Verbal Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 What is now bothering me almost as much as the news about hacking is the fact that the NOTW paid police for information. How can there be a transparent police investigation if the investigators employ those who've been paid? This is the Metropolitan Police we're talking about - the least supervised of all the police forces in the country, where corruption and extra-legal violence seem to have become ingrained. There's no question in my mind that the investigation should be handed to an outside police force - with the appointment of a special prosecutor to drive it through without the interference, corruption and influence-peddling that have seriously derailed the investigation so far.
OldNick Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Remember when HR's house was raided and the press were there waiting to film it, perhaps this was done to hacking as well
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Remember when HR's house was raided and the press were there waiting to film it, perhaps this was done to hacking as well The police tip the press off, my mates a photographer and he's been tipped off by the police hundreds of times.
bridge too far Posted 6 July, 2011 Author Posted 6 July, 2011 The police tip the press off, my mates a photographer and he's been tipped off by the police hundreds of times. Tip-offs are OK I suppose but the very thought of the gutter press paying the police really sticks in my craw. I think this whole saga is going to be a real Pandora's box.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Tip-offs are OK I suppose but the very thought of the gutter press paying the police really sticks in my craw. I think this whole saga is going to be a real Pandora's box. He gets his photos in all papers, not just "gutter". He works for an agency, who I've no doubt paid the police. It's not as simple as good or bad press
Pancake Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 BBCBreaking on twitter lol: http://twitter.com/#!/BBCBreaking/status/88542261637431296 They might want to rephrase that...
Viking Warrior Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 I just amazes me that the BBC seem to be prtraying themselves as whiter than white. They are a media outlet and I beleive that they have come across information by ill gotten means. The media are as bad as each other. Its just the NOTW has been found out on this occassion. I bet all the other newspaper barons are destroying any evidence that could point a finger at them Is peirs morgan ****ting a brick or two by any chance?
Sheaf Saint Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_messages_2/ I recommend everyone signs up to this. The fact that the government is pushing ahead with this deal despite the recent revelations and major concerns over the validity of the consultation process is, to my mind anyway, possibly the most alarming thing about this whole episode.
Verbal Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 I just amazes me that the BBC seem to be prtraying themselves as whiter than white. They are a media outlet and I beleive that they have come across information by ill gotten means. The media are as bad as each other. Its just the NOTW has been found out on this occassion. I bet all the other newspaper barons are destroying any evidence that could point a finger at them Is peirs morgan ****ting a brick or two by any chance? In what way exactly have the BBC behaved like NoW, except in your conspiracy-addled opinion? Let's not defuse this into a hopeless delldays-ish moan about 'oh god, the media - but ho hum...' There is evidence here of serial law-breaking, corruption, interference with several criminal investigations, threats, inducements and intimidation.
trousers Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 I appreciate that my forthcoming question is in "that's not the point" territory but worth asking IMHO.... How were these journalists / PIs able to hack into people's phones in the first place? Working in the IT industry, I'm a little surprised that no-one has hauled the mobile phone companies over the coals for seemingly having such an insecure network infrastructure. If there was adequate security measures in place then these scum wouldn't be able to hack into them in the first place...
dubai_phil Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 I appreciate that my forthcoming question is in "that's not the point" territory but worth asking IMHO.... How were these journalists / PIs able to hack into people's phones in the first place? Working in the IT industry, I'm a little surprised that no-one has hauled the mobile phone companies over the coals for seemingly having such an insecure network infrastructure. If there was adequate security measures in place then these scum wouldn't be able to hack into them in the first place... The world works in blinkers believing that IT & Comms are secure technologies. They are not. Windows has more holes in it than an Emmental Cheese. We have been working with a company driving security improvements in all these areas for over two years and when I first saw what can be done I was horrified. Technology exists to not only hack an identified phone but to hack ANY phone used within a set distance of a receiver - and with the new Smartphones that means they can get everything all the way down into your Facebook & Skype Contacts. The detail can be down to the Focal Length Exposure and GPS location of a photo you took. Agents can be sent by email or loaded by FB links. AV products cannot find them as they are lines of code and can be hidden in a simple PDF or text document. We ran a demo and hacked a "Mil Spec" secure laptop in 25 seconds. The horror of the illegal use of this hole in our modern IT world is clear with the NOTW, but nobody should be under ANY illusions that 1) It is very easy and 2) Anyone could do it. While reporting on this subject you will see many other articles about Cyber Warfare, Sony Playstation etc all being hacked. The modern world is built on a dream of security that doesn't exist annd would cost Trillions to bring systems up to the right specs. Oh and yes you can hack into the core chips in IPhones & Macs.
benjii Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_messages_2/ I recommend everyone signs up to this. The fact that the government is pushing ahead with this deal despite the recent revelations and major concerns over the validity of the consultation process is, to my mind anyway, possibly the most alarming thing about this whole episode. Bit of a non-issue to my mind. Murdoch controls the output already. The legal ownership of a few shares won't make any difference. The cover-ups and ineptitude circling the relationship between the police, the press and certain politicians are more interesting.
trousers Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 (edited) The world works in blinkers believing that IT & Comms are secure technologies. They are not. Windows has more holes in it than an Emmental Cheese. We have been working with a company driving security improvements in all these areas for over two years and when I first saw what can be done I was horrified. Technology exists to not only hack an identified phone but to hack ANY phone used within a set distance of a receiver - and with the new Smartphones that means they can get everything all the way down into your Facebook & Skype Contacts. The detail can be down to the Focal Length Exposure and GPS location of a photo you took. Agents can be sent by email or loaded by FB links. AV products cannot find them as they are lines of code and can be hidden in a simple PDF or text document. We ran a demo and hacked a "Mil Spec" secure laptop in 25 seconds. The horror of the illegal use of this hole in our modern IT world is clear with the NOTW, but nobody should be under ANY illusions that 1) It is very easy and 2) Anyone could do it. While reporting on this subject you will see many other articles about Cyber Warfare, Sony Playstation etc all being hacked. The modern world is built on a dream of security that doesn't exist annd would cost Trillions to bring systems up to the right specs. Oh and yes you can hack into the core chips in IPhones & Macs. Yep, I know it's "easy" for anyone so inclined to break into "modern" computer environments but that doesn't mean that technology providers should throw in the towel and appear to leave open massive holes in their systems. Yes, technology solution providers are always playing catch up with the latest hacking techniques but having worked in banking IT most of my life you have to at least be seen to be trying to plug the obvious holes. Much in the same way that a shopkeeper will lock his doors and activate an alarm before he leaves the premises. Should he not do this because burglary is inevitable? A few years ago I worked on a project linking banking systems to telco systems (pay-as-you-go top up facility at ATMs) and was horrified at the relatively blase attitude the telcos had to transaction security compared to the banks. Edited 6 July, 2011 by trousers
Saintandy666 Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Allegedly there is evidence that Andy Coulson authorised payments to the police now. This just gets bigger and bigger and Cameron is up to his neck in it.
trousers Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Allegedly there is evidence that Andy Coulson authorised payments to the police now. This just gets bigger and bigger and Cameron is up to his neck in it. Cameron knew that Coulson had done this?
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 I appreciate that my forthcoming question is in "that's not the point" territory but worth asking IMHO.... How were these journalists / PIs able to hack into people's phones in the first place? Working in the IT industry, I'm a little surprised that no-one has hauled the mobile phone companies over the coals for seemingly having such an insecure network infrastructure. If there was adequate security measures in place then these scum wouldn't be able to hack into them in the first place... I might be wrong but as I understand it they were hacking into the voicemailbox for the phone numbers of their targets. Mailboxes are set up with a default PIN, for arguments sake 1111, and so anyone can hack a maibox using that default as long as it hadn't been changed already.
CB Saint Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Allegedly there is evidence that Andy Coulson authorised payments to the police now. This just gets bigger and bigger and Cameron is up to his neck in it. That is absolute guff. That is a bit like saying Blair was up to his neck in it because a lot of this happened on his watch and he cozied up to Murdoch as well.
Viking Warrior Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Verbal I thought you would stick your head above the parapet .You obviously think the Beeb are whiter than white or you are working there. The beeb do spin the truth to fit their ideology. Im sure they obtain information by foul means as well. The common term is leaked documents or an unamed source comes to mind whether it is a news item. Look at the beebs article on corruption in football. where and how did they uncover the information . They didnt ask mr warner an bin nicely about it. they grovelled about in the dirt to dish the dirt. This goes for all TV news outlets. the bbc are not sqeaky clean in my humble opinion
Viking Warrior Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Yes verbal the NOTW appears to be guilty of serial and hideous hacking of phones etc and all their rivals are gloating but your not telling me the other papers are squeaky clean are you? Its just the others havent been caught and have probably destroyed any incriminating evidence.
ecuk268 Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Advertisers are deserting in numbers. Ford, Renault, Vauxhall, Halifax, The Co-op and Virgin so far.
pedg Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Yes verbal the NOTW appears to be guilty of serial and hideous hacking of phones etc and all their rivals are gloating but your not telling me the other papers are squeaky clean are you? Its just the others havent been caught and have probably destroyed any incriminating evidence. No one is saying that the others are squeaky clean just that on the current evidence NOTW are the worst culpits by a country mile.
trousers Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 (edited) I might be wrong but as I understand it they were hacking into the voicemailbox for the phone numbers of their targets. Mailboxes are set up with a default PIN, for arguments sake 1111, and so anyone can hack a maibox using that default as long as it hadn't been changed already. Well, if that's how they did it then the telcos are even more un-security conscious than even I thought they were. It simply highlights my point. There would be uproar if banks sent out debit or credit cards with default PINs yet the telcos see this as perfectly acceptable practice for their phone's voicemail. Issuing phones with random voicemail PINs would hardly be rocket science. Oh, it would cost them a few bob to administer, which is what it boils down to. As I say, none of this excuses the scum for exploiting such an obvious gap in security, but the stupidity of the telcos (and, it would seem, their governing body) is at best laughable and at worst commercially inept. If you bought a new car with a default key to unlock it, who would you shout at the loudest when it was stolen? The car manufacturer or the car thief? Astounding. Edited 6 July, 2011 by trousers
trousers Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 That is absolute guff. That is a bit like saying Blair was up to his neck in it because a lot of this happened on his watch and he cozied up to Murdoch as well. I think they call it selective memory.
Sheaf Saint Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Verbal I thought you would stick your head above the parapet .You obviously think the Beeb are whiter than white or you are working there. The beeb do spin the truth to fit their ideology. Im sure they obtain information by foul means as well. The common term is leaked documents or an unamed source comes to mind whether it is a news item. Look at the beebs article on corruption in football. where and how did they uncover the information . They didnt ask mr warner an bin nicely about it. they grovelled about in the dirt to dish the dirt. This goes for all TV news outlets. the bbc are not sqeaky clean in my humble opinion I think that's a bit of a misleading comparison though Viking. Uncovering corrtuption at the highest level of such a powerful world organisation is surely a worthy reason for any journalist / news agency to dig a little deeper and perhaps cut a few corners, because it is very much in the public interest that these things should be exposed. Hacking the voicemail of the families of murder victims is not just illegal, it is also extremely unethical and very, very distasteful.
pedg Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Well, if that's how they did it then the telcos are even more un-security conscious than even I thought they were. It simply highlights my point. There would be uproar if banks sent out debit or credit cards with default PINs yet the telcos see this as perfectly acceptable practice for their phone's voicemail. Issuing phones with random voicemail PINs would hardly be rocket science. Oh, it would cost them a few bob to administer, which is what it boils down to. As I say, none of this excuses the scum for exploiting such an obvious gap in security, but the stupidity of the telcos (and, it would seem, their governing body) is at best laughable and and at worst commercially inept. If you bought a new car with a default key to unlock it, who would you point the finger at? The car manufacturer or the car thief? Astounding. Changing your pin just meant that the private investigators involved had to go that bit further and use either blagging or contacts in the mobile companies to get them the PIN. Amongst the documents recovered from the investigator was a list of PIN's for people he was told to investigate when the person had done the right thing and changed their PIN. Personally I think the worst thing the mobile companies did was allow people's mobile voicemails to be accessed from any phone by default. If by default you could only access your voice messages from the mobile in question, identified by the IMEI, then it would have been an awful lot harder to gain access to them illegally.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Allegedly there is evidence that Andy Coulson authorised payments to the police now. This just gets bigger and bigger and Cameron is up to his neck in it. It was common knowledge to parliament for years. If it was such a big deal why didn't the Govt of the day do something about it, back in 2003. Although, weren't NOTW a Labour supporting paper then? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13092045
pedg Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 It was common knowledge to parliament for years. If it was such a big deal why didn't the Govt of the day do something about it, back in 2002. Although, weren't NOTW a Labour supporting paper then? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13092045 It was admitted then by Brookes that police had been paid by NOTW in the past. That's different from proof that Coulson authorized payments after that date.
trousers Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Changing your pin just meant that the private investigators involved had to go that bit further and use either blagging or contacts in the mobile companies to get them the PIN. Amongst the documents recovered from the investigator was a list of PIN's for people he was told to investigate when the person had done the right thing and changed their PIN. Personally I think the worst thing the mobile companies did was allow people's mobile voicemails to be accessed from any phone by default. If by default you could only access your voice messages from the mobile in question, identified by the IMEI, then it would have been an awful lot harder to gain access to them illegally. Indeed. I know I keep saying that none of this excuses the behaviour of the perpetrators, but the telcos couldn't really have made it any easier for the system to be cracked in the first place if they'd tried. As I say, if the banks had been this inept you can bet they would now be getting a load of flak.
trousers Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Although, weren't NOTW a Labour supporting paper then? Sshhhhhh.....please, no inconvenient truths on here thank you very much.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 It was admitted then by Brookes that police had been paid by NOTW in the past. That's different from proof that Coulson authorized payments after that date. I doubt if there's a journo, press agency or editor that hasn't paid the police at one time. Including Alister Campbell...........
pedg Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 I doubt if there's a journo, press agency or editor that hasn't paid the police at one time. Including Alister Campbell........... I suspect that paying the police is not as common as you imply. Are you to have me believe that Jeremy Paxman, for example, is in the habit of slipping a bent copper a wedge for information he could use on newsnight? I think its fairly clear that this sort of activity is fairly common in the tabloid press but I suspect it is far less common that you imply outside that area.
Verbal Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Verbal I thought you would stick your head above the parapet .You obviously think the Beeb are whiter than white or you are working there. The beeb do spin the truth to fit their ideology. Im sure they obtain information by foul means as well. The common term is leaked documents or an unamed source comes to mind whether it is a news item. Look at the beebs article on corruption in football. where and how did they uncover the information . They didnt ask mr warner an bin nicely about it. they grovelled about in the dirt to dish the dirt. This goes for all TV news outlets. the bbc are not sqeaky clean in my humble opinion Heavens above, Viking - as an example of faulty logic this really takes the biscuit. To report on corruption does not mean you've used corrupt means to gain evidence of it. Are you really saying that all investigative reporting is by definition corrupt? By that measure, Woodward and Bernstein are the most corrupt journalists on the planet because their investigation brought down a President. As for the BBC or anyone else being 'whiter than white', you're clearly imagining something I said. However, it would be a useful starting point, surely, to start with some specific allegation, rather than some swivel-eyed finger-pointing based on the square root of FA. Leaks, by the way, take many forms. Many come from the highest sources. Others from whistleblowers trying to expose - to take one example - a hospital that has a habit of killing virtually every baby it operates on when doing heart surgery. Are you really saying that because the information came from a whistleblower (who incidentally are supposed to be PROTECTED by law, not acting outside it), a newspaper or broadcaster, having checked its reliability, should just sit on it and imagine nothing happened? What the NoW did was of a totally different order, and spreading the accusation so wide as to be meaningless actually lets the criminal, corrupt NoW off the hook. Is that what you intend?
Verbal Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 I doubt if there's a journo, press agency or editor that hasn't paid the police at one time. Including Alister Campbell........... Given Alastair Campbell's past history, this post had better not come to his attention (He's not a Saints supporter - Burnley I think). If it does, you could be landing yourself and baj with an interesting libel suit. Curious to see how that one goes. And no, I doubt there are no more than a handful of journalists who pay police for information. Aside from anything else, corruption is illegal, as is almost certainly the release of information being paid for. So if it's exposed, it's jail time.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 (edited) I suspect that paying the police is not as common as you imply. Are you to have me believe that Jeremy Paxman, for example, is in the habit of slipping a bent copper a wedge for information he could use on newsnight? I think its fairly clear that this sort of activity is fairly common in the tabloid press but I suspect it is far less common that you imply outside that area. My mate works for a press agency, his agency has paid the police, I geniunely thought that it was a given that everybody knew that. His agency (which has paid the police) do work for all the papers including the broadsheets, and have sold stories to the broadsheets where they've used dodgy methods to get the stories........ I clearly remember a time we were in the pub and he said he needed an early night because he had to get up early as someone was being arrested in the morning. Sure enough there it was on South Today the following night. It was a PC that had tipped him off. Edited 6 July, 2011 by Lord Duckhunter
pedg Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 My mate works for a press agency, his agency has paid the police, I geniunely thought that it was a given that everybody knew that. His agency (which has paid the police) do work for all the papers including the broadsheets, and have sold stories to the broadsheets, where they've used dodgy methods to get the stories........ I clearly remember a time we were in the pub and he said he needed an early night because he had to get up early as someone was being arrested in the morning. Sure enough there it was on South Today the following night. It was a PC that had tipped him off. So you are basing your whole theory that all journalists, editors and news agencies have indulged in illegal practices on your knowledge of one instance?
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 And no, I doubt there are no more than a handful of journalists who pay police for information. Aside from anything else, corruption is illegal, as is almost certainly the release of information being paid for. So if it's exposed, it's jail time. It's a bit more subtle than that. It's about building up relationships with officers over the years. His Dad was a journo, so he has a lot of contacts that way. A lot of the time young officers pass on bits they hear around the station. My mates quite good at getting tickets for shows and that, maybe he can get tickets for the young PC for a sell out show.................
dubai_phil Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 I think that's a bit of a misleading comparison though Viking. Uncovering corrtuption at the highest level of such a powerful world organisation is surely a worthy reason for any journalist / news agency to dig a little deeper and perhaps cut a few corners, because it is very much in the public interest that these things should be exposed. Hacking the voicemail of the families of murder victims is not just illegal, it is also extremely unethical and very, very distasteful. Whoa there.... You see that is the entire problem in a Nutshell. Obviously "Emotionally" you are completely right, all fair means and foul should be used to expose corruption/evil/crime. But having that "Opinion" (inadvertently) legitimises everything the Journos have done That is the road to ruin - you have one tiny little window of accepting one thing then where do you draw the line? The phone hacking will almost certainly have led to some story of another that WAS in the Public Interest. The trouble is out of what now seems like thousands of serial hackings, only one or maybe two could be justified in that way. Privacy Laws/Hacking/Uncovering the Truth, where does it stop? How could anyone draw up a law to allow hacking in one instance and not in another? It's illegal, PERIOD. People who did it MUST go to Jail, what it uncovers is irrelevant. People who authorised illegal activities MUST go to Jail. People who allocated an internal budget MUST go to jail. There are so many instances of this Bend The Rules mentality in the UK that it cannot ever work, somebody will bend it too far and then claim in defence We were looking for corruption....
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 So you are basing your whole theory that all journalists, editors and news agencies have indulged in illegal practices on your knowledge of one instance? Not at all, I've known the guy all my life and my 73 year old Dad went to school with his Dad. Over the years both his Dad( who was a journo) and my mate have told me a hell of a lot of stuff, way too much to post. Answer me this then. The editor of the NOTW goes in front of a selcet commettee and admitts paying the police, there is no song and dance about it, no scandal,no calls for any charges, why was that? Because it's common practise.
pedg Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Not at all, I've known the guy all my life and my 73 year old Dad went to school with his Dad. Over the years both his Dad( who was a journo) and my mate have told me a hell of a lot of stuff, way too much to post. Answer me this then. The editor of the NOTW goes in front of a selcet commettee and admitts paying the police, there is no song and dance about it, no scandal,no calls for any charges, why was that? Because it's common practise. I'm not saying that it did not happen just that it appears you are taking your knowledge of one area of the media and extrapolating it to cover everyone in the news industry.
Verbal Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 (edited) It's a bit more subtle than that. It's about building up relationships with officers over the years. His Dad was a journo, so he has a lot of contacts that way. A lot of the time young officers pass on bits they hear around the station. My mates quite good at getting tickets for shows and that, maybe he can get tickets for the young PC for a sell out show................. So that happened, did it? Your mate got tickets for a police officer in return for illegal favours? If you know this and haven't reported it, I think you could well find it's YOU who's committed an offence. The point relevant to the thread, though, is that there IS a clear line between investigative reporting which searches for evidence by accepted and legal means, and that which depends on corruption, threats, inducements and a breach of privacy laws (and ethics) that is frankly staggering. Edited 6 July, 2011 by Verbal
View From The Top Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Not at all, I've known the guy all my life and my 73 year old Dad went to school with his Dad. Over the years both his Dad( who was a journo) and my mate have told me a hell of a lot of stuff, way too much to post. Answer me this then. The editor of the NOTW goes in front of a selcet commettee and admitts paying the police, there is no song and dance about it, no scandal,no calls for any charges, why was that? Because it's common practise. Female circumcision is common practice for some cultures living in the UK. Doesn't make it right though. I readily accept the odd nod and a wink happens, God knows I've seen it in action myself and I've no major issue with it, but this clearly goes beyond that and, if I'm honest, the idea of hacking into the phones of the parents whose kids have been murdered makes me feel physically ill.
View From The Top Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 I think they call it selective memory. Stop being a c**t if you can be as most lefties would accept that Blair and the Labour party bent over, looked coyly over their shoulder at Rupert and then allowed him free reign in exchange for power. That doesn't mean for 1 second that the lefties were happy about it then, now or if the future.
Special K Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 My mate works for a press agency, his agency has paid the police, I geniunely thought that it was a given that everybody knew that. His agency (which has paid the police) do work for all the papers including the broadsheets, and have sold stories to the broadsheets where they've used dodgy methods to get the stories........ I clearly remember a time we were in the pub and he said he needed an early night because he had to get up early as someone was being arrested in the morning. Sure enough there it was on South Today the following night. It was a PC that had tipped him off. That's hardly comparable with hacks paying police for information that is out of the public domain. The police use the media all the time and tip off's for arrests are hardly new. I notice you've alluded to a common practice of police being paid although this comes vicariously and with no examples. Is it possible that you could have been told a load of old pony and bravado, as often happens with the embellishment of stories?
solentstars Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Stop being a c**t if you can be as most lefties would accept that Blair and the Labour party bent over, looked coyly over their shoulder at Rupert and then allowed him free reign in exchange for power. That doesn't mean for 1 second that the lefties were happy about it then, now or if the future. what lefties are you talking about i always thought blair and new labour was more right wing beast than the present tory party.
View From The Top Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 what lefties are you talking about i always thought blair and new labour was more right wing beast than the present tory party. Lefties as in supporters. Those who were bloody uncomfortable with a pact with the devil in exchange for power. I'd not argue that Blair out toried the torys in many respects.
the stain Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Verbal I thought you would stick your head above the parapet .You obviously think the Beeb are whiter than white or you are working there. The beeb do spin the truth to fit their ideology. Im sure they obtain information by foul means as well. The common term is leaked documents or an unamed source comes to mind whether it is a news item. Look at the beebs article on corruption in football. where and how did they uncover the information . They didnt ask mr warner an bin nicely about it. they grovelled about in the dirt to dish the dirt. This goes for all TV news outlets. the bbc are not sqeaky clean in my humble opinion Does your wife go to look for tin foil to wrap her sandwiches and wonder where it has all disappeared to?
the stain Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 My mate works for a press agency, his agency has paid the police, I geniunely thought that it was a given that everybody knew that. His agency (which has paid the police) do work for all the papers including the broadsheets, and have sold stories to the broadsheets where they've used dodgy methods to get the stories........ I clearly remember a time we were in the pub and he said he needed an early night because he had to get up early as someone was being arrested in the morning. Sure enough there it was on South Today the following night. It was a PC that had tipped him off. So you are basing your whole theory that all journalists, editors and news agencies have indulged in illegal practices on your knowledge of one instance? Agreed. Maybe LD just hangs around with c*nts.
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 July, 2011 Posted 6 July, 2011 Stop being a c**t if you can be as most lefties would accept that Blair and the Labour party bent over, looked coyly over their shoulder at Rupert and then allowed him free reign in exchange for power. That doesn't mean for 1 second that the lefties were happy about it then, now or if the future. labour politician's are full of crap over this. I've just heard Alister Campbell giving his views on the evils of the press.Unbeliveable.......... This is a bloke who courted the Murdoch press when it suited him, sexed up a dossier to send our kids to war and punched Michael White when he who made a joke about his big buddy Robert Maxwell. I dont recall too many Torys making political points when Maxwell's wrong doing came to light, but Labour are desperate to link this to Cameron.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now