surprisingly.

The Observer and Sunday Times both appeared in the Information Commissioner's league table, not just tabloids."

 

 

It really does make you wonder why nothing was ever done about it before. Gordon Brown can try and take the moral high ground about rats and sewers, but he knew all about the rats way way back.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-13092573

In my little world, there is a differnce in investigating people who choose to be in the public glare, people who choose a criminal career, and those who are thrust into public view by tragic curcumstances. Also interfering in police investigations distroying messages(potential evidence) I my view the press do not do enough investigative journalisium. I tried to bring to light a story of dishonesty with speed cameras and they were not interested and just wanted tittle tattle, government breifings and easy stories. Police camera partnerships falsifying documents to obtain a summonses was not a story. neither was a five camera route with 20+ signing defects. But a footballer in court was worth 7 paparatzzi.

 

If we prevent the press using investigators then the criminals will get away with much more and so will the politicians. (or are they all the same)

[GenevaSaint]

Rebeka Brooks has resigned as CEO of News International.

 

 

About time too, although I really do hope Murdoch's empire gets a right kicking. It seems the yanks are on the case about hacking of 9/11 victims, if true they're fecked as a company.

 

And hopefully sooner or later someone in the know will turn grass and give us the whole story on this sorry affair.

[Verbal]

About time too, although I really do hope Murdoch's empire gets a right kicking. It seems the yanks are on the case about hacking of 9/11 victims, if true they're fecked as a company.

 

And hopefully sooner or later someone in the know will turn grass and give us the whole story on this sorry affair.

 

She was a lightning rod to protect James Murdoch, so my guess is his days at BSkyB are numbered too, especially with such heavy pressure from American investors for him to go.

 

I wonder about the 9/11 story. It's based on a Mirror report which, unlike the Guardian exposes in 2009 and since, was strikingly short of hard evidence. It's possible there's a bandwagon effect, which may dilute the harder cases against the Murdoch empire.

 

Politicians, including Gordon Brown, may be particularly guilty of this - although Tom Watson seems to have been on the money every time.

 

Apart from Watson, the one politician to have emerged from this with any credit is Vince Cable, who as Business Secretary was implacable in his hostility to the BSkyB bid and was therefore promptly removed from oversight of the bid by a bellended Cameron, who replaced him with a pusillanimous yes man in Jeremy Hunt.

[TopGun]

She was a lightning rod to protect James Murdoch, so my guess is his days at BSkyB are numbered too, especially with such heavy pressure from American investors for him to go.

 

I wonder about the 9/11 story. It's based on a Mirror report which, unlike the Guardian exposes in 2009 and since, was strikingly short of hard evidence. It's possible there's a bandwagon effect, which may dilute the harder cases against the Murdoch empire.

 

Politicians, including Gordon Brown, may be particularly guilty of this - although Tom Watson seems to have been on the money every time.

 

Apart from Watson, the one politician to have emerged from this with any credit is Vince Cable, who as Business Secretary was implacable in his hostility to the BSkyB bid and was therefore promptly removed from oversight of the bid by a bellended Cameron, who replaced him with a pusillanimous yes man in Jeremy Hunt.

 

Undoubtedly word of the day!

[franny]

Does anyone have a view - if (and I assume they will) the Murdochs et al get a hammering next week in front of the MP's will they then be able to get away from any subsequent court appearances should there be a need for one by saying they would not be able to have a "fair trial" since they had already been "tried and convicted" by the MP committee and a non prejudicial jury would not be possible?

Why I ask is that the papers had a field day with the innocent landlord of the girl who was murdered last Christmas in Bristol and the view seemed to be that their comments would have prejudiced a fair trial, wonder if the Murdochs & Brooks could use the same argument?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Does anyone have a view - if (and I assume they will) the Murdochs et al get a hammering next week in front of the MP's will they then be able to get away from any subsequent court appearances should there be a need for one by saying they would not be able to have a "fair trial" since they had already been "tried and convicted" by the MP committee and a non prejudicial jury would not be possible?

Why I ask is that the papers had a field day with the innocent landlord of the girl who was murdered last Christmas in Bristol and the view seemed to be that their comments would have prejudiced a fair trial, wonder if the Murdochs & Brooks could use the same argument?

 

I believe that Brookes has already said that she will be unable to answer certain questions, as it may be prejudicial with a police enquiry going on.

 

It shows how far NI have fallen when Keith Vav can pose as an honourable and fair man. THis is the bloke who claimed £75,000 in expenses for a second home in Westminister when his family home was only 12 miles away.

 

In another major devolopment Murdoch is meeting the Dowlers..........

[um pahars]

It shows how far NI have fallen when Keith Vav can pose as an honourable and fair man

 

He may be an honourable solicitor by trade, but Vaz has regularly left a "trail" behind himself from unregistered payments to passport advice!!!!!!

 

Sometimes good value for money though and he does provide a spectacle with his antics in the chair (although I would prefer a more robust chairman for these sessions)

[View From The Top]

He may be an honourable solicitor by trade, but Vaz has regularly left a "trail" behind himself from unregistered payments to passport advice!!!!!!

 

Sometimes good value for money though and he does provide a spectacle with his antics in the chair (although I would prefer a more robust chairman for these sessions)

 

They're not appearing befor Vaz, that's the Home Affairs Select Committee. They are appearing before the Culture, Media & Sports Select Committee.

[um pahars]

They're not appearing befor Vaz, that's the Home Affairs Select Committee. They are appearing before the Culture, Media & Sports Select Committee.

 

He's grilling all the coppers and is due to grill Stephenson on Tuesday.

[View From The Top]

He's grilling all the coppers and is due to grill Stephenson on Tuesday.

 

I'm aware of that but Duck Hunter was referring to Brookes and the approach she may take answering questions from the Select Committee.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I've precious little sympathy for the travails of the gutter press - but there again the tidal wave of phoney outrage we're now undergoing as News International's competitors engage in a good old fashioned 'feeding frenzy' isn't a particularly edifying spectacle either. The notion that tapping into mobile phone messages is the worst thing that our press has ever done is laughable - it's not even in the 'top ten' of UK press 'crimes' in my view.

 

Of course large elements of our press behaves very badly, very often. It's abundantly clear that the reason for this sleazy behavior would be because the great British public have elected to pay newspapers to behave in precisely that manner. The hypocrisy of people who have chosen of their own free will to line Rupert Murdock's pockets so very generously but now recoil in fake surprise when the consequences of own their choices are exposed is a truly nauseating sight.

 

As ever - people get the press they deserve.

[revolution saint]

I've precious little sympathy for the travails of the gutter press - but there again the tidal wave of phoney outrage we're now undergoing as News International's competitors engage in a good old fashioned 'feeding frenzy' isn't a particularly edifying spectacle either. The notion that tapping into mobile phone messages is the worst thing that our press has ever done is laughable - it's not even in the 'top ten' of UK press 'crimes' in my view.

 

Of course large elements of our press behaves very badly, very often. It's abundantly clear that the reason for this sleazy behavior would be because the great British public have elected to pay newspapers to behave in precisely that manner. The hypocrisy of people who have chosen of their own free will to line Rupert Murdock's pockets so very generously but now recoil in fake surprise when the consequences of own their choices are exposed is a truly nauseating sight.

 

As ever - people get the press they deserve.

 

Just out of interest what would be in the top ten crimes - and make them generic rather than specific examples.

 

Never really thought I'd end up defending NOTW readers but many of them bought the paper for something other than information gained illegally. Some bought it for sports coverage, others for celebrity gossip and others because they agreed with the general stance of the paper. None of them thought that by handing over their money that they were somehow agreeing with the illegal activities we've seen, and that's what you seem to be implying.

 

Of course the other thing is how far do you extend public culpability? I want to watch a range of sports mostly available on SKY - does taking out a subscription mean I condone the activity of hacking the phone of a missing girl? Of course it doesn't.

[Sheaf Saint]

I've precious little sympathy for the travails of the gutter press - but there again the tidal wave of phoney outrage we're now undergoing as News International's competitors engage in a good old fashioned 'feeding frenzy' isn't a particularly edifying spectacle either. The notion that tapping into mobile phone messages is the worst thing that our press has ever done is laughable - it's not even in the 'top ten' of UK press 'crimes' in my view.

 

Of course large elements of our press behaves very badly, very often. It's abundantly clear that the reason for this sleazy behavior would be because the great British public have elected to pay newspapers to behave in precisely that manner. The hypocrisy of people who have chosen of their own free will to line Rupert Murdock's pockets so very generously but now recoil in fake surprise when the consequences of own their choices are exposed is a truly nauseating sight.

 

As ever - people get the press they deserve.

 

Hmmmmm. This appears to very similar to the point that Dubai Phil was trying to get across in the other thread. Personally, I do not agree. I think that most people are aware of the fact that journalists often use underhanded means to gather material for press, but most people are genuinely shocked by the revelations of how deep it goes.

 

Yes, it is fair to say that people's ignorance will allow them to adopt an atitude of 'what I don't know doesn't hurt me' and that is part of human nature I guess. I imagine that many people, as has now been proved since the recent revelations, would choose not to buy certain publications if they knew where the information was coming from. And as far as I know, nobody has ever deliberately requested journalists use illegal methods to obtain their titbits, so to say that the public get the press they deserve is, in my opinion, disingenuous to say the least.

[benjii]

I think the gutter press is disgusting, so I don't buy it.

 

I will happily pay for Sky Sports though.

[dubai_phil]

Hmmmmm. This appears to very similar to the point that Dubai Phil was trying to get across in the other thread. Personally, I do not agree. I think that most people are aware of the fact that journalists often use underhanded means to gather material for press, but most people are genuinely shocked by the revelations of how deep it goes.

 

Yes, it is fair to say that people's ignorance will allow them to adopt an atitude of 'what I don't know doesn't hurt me' and that is part of human nature I guess. I imagine that many people, as has now been proved since the recent revelations, would choose not to buy certain publications if they knew where the information was coming from. And as far as I know, nobody has ever deliberately requested journalists use illegal methods to obtain their titbits, so to say that the public get the press they deserve is, in my opinion, disingenuous to say the least.

 

Couple of points you raise, we have to remember that what some 3 million people read Nowt out of a population of almost 60mil, but the effect is one of supplying "gossip". Example when back in UK on hols with the Fiance, in the pub with a gaggle of couples, the ladies conversation turned (as I think it often does) to "talking about others" ie Celebs etc. Now the gossip the Press supplies the few gets recycled by a much larger audience who are in reality commenting on "common knowledge" so of course for the other 57mil none of them really knew or cared too much about how that had come about, so think we're probably both right to an extent.

 

It's the second part which is again the troublesome part. Listening (& watching) some of those involved at the time, they totally fail to understand that they have crossed a line and done something "wrong". Society read what came out and a number of lone voices were unable to do anything about it or even get it properly investigated. BUT the wrong-doers seemed to have seriously believed they COULD do this as the public read it and nobody seemed to ever tell them - no.

 

So now this has a huge issue, how do you define that "Invisible Line"? How to set rules that allow for example Cash for Questions, MP Expense Claims and other future "Conspiracies" to come up. The damage done is not just to the trust in the media (Police & Politicians) but also to future investigators of REAL Public Interest stories. A knee jerk reaction at the Press Freedom Enquiry could see future important exposures stopped simply because it was deemed important to know what some Page 3 Model was having for dinner 8 years ago.

 

Unfortunately, in the 60 million, there will always be a percentage who don't see things in quite the same intelligent way as many posters on here do. Let's face it, most of the blue few won't understand why they can't buy the Nowt on Sunday

[View From The Top]

It's pretty obvious that statutory regulation isn't going to be introduced but self regulation needs to be much tougher.

 

It was pretty obvious in the debate that MPs of all ilks doffed their caps the Guardian and pointed out that it's that sort of tenacious reporting that everyone wants to get back to and gossip and the such like is fine but you don't break the law to do it.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Just out of interest what would be in the top ten crimes - and make them generic rather than specific examples.

 

Never really thought I'd end up defending NOTW readers but many of them bought the paper for something other than information gained illegally. Some bought it for sports coverage, others for celebrity gossip and others because they agreed with the general stance of the paper. None of them thought that by handing over their money that they were somehow agreeing with the illegal activities we've seen, and that's what you seem to be implying.

 

Of course the other thing is how far do you extend public culpability? I want to watch a range of sports mostly available on SKY - does taking out a subscription mean I condone the activity of hacking the phone of a missing girl? Of course it doesn't.

 

Ten off the top of my head :

 

1 - Is not engaging in (often successful) attempts to corrupt the police force not a much, much more grave cause for concern than hacking into someones phone ? How come we nearly always learn the name (and sometimes even see the 'mug shot') of anyone suspected of a high profile offence before they are even charged ?

 

2 - Is not the sensationalist reporting of criminal trials to the point of subverting the sub judice law not a very serious matter indeed ?

 

3 - Is not publishing photos of suffering people on their 'death beds' a disgraceful practice and a infinitely more serious matter than mere phone hacking ?

 

4 - Do you find that the written media, which as a matter of routine almost, publish stories that are distortions of the truth if not damn right lies to be causing real harm ? Is not deliberately publishing a lie worse than any invasion of privacy ?

 

5 - Has our press contributed to a disproportionate fear of crime that has had a serious effect on the way many people live their life's ? All those old people utterly convinced that there are army's of muggers awaiting them around every corner when the stats (for what they're worth) show that crime has been falling for years.

 

6 - Have newspapers coarsened British public life in recent years to a damaging extent by the manner in which they report stories ? Is it right that a self righteous newspaper 'campaign' can result in a Pediatrician (not a pedophile) having to flee his home in fear of a mob attack ?

 

7 - Some of our more downmarket tabloid newspapers seem to have become little better than purveyors of soft pornography - do you want your children exposed to that at home ?

 

8 - Do overpowerful media organisations always use their influence over politicians for our benefit - or theirs ? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

9 - Do you really think that certain UK newspapers are always seeking to improve race relations in this country - or damage them ?

 

10 - Piers Morgan.

 

None of the above is intended to trivialise the seriousness of the phone-hacking, however, we should put it into some kind of perspective should we not ? A self-righteousness high can also be a powerful anesthetic: and phone-hacking is most certainly not the worst thing newspapers do in this country - not by a long chalk.

So just how far do I take public culpability for the behavior of the News of the Screws' and the rest of the gutter press they finance ? - well 'all the way' actually.

[View From The Top]

Charlie, it's not phone hacking per see but the hacking of the grieving families of 7/7, the fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan and the deliberate deletion of Milly Dowler's phone message and then publishing a story where the parents talk of their hope that she is still alive because her voice messages had been emptied.

 

That is possibly the lowest thing I've ever encountered.

[dubai_phil]

Charlie, it's not phone hacking per see but the hacking of the grieving families of 7/7, the fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan and the deliberate deletion of Milly Dowler's phone message and then publishing a story where the parents talk of their hope that she is still alive because her voice messages had been emptied.

 

That is possibly the lowest thing I've ever encountered.

 

Agree that is just disgusting.

 

BUT the other fact that should be worrying the hell out of the British Public is this one.

 

Newspapers Paid Police (and other apparently "Public Servants" such as DVLA) for "services" or "information"

 

Surely the mere fact that "A Copper" or someone in Public Service would take money from somebody (Press or not) should horrify everybody. If they are happy to take a few hundred quid here or there for "Trivia" how about in other areas?

 

Someone takes a few hundred quid and then gets offered a few Grand for turing a blind eye somewhere else?

 

The hacking as you list it is horrific.

 

But finally bringing into the Public Spotlight evidence that Police "Corruption" could be widespread??

 

Jeez that leaves the MP's & Expenses and the Police all crook & the Press being exposed and widened daily, who the hell should anybody trust these days?

[View From The Top]

Maybe the only time I'll ever agree with the Telegraph.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8640878/Phone-hacking-A-scandal-that-has-diminished-Britain.html

[View From The Top]

Agree that is just disgusting.

 

BUT the other fact that should be worrying the hell out of the British Public is this one.

 

Newspapers Paid Police (and other apparently "Public Servants" such as DVLA) for "services" or "information"

 

Surely the mere fact that "A Copper" or someone in Public Service would take money from somebody (Press or not) should horrify everybody. If they are happy to take a few hundred quid here or there for "Trivia" how about in other areas?

 

Someone takes a few hundred quid and then gets offered a few Grand for turing a blind eye somewhere else?

 

The hacking as you list it is horrific.

 

But finally bringing into the Public Spotlight evidence that Police "Corruption" could be widespread??

 

Jeez that leaves the MP's & Expenses and the Police all crook & the Press being exposed and widened daily, who the hell should anybody trust these days?

 

Is anyone really shocked that rozzers are bent? Is anyone really shocked that they got cash from newspapers?

[View From The Top]

Agree that is just disgusting.

 

BUT the other fact that should be worrying the hell out of the British Public is this one.

 

Newspapers Paid Police (and other apparently "Public Servants" such as DVLA) for "services" or "information"

 

Surely the mere fact that "A Copper" or someone in Public Service would take money from somebody (Press or not) should horrify everybody. If they are happy to take a few hundred quid here or there for "Trivia" how about in other areas?

 

Someone takes a few hundred quid and then gets offered a few Grand for turing a blind eye somewhere else?

 

The hacking as you list it is horrific.

 

But finally bringing into the Public Spotlight evidence that Police "Corruption" could be widespread??

 

Jeez that leaves the MP's & Expenses and the Police all crook & the Press being exposed and widened daily, who the hell should anybody trust these days?

 

The yanks think they're all bent. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fbdf4ee6-aefe-11e0-bb89-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1SD9jVibL

[dubai_phil]

Is anyone really shocked that rozzers are bent? Is anyone really shocked that they got cash from newspapers?

 

Nope, but people are slowly waking up to the fact that something is rotten in the UK.

 

In some ways Murdoch has been unlucky "in being called to account" (NOT condoning NI at all in any way EVER) (NI's fault for leaving such a smoking gun & emotive trail), but many other disasters and scandals SEEM to have been glossed over in the past years, shame the idiots in the Banks that screwed much of the world up get to enjoy their pensions & bonus cheques rather than the NI firestorm and hopefully Corporate fines & Jail sentences as only ONE example.

[Crazy Diamond]

What has made it a hell of a lot worse in my eyes is how Milliband has thrown himself into the middle of it in a tasteless point scoring exercise. Gordon Brown also couldn't wait to reappear in the Commons to get back at the Murdochs for their lack of support at the end of his tenure.

 

It's a sorry state of affairs when the nature of modern politics means something like this can happen, and then be used as ammunition against a rival party.

[hutch]

Simple solution, in my eyes, would be to free up the libel laws. No more hiding behind anonymous sources to protect the freedom of the press. Shift the benefit of doubt to the target of the press.

 

If a paper prints a story, and is sued, then if it can't prove everything it printed is true, the complainant wins.

 

If it says it knows it's true, but won't reveal it's sources, the complainant wins.

 

If it is true, but the information was obtained illegally, directly or indirectly, the complainant wins.

 

Hit them hard in the pocket. Proper corporate governance will soon return.

[bridge too far]

What has made it a hell of a lot worse in my eyes is how Milliband has thrown himself into the middle of it in a tasteless point scoring exercise. Gordon Brown also couldn't wait to reappear in the Commons to get back at the Murdochs for their lack of support at the end of his tenure.

 

It's a sorry state of affairs when the nature of modern politics means something like this can happen, and then be used as ammunition against a rival party.

 

What did you expect him to do? Sit back and do / say nothing? For 30 years or more politicians from all sides have been sh*t scared of Murdoch and none of them wanted to upset the apple cart for fear of his perceived power.

 

At least Miliband led from the front instead of dithering like Cameron. And so much kudos to Tom Watson (Labour MP) and the Guardian for sticking with this one.