# Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail "hacked by News of the World"



## editor (Jul 4, 2011)

A new low for the vile rag, and surely one that should see serious criminal charges following in its wake. 


> The News of the World illegally targeted the missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler and her family in March 2002, interfering with police inquiries into her disappearance, an investigation by the Guardian has established.
> 
> Scotland Yard is investigating the episode, which is likely to put new pressure on the then editor of the paper, Rebekah Brooks, now Rupert Murdoch's chief executive in the UK; and the then deputy editor, Andy Coulson, who resigned in January as the prime minister's media adviser.
> 
> Milly's family lawyer this afternoon issued a statement in which he described the News of the World's activities as "heinous" and "despicable". Milly Dowler, then aged 13, disappeared on her way home in Walton-on-Thames, Surrey on 21 March 2002.





> The messages were deleted by journalists in the first few days after Milly's disappearance so as to free up space for more messages. As a result friends and relatives of Milly concluded wrongly that she might still be alive. Police feared evidence may have been destroyed.
> 
> Then, with the help of its own full-time private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, the News of the World started illegally intercepting mobile phone messages. Scotland Yard is now investigating evidence that the paper hacked directly into the voicemail of the missing girl's own phone. As her friends and parents called and left messages imploring Milly to get in touch with them, the News of the World was listening and recording their every private word.
> 
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-voicemail-hacked-news-of-world


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 4, 2011)

So they pay out all the civil cases _and_ get a big fat prosecution on top. Like it.


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> So they pay out all the civil cases _and_ get a big fat prosecution on top. Like it.


I can see a huge range of potential charges over this, starting from perverting the course of justice...


----------



## Voley (Jul 4, 2011)

If that's true I hope they throw the book at them.


----------



## andy2002 (Jul 4, 2011)

editor said:


> A new low for the vile rag, and surely one that should see serious criminal charges following in its wake.


 
God, I hope so. The arrogance and general hatefulness to behave like this is simply breathtaking. Just when you think News International can't stoop any lower they somehow manage to prove you wrong. Not that any newspaper – tabloid or otherwise – behaves a great deal better, of course...


----------



## Badgers (Jul 4, 2011)

Mucky, mucky business. I hope that someone gets dragged through the streets for this one.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 4, 2011)

This is being discussed on the andy coulson thread at the moment.  My feeling is there are to many vested interests of powerful (rich) people that nothing serious will come of much of this.  The Police tried to cover it up last time around and the politicians are staying very quiet.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> This is being discussed on the andy coulson thread at the moment.  My feeling is there are to many vested interests of powerful (rich) people that nothing serious will come of much of this.  The Police tried to cover it up last time around and the politicians are staying very quiet.


 
This


----------



## andy2002 (Jul 4, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Mucky, mucky business. I hope that someone gets dragged through the streets for this one.


 
There was a story in Private Eye recently that said Murdoch had planned to sack Rebekah Brooks but was then persuaded out of it. I bet her arse is out of there now though.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 4, 2011)

Absolutely disgusting


----------



## colacubes (Jul 4, 2011)

I'm a cynic at the best of times and have to say I wasn't terribly surprised when I saw the headline.  But when I read that they'd deleted messages to make room for more I think I actually looked like a goldfish for a minute.  I can't believe that even the coldest, most-cynical, money-grabbing tabloid journalist would not maybe think twice about that.  Fucking unbelievable


----------



## moochedit (Jul 4, 2011)

Is there any chance of Murdoch doing time over this ?


----------



## starfish (Jul 4, 2011)

Words cant really describe how low this is.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 4, 2011)

On Twitter it's being reported that people ringing up the NOTW news desk and shouting obscenities down the line. News desk. 0207 782 1001.

It was on ansaphone when I rang.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2011)

nipsla said:


> I'm a cynic at the best of times and have to say I wasn't terribly surprised when I saw the headline.  But when I read that they'd deleted messages to make room for more I think I actually looked like a goldfish for a minute.  I can't believe that even the coldest, most-cynical, money-grabbing tabloid journalist would not maybe think twice about that.  Fucking unbelievable


i find it interesting how a human being might come to this. did they think what they were doing was right? or did they just not care? do they have some kind of twisted morality/culture that keeps them doing these things, like the way soldiers who commit atrocities justify their actions to themselves?


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 4, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i find it interesting how a human being might come to this. did they think what they were doing was right? or did they just not care? do they have some kind of twisted morality/culture that keeps them doing these things, like the way soldiers who commit atrocities justify their actions to themselves?


 
They didn't care.


----------



## Wookster (Jul 4, 2011)

Disgusting.

Why they are being allowed to acquire Sky is really quite beyond me.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 4, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i find it interesting how a human being might come to this. did they think what they were doing was right? or did they just not care? do they have some kind of twisted morality/culture that keeps them doing these things, like the way soldiers who commit atrocities justify their actions to themselves?


 
IME, media types think a bit different to the rest of us, the most important thing is they get their story with their picture next to it.  Everything else is secondary.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 4, 2011)

moochedit said:


> Is there any chance of Murdoch doing time over this ?


 
No, none at all.


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 4, 2011)

...too much?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 4, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i find it interesting how a human being might come to this. did they think what they were doing was right? or did they just not care? do they have some kind of twisted morality/culture that keeps them doing these things, like the way soldiers who commit atrocities justify their actions to themselves?



I don't think they cared, as long as they got their story. Disgusting behavoir


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2011)

this will have repercussions. how serious remains to be seen, but it isn't really something that can be hushed up or swept under the carpet is it?

brooks will be out in the next few days, i reckon. and there has to be criminal charges from this.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 4, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> do they have some kind of twisted morality/culture that keeps them doing these things, like the way soldiers who commit atrocities justify their actions to themselves?


 
Well, they do work for the News of the World. So I guess the answer would be yes.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 4, 2011)

Illustrates a culture where absolutely nothing is regarded out of bounds in the pursuit of news dirt.

Just. Scum.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 4, 2011)

That's atrocious.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 4, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> This is being discussed on the andy coulson thread at the moment.  My feeling is there are to many vested interests of powerful (rich) people that nothing serious will come of much of this.  The Police tried to cover it up last time around and the politicians are staying very quiet.



That is my instinct too. Anyone who thinks the elite aint above the law might care to subscribe to my new publication "Bridge Buyers Monthly"


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 4, 2011)

elevendayempire said:


> ...too much?


 
Anywhere I can link this to share?


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 4, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Anywhere I can link this to share?


Just copy the URL and bung it on wherever you want...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 4, 2011)

People will still by the NoTW despite the scandal - how else will they get the juicy gossip on the latest rapes and murders?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 4, 2011)

elevendayempire said:


> Just copy the URL and bung it on wherever you want...


 
Great. Thanks


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 4, 2011)

nipsla said:


> I'm a cynic at the best of times and have to say I wasn't terribly surprised when I saw the headline.  But when I read that they'd deleted messages to make room for more I think I actually looked like a goldfish for a minute.  I can't believe that even the coldest, most-cynical, money-grabbing tabloid journalist would not maybe think twice about that.  Fucking unbelievable


That's roughly where I'm coming from. I simply can't conceive how _anyone_ can do something as vile as this


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

The News of the World

April 21, 2002

HELP MILLY'S FAMILY

SECTION: LEADING ARTICLE

LENGTH: 80 words



THIRTY-one days after Milly Dowler vanished into thin air we print poignant pages from her diary.

Her parents pray these extracts will prompt a clue to their cherished daughter's whereabouts.

Despite all efforts police remain mystified by Milly's disappearance.

Whether she went off voluntarily or was abducted, someone, somewhere CAN solve this riddle.

For the sake of her family's peace of mind, we beg them to come forward without a moment's delay.


----------



## moochedit (Jul 4, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> No, none at all.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 4, 2011)

Surely deleting the messages must have made the police think she was still alive. Maybe that's why they pursued the 'ran away from home after discovering her dad's porn stash' avenue. I really can't get my head round this. I really hope the perverting the course of justice cases fall around their ears like anvils.


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 4, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Anywhere I can link this to share?


Stuck it on Twitter, too: http://twitpic.com/5l7mkg


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Surely deleting the messages must have made the police think she was still alive. Maybe that's why they pursued the 'ran away from home after discovering her dad's porn stash' avenue. I really can't get my head round this. I really hope the perverting the course of justice cases fall around their ears like anvils.


shurely 'conspiring to pervert the course of justice'?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 4, 2011)

Well, if it put the police on the wrong track, then the course of justice was perverted, surely?


----------



## g force (Jul 4, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> People will still by the NoTW despite the scandal - how else will they get the juicy gossip on the latest rapes and murders?


 
Therein is the crux of the problem...they do this because it sells, and it sells because a certain section of society feels they have the right to know all the sordid details.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 4, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> People will still by the NoTW despite the scandal - how else will they get the juicy gossip on the latest rapes and murders?


I've been boycotting their rag for decades after some non-famous person topped himself after being exposed for an extra-marital affair. I think this could be for the NOTW what Hillsborough was for the Sun, but bigger.


----------



## colacubes (Jul 4, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, if it put the police on the wrong track, then the course of justice was perverted, surely?


 
Plus he attacked and killed other women afterwards.  Maybe they never would have found him beforehand but even so   Monumentally depressing all round.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, if it put the police on the wrong track, then the course of justice was perverted, surely?


 
that's generally up to 24 months - http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perverting_the_course_of_justice/ - i thought conspiring could make it longer but i'm not so sure now


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I've been boycotting their rag for decades after some non-famous person topped himself after being exposed for an extra-marital affair. I think this could be for the NOTW what Hillsborough was for the Sun, but bigger.


 
i actually agree. i can't imagine many people will be anything other than utterly disgusted by this. i wouldn't be surprised to see paedo-trial type protesters at wapping tomorrow...


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 4, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Surely deleting the messages must have made the police think she was still alive. Maybe that's why they pursued the 'ran away from home after discovering her dad's porn stash' avenue. I really can't get my head round this. I really hope the perverting the course of justice cases fall around their ears like anvils.


It didn't just lead the family down that route - her poor fucking parents were given false hopes, and led to believe for a short while that she was stuill alive.
For that utterly unspeakable cruelty, it is enough to make me wish there was a hell, just to see them burn in it


----------



## dylans (Jul 4, 2011)

How about a national boycott News international campaign, not just the NOTW but sky and everything else that makes that ratbag money


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 4, 2011)

*Rage Against The Murdoch*
06 July · 13:00 - 16:00
News International Ltd 1 Virginia Street, City of London E98 1XY

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=175119305885168


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> How about a national boycott News international campaign, not just the NOTW but sky and everything else that makes that ratbag money


Wonderful idea. Get it out on twitter and the like (I don't have a phone, so I'm hoping others will run with this).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> (I don't have a phone).


 probably a good thing if you're planing a boycott murdoch won't like


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2011)

most people who read the paper don't give a shit unfortunately


----------



## paolo (Jul 4, 2011)

During one of the investigations, Wade/Brooks refused to answer questions on the basis that she wasn't in charge at the time of events then in question.

This line of defence has an implicit acknowledgement that one _should_ answer questions about what happens when it's your watch. It'll be an interesting day tomorrow. The Graun, Indy (and likely Telegraph) will give it the coverage it deserves. But what of The Times or the Sun? Can they duck running it as front page?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> But what of The Times or the Sun? Can they duck running it as front page?


 a fiver says they can


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> most people who read the paper don't give a shit unfortunately


 
fact or opinion?

if that is the case, i think most people would see something of a difference between hacking eg boy george's phone and hacking the phone of a murdered teenager and deleting messages while publicly saying 'do everything you can to find out what's happened to milly' as per editorial i quoted above.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2011)

opinion, would be hard to quantify wouldn't it?


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2011)

times will run it, probably not the sun. maybe though.


----------



## paolo (Jul 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> a fiver says they can


 
You may well be right, but if they do it won't play well with any of their readership that understands the group ownership.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 4, 2011)

Well, the Sun boycott in Liverpool is still going strong over 20 years on, OU.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> You may well be right, but if they do it won't play well with any of their readership that understands the group ownership.


 
i'll take that as an acceptance of the bet. - £5 to the server fund from me if i'm right and a fiver from you if you are?


----------



## paolo (Jul 4, 2011)

killer b said:


> times will run it/


 
Currently it's no. 3ish story on their web front page.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> fact or opinion?
> 
> if that is the case, i think most people would see something of a difference between hacking eg boy george's phone and hacking the phone of a murdered teenager and deleting messages while publicly saying 'do everything you can to find out what's happened to milly' as per editorial i quoted above.


 yes, but they are unlikely to see it presented that way in the newspaper they read, or on sky news, or any other murdoch controlled outlet


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> yes, but they are unlikely to see it presented that way in the newspaper they read, or on sky news, or any other murdoch controlled outlet


 
yes fact or yes opinion?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, the Sun boycott in Liverpool is still going strong over 20 years on, OU.


 
in liverpool, yes, but not the whole country


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Currently it's no. 3ish story on their web front page.


 
number 3 on sky too. no 'serious' news outlet can afford not to run it tbh.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yes fact or yes opinion?


what do you think?
<swats fly>


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

killer b said:


> number 3 on sky too. no 'serious' news outlet can afford not to run it tbh.


 
i agree. but my money's on it not appearing on the front page of the print editions of the times and sun in the morning.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 4, 2011)

How strong was the boycott elsewhere PM? I only really knew about in Liverpool.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i agree. but my money's on it not appearing on the front page of the print editions of the times and sun in the morning.


 and most people who read the sun/now don't care what's in the times


----------



## dylans (Jul 4, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> most people who read the paper don't give a shit unfortunately


 
Perhaps but when your enemy is wounded it seems a wasted opportunity to not kick them while they are down.

Full list of assets owned by News international 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> most people who read the paper don't give a shit unfortunately


 
dunno about that. i think a lot of them will - it's exactly the kind of story, were it someone else who'd been caught, that they'd be whipping up outrage about. maybe it's time for all that whipping up to bite them on the arse?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 4, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> How strong was the boycott elsewhere PM? I only really knew about in Liverpool.


Not really that strong, because although there are Liverpool fans outside of merseyside, the general public revulsion wasn't strong enough.
WRT this awful matter, it's simply how deep and strong the public revulsion is.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 4, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> *Rage Against The Murdoch*
> 06 July · 13:00 - 16:00
> News International Ltd 1 Virginia Street, City of London E98 1XY
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=175119305885168



hmmm.. FB at its tricks again: 


> Event Cancelled
> This event is no longer available because it has been cancelled.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> Perhaps but when your enemy is wounded it seems a wasted opportunity to not kick them while they are down.
> 
> Full list of assets owned by News international
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation


 buy not buying something you wouldn't buy anyway


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 4, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> How strong was the boycott elsewhere PM? I only really knew about in Liverpool.



Was strong in the 6 counties here too then... though after their coverage of G4 and B6 demanding they be hung in the 70s their sales had dropped then too


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> Perhaps but when your enemy is wounded it seems a wasted opportunity to not kick them while they are down.
> 
> Full list of assets owned by News international
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation


the chances of me ever having the opportunity to turn down a copy of the papua new guinea post-courier are remote


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 4, 2011)

Tweet from Tom Watson MP is interesting...



> @tom_watson raised Milly Dowler hacking with John Yates in select ctte on 24 March. He said he knew nothing: bit.ly/jti9sp






			
				parliament select committee with john yates said:
			
		

> Q148 Mr Watson: Second, in the Jonathan Rees case there were a number of audio tapes for which transcripts were provided as part of a murder inquiry that has just finished. Will the new team be reviewing all the audio tapes from that inquiry to help inform the new investigation?
> 
> John Yates: That is entirely a matter for them. I know they are fully aware of the Rees aspect and the links, and that is a matter for them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 4, 2011)

Well, the only thing on that list that I might have bought is books published by Harper Collins.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 4, 2011)

*Sorry Protest re-scheduled...*

Boycott News Of The World 


*Rage Against The Murdoch
08 July · 13:00 - 16:00
News International Ltd 1 Virginia Street, City of London E98 1XY*
https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=188084617914119


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 4, 2011)

Independent going with it front page tomorrow.

"'News of the World' hacked Milly Dowler's phone when Rebekah Brooks was editor"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, the only thing on that list that I might have bought is books published by Harper Collins.


 
in my line of trade it would probably be unethical to stop the purchase of books based on their publisher's activities.


----------



## dylans (Jul 4, 2011)

stephj said:


> Independent going with it front page tomorrow.
> 
> "'News of the World' hacked Milly Dowler's phone when Rebekah Brooks was editor"


 
Oh it get's grubbier and grubbier


> And who was NOTW editor at the time of acts described as ”heinous” and “despicable” by Dowler’s father — step forward News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks! Despite her proximity to the hacking scandal, the flame-haired hack managed to survive after *Rupert Murdoch abandoned plans to pension her off due to a personal intervention by David Cameron on Brooks’ behalf*.
> 
> “Rebekah pleaded with the Dirty Digger not to be cut adrift and begged her friend David Cameron to intercede on her behalf. Following this intervention Murdoch …
> 
> relented.”


http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/07/rebekah-brooks-milly-dowler-hacking/


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2011)

moochedit said:


> Is there any chance of Murdoch doing time over this ?


 
Murdoch could walk into Trafalgar square in broad daylight and start emptying clips into passing tourists and the cunt still wouldn't do time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> Murdoch could walk into Trafalgar square in broad daylight and start emptying clips into passing tourists and the cunt still wouldn't do time.


 
no, he'd be shot dead


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> Perhaps but when your enemy is wounded it seems a wasted opportunity to not kick them while they are down.
> 
> Full list of assets owned by News international
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation


Yet another reminder to never get Sky.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 4, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> Murdoch could walk into Trafalgar square in broad daylight and start emptying clips into passing tourists and the cunt still wouldn't do time.


 
When did he last pay tax in the UK? 1971 was it?


----------



## rorymac (Jul 4, 2011)

dylans said:


> How about a national boycott News international campaign, not just the NOTW but sky and everything else that makes that ratbag money



*likes*


----------



## pk (Jul 4, 2011)

moochedit said:


> Is there any chance of Murdoch doing time over this ?


 
LOL is there fuck.

Hopefully this will be the death of one of his rags.

Like he cares now anyway.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 4, 2011)

this is in the same week that jeremy hunt, culture secretary, approved their, ie newscorp, take-over of sky.

this man is responsible for the filter through which a significant volume of people in this country now consume their media.

think about that.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 4, 2011)

Filthy dirty, sick, greedy, shameless fucking bastards.


----------



## pk (Jul 4, 2011)

This is about Rebekah fucking Wade. Or Brooks, as she is now known.

She knew all about this, and Mulcaire answered to her.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 4, 2011)

pk said:


> LOL is there fuck.
> 
> Hopefully this will be the death of one of his rags.


Followed by the old cunt himself.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2011)

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/07/predator.html
i'm too cynical to believe that a mass boycott will ever materialise though


----------



## pk (Jul 4, 2011)

If Rebekah Wade was tapping Milly's phone, you can be sure they were tapping her dad's phone too.

Hence all the porno stories, they made up their own filthy minds, and took cash from kinky chatline ads to pay for Mulcaire's services.

Sky. Believe in better, eh?


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 4, 2011)

wonder if this will lead to more revelations - if they did it to the dowlers, it wouldn't surprise me at all that they did it to the soham families. not quite as bad, but fucking vile nonetheless.

it just makes me wonder... how people live with themselves.  I mean, psychopaths aside - i kind of thought most of us were operating on a pretty decent system of ethics and conscience.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 4, 2011)

pk said:


> If Rebekah Wade was tapping Milly's phone, you can be sure they were tapping her dad's phone too.
> 
> Hence all the porno stories, they made up their own filthy minds, and took cash from kinky chatline ads to pay for Mulcaire's services.
> 
> Sky. Believe in better, eh?



The lots of them are sleazy scum - coulson and murdoch too. Shame on anyone who has a fucking sky subscription *narrows eyes at the 'politically correct'*


----------



## dylans (Jul 4, 2011)

They not only created false hope by deleting text messages but they then profited from the very false hope that they created.



> I consider this story sinister down to the last detail. Not just the hacking of Milly Dowler's voicemails; not just listening in to every word spoken by a distressed relative; not just deleting messages when the inbox was full, to make space for more messages; but *actually profiting from the brief moment of false hope when people thought that Milly Dowler must have deleted the messages herself and thus be alive, by ]sending hacks round to conduct an exclusive interview with the unaware family about their hopes.* In a depraved way, they circled around the vulnerable, knowingly, cynically awaiting a moment of weakness, brazenly bleeding them dry when the opportunity presented itself, creating some of the torment that they then exploited.



http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/07/predator.html


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> wonder if this will lead to more revelations - if they did it to the dowlers, it wouldn't surprise me at all that they did it to the soham families. not quite as bad, but fucking vile nonetheless.
> 
> it just makes me wonder... how people live with themselves.  I mean, psychopaths aside - i kind of thought most of us were operating on a pretty decent system of ethics and conscience.


 
most of us are, i would think. most of us aren't hacks.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 4, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> Filthy dirty, sick, greedy, shameless fucking bastards.



Innit!


----------



## friedaweed (Jul 4, 2011)

CUNTS


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> wonder if this will lead to more revelations - if they did it to the dowlers, it wouldn't surprise me at all that they did it to the soham families. not quite as bad, but fucking vile nonetheless.
> 
> it just makes me wonder... how people live with themselves.  I mean, psychopaths aside - i kind of thought most of us were operating on a pretty decent system of ethics and conscience.


 from the independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-hacked-mp-makes-shocking-claim-2252466.html


----------



## Wookey (Jul 4, 2011)

I hope Ms Wade gets it now, I've been waiting long enough.


----------



## moochedit (Jul 4, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> Murdoch could walk into Trafalgar square in broad daylight and start emptying clips into passing tourists and the cunt still wouldn't do time.





pk said:


> LOL is there fuck.
> 
> Hopefully this will be the death of one of his rags.
> 
> Like he cares now anyway.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 4, 2011)

Wookey said:


> I hope Ms Wade gets it now, I've been waiting long enough.


 
Join the queue,Ive always loathed her for exploiting the murder of Sarah Payne to promote her shitty little paper's ludicrous anti-nonce campaign a few years back.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 4, 2011)

Fuck boycotting the newspapers, we werent gonna buy them anyway, lets burn the fucking things.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 4, 2011)

Wookey said:


> I hope Ms Wade gets it now, I've been waiting long enough.


 
Gets what though? She deserves a prison sentence. The way the press is going it seems there is no doubt about what they did. Utterly, utterly sick. Very worrying on many issues also.

She'll get away with it. She won't give a shit. Depressing shit really for so many reasons. I see no route to real justice, so I'm just going to ignore all media for a few weeks and wait for a day when I can actually spit in her eye and feed her LSD before torturing her slowly 

That'll be justice.


----------



## friedaweed (Jul 4, 2011)

I think there should be a national campaign against this shitty rag like we did with the sun up here after Hillsborough. 
There will still be people picking it up on Sunday just to looks at the tats and the sport pages.

I think i might hit my local Spar Sunday morning with some leaflets.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 4, 2011)

Have you got a story for The Sun?  call the Sun news team direct on:  020 7782 4100


----------



## cybertect (Jul 4, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Surely deleting the messages must have made the police think she was still alive. Maybe that's why they pursued the 'ran away from home after discovering her dad's porn stash' avenue. I really can't get my head round this. I really hope the perverting the course of justice cases fall around their ears like anvils.


 

According to The Guardian's piece which broke the story, Surrey police were aware what the NoTW had done.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-voicemail-hacked-news-of-world




			
				The Guardian said:
			
		

> The paper made little effort to conceal the hacking from its readers. On 14 April 2002, it published a story about a woman allegedly pretending to be Milly Dowler who had applied for a job with a recruitment agency: "It is thought the hoaxer even gave the agency Milly's real mobile number … The agency used the number to contact Milly when a job vacancy arose and left a message on her voicemail … It was on March 27, six days after Milly went missing, that the employment agency appears to have phoned her mobile."
> 
> The newspaper also made no effort to conceal its activity from Surrey police. After it had hacked the message from the recruitment agency on Milly's phone, the paper informed police about it. It was Surrey detectives who established that the call was not intended for Milly Dowler. At the time, Surrey police suspected that phones belonging to detectives and to Milly's parents also were being targeted.
> 
> ...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 4, 2011)

Always a sense of justice when a rag that preys on scandal gets caught up in one of its own making.

Nasty business.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 4, 2011)

pk said:


> This is about Rebekah fucking Wade. Or Brooks, as she is now known.
> 
> She knew all about this, and Mulcaire answered to her.



It's about the Dowlers first.. what do they think/want?
Then it's about the press in general.. it's not just the NOTW that are involved. Aren't teh Daily Mail the highest payers for this type of sourcing of 'stories'?
Then it's about their employees.

Do you think that knowledge of this stopped at the editor? If you do then it's about Mrs Grant Mitchell..


----------



## Wookey (Jul 4, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Gets what though? She deserves a prison sentence. The way the press is going it seems there is no doubt about what they did. Utterly, utterly sick. Very worrying on many issues also.
> 
> She'll get away with it. She won't give a shit. Depressing shit really for so many reasons. I see no route to real justice, so I'm just going to ignore all media for a few weeks and wait for a day when I can actually spit in her eye and feed her LSD before torturing her slowly
> 
> That'll be justice.


 
I hope she loses her freedom as quickly as she lost her looks.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 4, 2011)

paulhackett said:


> It's about the Dowlers first.. what do they think/want?
> Then it's about the press in general.. it's not just the NOTW that are involved. Aren't teh Daily Mail the highest payers for this type of sourcing of 'stories'?
> Then it's about their employees.
> 
> Do you think that knowledge of this stopped at the editor? If you do then it's about Mrs Grant Mitchell..


 
It is surely the editors responsibilty. She's very real. Her actions caused very real probelms and pain. As editor she takes full responsibility. She has to go to jail. Freedom of the press isn't the issue here. It's civil liberties, justice and equality being fucked over by a single greedy bitch.

The press needs protecting. The law needs to be defended. We need to be reassured. Full sympathy to the Dowler family, but I doubt very much if they would disagree.


----------



## agricola (Jul 4, 2011)

You have to wonder whether any of this was disclosed to the defence at the recent trial.


----------



## rikwakefield (Jul 4, 2011)

"Asked for a reaction to the NOTW hacking case, Ed Miliband said these strikes were wrong at a time when negotiations were still going on."


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

rikwakefield said:


> "Asked for a reaction to the NOTW hacking case, Ed Miliband said these strikes were wrong at a time when negotiations were still going on."


 
someone should twat him and jog the record on


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 4, 2011)

Be interesting to see what sort of coverage the likes of the Mirror,Wail etc will give to the story tomorrow,not a fucking lot imo,thick as fucking thieves.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2011)

rikwakefield said:


> "Asked for a reaction to the NOTW hacking case, Ed Miliband said these strikes were wrong at a time when negotiations were still going on."


 
nice. i'm pinching that.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 4, 2011)

and the Sun runs it front page with.......



even though over 400 international papers are running with the story and Milly Dowler is trending on Twitter


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jul 4, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Be interesting to see what sort of coverage the likes of the Mirror,Wail etc will give to the story tomorrow,not a fucking lot imo.


 
Just on newsnight, none of the tabloids are covering it.


----------



## agricola (Jul 4, 2011)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Just on newsnight, none of the tabloids are covering it.


 
Well if that doesnt convince everyone how bent they all are, nothing will.  Not that there were that many people left to convince, mind.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Milly Dowler is trending on Twitter


 
so is 'britain's next top model' - and yet that seems strangely absent from the graun's front page.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 4, 2011)

according to RTE news just now.. 'News International are concerned and will be investigating matters internally"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> according to RTE news just now.. 'News International are concerned and will be investigating matters internally"


----------



## miss.w (Jul 4, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> even though over 400 international papers are running with the story and Milly Dowler is trending on Twitter


 
Totally OT but I dislike this trending lark, especially on a person who was killed, just feel its a bit crass.

It's disgraceful and vile what has come out. They're the lowest of the low.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 4, 2011)

miss.w said:


> Totally OT but I dislike this trending lark, especially on a person who was killed, just feel its a bit crass.
> 
> It's disgraceful and vile what has come out. They're the lowest of the low.



It means that people are getting the info out... I don't believe they are revelling in her death... Quite the opposite.....
over 1000 people joined one of the FB groups calling for a boycott in less than an hour for example...


----------



## agricola (Jul 4, 2011)

miss.w said:


> It's disgraceful and vile what has come out. They're the lowest of the low.


 
I would put large sums of money on this being nowhere near the worst thing they have done, tbh.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 4, 2011)

trashpony said:


> Shame on anyone who has a fucking sky subscription *narrows eyes at the 'politically correct'*


Unfortunately, millions of otherwise blameless people do: Football fans, film nuts, people for whom sky+ is simply too good a deal, your local publican....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2011)

trashpony said:


> Shame on anyone who has a fucking sky subscription *narrows eyes at the 'politically correct'*


 yeh? what next, shame on anyone who buys a harpercollins book?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

agricola said:


> I would put large sums of money on this being nowhere near the worst thing they have done, tbh.



Cant find the link but in March the Independent ran a story about an MP asking questions about hacking in the Soham case... 

eta: found it.... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-hacked-mp-makes-shocking-claim-2252466.html



> Family members of the two Soham girls murdered by school caretaker Ian Huntley may have had their phone messages hacked by private investigator Glenn Mulcaire on the instructions of News of the World, an MP suggested yesterday.


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

it was tom watson.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Cant find the link but in March the Independent ran a story about an MP asking questions about hacking in the Soham case... gonna google


 
would this be the independent story i linked to above?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> from the independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-hacked-mp-makes-shocking-claim-2252466.html


 
yeh this would be it


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

i understand he repeated the allegation on newsnight tonight btw. seems to have been a popular appearance, according to the usual social media.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 5, 2011)

He mentioned it again on Newsnight tonight apparently.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 5, 2011)

did tom watson mention it on newsnight at all?


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

apparently.


----------



## Wookey (Jul 5, 2011)

I've just heard that Tom Watson on Newsnight, have you heard?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

apparently he's been on newsnight talking


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

none of us watch the news anymore, we just check what's trending on twitter.


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Cant find the link but in March the Independent ran a story about an MP asking questions about hacking in the Soham case...
> 
> eta: found it.... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-hacked-mp-makes-shocking-claim-2252466.html


 
Indeed, but (as mentioned on the other thread, and as I am sure most are already aware), this phone-hacking habit of theirs really is at the gentle end of what they were / lets face it probably still are getting up to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

milly dowler, apparently


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> would this be the independent story i linked to above?



apols... been scan reading...

Anyhows I suggest people tell their local shopkeepers in the a.m. they wont be getting your trade while they stock Murdochs rags ( Like the Liverpool campaign)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 5, 2011)

spanglechick said:


> did tom watson mention it on newsnight at all?


 
no


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> apols... been scan reading...
> 
> Anyhows I suggest people tell their local shopkeepers in the a.m. they wont be getting your trade while they stock Murdochs rags ( Like the Liverpool campaign)


 
they don't get my trade in the morning anyway.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

Good piece from Beyond Clicktivism..... Hit Them Where It Hurts


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> it was tom watson.


i'm beginning to warm to this bloke. He may be a complete new labour apparatchik, but he did try to fuck Blair up, resigned over it, and has been brilliant over this scandal (i.e. phone-hacking)


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

Apparently the Daily Mail is now running the story on page 8....wonder why they changed their minds?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> i'm beginning to warm to this bloke. He may be a complete new labour apparatchik, but he did try to fuck Blair up, resigned over it, and has been brilliant over this scandal (i.e. phone-hacking)


 & handy with a golf club too


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Apparently the Daily Mail is now running the story on page 8....wonder why they changed their minds?


 they smell sales


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> i'm beginning to warm to this bloke. He may be a complete new labour apparatchik, but he did try to fuck Blair up, resigned over it, and has been brilliant over this scandal (i.e. phone-hacking)


 
he's occasionally bang on the money too - this about cable after the telegraph sting:



> Six months into the Conservative-led government, he’s left himself looking like, and let’s not mince words, he looks like a cock. What a total ignoramus. What a self-indulgent buffoon. What a hypocrite. For the protection of his own dignity, he should resign.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> apols... been scan reading...
> 
> Anyhows I suggest people tell their local shopkeepers in the a.m. they wont be getting your trade while they stock Murdochs rags ( Like the Liverpool campaign)


i don't think it would work. the intensity of the anger that will be felt nationwide over this is as nothing to the intensity of the anger on merseyside when the vile Hillsborough pieces came out. After Littlejohn's piece especially, the switchboard was jammed with calls from psychotically angry scousers threatening to string him up, so much so that our Brave Fearless Teller Of Truth spent the whole day curled up under his desk crying and whimpering with fear.
This, on the other hand, is too diffuse; whilst many will be disgusted, few will feel moved to a lifetime of cold, murderous rage, as with happened with Hillsborough, simply because only a handful of people in this case have a personal connection; there, it involved a large slice of the northwest's second city


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 5, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> they smell sales


and a chance to preach from the moral high ground to the massed ranks of suburban curtaintwitchers, which is practically orgasmic for the _Fail_


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 5, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> & handy with a golf club too


I'm intrigued - do elucidate....


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

Private Eyes take...


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 5, 2011)

Milly Dowler's family have been fucked over/humiliated again by our precious "media", and oh look who it is too.

Murdoch couldn't give a fuck. Ditto Brooks.  Ditto Cameron. And so on.

People will still buy the Scum and the News Of the Screws.

Cheryl Cole will get pregnant.

Some other pointless crap will be over-reported.

And this fucking disgraceful defilement of a murdered schoolgirl will be brushed under the carpet, while the Government grovels to Murdoch yet again, and in return the Scum will attack the working class and "left" for neo-liberalism's sake.

No one will cop a guilty verdict for this.

What a fucking disgrace.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 5, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Milly Dowler's family have been fucked over/humiliated again by our precious "media", and oh look who it is too.
> 
> Murdoch couldn't give a fuck. Ditto Brooks.  Ditto Cameron. And so on.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, but it makes money though doesn't it? Which means it's good.


----------



## pk (Jul 5, 2011)

Just heard they hacked the Soham families mobile phones too...

This will not be brushed under the carpet.

In fact I've been waiting for this to happen for a long time.

Rebekah Brooks should face jail for this.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 5, 2011)

The Sun have decided to report it - on page two - a page that traditionally gets the least views in the entire paper, especially if there is a huge pair of honkers on the adjacent page  http://twitpic.com/5lbxnf


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

Dowlers 'suing paper over hacking'


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 5, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Yeah, but it makes money though doesn't it? Which means it's good.


 
"Money run tings proper" - aye, forgot about that.

Or as some bloke once said on a stage in San Francisco:  "Ah ha ha ha!  Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?  Goodnight."


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Yeah, but it makes money though doesn't it? Which means it's good.


 
tell you what, i'll whore your mother and then we can see whether things which make money are inherently good.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 5, 2011)

pretty fucked up stuff and yet again elements of the press show they cant be trusted


----------



## Badgers (Jul 5, 2011)

I boycott all the Murdoch products already. Would like to think most sensible people do although I can understand some football fans wanting Sky. Makes me very cross but short of having a go at vendors selling their papers or companies that sell Sky boxes there is little that will change. Rebekah Brooks will walk the plank and the other papers will have a field day. Do hope people can march on their offices and don't doubt they will lose some income but I can't see that much happening. 

Shameful....


----------



## newbie (Jul 5, 2011)

currently number 8 on the BBC website Most Read.  Number 1 is 'Duke lands helicopter'!


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Q: How many million copies will The Sun sell today?

A: As many as yesterday.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

The BBC morning crew have been battering it. It's their 'multiple interviewees popping in and out' serious sofa story for the day from the looks of it. Jolly good.


----------



## newbie (Jul 5, 2011)

by contrast different aspects of this story are 3 of the top 5 Most Viewed on the Guardian website but doesn't feature in the Telegraph list at all.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 5, 2011)

Thats fucking wrong completely undefensable like that morgans cunt use of fake photos.
 basically murdochs empire has no ethics.
 A free press is vital to democracy unfortunatly murdoch more intrested in power and money and are "leaders" are scared of him and we have too many stupid people who buy his products


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 5, 2011)

R4 - Rebekah Brook's "deeply shocked" but will not resign. She has Murdoch's backing & plans to continue leading cooperation with police.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 5, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> R4 - Rebekah Brook's "deeply shocked" but will not resign. She has Murdoch's backing & plans to continue leading cooperation with police.


 
Is Murdoch's backing enough? Sadly I don't think that anyone will be tough on this issue but something has to give.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 5, 2011)

Has Cameron just completely ignored that question asked by the BBC?

Ah no. He did not like the question though


----------



## likesfish (Jul 5, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> R4 - Rebekah Brook's "deeply shocked" but will not resign. She has Murdoch's backing & plans to continue leading cooperation with police.


  what a stupid amoral person your head of an orginsation that interferes with a murder investigation so it can sell its pathetic sunday paper.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Rebekah Brook alwasy seems to me to be the architypal corporate climber - she instinctively understands hierarchy, how to calibrate her associations and disasociations from people and events, what alliances to build and how to manage people and situations.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 5, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> R4 - Rebekah Brook's "deeply shocked" but will not resign. She has Murdoch's backing & plans to continue leading cooperation with police.


 
'Deeply shocked' about *what*? 
That all the filth and dirt is trickling out, maybe - but you mean the lying cunt's actually pretending that she _didn't know?_  
Urgh, _such_ scum.


----------



## DRINK? (Jul 5, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Q: How many million copies will The Sun sell today?
> 
> A: As many as yesterday.


 
working classes will still lap it up....wur Chezza is on the front cover


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 5, 2011)

Face it, there's a group of people in this country who dont care and will continue to buy the rag for it's pointless silly, shitty tittle-tattle and sensationalist tripe.

FFS, it's no wonder politicians gets away with stuff when people are doped up to the eyeballs on this shit.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 5, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> 'Deeply shocked' about *what*?
> That all the filth and dirt is trickling out, maybe - but you mean the lying cunt's actually pretending that she _didn't know?_
> Urgh, _such_ scum.


 
if shed didn't know shes fucking incompetant
 if she did know and approved shes fucking evil


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 5, 2011)

likesfish said:


> if shed didn't know shes fucking incompetant
> if she did know and approved shes fucking evil


 
Id wager she either knew full well or asked not to be told on the grounds she might not like the answer.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 5, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Face it, there's a group of people in this country who dont care and will continue to buy the rag for it's pointless silly, shitty tittle-tattle and sensationalist tripe.
> 
> FFS, it's no wonder politicians gets away with stuff when people are doped up to the eyeballs on this shit.


 
If people want daft gossip can't they just by The Mirror instead?

I'd love to see The Screws boycotted but I too am skeptical it will happen on any meaningful level. What people really want is the juice on child rape and murder, now we know how The Screws gets the edge.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> The BBC morning crew have been battering it. It's their 'multiple interviewees popping in and out' serious sofa story for the day from the looks of it. Jolly good.


 
Murdoch's rags are forever trying to undermine the BBC, so perhaps the Beeb has seen its chance to strike back...


----------



## Fingers (Jul 5, 2011)

There is a significantly large pile of unsold Suns in the Tulse Hill Co-op today


----------



## Maggot (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Good piece from Beyond Clicktivism..... Hit Them Where It Hurts


 


friedaweed said:


> I think there should be a national campaign against this shitty rag like we did with the sun up here after Hillsborough.
> There will still be people picking it up on Sunday just to looks at the tats and the sport pages.
> 
> I think i might hit my local Spar Sunday morning with some leaflets.



I am so angry about this I really want to do something.

The 2 best ways to hit NOTW's profits are by boycotting the paper and by persuading advertisers not to advertise the paper.  Why don't we have a campaign like the Jan Moir one?

To persuade people who buy the paper to change their minds, you need some kind of sticker to put on the papers, or a leaflet to hand out at newsagents and supermarkets. We need a big campaign to really hit sales this Sunday.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 5, 2011)

DRINK? said:


> working classes will still lap it up....wur Chezza is on the front cover



prick


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 5, 2011)

Ive complained to NoTW by leaving a message on my voicemail.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 5, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Ive complained to NoTW by leaving a message on my voicemail.


 
Nicking that


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 5, 2011)

I give it to Friday at the earliest until Rebecca Wade is sacked - she's going to be Murdoch's sacrificial lamb.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 5, 2011)

Victoria Derbyshire will be speaking to advertisers on 5Live in the next half hour


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2011)

Wookster said:


> Disgusting.
> 
> Why they are being allowed to acquire Sky is really quite beyond me.


 
Because money talks, and the Coalition (the Conservatives especially) believe that letting Murdoch take full control of Sky will buy the dynasty's loyalty, at least in terms of giving them an easy ride w/r/t, for example, the cuts.

Labour would have done exactly the same, of course, and for exactly the same reason.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> this will have repercussions. how serious remains to be seen, but it isn't really something that can be hushed up or swept under the carpet is it?
> 
> brooks will be out in the next few days, i reckon. and there has to be criminal charges from this.


 
I strongly suspect that deals are already being made, and sacrificial lambs fattened for the slaughter.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 5, 2011)

Thompson and First Choice are to continue to advertise with NOTW


----------



## Dan U (Jul 5, 2011)

Daily Mail comments pages giving the Daily Mail a hard time for not giving more prominence to this story.

seems 'middle england' is not amused...


----------



## Dan U (Jul 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I strongly suspect that deals are already being made, and sacrificial lambs fattened for the slaughter.



me too. golden goodbye followed by a nice job somewhere else no doubt.


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

The Octagon said:


> Nicking that


 
likewise


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Gets what though? She deserves a prison sentence. The way the press is going it seems there is no doubt about what they did. Utterly, utterly sick. Very worrying on many issues also.
> 
> She'll get away with it. She won't give a shit. Depressing shit really for so many reasons. I see no route to real justice, so I'm just going to ignore all media for a few weeks and wait for a day when I can actually spit in her eye and feed her LSD before torturing her slowly
> 
> That'll be justice.


 
Real justice would be stripping her of her wealth and housing her on a council estate, where she'd have to mix with the people her papers have spent decades reviling, no visitors allowed, no "red cross parcels", just life in poverty.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jul 5, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Id wager she either knew full well or asked not to be told on the grounds she might not like the answer.


 
Its quite likely its a situation that she inherited. I imagine this has been going on for years, possibly decades. There's going to be a lot more to come out yet. Rumours of other people they have hacked are circulating.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 5, 2011)

Quote in the office [slight paraphrasing] - "Disgusting isn't it, we get it [NOTW] on sundays, wonder how they'll try to excuse it this week"

Where's the brick wall smiley?  just doesn't seem to cut it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2011)

paulhackett said:


> It's about the Dowlers first.. what do they think/want?
> Then it's about the press in general.. it's not just the NOTW that are involved. Aren't teh Daily Mail the highest payers for this type of sourcing of 'stories'?
> Then it's about their employees.
> 
> Do you think that knowledge of this stopped at the editor? If you do then it's about Mrs Grant Mitchell..


 
Murdoch has always been very clever about closing himself off from micro-management of his empire. That way, he can state that while he (or whoever is/was CEO) has executive control, operational control lays with the various editors, E-I-Cs and MDs of his various enterprises.  Even if he knew, he's got plausible deniability on his side, given his corporate management practices.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 5, 2011)

If it can be proved that the hacking of Milly Dowler's mobile actually impeded the police investigation, then it's a very serious criminal matter and needs to be dealt with severely.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Real justice would be stripping her of her wealth and housing her on a council estate, where she'd have to mix with the people her papers have spent decades reviling, no visitors allowed, no "red cross parcels", just life in poverty.


 
OI! Why should she jump the housing queue?


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I strongly suspect that deals are already being made, and sacrificial lambs fattened for the slaughter.


 
doubtless they'll try, but i don't think it's in their power any more. do you think the dowler family will let it go?


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Real justice would be stripping her of her wealth and housing her on a council estate, where she'd have to mix with the people her papers have spent decades reviling, no visitors allowed, no "red cross parcels", just life in poverty.


 
You would have to give her a job though - paediatrician, pedagogue, something like that.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> OI! Why should she jump the housing queue?


----------



## 8den (Jul 5, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> If it can be proved that the hacking of Milly Dowler's mobile actually impeded the police investigation, then it's a very serious criminal matter and needs to be dealt with severely.


 
Nigh on impossible to prove. They'd have to prove that the deleted messages were important to the investigation, which they can't because they're y'know deleted. 

It's probably why the Police didn't kick up a fuss about it when it was going on


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 5, 2011)

Hugh Grant was great on 5Live just now, totally tore into some NotW ex-hack. He also proved that you can get away with saying "bollocks" on morning radio if you say it in a charming, foppish manner.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 5, 2011)

8den said:


> Nigh on impossible to prove. They'd have to prove that the deleted messages were important to the investigation, which they can't because they're y'know deleted.
> 
> It's probably why the Police didn't kick up a fuss about it when it was going on


 

IANAL but surely destroying evidence is a serious crime?  We know that important data was destroyed and surely it would count as evidence?  It has to be because once any evidence has been destroyed it cannot be exactly defined as it has been destroyed, e.g. someone burns some clothes of a murderer.  The clothes are no longer available so cannot be used for the retrieval of DNA and other evidence, but the fact that the ashes were found and that the neighbours saw then being burned = destroying evidence. 

As I said IANAL so maybe this is wrong?  

Just thinking aloud


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 5, 2011)

8den said:


> Nigh on impossible to prove. They'd have to prove that the deleted messages were important to the investigation, which they can't because they're y'know deleted.
> 
> It's probably why the Police didn't kick up a fuss about it when it was going on


 
Yes but the fact that messages had been deleted surely led the police to believe that Milly was still alive?  So therefore the hacking definitely misled the investigation into her disappearance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> doubtless they'll try, but i don't think it's in their power any more. do you think the dowler family will let it go?


 
I'd certainly hope not, but Kemp/Wade/Brooks is likely to "know where the bodies are buried", so I'm not sanguine about the chances of HER paying for HER crimes, IYSWIM.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> OI! Why should she jump the housing queue?


 
Good point.


----------



## Maggot (Jul 5, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> IANAL but surely destroying evidence is a serious crime?  We know that important data was destroyed and surely it would count as evidence?  It has to be because once any evidence has been destroyed it cannot be exactly defined as it has been destroyed, e.g. someone burns some clothes of a murderer.  The clothes are no longer available so cannot be used for the retrieval of DNA and other evidence, but the fact that the ashes were found and that the neighbours saw then being burned = destroying evidence.
> 
> As I said IANAL so maybe this is wrong?
> 
> Just thinking aloud



I ANAL?


----------



## AverageJoe (Jul 5, 2011)

Its a new product from Apple I think


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 5, 2011)

Maggot said:


> I ANAL?


 
"I Am Not A Lawyer".


----------



## creak (Jul 5, 2011)

Anyone know where I can find a recording of Hugh Grant's bit on Victoria Derbyshire's show? I only caught the bit after it, and it sounded good listening.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 5, 2011)

Imagine it'll be in iPlayer before too long.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Good piece from Beyond Clicktivism..... Hit Them Where It Hurts




hmmm


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 5, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> Imagine it'll be in iPlayer before too long.



Available here now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/victoriad


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 5, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes but the fact that messages had been deleted surely led the police to believe that Milly was still alive?  So therefore the hacking definitely misled the investigation into her disappearance.


 
This. I sincerely hope that rag folds forever.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 5, 2011)

maybe  adding the suggestion why not advertise in the Sunday Mirror instead would rub salt into the wounds.
 mirrors not much better


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 5, 2011)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...-world-pervert-lives-next-door'-201107054034/


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 5, 2011)

Do any of the hack periods co-incide with the Maddie investigation?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 5, 2011)

Just spotted on the Graun site: "LATEST: Rebekah Brooks responds to Milly Dowler phone hacking: 'I am sickened that these events are alleged to have happened.' More details soon … "

What a fucking rotter....


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2011)

What she means is she's sickened she's been caught.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> What she means is she's sickened she's been caught.



Sickened by having to answer damnfool questions on this from uppity liberals who should know their place and know that Murdoch is right and that's all there is to it.

Meanwhile she peruses her Sarah Payne scrapbook and says to herself, "Yes, I was right all along."


----------



## 8den (Jul 5, 2011)

Louloubelle said:


> IANAL but surely destroying evidence is a serious crime?  We know that important data was destroyed and surely it would count as evidence?  It has to be because once any evidence has been destroyed it cannot be exactly defined as it has been destroyed, e.g. someone burns some clothes of a murderer.  The clothes are no longer available so cannot be used for the retrieval of DNA and other evidence, but the fact that the ashes were found and that the neighbours saw then being burned = destroying evidence.
> 
> As I said IANAL so maybe this is wrong?
> 
> Just thinking aloud


 
Yes but can you prove such and such a journalist deleted said message?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 5, 2011)

The scowling face of Wade on the front page of The Independent  made me smile today.


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

Fingers said:


> There is a significantly large pile of unsold Suns in the Tulse Hill Co-op today


 
i noticed the pile of suns looked pretty big at the spar this lunch too - i wonder if it's just that we were looking today, and the pile is usually that big?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 5, 2011)

"we are determined to get to the bottom of this" =  "So we can do the best damage limitation job possible"


----------



## Fingers (Jul 5, 2011)

Brooks' email to her staff last this morning



> Rebekah Brooks says it is 'inconceivable' she knew of Milly Dowler phone hacking
> News International chief executive determined to lead newspaper group despite calls for her to resign
> 
> Share
> ...


----------



## magneze (Jul 5, 2011)

Andrew Neil's grilling of the chair of the PCC this lunchtime was good, showed up the industry and the pathetic nature of the "regulator".


----------



## Fingers (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> i noticed the pile of suns looked pretty big at the spar this lunch too - i wonder if it's just that we were looking today, and the pile is usually that big?



Possible but this was at 11am and there were only a handful of the other papers left


----------



## Fingers (Jul 5, 2011)

So this could render Bellfield's trial a mistrial so the Dowlers may have to go through it all again. This is pure mentalness. Someone needs to do some serious bird for this.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 5, 2011)

^^^ In the infamous Lester Bangs vs Lou Reed interview, Bangs gets riled by Reed's half-hearted, sneery banter and yells, "You lying sack of shit!"

That came to reason after reading the above quoted thingy, somehow...


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

Fingers said:


> So this could render Bellfield's trial a mistrial so the Dowlers may have to go through it all again.


 
i don't believe that for a second. that's someone stirring...


----------



## Fingers (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> i don't believe that for a second. that's someone stirring...



Nope, Bellfield's lawyer has just done an interview on LBC and he said although it is early days, it is entirely possible


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 5, 2011)

A Bellfield retrial would be ideal for The Scum in the absence of any other kids being murdered, they  could drool over dad's porn videos again for their twisted "readers".


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 5, 2011)

Guardian ticker:



> News International says Rebekah Brooks was not in today's meeting with Met detectives. More details soon …


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 5, 2011)

the use of the word "meeting" is somewhat curious.


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

Fingers said:


> Nope, Bellfield's lawyer has just done an interview on LBC and he said although it is early days, it is entirely possible


 as i said, someone stirring.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 5, 2011)

Now Colin Stagg may well have been done over by this too, if what he's been led to believe by Plod on this is confirmed - see here


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 5, 2011)

lol


> As the News of the World fired a salvo of 27 cruise missiles through the bottom of the barrel, for the first time in living memory the Guardian was backed by people who are not pathetically self-conscious about every single fucking thing they say or do.
> 
> Helen Archer, a housewife from Stevenage, said: "If I start being wrong about everything all the time then I vow to you, as God is my witness, someone is going to pay for this.
> 
> *"One can only hope that Holloway's least seductive bull-dykes are now running their eye over Rebekah Brooks and oiling their steam-powered love truncheons."*



http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ople-to-agree-with-the-guardian-201107054035/


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> as i said, someone stirring.


 
Not really - given the nature of the case against Bellfield, anything that would affect the timeline of Milly's disappearance might be of relevance to any defence, especially if it wasnt disclosed to them.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> as i said, someone stirring.



You can't see the possibility of it happening? Even if evidence has been tampered with by NOTW?


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

Robert Peston on Twitter: 

News Int execs tell me they fear there may have been worse examples of NOTW hacking than that of Milly Dowler's phone. The mind reels


----------



## gabi (Jul 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> Robert Peston on Twitter:
> 
> News Int execs tell me they fear there may have been worse examples of NOTW hacking than that of Milly Dowler's phone. The mind reels


 
Maddy!


----------



## marty21 (Jul 5, 2011)

amazing really that Coulson and Brooks both had no idea that this was going on 

must be an easy job - just let the staff get on with it


what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Fingers (Jul 5, 2011)

agricola said:


> Not really - given the nature of the case against Bellfield, anything that would affect the timeline of Milly's disappearance might be of relevance to any defence, especially if it wasnt disclosed to them.



They should have had him on the unrelated charge of attempted kidnap as well but I believe they discharged the jury on that one. I doubt the CPS saw this coming though. I am surprised this has taken so long to come out but the cynic in me might think it has a lot to do with the forthcoming takeover decision


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

Staff appraisals must have been awkward.

'How do you feel you've performed this year?'

'Fantastically.'

'Well, I'll just have to take your word for it, I'm not involved in the actual day-to-day running of things. See you next year!'


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

Fingers said:


> Brooks' email to her staff last this morning


 
That version of events fails utterly - the NOTW had a report on the 14th of April 2002 that could only have come from listening to Milly's voice messages, and they (the NOTW) reported it to Surrey Police.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 5, 2011)

Fingers said:


> So this could render Bellfield's trial a mistrial so the Dowlers may have to go through it all again. This is pure mentalness. Someone needs to do some serious bird for this.


 
I wouldn't have thought so tbh. It was the police investigation which the NOTW was fucking about with, not Bellfield's trial.


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> Robert Peston on Twitter:
> 
> News Int execs tell me they fear there may have been worse examples of NOTW hacking than that of Milly Dowler's phone. The mind reels


 
IIRC an issue of _Private Eye_ from a year or two ago had a story that NOTW (or possibly _Sun_ or _Mail_) journos had screwed the family of a recently deceased serviceman out of thousands of pounds, I will try and find it after work.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 5, 2011)

gabi said:


> Maddy!


 
She didn't have a phone.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> Staff appraisals must have been awkward.
> 
> 'How do you feel you've performed this year?'
> 
> ...


 
that does sound like a good place to work


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 5, 2011)

It's the story that just keeps on giving. I too get the sense that we've not reached the bottom of the barrel. 

We should run a book on which high profile stories from the past were phone hacked....

Maddy gets my vote.


----------



## Ivana Nap (Jul 5, 2011)

It was reported a while ago that they may have hacked the Soham parents phones
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-hacked-mp-makes-shocking-claim-2252466.html


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

Ivana Nap said:


> It was reported a while ago that they may have hacked the Soham parents phones
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-hacked-mp-makes-shocking-claim-2252466.html


 
was that something to do with tom watson?


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> It's the story that just keeps on giving. I too get the sense that we've not reached the bottom of the barrel.
> 
> We should run a book on which high profile stories from the past were phone hacked....
> 
> Maddy gets my vote.



"All of the above" gets mine.


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> was that something to do with tom watson?


 
not the Newsnight thing again, please.


----------



## gabi (Jul 5, 2011)

amusingly its still not even made the NOTW news site and is still totally buried on the Sun and Mail..

whereas everywhere else in the world its topping the news agenda... lol


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

it was on the front page of the mail... i don't think that counts as 'buried' does it?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> Robert Peston on Twitter:
> 
> News Int execs tell me they fear there may have been worse examples of NOTW hacking than that of Milly Dowler's phone. The mind reels


 
If they were hacking MD's phone all those years ago it is reasonable to assume that ANYONE in the news in the last 10 years has been "fair game". Yes, that would include Maddy.


----------



## gabi (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> it was on the front page of the mail... i don't think that counts as 'buried' does it?


 
true, my mistake


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

Times has it as second story on front page, and pretty much all of Page 3, including a timeline of events in NI hacking.

The Sun's burial of it is even worse than I expected. It's a *tiny* story on page 2. Thick as theives.


----------



## dylans (Jul 5, 2011)

Dennis Potter's last interview. Murdoch is cancer


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 5, 2011)

Nerver mind what News International might have done, let's try and make this all about the BBC 

"What is the BBC really trying to do with its Milly Dowler coverage?"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...-trying-to-do-with-its-milly-dowler-coverage/




			
				torygraph said:
			
		

> The Corporation is bitterly opposed to News Corporation’s bid to to buy the 61% of BSkyB it doesn’t already own (as is much of Fleet Street). Indeed, it is so opposed that the BBC’s director general Mark Thompson took the extraordinary step last autumn of putting his name to a letter of protest objecting to the deal – for which he was forced to apologise by the BBC Trust. *The BBC’s treatment of the hacking story suggests the Corporation still sees the value of blackening the reputation of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire as thoroughly as possible whenever the opportunity arises*.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> If it can be proved that the hacking of Milly Dowler's mobile actually impeded the police investigation, then it's a very serious criminal matter and needs to be dealt with severely.


 
The police knew about it at the time. Rather more interesting is why they swept it under the carpet at the time. Like they have done all the way through this phone-hacking saga. The police are 100% complicit in this. It's unravelling in part because they made such a pathetically non-serious attempt to investigate it before.

The Met and NI have their skeletons in the same closet.


----------



## scalyboy (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> The police knew about it at the time. Rather more interesting is why they swept it under the carpet at the time. Like they have done all the way through this phone-hacking saga. The police are 100% complicit in this. It's unravelling in part because they made such a pathetically non-serious attempt to investigate it before.
> 
> The Met and NI have their skeletons in the same closet.


 
Did anyone listen to Hugh Grant this morning on the radio (R5 live)? He was strongly anti-News Corporation and Murdoch (using the word "evil" a couple of times). I wasn't listening with undivided attention but am fairly sure he alleged that police had been paid off, either whilst the phone-hacking was going on, or afterwards. 
(apols if this has been already covered upthread)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 5, 2011)

We are not really shocked though are we?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

I haven't been following that closely - from where did this particular story originate?


----------



## Descartes (Jul 5, 2011)

The horrid squalid tart, Rebekah Brooks is wriggling like a worm on a hook.
How does an editor accept a story without asking the basic fundamental question of any journalist, "Where did you get this story?"

Opening in the High Court today is a Contempt of Court action against both the Sun and The Mirror, the request, if gound guilty is for a penalty of committal or similar. 

Should the action be successful, we can only hope it set's a precedence.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 5, 2011)

Wasn't a previous Editor sacked for this crap...I know she isn't editor now but...


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

scalyboy said:


> Did anyone listen to Hugh Grant this morning on the radio (R5 live)? He was strongly anti-News Corporation and Murdoch (using the word "evil" a couple of times). I wasn't listening with undivided attention but am fairly sure he alleged that police had been paid off, either whilst the phone-hacking was going on, or afterwards.
> (apols if this has been already covered upthread)


 
I doubt they needed paying off. Their officers are complicit in providing information to the hackers, and the Met uses Murdoch to run any story they find convenient. The Guardian had a piece a while ago about one of the original investigators on the original phone-hacking scandal being warned off it by the PR dept. Impossible to find right now ... but it was a year or so ago I think, when the story blew up again.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 5, 2011)

tweet from r preston: 



> News Int execs tell me they fear there may have been worse examples of NOTW hacking than that of Milly Dowler's phone. The mind reels


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Has to be talking about Soham-related stuff, surely.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 5, 2011)

scalyboy said:


> Did anyone listen to Hugh Grant this morning on the radio (R5 live)? He was strongly anti-News Corporation and Murdoch (using the word "evil" a couple of times). I wasn't listening with undivided attention but am fairly sure he alleged that police had been paid off, either whilst the phone-hacking was going on, or afterwards.
> (apols if this has been already covered upthread)


Linked to further up the thread, but this is a direct link to the interview mp3.

I was listening while working, but I thought I heard him say something like that too.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

Does worse mean 'an even sicker target' or 'an even more damaging interference with the course of an investigation'?


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

who knows? shall we speculate wildly?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

Unsurprisingly the admin at NOTW FB page must be hoping its shift ends soon...
Not unsurprisingly a heap of racist and offensive messages havent been deleted


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2011)

There certainly seems a lot of excitement. 

But what are the actual established facts?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 5, 2011)

So it appears the Police already knew about the hacking and were seemingly unbothered, the tabloids are all treating with kid gloves as they are up to their necks in it and the government are just dropping meaningless soundbites whilst paving the way for Murdoch to take more control of UK media.

Basically the BBC will have a real go because they love getting back at the Murdoch rags for all the shit they've copped over the years and there will be a bit from the guardian and indy.  But I bet if you were to catch any of these fuckers in a candid moment in the early hours in the garrick club I bet they'd all agree they would have done the same. Cunts the lot of them.

A couple of sackings and a few more comepensation payouts, thats all that will come of this.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 5, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> tweet from r preston:


 
It is well known that Robert Peston's source is generally Brooks herself, surely she's not about to throw as many bodies as it takes at the fire in order to save her skin?


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

To say that all journalists, BBC included, would do the same is tantamount to being a Murdoch apologist.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 5, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> To say that all journalists, BBC included, would do the same is tantamount to being a Murdoch apologist.


 
Of course it is, well done.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 5, 2011)

If it turns out they've been hacking more senior members of the coalition and opposition - what then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> Staff appraisals must have been awkward.
> 
> 'How do you feel you've performed this year?'
> 
> ...


 
Ah, the manouvre otherwise known as "The Howard Defence".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2011)

stephj said:


> Nerver mind what News International might have done, let's try and make this all about the BBC
> 
> "What is the BBC really trying to do with its Milly Dowler coverage?"
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...-trying-to-do-with-its-milly-dowler-coverage/


 
Mmm, because the Torygraph (and it's demented clone owners) have no Murdoch-like interest in putting the boot into the Beeb, do they? 

Do they think that people (besides their readership, obviously) are idiots?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/88256983668506625

seems the campaigning may be working....


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2011)

> The energy firm Npower said it was "reviewing" its advertising in the News of the World after the revelation that the newspaper hacked Milly Dowler's phone.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/05/npower-reviews-news-world-advertising


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mmm, because the Torygraph (and it's demented clone owners) have no Murdoch-like interest in putting the boot into the Beeb, do they?
> 
> Do they think that people (besides their readership, obviously) are idiots?


 
The Telegraph was leading the charge against Murdoch acquiring Sky though, no?

They just don't know which one they hate most, so they're revelling in it.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> The Telegraph was leading the charge against Murdoch acquiring Sky though, no?


 
Didn't help much with 'Cablegate'!


----------



## dylans (Jul 5, 2011)

For twitter users, here is a one stop page for tweeting advertisers http://www.pint.org.uk/notw.html


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

stephj said:


> Didn't help much with 'Cablegate'!


 
They suppressed the Sky-related bit of the tape. It was leaked by one of their staff, to the BBC.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/88256983668506625
> 
> seems the campaigning may be working....


 
yay, a liberal bandwagon, sunny must be cumming his pants


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

is it a liberal bandwagon? it seems to have outraged people from accross the political spectrum...


----------



## Dan U (Jul 5, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/05/phone-hacking-soham-families-police

in case i missed it on the thread..


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> is it a liberal bandwagon? it seems to have outraged people from accross the political spectrum...


 
it has, but sunny and his chums have been agitating for a tabloid boycott for a while


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

http://hackinginquiry.org/ PETITION


> The phone hacking scandal has now cast its shadow so widely across British public life that only a full public inquiry can restore confidence in our press, police and government institutions.
> 
> What began as ‘one rogue reporter’ with a handful of victims is now acknowledged to be industrial-scale illegal information gathering, probably affecting thousands. All kinds of people, including royalty, cabinet ministers, celebrities, police officers, bereaved families and victims of crime have been targeted, and it seems it’s not just voicemail messages that have been hacked but also calls and emails, bank details and health records.
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> it has, but sunny and his chums have been agitating for a tabloid boycott for a while


 
so? like everyone else in the world, i don't give a fuck what sunny and his mates think...


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> yay, a liberal bandwagon, sunny must be cumming his pants



Ford, Halifax and npower look like they will not advertise.... Brands review News of the World ads after Dowler accusations



> Activists have published lists online of recent News of the World advertisers, allowing users to tweet and e-mail the companies to ask whether they will be reconsidering their advertising campaigns with the newspaper




Boycott News Of The World


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> so? like everyone else in the world, i don't give a fuck what sunny and his mates think...


 
exactly


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

Ford pulls News of the World advertising over Milly Dowler phone hacking allegations

Online campaigning taking effect...


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Ford, Halifax and npower look like they will not advertise.... Brands review News of the World ads after Dowler accusations




Ah. I was wondering why the Times was so gung ho on chiding its stablemate this morning; presumably strategy is to distance the other newspapers from the NOTW so that the boycott doesn't spread.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 5, 2011)

stephj said:


> Nerver mind what News International might have done, let's try and make this all about the BBC
> 
> "What is the BBC really trying to do with its Milly Dowler coverage?"
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...-trying-to-do-with-its-milly-dowler-coverage/


 Refreshing to see that most of  the comments underneath that article give it the well deserved kicking it warrents


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 5, 2011)

"liberal bandwaggon" - that's right. Outrage at hacking dead kids and their parents is for liberals.

Conservatives must think it isn't such a big deal. It makes money I guess.

Imagine if the BBC had done this. 

And to think that Wade/Brooks ran that "Sarah's Law" campaign, because paedophilia sells, whichever angle one claims to be taking.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> The Telegraph was leading the charge against Murdoch acquiring Sky though, no?



Yes, but their position on the BBC doesn't mean they can't also hate Murdoch.  



> They just don't know which one they hate most, so they're revelling in it.


 
A veritable hate-fest. Bruce Anderson has probably achieved an erection for the first time since he last was allowed to beat a servant.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Ford, Halifax and npower look like they will not advertise....



PR coup for them then, and all for free


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

lulz... Wikipee



> Rebekah Brooks (née Wade, born 27 May 1968) is an evil whore, vile scumbag and sycophantic employee of the corrupt Rupert Murdoch. She is chief executive of News International, having previously served as the first female editor of The Sun.[1] She was married to the actor Ross Kemp from 2002 until their divorce in 2009.[2]



I know its childish but it made me laff....


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> PR coup for them then, and all for free



yup i suppose.. but 'By any means necessary' innit.....


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> PR coup for them then, and all for free


 
co-op have fucked up tho.


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i find it interesting how a human being might come to this. did they think what they were doing was right? or did they just not care? do they have some kind of twisted morality/culture that keeps them doing these things, like the way soldiers who commit atrocities justify their actions to themselves?


 
i've met tabloid journoscum, and they think they're on some kind of crusade on our behalf, as if they are genuine investigative journalists exposing matters of absolute public interest. they start from the basis that we are denied information we have a right to know, and only they can supply that which is essential to our coffee break, and therefore our entire way of life


----------



## dylans (Jul 5, 2011)

I'm sure a scapegoat will be found and a few heads will roll but the real question is the relationship between the police and the Murdoch press and the police's role in trying to bury this scandal. That is the question they will try to avoid and the one everyone should be pushing to be answered


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> i actually agree. i can't imagine many people will be anything other than utterly disgusted by this. i wouldn't be surprised to see paedo-trial type protesters at wapping tomorrow...


 
thing is, this isn't being reported in any of the papers those types read


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> *Rage Against The Murdoch*
> 06 July · 13:00 - 16:00
> News International Ltd 1 Virginia Street, City of London E98 1XY
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=175119305885168


 
that page has been deleted. why am i not surprised?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> I'm sure a scapegoat will be found and a few heads will roll but the real question is the relationship between the police and the Murdoch press and the police's role in trying to bury this scandal. That is the question they will try to avoid and the one everyone should be pushing to be answered



less likely to get as many twitter followers doing that though


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> lulz... Wikipee
> 
> 
> 
> I know its childish but it made me laff....


 
What, no mention of her attempts at spousal abuse? They're missing a trick there!


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

gavman said:


> that page has been deleted. why am i not surprised?



its been rescheduled for Friday same time and location...


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

gavman said:


> thing is, this isn't being reported in any of the papers those types read


 
it's ok - 'those types' also have other media - TV, facebook, radio - which have been wall to wall with this for the last 24 hours.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 5, 2011)

Rebbeka Brooks - the paedophile and child murderers' friend.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Ford pulls News of the World advertising over Milly Dowler phone hacking allegations
> 
> Online campaigning taking effect..


 
Good news. Wonder who the biggest other spenders are?


----------



## Zabo (Jul 5, 2011)

Bah gum! The last thing you want to do is upset these people:

Rabid Mothers Inc


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Good news. Wonder who the biggest other spenders are?



If you are on FB we are updating lists @ Boycott News Of The World

and as posted somewhere here... http://www.pint.org.uk/notw.html


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, but their position on the BBC doesn't


Yes. That's the point I made and was defending. Do keep up.


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

8den said:


> Nigh on impossible to prove. They'd have to prove that the deleted messages were important to the investigation, which they can't because they're y'know deleted.
> 
> It's probably why the Police didn't kick up a fuss about it when it was going on


 
that and the fact that serving police officers sell stories to the tabloids routinely


----------



## Voley (Jul 5, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14035270

I'm beginning to wonder where this might end ...


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Hugh Grant was great on 5Live just now, totally tore into some NotW ex-hack. He also proved that you can get away with saying "bollocks" on morning radio if you say it in a charming, foppish manner.


 
he's been good on the whole privacy issue, with the exception of referring to her as 'that Milly girl', which was crass


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2011)

gavman said:


> he's been a complete twat on the whole privacy issue, with the exception of referring to her as 'that Milly girl', which was crass



fixed for you


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

creak said:


> Anyone know where I can find a recording of Hugh Grant's bit on Victoria Derbyshire's show? I only caught the bit after it, and it sounded good listening.


 
his bit on newsnight a couple of weeks ago was superb. prob still on i-player


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

NVP said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14035270
> 
> I'm beginning to wonder where this might end ...


 there's no reason why this or something similar hasn't happened for virtually every big story of the past 15 years or so, and a lot of non-stories. maybe less so in the past 6 months, but otherwise why wouldn't they? look at all the great exclusives they managed to bag...


----------



## rikwakefield (Jul 5, 2011)

Phone hacking: Glenn Mulcaire blames 'relentless pressure' by NoW for actions - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/05/phone-hacking-glenn-mulcaire-apology?CMP=twt_gu

Milly Dowler phone hacking: Speaker grants emergency Commons debate - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/05/milly-dowler-phone-hacking-emergency-debate


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

Renault Uk just confirmed on twitter they have stopped using NOTW


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2011)

gavman said:


> his bit on newsnight a couple of weeks ago was superb. prob still on i-player


 
its a derail, but sorry it was cringe-makingly bad - and his whole i need to be protected from people knowing i pick up sex workers in the street because rich men are naturally naughty

he can go fuck himself, and so can that dirty fucking fash mosley cunt

derails over


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Renault Uk just confirmed on twitter they have stopped using NOTW


 
ethical capitalism triumphs - god bless the market and god bless ford


----------



## Badgers (Jul 5, 2011)

Seen anyone reading the Sun today?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2011)

only chavs


----------



## scalyboy (Jul 5, 2011)

gavman said:


> his bit on newsnight a couple of weeks ago was superb. prob still on i-player


 
Or read his New Statesman piece here, 
'The bugger, bugged'


----------



## Zabo (Jul 5, 2011)

Advertisers Info:

Google Docs


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> yay, a liberal bandwagon, sunny must be cumming his pants


 
Are you calling me a liberal? If you are you can go get fucked up the arse with a spiky stick. If you're not I apologise


----------



## rikwakefield (Jul 5, 2011)

It's funny to see the actions now the shoe is on the other foot. Everybody remembers the furor over the Russell Brand "scandal". How many people stepped down from the BBC over that, I think it was 3?


----------



## Voley (Jul 5, 2011)

rikwakefield said:


> It's funny to see the actions now the shoe is on the other foot. Everybody remembers the furor over the Russell Brand "scandal". How many people stepped down from the BBC over that, I think it was 3?


 
Not really comparable is it? Telling Manuel off Fawlty Towers you fucked his daughter vs hacking a dead girl's phone?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2011)

sunny jim said:


> Are you calling me a liberal? If you are you can go get fucked up the arse with a spiky stick. If you're not I apologise


 
different sunny (assuming you arent sunny hundal)


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> fixed for you


 
arsehole. make a case


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2011)

gavman said:


> arsehole. make a case



his whole poor me spiel, pathetic, what about divine brown's right not to have to work on the street getting picked up by rich arseholes like him


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

Justine Roberts has just announced that Mumsnet is pulling its Sky campaign


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> its a derail, but sorry it was cringe-makingly bad - and his whole i need to be protected from people knowing i pick up sex workers in the street because rich men are naturally naughty
> 
> he can go fuck himself, and so can that dirty fucking fash mosley cunt
> 
> derails over


 
you're an idiot.
he made a strong case that the tabloids were trading in a stolen commodity- his privacy.
i care as much about his sexual liasons as i do your opinions. none of my business and deeply uninteresting, no public interest whatsoever, so therefore not news.
 i see this may interfere with your ability to hold ignorant opinions about those you will never meet or interact with, so i apologise for the loss in personal esteem you will feel by not being able to look down on those more interesting, more successful and better looking than you


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> different sunny (assuming you arent sunny hundal)


 
Not sunny hundal, no.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 5, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Justine Roberts has just announced that Mumsnet is pulling its Sky campaign


 
Sure to get a big write up in the guardian, what with her partner being its number 2


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2011)

gavman said:


> you're an idiot.
> he made a strong case that the tabloids were trading in a stolen commodity- his privacy.



rice and petrol are commodities



> i care as much about his sexual liasons as i do your opinions. none of my business and deeply uninteresting, no public interest whatsoever, so therefore not news.



be broke the law, he got nicked, that is news, even if you arent famous


----------



## rikwakefield (Jul 5, 2011)

NVP said:


> Not really comparable is it? Telling Manuel off Fawlty Towers you fucked his daughter vs hacking a dead girl's phone?


 
That's my point.


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

Did anyone watch the C4 news?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 5, 2011)

Enlighten me Santino, I don't have a telly


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

I didn't see it either. I want to know if someone here did.


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

Is it worth catching it on 4+1?


----------



## rikwakefield (Jul 5, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Enlighten me Santino, I don't have a telly


 
Brookes was questioned by police about an alleged hacking/surveillance of a leading murder detective. This apparently happened in 2002. The Met and the paper kept schtum.


----------



## hiccup (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> Is it worth catching it on 4+1?


 
Yes


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 5, 2011)

...and the knife begins to turn.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> Did anyone watch the C4 news?


Yes. Rather shit hot. Worth watching. Brother of the investigative reporter who was murdered whilst investigating News International, and being followed by News International whilst the police had him under surveillance, was interviewed. The implication that Brooks was involved in a contract killing is hard to avoid ...

Hugh Grant did a good job of keeping it off his own personal issues too. Looks like a man on the warpath, which could be very handy. A big wave of celebrity revulsion could seriously help to kill these cunts off.


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> rice and petrol are commodities
> 
> 
> 
> be broke the law, he got nicked, that is news, even if you arent famous



if you consider hugh grant's sex life to be newsworthy i have no idea why you are on this thread. the phone hacking is being done for your benefit, and in your name


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

There were various opinions in the documentary (I think it was Dispatches) about six months ago, that suggested the Met in the past have - rather than been in cahoots with NI - been scared of them, along with many in Westminster. You piss off the machine, and the machine will come after you.

Even now the Met has suggested there are pre-ordained limits to their enquiries, which Cameron vigorously denied and that they should go for it all out. Who to believe? Neither, wholly, I suspect.


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

Andy Hayman, who led the first investigation in phone hacking, went to work for News International as a columnist after retiring from the police (amidst allegations about fiddling expenses).


----------



## smokedout (Jul 5, 2011)

gavman said:


> if you consider hugh grant's sex life to be newsworthy i have no idea why you are on this thread. the phone hacking is being done for your benefit, and in your name


 
chavs killed millie - you heard it here first


----------



## Badgers (Jul 5, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> ...and the knife begins to turn.


 
Marvellous. Long time coming and hope to see the beginning of the end. Been boycotting all News International product for so long but this adds more fuel to the fire.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yes. Rather shit hot. Worth watching. Brother of the investigative reporter who was murdered whilst investigating News International, and being followed by News International whilst the police had him under surveillance, was interviewed. The implication that Brooks was involved in a contract killing is hard to avoid ...



Who was the journo killed?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 5, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Who was the journo killed?



Wasn't a journo, was a PI.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 5, 2011)

Not Daniel Morgan is it? Big case (unsolved) in South London quite a while ago


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 5, 2011)

Nasty case. Axe in head in car park iirc


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Who was the journo killed?


 
I don't know why I said investigative reporter there, cos he was a private investigator. A big trial just collapsed. Hang on. I'll get the links.


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

That's the one mrs m.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Finally getting that momentum we saw with the PM's expenses.... but that had the  database of personal and private information bought (finally) by the Telegraph to sustain it.

ooh, the irony.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Not Daniel Morgan is it? Big case (unsolved) in South London quite a while ago


Yes. His brother was on. The family knew a lot of it at the time, but not which paper. They are finally getting their say, now the court case is over and people are listening, thanks to the scandal breaking.

http://www.channel4.com/news/news-of-the-world-targets-met-police-detective

The Guardian covered this a lot when the trial collapsed too.

NotW were following the man who was killed when the police were following him, and then they put the detective on the case under surveillance. It's very complicated, and very sinister.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 5, 2011)

I don't think it made the national news in a big way, but the South London Press stuck with it for years which is why I remember it.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> I don't know why I said investigative reporter there, cos he was a private investigator. A big trial just collapsed. Hang on. I'll get the links.


 
And this...



> Morgan's brother Alastair and his elderly mother believed, with credible evidence to draw on, that he was killed because he was about to expose a network of corrupt police who were involved in widespread criminality and used Southern Investigations as a conduit for drugs and money. Morgan's business partner, Jonathan Rees, counted many officers as friends. One of his specialities was to use his "friends" in the force to provide information which he sold to tabloid newspapers.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

Thanks all. My memory for names is shocking, so that saved me much trawling through the wrong articles.


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 5, 2011)

I want to make a complaint to the News of the World, but I don't know how.

So I'm just going to leave them a message on my voicemail instead....


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 5, 2011)

bindun


----------



## RaverDrew (Jul 5, 2011)

Fail


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 5, 2011)

Still worth being reminded of!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2011)

cybertect said:


> According to The Guardian's piece which broke the story, Surrey police were aware what the NoTW had done.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-voicemail-hacked-news-of-world


 


> The paper made little effort to conceal the hacking from its readers. On 14 April 2002, it published a story about a woman allegedly pretending to be Milly Dowler who had applied for a job with a recruitment agency: "It is thought the hoaxer even gave the agency Milly's real mobile number … The agency used the number to contact Milly when a job vacancy arose and left a message on her voicemail … It was on March 27, six days after Milly went missing, that the employment agency appears to have phoned her mobile."
> 
> The newspaper also made no effort to conceal its activity from Surrey police. After it had hacked the message from the recruitment agency on Milly's phone, the paper informed police about it. It was Surrey detectives who established that the call was not intended for Milly Dowler. At the time, Surrey police suspected that phones belonging to detectives and to Milly's parents also were being targeted.
> 
> ...



If this is true then Wade's personal denial of any knowledge that she made to the Dowler family today is an outright lie.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Wade wouldn't know a lie if it slapped her around the face. She's entirely  amoral and really, genuinely doesn't give a fuck.

How else would someone get to be CEO of News International.


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yes. Rather shit hot. Worth watching. Brother of the investigative reporter who was murdered whilst investigating News International, and being followed by News International whilst the police had him under surveillance, was interviewed. The implication that Brooks was involved in a contract killing is hard to avoid ...


 
At the very least, trying to derail the investigation after the fact.

Or far worse, that something nasty was going to happen to the detective. The Met putting him under witness protection after discovering the NotW targeting suggests they thought it was a serious possibility.

Gobsmacking. And we know there is so much more to come.

In other news, Rebekah Wade has announced that she has appointed Rebekah Wade, to investigate impropriety whilst Rebekah Wade was in charge. A surprisingly early verdict - made at during the announcement of the beginnings of an investigation - was that Rebekah Wade was in no way to blame.

* Wade/Brooks of course.


----------



## Giles (Jul 5, 2011)

Is this "hacking" of phones something clever and technical, or does it just work on people who did not bother to set a PIN to control access to their voicemails?

If I want to access my voicemails either from my own phone or from somewhere else, I must type in a 4-digit PIN. 

Can these "hackers" get past this, or can they only "hack" those who never set a PIN to limit access?

Giles..


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

Giles said:


> Is this "hacking" of phones something clever and technical, or does it just work on people who did not bother to set a PIN to control access to their voicemails?


 
Yes. Default PINs is my understanding. Although there was other stuff... blagging private details out of BT by deception, that kind of thing.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 5, 2011)

It just using the 4 digit code i think.


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> She's entirely amoral and really, genuinely doesn't give a fuck.
> 
> How else would someone get to be CEO of News International.


 
Yep. A corporate climber of the worst possible kind, climbing one of the worst possible corporations.


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

Or just buying details from a contact at the phone company.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Yes. Default PINs is my understanding. Although there was other stuff... blagging private details out of BT by deception, that kind of thing.


I think because most people didn't expect to be hacked they probably went with really obvious PIN numbers (1111, 1234 etc).


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 5, 2011)

This looks like its getting messier and messier for all involved. 

Widespread Public moral outrage, advertisers pulling out, more shit to come out with regards to the soham murders (and who knows what else?) Cameron is good mates with Wade, police implicated as being in cahoots with murdoch and a strong link with an unsolved hitman style murder which reeked of police corruption -  fuck me its like the script for some dark thriller. 

Millimetre has called for Wade to resign - that looks a sure bet and at the very least the NOTW is going to  be severely damaged. Murdochs other interests likely to take some sort of collatoral damage as well. 

The irony is that they are being brought down by exactly the kind of moral outrage over dead kids that they have fed off for years. 


Murdoch, the news of the world, the met - Dirty corrupt fuckers who deserve everything thats coming to them  and much much more.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yes. Rather shit hot. Worth watching. Brother of the investigative reporter who was murdered whilst investigating News International, and being followed by News International whilst the police had him under surveillance, was interviewed. The implication that Brooks was involved in a contract killing is hard to avoid ...



The murder itself was 24 years ago.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jul 5, 2011)

Front page of tomorrow's Independent. 







Sorry if a little big.


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

Tomorrow's Independent cover story: http://twitpic.com/5lq1db


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 5, 2011)

Turning up the heat!


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2011)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Front page of tomorrow's Independent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The bigger the better.


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Murdochs other interests likely to take some sort of collatoral damage as well.


 
It's going to be interesting.

The Times, today, gave the story some reasonable prominence. If it continues to do so, it may survive with little more distrust than it already has from being NI.

The Sun however... Well, I do like to think they'll take a dent in newstand sales. Maybe it won't be massive, but 10 or 20% would be a nice spank for so clearly in with this whole thing.


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Front page of tomorrow's Independent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
So, it took all of about 8 hours for her to be exposed as a lying toe-rag.

Nice one Indy.


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

Newsnight team must be writing and re-writing tonight... would love to be a fly on the wall in their office as they busily try to keep up in time for tonight's programme. One hour to go folks. Reckon NI will field a representative? Probably one who'll just go "we can neither confirm or deny"... Then Paxman gets a gun out... (sorry, carried away there  )


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

Giles said:


> Is this "hacking" of phones something clever and technical, or does it just work on people who did not bother to set a PIN to control access to their voicemails?
> 
> If I want to access my voicemails either from my own phone or from somewhere else, I must type in a 4-digit PIN.
> 
> ...


 
IIRC, they were bribing phone company employees for the information, probably via police officers in some cases. Many of the targets were not using default pins. The Panorama on this had a private detective saying he'd infected a military officer's computer with a trojan to obtain documents off it.

Not as benign as they'd like you to think.


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> IIRC, they were bribing phone company employees for the information, probably via police officers in some cases. Many of the targets were not using default pins. The Panorama on this had a private detective saying he'd infected a military officer's computer with a trojan to obtain documents off it.
> 
> Not as benign as they'd like you to think.


 
Ah ok.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 5, 2011)

I'm looking forward to a mumsnet inspired lynch mob descending on wapping ...


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jul 5, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Newsnight team must be writing and re-writing tonight... would love to be a fly on the wall in their office as they busily try to keep up in time for tonight's programme. One hour to go folks. Reckon NI will field a representative? Probably one who'll just go "we can neither confirm or deny"... Then Paxman gets a gun out... (sorry, carried away there  )


 
Innit! I haven't watched it in ages but I'm gonna be glued to it tonight.


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Innit! I haven't watched it in ages but I'm gonna be glued to it tonight.


 
Me too!

They need to do it splitscreen like Sky News - with breaking Brooks/Wade news scrolling in at the bottom


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 5, 2011)

The BBC must be pissing themselves laughing - I wonder is this could be a catalyst for all sorts of other murdoch related dirt to come out. 

We can hope! 

And how embarassing could this be for Cameron? Hes mates with Wade/Brooks apparently, and theres the BSkyB deal - would it to being greedy to hope he gets at least partly dipped in the shit by all this?


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Me too!
> 
> They need to do it splitscreen like Sky News - with breaking Brooks/Wade news scrolling in at the bottom


 


My partner is in charge of the remote, but when I asked if we could watch it he said: "How can we not?"


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> The BBC must be pissing themselves laughing - I wonder is this could be a catalyst for all sorts of other murdoch related dirt to come out.
> 
> We can hope!
> 
> And how embarassing could this be for Cameron? Hes mates with Wade/Brooks apparently, and theres the BSkyB deal - would it to being greedy to hope he gets at least partly dipped in the shit by all this?


 
I doubt Brooks will be invited round to Dave's and Sam's anytime soon. If I was Cameron I'd be pulling a big 'eject' handle right now.

(e2a... He's not too smart about picking friends is he.)


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

Not too greedy at all. I'm hoping the Met falls apart too.


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> My partner is in charge of the remote, but when I asked if we could watch it he said: "How can we not?"


 
I'm about to check if anyone else in the house is up for a communal watch. 

e2a: They've all just said "Yes, we *have* to watch this", including one who isn't a big news follower.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 5, 2011)

Mr Grant was also asked if he thought it was appropriate for Rebekah Brooks, editor of the News of the World at the time of the alleged hacking of Milly's phone, to lead the internal investigation into hacking for the newspaper's parent company News International, where she is now chief executive.

He replied: "That would be like asking me if I thought Hitler was a good person to clear up the Nazi Party. It's completely absurd."


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

ITV news producer has tweeted that Brooks will resign tomorrow, then deleted it. 

http://bit.ly/r7cb5S


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 5, 2011)

Brooks is toast. Murdoch will do anything to hold on to Sky.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 5, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> The BBC must be pissing themselves laughing - I wonder is this could be a catalyst for all sorts of other murdoch related dirt to come out.
> 
> We can hope!
> 
> And how embarassing could this be for Cameron? Hes mates with Wade/Brooks apparently, and theres the BSkyB deal - would it to being greedy to hope he gets at least partly dipped in the shit by all this?



Yes, yes, and ... well, let's hope so, but tbh I suspect there's enough 'plausible deniability' on Cameron's part for him to come off relatively unscathed.  Fingers crossed I'm wrong, though...

It's already damaging Murdoch, though, and it's far from finished yet.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 5, 2011)

It also speaks volumes for Cameron's judgement, hiring Coulson, hanging out with Brooks. What a scumbag.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

The quality thing about a public inquiry - as Hugh Grant knows - is that it guarantees the issue remains in the mainstream narrative for ... years.


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

BBC news suggesting that Coulson's about to be thrown to the wolves.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

I presume, in the short term, it's all about whether Cameron can still gift Murdoch control of BSB.

In the longer term.... interesting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> BBC news suggesting that Coulson's about to be thrown to the wolves.


 
if only. i'd pay good money to see that


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> It also speaks volumes for Cameron's judgement, hiring Coulson, hanging out with Brooks. What a scumbag.


 
And personally saving her bacon on the last possible firing, according to some reports.

I'd like to think he'll take a long hard look at who he's friends with. But I think it will take "strike three" for him to get that objective. Maybe it's out there.


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> BBC news suggesting that Coulson's about to be thrown to the wolves.


 
As in, to keep Brooks alive?

e2a... Can't see how that would wash now with the Indy and Channel Four news stories.

Besides, he's dead already.


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> As in, to keep Brooks alive?


 
Who knows? Maybe just clearing the decks - getting rid of anyone who's publicly tainted.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Well, based on previous form, there's always a job at Number 10 for Brook's if she does go.


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> Who knows? Maybe just clearing the decks - getting rid of anyone who's publicly tainted.


 
Where's he working these days? Am I being thick?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> BBC news suggesting that Coulson's about to be thrown to the wolves.


 
Good, I want to see Coulson being dragged back into it too.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 5, 2011)

stephj said:


> Good, I want to see Coulson being dragged back into it too.


 
Yup, 'cos if anything is going to direct the dirt in Cameron's direction, that is it.

Not that damaging Murdoch isn't a good thing in itself, of course.


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

stephj said:


> Good, I want to see Coulson being dragged back into it too.


 
Brooks first.

There's a bloody queue, right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

what about brooks, coulson, a doberman and a locked room?


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

Hope none of you cunts are planning on letting the Met off the hook. 

Although ... they _do _seem keen to blame the politicians ... their latest excuse hints darkly at orders from Downing Street to back off investigating Murdoch's involvement .... so perhaps they can be Phase II.


----------



## Descartes (Jul 5, 2011)

You can use 

http://www.pint.org.uk/notw.html

 to tweet all the advertiser on the NOTW to withdraw their adverts.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 5, 2011)

Wade is an unsexy Tilda Swinton in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.


----------



## andy2002 (Jul 5, 2011)

I imagine we'll see a few high-profile sacrificial lambs, including Brooks, as Murdoch circles the wagons ready for a forthcoming charm offensive in which he'll insist it was a just a few bad apples involved and that things will be much cleaner and transparent in the future. Whether people buy it or not is another matter...


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 5, 2011)

I'd send it into Private Eye if I could be arsed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> Wade is an unsexy Tilda Swinton in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> How about a national boycott News international campaign, not just the NOTW but sky and everything else that makes that ratbag money



I loathe Murdoch but no way am I boycotting Sky! 

Actually, having thought about this, I realise I am in Murdoch's evil spell. I read The Times (and NOTW often too), I have a full Sky subscription which includes phone and broadband. 

But no way am I boycotting that. I would be left with nothing! *sobs*

I'll pen a missive to the sinister overlord instead. In green ink.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> I'd send it into Private Eye if I could be arsed.


 only if you want to make a prat of yourself. swinton looks nothing like that ging-er tart.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 5, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


>


 
How long have you been saving that jpeg for?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> How long have you been saving that jpeg for?


 
i only looked for it a minute ago.


----------



## dylans (Jul 5, 2011)

Newsnight reports there are suggestions that the survivors of 7/7 were targeted


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 5, 2011)

It just seems to run and run,if it was just a few scum bag politician but people like celebs ,royals and crime victims it just gets better .incidentally i have boycotted the sun since the seventies


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

Confused about the Coulson thing. If he's hung out to dry what other dark secrets might he divulge while bargaining or just out of spite?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 5, 2011)

Newsnight is interesting


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 5, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> It just seems to run and run,if it was just a few scum bag politician but people like celebs ,royals and crime victims it just gets better


 
Innit.

At first I thought it was just a storm in a teacup that might claim a few journalistic scalps but that Murdoch (and for that matter Cameron, via Coulson) would be able to calm with a few well-placed sackings, but it's just getting bigger and bigger.  And, since it's looking worse and worse for Murdoch, it just keeps getting better.


----------



## dylans (Jul 5, 2011)

This is getting bigger and bigger



> Police officers investigating phone hacking by the News of the World are turning their attention to examine every high-profile case involving the murder, abduction or attack on any child since 2001 in response to the revelation that journalists from the tabloid newspaper hacked into the voicemail messages of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/05/phone-hacking-police-review-child-murders?intcmp=239


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

is there anyone anywhere who hasn't been a victim of this phone hacking? glenn mulcaire must have been extraordinarily hard working.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Soham included, I think the big angle now is intimidating Dave Cook - what the fuck did Brook's think she was doing... and tie that to the lack of investigation by the Met first time around - all of this now is coming from Mulcare's papers that the Met failed to look at back then.

Huge implications for the police/Murdoch relationship.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Soham included, I think the big angle now is intimidating Dave Cook - what the fuck did Brook's think she was doing...


 
if thought had entered into it we wouldn't be chuckling about it now - the downfall of notw, that is.


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Soham included, I think the big angle now is intimidating Dave Cook - what the fuck did Brook's think she was doing...


 
That one could be more of a case of the tail wagging the dog - after all, if Cook was looking at private investigators who worked for the NOTW as well as being linked to that murder, you would think it would be in the interests of the private investigators to get him to back off, more than it would be for the NOTW.  It could easily be down to Brooks, however.


----------



## dylans (Jul 5, 2011)

These people decide who governs this country. What a terrible thought


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

Lest we forget, from back in September 2010:



> One former reporter claimed that Mulcaire was used on almost every story, if not for hacking into voicemail then for accessing confidential databases: "The paper was paying Glenn Mulcaire £2,000 a week, and they wanted their money's worth. *For just about every story, they rang Glenn. It wasn't just tapping. It was routine.* "Even if it was just a car crash or a house fire on a Saturday, they'd call Glenn, and he'd come back with ex-directory phone numbers, the BT list of friends and family and their addresses, lists of numbers called from their mobile phones. This was just commonplace. He was hacking masses of phones.We reckoned David Beckham had 13 different sim cards, and Glenn could hack every one of them. How could senior editors not know that they are spending £2,000 a week on this guy, *and using him on just about every story that goes into the paper*?"



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/08/phone-hacking-news-of-the-world-witness


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

But no one is saying it in an affidavit.


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

The point is that the police probably already have the evidence for many of those stories.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

I'm sure they can get the evidence. What they need is the sim .... no wait.


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

Fucking newsnight. That was shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> Fucking newsnight. That was shit.


 
haha


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

All the Newsnight presenters are cruisng through late-stage careers, who was presenting tonigth?


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

Paxtwat


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 5, 2011)

No-one for Paxman to be unleashed on - he even had to treat the seedy whistleblower with courtesy.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

He's almost burned out. Time best spent on a series about The Edwardians, or some such guff.


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> The point is that the police probably already have the evidence for many of those stories.


 
In _Motorman_ far more evidence - including lists of who (ie: which journalist from which paper) had paid for pieces of information, most of which had been gained (and which they knew had been gained) corruptly - resulted in sentences that could best be described as fuck all, and of course none of the papers involved were ever sanctioned.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 5, 2011)

I feel a bit stupid asking this but I can't seem to grasp what exactly the NOTW's motivations were for hacking into Milly's phone in the first place ? Would appreciate if someone could put me right on that no matter how obvious it is.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Just story leads.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 5, 2011)

and again the sun ignores the obvious... http://twitpic.com/5lrb39


----------



## rollinder (Jul 5, 2011)

dylans said:


> Newsnight reports there are suggestions that the survivors of 7/7 were targeted


 
so are The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...elatives-of-77-victims-had-phones-hacked.html


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2011)

The editor in charge:

Damned if they did know, guilty

Damned if they did not know, incompetant


Personally I think the other tabloids are likely in the same boat, I bet they got up to the same tactics. But I wonder why they are not under the same spotlight.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Can we not just get to the point where we accept everyone - literally_ everyone_ - who has been newsworthy  since at least 2002 was, of course, targeted....


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Can we not just get to the point where we accept everyone - literally_ everyone_ - who has been newsworthy  since at least 2002 was, of course, targeted....


 
And their relatives, friends, people who went to the same cricket match as them, etc etc.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 5, 2011)

Sorry if this has already been posted 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/05/phone-hacking-police-review-child-murders


----------



## rorymac (Jul 5, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Just story leads.



So they might just hack into anyone's phone any time just cos they might hear something juicy I get .. but what would they expect to hear on Milly's messages ? Or they just did it routinely anyway ? Or the coppers wanted them to ?
Sorry I won't ask again I'm sure it's obvious but it's so mind bogglingly shocking I can't see the wood for the trees.

Damned if they didn't know sounds dodgy !


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 5, 2011)

....and if a two bit hack can get into so many peoples phone records this easily just imagine what the filth get up to.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

rorymac said:


> I feel a bit stupid asking this but I can't seem to grasp what exactly the NOTW's motivations were for hacking into Milly's phone in the first place ? Would appreciate if someone could put me right on that no matter how obvious it is.


 
Gossip to sell papers.

Their ex-hack on Newsnight said that they counted the by-lines each year, and if you didn't have enough by-lines, you were out. Those that stooped lowest succeeded, with the full approval and sign-off of management to hand over what must have been millions to dodgy investigators and backhanders to sources.

This shit started soon after Murdoch took over, and Daniel Morgan takes us right back to then. He was murdered for investigating this shit, and his partner just got off because the trial collapsed due to police corruption.

Money, money, money.


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

rorymac said:


> So they might just hack into anyone's phone any time just cos they might hear something juicy I get .. but what would they expect to hear on Milly's messages ? Or they just did it routinely anyway ? Or the coppers wanted them to ?
> Sorry I won't ask again I'm sure it's obvious but it's so mind bogglingly shocking I can't see the wood for the trees.


 
I would imagine it was to get the recordings from friends and family, also to see whether anything juicy was there, but probably mainly because they did such things out of habit.


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If this is true then Wade's personal denial of any knowledge that she made to the Dowler family today is an outright lie.


 
yes but that's ok. it will doubtless come out in the investigation that news international have launched. its being run by their ceo, rebekah brooks. i hear she's very thorough


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

gavman said:


> yes but that's ok. it will doubtless come out in the investigation that news international have launched. its being run by their ceo, rebekah brooks. i hear she's very thorough


 
if she was that thorough she could spell rebecca correctly.


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Can we not just get to the point where we accept everyone - literally_ everyone_ - who has been newsworthy  since at least 2002 was, of course, targeted....


 
That's almost certainly true.

But until NI fess up to it, each case will come out one by one, pummelling away at their wall of denial. And so they should.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

rorymac said:


> So they might just hack into anyone's phone any time just cos they might hear something juicy I get .. but what would they expect to hear on Milly's messages ? Or they just did it routinely anyway ? Or the coppers wanted them to ?
> Sorry I won't ask again I'm sure it's obvious but it's so mind bogglingly shocking I can't see the wood for the trees.
> 
> Damned if they didn't know sounds dodgy !


 Obv. very few stories are as straight as they seem. Besides the hacker isn't looking to solve the case, he just wants a slight angle for a headline, which in turn keeps the front page narrative going - and the public love an on going  narrative with even a slight twist.


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> This shit started soon after Murdoch took over, and Daniel Morgan takes us right back to then. He was murdered for investigating this shit, and his partner just got off because the trial collapsed due to police corruption.
> 
> Money, money, money.


 
I dont know if you can put the Daniel Morgan murder down to this, its more likely that was down to corrupt police and private investigators themselves fearing exposure of what they were up to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Obv. very few stories are as straight as they seem. Besides the hacker isn't looking to solve the case, he just wants a slight angle for a headline, which in turn keeps the front page narrative going - and the public love an on going  narrative with even a slight twist.


 
and there may even be a suicide in the story with the amount of pressure some of the principals in the tale are under


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

agricola said:


> I would imagine it was to get the recordings from friends and family, also to see whether anything juicy was there, but probably mainly because they did such things out of habit.


 
Sure, but the targetting of that detective was a bit more sinister - outwardly at least. Witness protection instigated to cover tittle tattle? Maybe. I don't know the workings of these things, but it doesn't sound as trivial as that.


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Newsnight team must be writing and re-writing tonight... would love to be a fly on the wall in their office as they busily try to keep up in time for tonight's programme. One hour to go folks. Reckon NI will field a representative? Probably one who'll just go "we can neither confirm or deny"... Then Paxman gets a gun out... (sorry, carried away there  )


 
simon greenberg. his interview with jon snow on c4 news was a car crash of epic proportions. they wouldn't let paxo near him after that.
he seems deeply unsuited to pr, coming across as smug, odious and deluded


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Totally sinister. Outrageous.


----------



## binka (Jul 5, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Personally I think the other tabloids are likely in the same boat, I bet they got up to the same tactics. But I wonder why they are not under the same spotlight.


 
isnt most of the information coming from mulcaire's many thousands of pages of meticulous notes? i would have thought any other tabloids / private investigators doing the same would have made sure they have destroyed all incriminating evidence by now


----------



## paolo (Jul 5, 2011)

gavman said:


> coming across as smug, odious and deluded


 
Yep. Very much how NI are coming across full stop. Maybe now they've seen an embodiment of that, they don't like the look.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 5, 2011)

Cheers for the explanations .. fuckin hell


----------



## weltweit (Jul 5, 2011)

binka said:


> isnt most of the information coming from mulcaire's many thousands of pages of meticulous notes? i would have thought any other tabloids / private investigators doing the same would have made sure they have destroyed all incriminating evidence by now


 
Yes, I suppose that is a good point. 

But, also, did Mulcaire only work for News International?


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Innit! I haven't watched it in ages but I'm gonna be glued to it tonight.


 
they failed a bit. c4 news was epic, however. i can't link to it...maybe it's been hacked


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Yes, I suppose that is a good point.
> 
> But, also, did Mulcaire only work for News International?


 can't have had time to work for anyone else


----------



## 8115 (Jul 5, 2011)

Why has this only just come out now?  Surely they must have known fairly quickly that someone who was not Milly Dowler had been accessing her voicemail.  Is it massively cynical of me to think that the police knew it was a paper, and thought they'd just let it lie?


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

agricola said:


> I dont know if you can put the Daniel Morgan murder down to this, its more likely that was down to corrupt police and private investigators themselves fearing exposure of what they were up to.


 
The News of the World were following Daniel Morgan whilst the police had him under surveillance. The police put him in witness protection because of it. His partner, John Rees, was selling information from police contacts to the tabloids. He ended up with an axe in his head, and John Rees got off because the police deliberately fucked up the investigation.

Of course it started back then. Shortly after Murdoch got into the tabloid business here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2011)

8115 said:


> Why has this only just come out now?  Surely they must have known fairly quickly that someone who was not Milly Dowler had been accessing her voicemail.  Is it massively cynical of me to think that the police knew it was a paper, and thought they'd just let it lie?


 not really


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Yes, I suppose that is a good point.
> 
> But, also, did Mulcaire only work for News International?


 
I think so, but there are others who do much the same thing / worse than the things he did.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

binka said:


> isnt most of the information coming from mulcaire's many thousands of pages of meticulous notes? i would have thought any other tabloids / private investigators doing the same would have made sure they have destroyed all incriminating evidence by now


 
The Daily Mail is leading on the number of appearances in the paperwork, IIRC. All the tabloids and most of the rest are implicated in this. Murdoch is the first empire to look vulnerable.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

8115 said:


> Why has this only just come out now?  Surely they must have known fairly quickly that someone who was not Milly Dowler had been accessing her voicemail.  Is it massively cynical of me to think that the police knew it was a paper, and thought they'd just let it lie?


 
The police did know. They didn't investigate it. That's how the Independent know Brooks is lying about not knowing. The paper contacted the police at the time to tell them about it.


----------



## binka (Jul 5, 2011)

i didnt see mulcaire on newsnight but i understand he has said brooks knew all about it. does this mean mulcair is going to be prepared to give evidence in court to that effect? i'd probably be lying low for a while if i was him tbh


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2011)

Come someone to explain to me the bit about the NoTW paying the police for information?


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> The News of the World were following Daniel Morgan whilst the police had him under surveillance. The police put him in witness protection because of it. His partner, John Rees, was selling information from police contacts to the tabloids. He ended up with an axe in his head, and John Rees got off because the police deliberately fucked up the investigation.
> 
> Of course it started back then. Shortly after Murdoch got into the tabloid business here.


 
I have never heard that before, do you have a link?


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 5, 2011)

rorymac said:


> I feel a bit stupid asking this but I can't seem to grasp what exactly the NOTW's motivations were for hacking into Milly's phone in the first place ? Would appreciate if someone could put me right on that no matter how obvious it is.


 
Basically they don't know what they are after when they do this sort of shit. It's simply that they want to have something to print about whoever is front page news that the other papers don't have. They don't actually care about what it is or how they get it, it just has to be something that gives them an excuse to hang another front page story on somebody they think people want to read about.


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

agricola said:


> I dont know if you can put the Daniel Morgan murder down to this, its more likely that was down to corrupt police and private investigators themselves fearing exposure of what they were up to.


 
watch c4 news. it's explosive


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jul 5, 2011)

gavman said:


> they failed a bit. c4 news was epic, however. i can't link to it...maybe it's been hacked


 


gavman said:


> watch c4 news. it's explosive


 
Yeah was a bit let down. If anyone can find today's C4 news please could they post it on here, am looking now.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> The police did know. They didn't investigate it. That's how the Independent know Brooks is lying about not knowing. The paper contacted the police at the time to tell them about it.


 
Which paper, NOTW?  Called the police up and said "yeah we've been hacking this voicemail, it was us"?  And the police said "oh, ok, thanks for letting us know".  It would be funny if it wasn't so grotesque.


----------



## gavman (Jul 5, 2011)

binka said:


> isnt most of the information coming from mulcaire's many thousands of pages of meticulous notes? i would have thought any other tabloids / private investigators doing the same would have made sure they have destroyed all incriminating evidence by now


 
it's been in the hands of the met for 6 years, completely safe from any police investigation


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

It'll be on the C4 iPLayer.


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> The Daily Mail is leading on the number of appearances in the paperwork, IIRC. All the tabloids and most of the rest are implicated in this. Murdoch is the first empire to look vulnerable.


 
That was Whittamores stash, seized by the Information Commissioner in 2003, IIRC.  Mulcaire was either mainly or exclusively NOTW, at least all of his exposed stuff has been for them.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 5, 2011)

Andrew Neil tweet:

FT also reports Andy Coulson fears he will be made scapegoat. Thinks he might soon be arrested.....might start singing,


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 5, 2011)

We need to know exactly which filth have been taking money and sitting on the truth. But we won't.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 6, 2011)

Is this the Ratner moment for the Scum & NotW?


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2011)

News of the World Channel 4 piece here:
http://www.channel4.com/news/news-of-the-world-targets-met-police-detective


----------



## 8115 (Jul 6, 2011)

Radio 4 says that Ford are removing their advertising from News of the World.


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> I have never heard that before, do you have a link?


 
Watch Channel 4 News from tonight.


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

8115 said:


> Which paper, NOTW?  Called the police up and said "yeah we've been hacking this voicemail, it was us"?  And the police said "oh, ok, thanks for letting us know".  It would be funny if it wasn't so grotesque.


 
Yes.

And yes.


----------



## gavman (Jul 6, 2011)

editor said:


> News of the World Channel 4 piece here:
> http://www.channel4.com/news/news-of-the-world-targets-met-police-detective


 
it's the interview almost at the bottom for epic failness, and the top one re morgan for the horror


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> what about brooks, coulson, a doberman and a locked room?


 
Might just work. Hack the doberman's vet's phone, bug the locked room, get some photo's of Brooks' postman and Coulson's mother (preferably topless), and you may well have a story. You can just say "I was just doing my job" if anyone gets upset. As Johann Hari told me as we waited in the queue at the Jobcentre "My test for journalism is always – would the readers mind you did this, or prefer it?"


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

ymu said:


> Watch Channel 4 News from tonight.


 
I thought that it was DCS Cook (who was on the fourth or fifth investigation into Morgans death) the private detectives hired by NOTW were following, not that Morgan was followed by them initially and then murdered as described above?


----------



## paolo (Jul 6, 2011)

Spot the odd one out:


Newspapers Front Page Roundup, Courtesy of Sky News twitter feed.



BROADSHEETS

Graun: Leads with '*Police review child murders as hacking outcry escalates*'

Indy: Leads with '*Brooks contacted Dowler private detective herself*'

Telegraph: Leads with '*Hackers "snooped on Soham families"*'

Times: Leads with bias in judge demographics, second is *'Cameron faces calls for inquiry on hacking'*

FT: Leads with *'Murdoch's chiefs fight fallout over hacking'*


TABLOIDS:

Mail: Leads with 'Public Sector Salary Myth'; Second is *'News of the World hackers 'targeted the parents of Holly and Jessica' '*.

Express: Leads with 'Now Salt is Safe to Eat' (!); Second is similar to Mail, re: *Soham Parents Hack.*


RED TOPS

The Mirror:  Leads with *Soham family hacked*

The Star: Leads with Kate Fury over Fake...; Second with* 'Holly & Jessica linked to hacking scandal'.*

*The Sun*: Erm, no. *Nothing at all on the hacking.*


----------



## moochedit (Jul 6, 2011)

just said on bbc news 24 that they were hacking the family of 7/7 victims.


----------



## gavman (Jul 6, 2011)

oh god, they must've missed it. how embarrassing
perhaps we should e-mail the sun's newsroom. it's in the thread somewhere. they'll be pleased to be told


----------



## yardbird (Jul 6, 2011)

Put this on the other thread, but it would not be a suprise to discover that at least two urbans have been hacked.


----------



## gavman (Jul 6, 2011)

charlie brooker and krish gm?


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

gavman said:


> charlie brooker and krish gm?


 
not really a joking matter, tbh.


----------



## paolo (Jul 6, 2011)

yardbird said:


> Put this on the other thread, but it would not be a suprise to discover that at least two urbans have been hacked.


 
Based on tonight's revelations, I now wouldn't be surprised if they had a pop at a friend's sibling. She's no celebrity, but fits the (ever broadening) target profile.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

editor said:


> Come someone to explain to me the bit about the NoTW paying the police for information?



Brooks did admit it in 2003 havent heard any proper reasons yet...


----------



## gavman (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> not really a joking matter, tbh.


 
wasn't joking so much as speculating


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2011)

editor said:


> News of the World Channel 4 piece here:
> http://www.channel4.com/news/news-of-the-world-targets-met-police-detective


Second video down: Rebekah Brooks is going to investigate herself! 

Watch Simon Greenberg squirm!


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

8115 said:


> Radio 4 says that Ford are removing their advertising from News of the World.



as have Renault, Halifax.. and mumsnet have dropped an ad campaign on sky and taken NOTW ads down from their site...

more to come...


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

gavman said:


> wasn't joking so much as speculating


 
I thought Charlie Brooker being on urban was a joke?  In any case, its not him (or the other one) that was meant.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> not really a joking matter, tbh.


 
No, it isn't.  It's almost funny, watching the News of the Screws flounder and the rest of the papers lining up to have a pop at Murdoch, but how it must feel for Milly Dowler's family, and the rest of those who might have been on the receiving end of it...


----------



## gavman (Jul 6, 2011)

i think the jon snow / simon greenberg interview is going down as one of my all time favourites


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2011)

The more this goes on, the more stinky the Met look as well. I smell cover ups. BIG ones.


----------



## paolo (Jul 6, 2011)

8115 said:


> Why has this only just come out now?  Surely they must have known fairly quickly that someone who was not Milly Dowler had been accessing her voicemail.  Is it massively cynical of me to think that the police knew it was a paper, and thought they'd just let it lie?


 
Also conceivable that the list so massive, and so full of bomb shells, they haven't prioritised it, just working through in a random order.

It's not like this is the very last one on the list. Not at all.

(eta: Awhile back, they were, of course, just ignoring the list - until pressure later came to bear. But now they seem to be getting through it. Some of it, at least.)


----------



## yardbird (Jul 6, 2011)

yardbird said:


> Put this on the other thread, but it would not be a suprise to discover that at least two urbans have been hacked.


 
I was not joking when I posted this and nor am I now.


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> I thought Charlie Brooker being on urban was a joke?  In any case, its not him (or the other one) that was meant.


 


yardbird said:


> I was not joking when I posted this and nor am I now.


 

Yeah. Not having a go at anyone at all, but can we drop speculating who here might have been targeted unless they want to come forward and tell us that themselves? This isn't about celebrities any more.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Also conceivable that the list so massive, and so full of bomb shells, they haven't prioritised it, just working through in a random order.
> 
> It's not like this is the very last one on the list. Not at all.


 
No, Surrey Police definately knew about this in 2002 - the NOTW actually told them they had intercepted voice messages on Milly's phone.


----------



## gavman (Jul 6, 2011)

anything milly related would have been sub judicie until the end of the trial. perhaps that's why it's coming out now


----------



## paolo (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> No, Surrey Police definately knew about this in 2002 - the NOTW actually told them they had intercepted voice messages on Milly's phone.


 
Agree - edited my post to reflect the "sitting on info" aspect.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 6, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yeah. Not having a go at anyone at all, but can we drop speculating who here might have been targeted unless they want to come forward and tell us that themselves? This isn't about celebrities any more.


 
Fair enough


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

:d


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 6, 2011)

editor said:


> Second video down: Rebekah Brooks is going to investigate herself!
> 
> Watch Simon Greenberg squirm!


 
I thought the best bit was the way he tried to make out that it was just allegations and nothing should be made of them until they have been investigated... like that's been the NOTW modus operandi all these years.

I give you tomorrow's headline. "News of the World want to fact check a story".


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

gavman said:


> anything milly related would have been sub judici until the end of the trial. perhaps that's why it's coming out now


 
Would have been nice if that had been true, I grant you.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

hmmmmm..... guess where Murdoch is and who is with.....



> Don't bother ringing or texting Rupert Murdoch this week – he won't be answering. The same goes for Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Eric Schmidt, Zynga's Marc Pincus, Liberty Media (and Austar) boss John Malone, investor Warren Buffet and Groupon's Andrew Mason, among others. Along with many other technology and media top cats they are attending investment bank Allen & Co.'s annual media and technology leaders' conference in Sun Valley, where mobiles and texting are banned, at least during conference hours.



source


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 6, 2011)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...ow-is-the-moment-to-stop-murdoch-2307410.html
Good article in today's Independent.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 6, 2011)

Seems the NOTW title could dissapear 


> The affair could eventually have profound effects on the 168-year-old News of the World. Last week News International announced that it was moving towards integrating its Sunday and daily operations on The Sun and the News of the World, with a joint managing editor brought in to oversee the operations.
> 
> It would have been inconceivable then, but yesterday one media commentator speculated that as a result of the continuing and deepening problems the News of the World brand could disappear entirely, to be replaced by a Sunday Sun. "No one in News International would want it to happen, but after all this I don't think you can rule it out," they said.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

another one bites the dust!


> BREAKING NEWS [EXCLUSIVE] Subtile Media Ltd have just announced that they have cancelled their £1.5 Million advertisement contract and are seeking legal action to reclaim their money. DOA (Director Of Advertising) Neil Fordham said "We value our consumers opinion and in this case are taking action from the feed back we received. Currently our contract with News International has a year remaining, and we are seeking legal advice to receive the outstanding money. All our adverts across News International platforms will be removed from early next week. This includes The Sun Newspaper and associated websites. We will now be looking at other means of advertisement."



and Butlins are dithering:


> In response to the posts on here about our advertising in the News of the World, we just wanted to let you know that in light of the current situation, we are reviewing things, we are watching the investigation for more information and have no advertisement booked for this Sunday. In view of the ongoing police investigation, we're unable to comment further on this. Thanks as ever for your support.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...ow-is-the-moment-to-stop-murdoch-2307410.html
> Good article in today's Independent.


 
It isnt, its a relatively lazy piece which merely reheats everything that other people have worked to expose; and tbh *any* article on this issue which pretends as much as that one does that this is a problem specific to News International should be regarded as deeply suspect.


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> It isnt, its a relatively lazy piece which merely reheats everything that other people have worked to expose; and tbh *any* article on this issue which pretends as much as that one does that this is a problem specific to News International should be regarded as deeply suspect.


That's a bizarre interpretation of a piece which is pointing out the wood, not the trees. Whatever you think of the article, that is a really lazy dismissal of an article which contains this:



> The details of who knew what and when are as ghoulishly fascinating as they are undeniably significant. But fixating on the personnel risks obscuring the grander portrait of a system so dominated in absentia by its unconstitutional monarch – two-bit politicians come and go while Murdoch, like the Queen, abides – that its nominal leaders quail in mortal terror of his wrath.



This isn't just about some third rate hacks being a bit naughty, really.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 6, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> Seems the NOTW title could dissapear


 


> The affair could eventually have profound effects on the 168-year-old News of the World. Last week News International announced that it was moving towards integrating its Sunday and daily operations on The Sun and the News of the World, with a joint managing editor brought in to oversee the operations.
> 
> It would have been inconceivable then, but yesterday one media commentator speculated that as a result of the continuing and deepening problems *the News of the World brand could disappear entirely, to be replaced by a Sunday Sun.* "No one in News International would want it to happen, but after all this I don't think you can rule it out," they said.



I would be surprised by that, as the Mirror Group already publishes the Sunday Sun, it's a regional title coming out of Newcastle upon Tyne.


----------



## andy2002 (Jul 6, 2011)

editor said:


> Second video down: Rebekah Brooks is going to investigate herself!
> 
> Watch Simon Greenberg squirm!


 
I used to know Greenberg when he was at Chelsea and I worked on their club magazine. He was a slimey, repulsive little shit back then and nothing seems to have changed.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 6, 2011)

Robert Peston on radio 4 specualting that the BSkyB deal will now get pulled as News International are argualbly not 'fit and proper persons'. 

So all in all a good chance of  Coulson going to prison for bribing the cops, Rebbeca Wade sacked, NOTW sued to fuck and potentailly finsished, Murdoch's bid for BSkyB thrown out, plenty of  egg on camerons face and a public enquiry into  News international and their relationship with the met - which may well uncover even further slime. 

Not the end of Murdochs empire, but a serious fucking kick in its bollocks. I hope it hasstens the poisonous cunts demise.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 6, 2011)

Someone has put up a list of the private email addresses of the CEOs of the main NotW advertisers

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?hl=en_GB&key=tNYNhuJL7bcUwlXMQJ4zF9g&toomany=true


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 6, 2011)

Armando Ianucci, I believe.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Robert Peston on radio 4 specualting that the BSkyB deal will now get pulled as News International are argualbly not 'fit and proper persons'.
> 
> So all in all a good chance of  Coulson going to prison for bribing the cops, Rebbeca Wade sacked, NOTW sued to fuck and potentailly finsished, Murdoch's bid for BSkyB thrown out, plenty of  egg on camerons face and a public enquiry into  News international and their relationship with the met - which may well uncover even further slime.
> 
> Not the end of Murdochs empire, but a serious fucking kick in its bollocks. I hope it hasstens the poisonous cunts demise.


 
This.

I can certainly see the government chucking out the BSkyB bid, not out of any high-minded principle, but because it'd be politically insupportable given how much outrage there is about the NotW's behaviour.

It'd be brilliant to see Coulson re-arrested and stuck on trial too, since that would draw flak back in Cameron's direction.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Robert Peston on radio 4 specualting that the BSkyB deal will now get pulled as News International are argualbly not 'fit and proper persons'.
> 
> So all in all a good chance of  Coulson going to prison for bribing the cops, Rebbeca Wade sacked, NOTW sued to fuck and potentailly finsished, Murdoch's bid for BSkyB thrown out, plenty of  egg on camerons face and a public enquiry into  News international and their relationship with the met - which may well uncover even further slime.
> 
> Not the end of Murdochs empire, but a serious fucking kick in its bollocks. I hope it hasstens the poisonous cunts demise.



Coulson should be done for lying during the previous investigation too surely? Since he maintained he knew nothing about the phone hacking when he must have done if he was signing off cheques for hundreds of thousands. 

I hope people cancel their fucking sky subs now - it has always amazed me how many people can conveniently overlook the fact that they are part of Murdoch's corrupt empire


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 6, 2011)

http://www.thenewsgrind.com/news/uk...ist-names-and-addresses-of-known-journalists/


----------



## magneze (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> another one bites the dust!
> 
> 
> and Butlins are dithering:


Ha! They are fucked.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Armando Ianucci, I believe.



yup...
btw: sky news did us a favour yesterday by covering the FB group.. Boycott News Of The World


btw: Emergency parliamentary debate calls for an emergency flashmob #NOTW TODAY 13:00 parliament 
if anyone is going along and taking pictures could they give me a shout thanx... we intend to get a blog up asap to supplement the group....


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

emergency flashmob! quick, get stephen fry to retweet it!


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

magneze said:


> Ha! They are fucked.


according to Jon Snow this morning 18 companies are now considering their position.....


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Robert Peston on radio 4 specualting that the BSkyB deal will now get pulled as News International are argualbly not 'fit and proper persons'.
> 
> So all in all a good chance of  Coulson going to prison for bribing the cops, Rebbeca Wade sacked, NOTW sued to fuck and potentailly finsished, Murdoch's bid for BSkyB thrown out, plenty of  egg on camerons face and a public enquiry into  News international and their relationship with the met - which may well uncover even further slime.
> 
> Not the end of Murdochs empire, but a serious fucking kick in its bollocks. I hope it hasstens the poisonous cunts demise.


Looks like there's going to be some dodgy corrupt cops ready to face criminal charges in that pile too. This story is MASSIVE.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 6, 2011)

trashpony said:


> I hope people cancel their fucking sky subs now - it has always amazed me how many people can conveniently overlook the fact that they are part of Murdoch's corrupt empire


 
last time this was suggested on here the claim was this was just the kind of thing that alienates the left from 'normal' people

*according to newsnight last night NOTW is the largest English language print title in the world! or was...


----------



## dylans (Jul 6, 2011)

I love the way the Sun are attempting to portray Brookes as a valiant seeker of truth. 



> FORMER News of the World Editor Rebekah Brooks yesterday said she was "sickened" by allegations that a private eye hired by the paper hacked tragic Milly Dowler's phone.
> 
> The News International boss vowed the "strongest possible action" if it was proved *rogue operator *Glenn Mulcaire had intercepted the 13-year-old's voicemail while she was missing.
> 
> She branded the claims "almost too horrific to believe" as senior executives at the media company met police conducting a criminal investigation into phone hacking.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live


----------



## strung out (Jul 6, 2011)

ska invita said:


> last time this was suggested on here the claim was this was just the kind of thing that alienates the left from 'normal' people
> 
> *according to newsnight last night NOTW is the largest English language print title in the world! or was...


 
and stop watching 20th century fox films, reading harper collins books, and using myspace too!


----------



## ska invita (Jul 6, 2011)

editor said:


> Looks like there's going to be some dodgy corrupt cops ready to face criminal charges in that pile too. This story is MASSIVE.


...as ever with police on trial cases i'll believe it when i see it. fingers crossed eh.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2011)

ska invita said:


> last time this was suggested on here the claim was this was just the kind of thing that alienates the left from 'normal' people
> 
> *according to newsnight last night NOTW is the largest English language print title in the world! or was...


 
The pathetic moralistic finger wagging way  in which it was suggested  _does_ alienates 'normal' people from the left - (note me getting it the right way round, people alienated from the left). A specific targeted boycott is an entirely different thing altogether - it's not at all like a blanket moral condemnation of millions of people in one lazy swipe. That sort of laziness hasn't got any better just because someone else has engaged in it.


----------



## cogg (Jul 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The pathetic moralistic finger wagging way  in which it was suggested  _does_ alienates 'normal' people from the left - (note me getting it the right way round, people alienated from the left). A specific targeted boycott is an entirely different thing altogether - it's not at all like a blanket moral condemnation of millions of people in one lazy swipe. That sort of laziness hasn't got any better just because someone else has engaged in it.


 
Absolutely right there Butchers.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 6, 2011)

I think people right across the board are alienated from NOTW


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

now we know why Tesco's arent budging yet....



> Andrew Higginson
> Independent Non-Executive Director, Audit Committee Chairman
> Andrew Higginson was appointed as a Director of the Company on 1 September 2004. Mr Higginson is Chief Executive of Retailing Services and Group Strategy Director of Tesco plc (Tesco). Mr Higginson was appointed to the Board of Tesco in 1997, having previously been the Group Finance Director of the Burton Group plc.


sky board

Shamefully, the 'ethical' Cooperative Financial Services has tweeted that it is NOT withdrawing News of the World advertising! http://twitter.com/#!/CFSpressteam/status/88521308991791104


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live


 
From that link:



> The Times (paywall) says that it has decided to break its silence on the phone hacking scandal engulfing its sister paper, the News of the World. It says there is "much we still need to know" about the precise exten of phone hacking. But it says this is a watershed moment for British journalism.
> 
> There is no doubt but that journalists are now in their version of the MPs' expenses scandal. If there is proven to be truth in the allegations that journalists on the News of the World hacked into the voicemail of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, there will not be a journalist in the country who, after the warranted anger, will not feel shamed and depressed. There is a lot that is not yet known about this case but this much we do know: this is beyond reprehensible ...
> 
> We will, no doubt, learn more, and none of it is likely to be edifying. Whatever else emerges, this is a watershed moment for British journalism. What happened needs to be investigated and, in the public interest and the interests of journalism itself, brought to light. It ought to go without saying that nothing of this nature can ever happen again. But then it ought to have gone without saying that nothing of this nature could ever have happened in the first place. This is why it is so important that the truth be known.​



Looks like The Times is now trying to distance itself from whats happening at it News Int stable mates. Are they getting worried?


----------



## Giles (Jul 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> and stop watching 20th century fox films, reading harper collins books, and using myspace too!


 

The last one isn't too hard: I thought pretty much everyone was jacking in Myspace anyway.....

Giles..


----------



## strung out (Jul 6, 2011)

Giles said:


> The last one isn't too hard: I thought pretty much everyone was jacking in Myspace anyway.....
> 
> Giles..


 
you only need to stop using 5% of myspace now anyway tbf, since they flogged the rest of it off at a massive loss


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)

Giles said:


> The last one isn't too hard: I thought pretty much everyone was jacking in Myspace anyway.....
> 
> Giles..


 
((hugz Timberlake))

lolz


----------



## dylans (Jul 6, 2011)

I noticed in the list of people whose phones were hacked that there were no Tories on the list. Just saying


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

News international have just stated they have found out who was behind and authorised the hacking... no names yet....


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

a senior NI exec is gonna be on radio 5 in a few mins   http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bbc_radio_five_live


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> News international have just stated they have found out who was behind and authorised the hacking... no names yet....


 
A quick result of the promised 'investigation' carried out by Rebekah Brooks?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Just received this email...
Dear Mr AKA

Thank you for your email to Philip Clarke, our Chief Executive, to which I have been asked to respond.

I appreciate how concerned you must be over the recent allegations made against the News of The World.

These latest claims will cause huge distress to a family which has suffered enough. However, it is now a matter for the police and like everyone, we await the outcome of their investigation.

Assuring you of our best intentions at all times.

Yours Sincerely

Ryan Fitzpatrick
Customer Service Executive


----------



## strung out (Jul 6, 2011)

no name given by greenberg


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> A quick result of the promised 'investigation' carried out by Rebekah Brooks?


 
i wager Brooks wont name herself


----------



## strung out (Jul 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> no name given by greenberg


 
in fact, no name, can't say whether they're still at news corp, can't say what the evidence is, can't confirm anything except that they're 'close' to knowing exactly who it is


----------



## strung out (Jul 6, 2011)

but apparently it definitely wasn't rebekah brooks


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> News international have just stated they have found out who was behind and authorised the hacking... no names yet....


 


AKA pseudonym said:


> a senior NI exec is gonna be on radio 5 in a few mins   http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bbc_radio_five_live


 
On now...

Predictably they're not sayin who due to police investigation, but have said that they're clear it's nothing to do with Brooks.

I wonder how much of this will be trying to cover/get Coulson and Brooks off the hook though?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> no name given by greenberg



he says it wasnt rebekah!!!!!!!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 6, 2011)

'We have a working relationship with' the police


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Admits its a criminal investigation....


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> he says it wasnt rebekah!!!!!!!


 
OMG NO WAAAAY!   



'Not going to deny it was Coulson - not going to deny it was anyone' - errrrrrrrrr........except Rebekah Brooks, obv.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2011)

Can people connect this to cameron and his judgement please.


----------



## strung out (Jul 6, 2011)

apparently some advertisers might be increasing their advertising because of this, according to greenberg 'to show their support'


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

‎'We will be judged by our actions not our words'.... famous last words methinks!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 6, 2011)

He's _funny_, lol!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Can people connect this to cameron and his judgement please.



Sure.  Cameron's mates with Brooks.  Cameron personally asked Murdoch not to boot out Brooks when this all came to light initially a few years ago.  Cameron very much wants Murdoch on side.  Cameron will most likely be asking Murdoch not to sacrifice Brooks.  (Speculation: Cameron will "make sure" Plod won't be banging on Murdoch's front door.).  Cameron will (behind the scenes) push for the Sky deal to "go" status.

That's all for starters - sure there's more as and when it comes to me.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> apparently some advertisers might be increasing their advertising because of this, according to greenberg 'to show their support'



SG : Some of our advertisers are showing us more support and buying more advertising.

Interviewer: Who?
...
SG : Well, it could happen....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 6, 2011)

What a total plank!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 6, 2011)

SG asked for the 7/7 victim's father's details who he was talking to to be passed on to him afterwards so that he could contact him personally.....victim's dad 'Well you've already got my number and address!'


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> SG asked for the 7/7 victim's father's details who he was talking to to be passed on to him afterwards so that he could contact him personally.....victim's dad 'Well you've already got my number and address!'



Simon Greenberg: If Radio 5 Live wants to give us the victims details we'll be in contact with...

Sean Cassidy: You've already got them!

SG: We don't.
...
Sean Cassidy: So you shredded them?


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2011)

Greenberg is a one man ongoing car crash!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 6, 2011)

editor said:


> Greenberg is a one man ongoing car crash!


Is he actually allowed to drive?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

Maybe News International should have employed this feller to co-ordinate their PR and spin:


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Rebekah Brooks said on his appointment:


> “Simon has great experience at very high levels in professional sport and the media making him ideal for this new and wide ranging corporate affairs role. I am delighted that he will be joining News International in such a senior capacity.”



Im sure she is....

http://www.newscorp.com/news/bunews_365.html


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Lloyds and Virgin Holidays have now suspended advertisements in NotW.....  Thompson Holidays are now "reviewing their policy." Keep up the pressure its working.


----------



## Santino (Jul 6, 2011)

Isn't 'reviewing our policy/position' code for 'please stop emailing us about this'?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

NOTW latest: Ronald Macdonald to head up childhood obesity investigation


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2011)

gavman said:


> you're an idiot.
> he made a strong case that the tabloids were trading in a stolen commodity- his privacy.



As long as "film stars" and "celebrities" have existed, it's been acknowledged, by the media and the public at least, that their privacy, as public persons with public personas, is limited. This isn't to make excuses for the media, but to state that Grant (and many other people in the "public eye", could have, but didn't, take simple steps to protect his privacy.

For him therefore to call his privacy a "stolen" commodity reeks of the kind of arrogant self-regard that got him in the tabloid viewfinder in the first place.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yes. Rather shit hot. Worth watching. Brother of the investigative reporter who was murdered whilst investigating News International, and being followed by News International whilst the police had him under surveillance, was interviewed. The implication that Brooks was involved in a contract killing is hard to avoid ...
> 
> Hugh Grant did a good job of keeping it off his own personal issues too. Looks like a man on the warpath, which could be very handy. A big wave of celebrity revulsion could seriously help to kill these cunts off.


 
The problem being that the media and the "celebrities" are locked in a symbiotic relationship, so a "wave of celebrity revulsion" is unlikely to be generated.


----------



## Giles (Jul 6, 2011)

It seems that NOTW often printed stories making overt and direct references to people having left messages on someone's mobile. I am surprised that they have got away with this for so long, given that they seemed to show off about having basically listened to people's voicemail messages.

How else could they have heard these messages?

Giles..


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 6, 2011)

8den said:


> Yes but can you prove such and such a journalist deleted said message?


 
Well I personally cannot but I understand that this is the subject of a police investigation and that, as a result, there it at least something there to investigate.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2011)

The former News Of The World reporter who was on NewsNight last night said that it was not so serious, he said back then almost everyone was doing it, hacking peoples phones for fun. 

Who here has ever hacked someone's phone? 

Come on, out with it!! you know you should!!


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

THE COOP HAVE WITHDRAWN ADVERTISEMENT! http://twitter.com/coopnews


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> THE COOP HAVE WITHDRAWN ADVERTISEMENT! http://twitter.com/coopnews


 
must have been after i told them i was removing money from their bank this am 

although i didnt tell them i had precisely nothing in it


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

Giles said:


> It seems that NOTW often printed stories making overt and direct references to people having left messages on someone's mobile. I am surprised that they have got away with this for so long, given that they seemed to show off about having basically listened to people's voicemail messages.
> 
> How else could they have heard these messages?
> 
> Giles..


 
They got away with it so long because it was not in anyones interest to stop them, and because their competitors were (and of course are) all at it as well.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> THE COOP HAVE WITHDRAWN ADVERTISEMENT! http://twitter.com/coopnews


 


AKA pseudonym said:


> Lloyds and Virgin Holidays have now suspended advertisements in NotW.....  Thompson Holidays are now "reviewing their policy." Keep up the pressure its working.


 
Where is the full list again? 
Who is advertising and who has now confirmed advertising is pulled?


----------



## Santino (Jul 6, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> must have been after i told them i was removing money from their bank this am
> 
> although i didnt tell them i had precisely nothing in it


 
It might have been me thinking about emailing them but then not getting around to it.


----------



## strung out (Jul 6, 2011)

i expect the threat of me removing my entire worldly wealth (6p) from my co-op account had them worried


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> and Butlins are dithering:


 
Butlins have a special deal with the NOTW / the Sun by which they offer £9.50 holidays to families. 

There is a lot of alarm on Butlins FB wall from families who are worried in case their holiday plans fall through.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Aldi has dropped them too!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> I dont know if you can put the Daniel Morgan murder down to this, its more likely that was down to corrupt police and private investigators themselves fearing exposure of what they were up to.


 
Fat Sid, among others, had long been suspected of supplementing his police salary in any possible way he could think up, and a fair few of the people he served with were caught up in the South East Regional Crime Squad clusterfuck.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Where is the full list again?
> Who is advertising and who has now confirmed advertising is pulled?



gimme a few mins... reports are flying in @ https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_252124162444#!/home.php?sk=group_117353158356469

Halifax has dropped them too!!!!


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fat Sid, among others, had long been suspected of supplementing his police salary in any possible way he could think up, and a fair few of the people he served with were caught up in the South East Regional Crime Squad clusterfuck.


 
Well yes, but I still havent seen anything on the net that NOTW were following Morgan or were involved in his death (though of course Rees did work for the NOTW later on, even after he was caught trying to set someone up).  In any case, they were all apparently that bent that even if they were selling secrets to the papers, it would probably have been one of their more minor corruptions.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 6, 2011)

I'm chuffed the Co-Op has sorted it out.


----------



## laptop (Jul 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Can people connect this to cameron and his judgement please.


 
At PMQ, Millibrain only managed the Coulson connection.

The _Daily Mail_ photo desk is doing better:


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> i expect the threat of me removing my entire worldly wealth (6p) from my co-op account had them worried


 
Good work!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)

laptop said:


> At PMQ, Millibrain only managed the Coulson connection.
> 
> The _Daily Mail_ photo desk is doing better:





rather curious image choice from the the Daily Fail


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> View attachment 16189
> :d


 
You could change that headline to "Wade spit-roasted".


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Where is the full list again?
> Who is advertising and who has now confirmed advertising is pulled?



so far confirmed these companies have dropped NOTW:
Ford
Aldi
co-op
virgin
renault
lloyds TSB
mumsnet
Halifax

Though no idea for how long...

*List of Advertisers in Murdoch Press *
Brand Alley http://www.brandalley.co.uk/
Butlins http://www.butlins.com/
Carpetright  http://www.carpetright.co.uk/
Comet http://www.comet.co.uk/
NPower http://www.npower.com/Home/CustomerServices/index.htm
PCWorld 
Easyjet http://www.easyjet.com/
T Mobile http://www.t-mobile.co.uk/ 
Comet http://www.comet.co.uk/
WHSmiths -  01793 616161
Asda - 0800 952 0101
Tesco - http://www.tesco.com/help/contact/contactus4.asp - 0800 505 555
Sainsbury - 0800 636 262

There are more.. but these are the majors...

USE http://www.pint.org.uk/notw.html to tweet the companies!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 6, 2011)

Got this link on FB (from The Cure, as it happens!   )....

'48 hours to stop Murdoch's UK media takeover - Send your message to the official consultation on the BSkyB takeover'....

http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_messages_2/?copy


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

Remember when I said today that Cameron was going to work behind the scenes to ensure that the Sky deal would go through?  Looks like I was wrong:



> He signalled that News Corporation's takeover of BSkyB will be allowed to go ahead. Ed Miliband said it should be referred to the Competition Commission. Cameron rejected this.
> 
> "What we have done here is follow absolutely to the letter the correct legal processes. That is what the govenrment has to do. [Jeremy Hunt] is in a quasi-judicial role."
> 
> Cameron also said that Miliband himself said yesterday that the issue of media plurality (which is what Hunt has to consider when deciding whether to approve the BSkyB bid) was separate from the media ethics issue. Miliband responded by saying: "This is not the time for technicalities." Cameron said that when you are dealing with the law, you have to consider technicalities."



(This and more on the day's events can be found c/o The Graun here)


----------



## laptop (Jul 6, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> rather curious image choice from the the Daily Fail


 
And who is the guy with specs on the right?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

Mulcaire at it on the Graun:



> "Working for the News of the World was never easy. There was relentless pressure. There was a constant demand for results. I knew what we did pushed the limits ethically. But, at the time, I didn't understand that I had broken the law at all.
> 
> "A lot of information I obtained was simply tittle-tattle, of no great importance to anyone, but *sometimes what I did was for what I thought was the greater good*, to carry out investigative journalism.
> 
> ...



Poor old him.

I can think of various figures who believed they were working for "the greater good".  Julius Streicher comes to mind....


----------



## Meltingpot (Jul 6, 2011)

nipsla said:


> I'm a cynic at the best of times and have to say I wasn't terribly surprised when I saw the headline.  But when I read that they'd deleted messages to make room for more I think I actually looked like a goldfish for a minute.  I can't believe that even the coldest, most-cynical, money-grabbing tabloid journalist would not maybe think twice about that.  Fucking unbelievable


 
Yep, it is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> Well yes, but I still havent seen anything on the net that NOTW were following Morgan or were involved in his death (though of course Rees did work for the NOTW later on, even after he was caught trying to set someone up).



I've taken an interest in the Morgan case since it happened, and although I've seen speculation about Morgan being followed, most of it has historically been about either coppers following him or other Private Investigators following him *for* unspecified coppers.  



> In any case, they were all apparently that bent that even if they were selling secrets to the papers, it would probably have been one of their more minor corruptions.


 
That was kind of my point. 

There was a running joke among my extended circle of mates that there was a particular pub in Crystal Palace that you could go to, and there you could buy any piece of consumer electronics you desired, cheaply.

Off of coppers.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

*LATEST CONFIRMED WITHDRAWN ADVERTISERS:*
Ford 
Renault (“no advertising planned”)
Cadbury’s (“no advertising planned”)
Mumsnet
NatWest (‘Won’t be advertising in the next issue”)
Coca Cola
The Body Shop
Debenhams (“No plans to advertise with NOTW. Like everyone we are watching the developing situation very closely”)
Marks & Spencers (“No plans to advertise”)
Lloyds Banking Group
Vauxhall
Virgin Holidays
Halifax
Co-operative
Aldi 


Jaysus u know you are fecked if coca-cola wont touch u!!!


----------



## Meltingpot (Jul 6, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, the Sun boycott in Liverpool is still going strong over 20 years on, OU.


 
Good for Liverpool!


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> so far confirmed these companies have dropped NOTW:
> Ford
> Aldi
> co-op
> ...



they are probably still advertising on Sky or in other NI papers though


----------



## magneze (Jul 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> The former News Of The World reporter who was on NewsNight last night said that it was not so serious, he said back then almost everyone was doing it, hacking peoples phones for fun.
> 
> Who here has ever hacked someone's phone?
> 
> Come on, out with it!! you know you should!!


He said that 10% of the population had done it, proving that 99% of statistics are made up on the spot.


----------



## laptop (Jul 6, 2011)

FWIW, 38degrees petition: 70k signatures so far, aiming for 100k today:



> Dear David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt,
> 
> We're standing up for higher media standards, and respect for the rule of law.
> 
> ...



http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/murdoch-deal-petition#petition


----------



## strung out (Jul 6, 2011)

mitsubishi have donated their notw ad spend to childline apparently


----------



## dennisr (Jul 6, 2011)

This might make some folk freak: (!!)

*'Lost' Tommy Sheridan e-mails uncovered at NOTW*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14027007

These could, apparently, impact on the recent trial result... and the upcoming appeal....

(And yes, obviously not comparable to bomb and murder victims families treatment)


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

by announcing that they are withdrawing their ads from NOTW, these companies are getting a load of free advertising


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 6, 2011)

marty21 said:


> by announcing that they are withdrawing their ads from NOTW, these companies are getting a load of free advertising


You cynic! 

(Had crossed my mind too...)


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> *List of Advertisers in Murdoch Press*


 
Contacted all companies by email: 



> Until such time as you cease advertising with the News of the World I will boycott your business with immediate effect.
> I will also make all family, friends and business associates aware of this position.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 6, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> You cynic!
> 
> (Had crossed my mind too...)


 
ha - innit


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Jaysus u know you are fecked if coca-cola wont touch u!!!


----------



## magneze (Jul 6, 2011)

marty21 said:


> by announcing that they are withdrawing their ads from NOTW, these companies are getting a load of free advertising


Mmm, not really. Being mentioned isn't advertising imo.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 6, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Contacted all companies by email:


 
you didnt make me aware ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2011)

magneze said:


> Mmm, not really. Being mentioned isn't advertising imo.


 
Being mentioned as being great is.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

i for one would prefer them to take a principled stand, and increase their advertising spend with the NOTW.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

How would you deal with T Mobile if you were 2 months into a 12 month contract? 
I have asked them to stop but there must be more fire here


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Being mentioned as being great is.


yep.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2011)

So what do the advertisers do now, put their ads in the other tabloids that did the same thing but aren't in the frame yet?

We know they were all at it, the advertisers know they were all at it..... this is just playing to the gallery for a couple of weeks. Doesn't mean the effect won't contribute in some positive way, but it is entirely a self-serving act.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> you didnt make me aware ?


 
You just read it and I sent you a letter x


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 6, 2011)




----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

Who is this chap? 

huntj@parliament.uk


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

are these companies spending their ad money on non News International Companies though? - taking the ads from NOTW is fair enough, but putting them on Sky or in the times or Sun , does not a boycott make.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> mitsubishi have donated their notw ad spend to childline apparently


 
And the race to the most worthy gesture begins!


----------



## dennisr (Jul 6, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> And the race to the most worthy gesture begins!


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

btw: people are reporting the NOTW FB page for racist comments in a wedding thread there lol


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> mitsubishi have donated their notw ad spend to childline apparently



have you a source


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> And the race to the most worthy gesture begins!


 
PCWorld have spent their notw ad spend on training their staff


----------



## strung out (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> have you a source


 
mitsubishi's twitter page http://twitter.com/#!/MitsubishiPress/statuses/88582318075281408


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> mitsubishi's twitter page http://twitter.com/#!/MitsubishiPress/statuses/88582318075281408


 
How much was it?


----------



## Santino (Jul 6, 2011)

The way to stop Murdoch taking over complete control of Sky is to lobby Ofcom. Public letter and email campaigns should focus their attention there.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 6, 2011)

Santino said:


> The way to stop Murdoch taking over complete control of Sky is to lobby Ofcom. Public letter and email campaigns should focus their attention there.


 
Don't usually bother with email campaigns but this is getting a huge response at the mo:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_messages_2/?rc=fb&pv=44

87,000 so far


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 6, 2011)

The most interesting thing about this whole sorry story is how the journos got hold of the phone numbers of the 7/7 victims and Milly Dowler and the Soham parents.   

There's suggestions that the police sold the phone numbers.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2011)

No flies on you. It's not the more interesting thing at all, it's a side issue compared with intimidation of police and politicians.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 6, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> No flies on you.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 6, 2011)

Santino said:


> The way to stop Murdoch taking over complete control of Sky is to lobby Ofcom. Public letter and email campaigns should focus their attention there.


 
Ofcom statement on their website:




			
				ofcom said:
			
		

> Statement on Fit and Proper
> July 6, 2011
> 
> In the light of the current public debate about phone hacking and other allegations, Ofcom confirms that it has a duty to be satisfied on an ongoing basis that the holder of a broadcasting licence is ‘fit and proper’.
> ...


----------



## Santino (Jul 6, 2011)

dennisr said:


> Don't usually bother with email campaigns but this is getting a huge response at the mo:
> http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_messages_2/?rc=fb&pv=44
> 
> 87,000 so far


 
But they're addressing those messages to Hameron and Cunt, they should be targetting Ofcom. In my opinion.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 6, 2011)

stephj said:


> Ofcom statement on their website:


Absolutely missing the point, but I'd like it to be my duty to be satisfied.

"Lord Cam, why have you spent the stationery budget on scampi fries?"
"Just doing my duty"


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 6, 2011)

laptop said:


> At PMQ, Millibrain only managed the Coulson connection.
> 
> The _Daily Mail_ photo desk is doing better:


 
Not surprising given Millibands current press officer is a former News Intyernational bod. He also by the way, e-mailed Labour MP's telling them not to go in too hard against News International earlier in the year because it would be seen as singling them out when it's likely that it's a very common practise across 'Fleet Street'. The former bit ie don't attack NI too much is however the most important bit imho!!


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 6, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> Absolutely missing the point, but I'd like it to be my duty to be satisfied.
> 
> "Lord Cam, why have you spent the stationery budget on scampi fries?"
> "Just doing my duty"


 


Ofcom aren't any fucking better than the PCC imo.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

News Corp shares down 2.4% on opening in New York in response to new allegations of phone hacking at the News of the World (from @SkyNewsBreak on twitter)


----------



## magneze (Jul 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Being mentioned as being great is.


Indeed, but that hasn't happened. Certain companies may become unpopular if they _don't_ pull their adverts. That's not saying that the ones that do are great. Bit of a derail really.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> News Corp shares down 2.4% on opening in New York in response to new allegations of phone hacking at the News of the World (from @SkyNewsBreak on twitter)


 
2.4% is not enough!!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 6, 2011)

magneze said:


> Indeed, but that hasn't happened. Certain companies may become unpopular if they _don't_ pull their adverts. That's not saying that the ones that do are great. Bit of a derail really.


Brand awareness and being seen to do the 'right thing' = good publicity.


----------



## magneze (Jul 6, 2011)

Maybe, never been one to really believe that any mention is automatically good.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

magneze said:


> Indeed, but that hasn't happened. Certain companies may become unpopular if they _don't_ pull their adverts. That's not saying that the ones that do are great. Bit of a derail really.


 
they got their names in the papers for doing an honourable thing - it would be naive to think that the stick of public displeasure is greater than the carrot of free advertising in this case imo.

not that it really matters. i'm just pleased to see notw being kicked in the goolies.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 6, 2011)

magneze said:


> Maybe, never been one to really believe that any mention is automatically good.


Well, not absolutely _any_ mention, but people talking about your company means people know about your company, and in this context it's in a generally positive light. So, it may not give any of them a massive boost, but Every Little Helps.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

magneze said:


> Maybe, never been one to really believe that any mention is automatically good.


 
this isn't 'any mention' though is it?


----------



## Zabo (Jul 6, 2011)

Slight digression. Anybody else noticed the hack's buzz word of the moment? I keep hearing them say: 'provenance'. Now if the were writing for the Sun I'm sure they'd say 'origin'.


----------



## strung out (Jul 6, 2011)

NI to claim brooks was on holiday at the time apparently


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2011)

magneze said:


> Indeed, but that hasn't happened. Certain companies may become unpopular if they _don't_ pull their adverts. That's not saying that the ones that do are great. Bit of a derail really.


 
Would being mentioned as being involved in the murder of jason swift just be a mention?  Or are there different sports of mention?


----------



## Santino (Jul 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or are there different sports of mention?



There is test mention, and one-day mention. If you consider one-day mention to be a real sport at all.


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> And the race to the most worthy gesture begins!


Can I just add that I've instructed the urban75 buyers to permanently withdraw all advertising from the NoTW and to go down to their offices and piss on every desk.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> News Corp shares down 2.4% on opening in New York in response to new allegations of phone hacking at the News of the World (from @SkyNewsBreak on twitter)



if the share price continues to fall, would that make it cheaper for murdoch to buy the rest of the company? 

it's all part of his fiendish plan to take over the world I tell you!


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 6, 2011)

Had to smile at the Guardian posting up a 2009 letter from Brooks/Wade to the Commons Culture and Media committee.

"Rebekah Brooks's 2009 letter to John Whittingdale: 'The Guardian has misled the British public'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/interactive/2011/jul/06/rebekah-brooks-email


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The most interesting thing about this whole sorry story is how the journos got hold of the phone numbers of the 7/7 victims and Milly Dowler and the Soham parents.
> 
> There's suggestions that the police sold the phone numbers.


 
Wrong again.  It was a private detective called Steve Whittamore, at least in the case of Dowler.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Badgers said:


> 2.4% is not enough!!



aye...
but he just lost the Magners ad a/c too

poor hacks have 18 pages to fill now......
I wonder will Thatcher croak it??????


----------



## Ivana Nap (Jul 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> NI to claim brooks was on holiday at the time apparently


 
Funny how her holidays seem to have coincided with murder cases...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/06/andy-coulson-phone-hacking


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

someone on twitter (so it must be right  )  just told me that BSKYB would only consider a take over deal if the offer is over 800 a share, share price is 827 and falling - so if it falls below 800, that could scupper the takeover deal


----------



## dylans (Jul 6, 2011)

This is interesting


> News International is planning to relieve the pressure on its beleaguered chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, by claiming she was on holiday when a mobile phone belonging to Milly Dowler was hacked into in 2002 by the News of the World, the paper she edited at the time.
> 
> The Guardian understands that the company has established that Brooks, News of the World editor from May 2000 until January 2003, was on holiday in Italy when the paper ran a story which referred to a message that had been left on the teenager's phone. The article, which was about a message left by an employment agency on the murdered schoolgirl's mobile, was published on 14 April 2002.
> 
> ...



Combined with the Times article this morning trying to refocus the issue on Coulson authorising the bribing of police, it seems there is an attempt to drop Coulson in the shit as a way of deflecting blame on Brookes. Now much as I want to see Brookes head on a spike over this, from the point of view of those of us who want this shit to stick to Cameron, the more Coulson is in the frame the better.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/06/andy-coulson-phone-hacking


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

she sure takes her holidays at convenient times.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 6, 2011)

"Not on my watch guv".


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 6, 2011)

was she away for the Dowler and 7/7 spying as well? Do all NI employees have such generous terms and conditions?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> This is interesting
> 
> 
> Combined with the Times article this morning trying to refocus the issue on the bribing of police, it seems there is an attempt to drop Coulson in the shit as a way of deflecting blame on Brookes. Now much as I want to see Brookes head on a spike over this, from the point of view of those of us who want this shit to stick to Cameron, the more Coulson is in the frame the better.
> ...



It'd certainly be interesting to have Coulson dragged before the Old Bailey beak and have him sing like the proverbial canary about Cameron, Brooks et al.  Wonder if Cameron's "golden goodbye" to Coulson contains a "talk to no-one ever" about his past indiscretions chez Murdoch and Disco?


----------



## magneze (Jul 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Would being mentioned as being involved in the murder of jason swift just be a mention?  Or are there different sports of mention?


I think being involved in a murder is the lower end of the scale, at the higher end you get an advert saying "woo, X are great". So yes, if you like, there is a scale.


----------



## magneze (Jul 6, 2011)

killer b said:


> she sure takes her holidays at convenient times.


So we're to believe that the only phone hacking that happened on her watch was coincidentally when she was on holiday for two weeks. 

Who the fuck is believing this shit?1?!


----------



## Zabo (Jul 6, 2011)

Holidaying as a stand-in for The Muppets.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 6, 2011)

I've got fuck all time or sympathy with Rebekah Brooks, but can we fucking leave out the attacks on her looks. I thought/hoped this forum rose above this shit.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> Combined with the Times article this morning trying to refocus the issue on the bribing of police, it seems there is an attempt to drop Coulson in the shit as a way of deflecting blame on Brookes. Now much as I want to see Brookes head on a spike over this, from the point of view of those of us who want this shit to stick to Cameron, the more Coulson is in the frame the better.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/06/andy-coulson-phone-hacking


 
Indeed.  Sorry if its a repost, but there is a good breakdown of her letter at the New Stateman's website, which makes a similar point.  

As for blaming Coulson - and everyone else it seems - it is a crazy strategy for her to attempt to pull off.  For a start, the idea that she didnt know what was going on is bollocks, and obvious bollocks at that.  Secondly, the temptation for those about to be blamed (Coulson and everyone else at the NOTW) to get their retaliation in first will be overwhelming, you would think that most (if not all) of them have their little stashes of insurance secreted away by now, ready for the moment when a ginger harpy points her bony finger of doom in their direction.  Finally, she is not that important a person to Murdoch that he is going to sacrifice a large part of his business interests to keep her in a job.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

stephj said:


> I've got fuck all time or sympathy with Rebekah Brooks, but can we fucking leave out the attacks on her looks. I thought/hoped this forum rose above this shit.


 
I like red heads tbf


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

On the hacking business, as an aside, I recently heard (though have not been able to corroborate yet - am looking into it) that a fash activist worked for 192.com at one point, and was doing a bit of the old leaking of anti-fascist details to "interested parties".  Would it be beyond the realms of possibility for any other 192.com, 118 188 etc people to be corruptly handing over phone number etc details to journos for a bit of "pocket money" etc?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 6, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> was she away for the Dowler and 7/7 spying as well? Do all NI employees have such generous terms and conditions?


 
From _Vanity Fair_ (via _The Independent_):



> When Charlie Brooks wakes up in the mornings in his barn in Oxfordshire, he likes nothing better than to fly to Venice from Oxford airport with his soon-to-be wife Rebekah Wade, the dazzling redhead editor of The Sun, for lunch at Harry's Bar. Later in the day, after shopping and sightseeing, the couple fly back to London for dinner at Wiltons in Jermyn Street.



A busy work life indeed.


----------



## dylans (Jul 6, 2011)

The guardian have reported parts of Labour MP Tom Watson's speech. it's fucking devastating.



> I want to inform the House of further evidence that suggests Rebekah Brooks knew about the unlawful tactics of News of the World as early as 2002, despite all her denials yesterday. Rebekah Brooks was present at a meeting with Scotland Yard when police officers pursing a murder investigation provided her with evidence that her newspaper was interfering with the pursuit of justice. They gave her the name of another executive at News International, Alex Marunchak. The meeting, which included Dick Fedorcio of the Metropolitan police, told her that News of the World staff were guilty of interference and party to using unlawful means to attempt to discredit a police officer and his wife. She was told of actions by people she paid to expose and discredit David Cook and his wife Jackie Haines so that Mr Cook would be prevented from completing an investigation into a murder.* News International were paying people to interfer with police officers and were doing so on behalf of known criminals. We know now that News International had entered the criminal underworld*
> 
> She cannot deny being present at this meeting when the actions of people she was paying were exposed. She cannot deny now being warned that under her auspices unlawful tactics were being used with the purpose of interfering with the pursuit of justice. She cannot deny that one of her staff, Alex Marunchak, was named and involved. She cannot deny either that she was told by the police that her own paper was using unlawful tactics, in this case to help one of her law-breaking investigators. This in my views shows her culpability goes beyond taking the blame as head of the organisation. It is about direct knowledge of unlawful behaviour.
> 
> And was Mr Marunchak dismissed. No. He was promoted.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 6, 2011)

stephj said:


> I've got fuck all time or sympathy with Rebekah Brooks, but can we fucking leave out the attacks on her looks. I thought/hoped this forum rose above this shit.



Evidently you would never have liked Spitting Image.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 6, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Evidently you would never have liked Spitting Image.


 
I did actually. But it gets a bit fucking tiring on here especially as it's invariably aimed at women, and besides, it detracts from the discussion.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> On the hacking business, as an aside, I recently heard (though have not been able to corroborate yet - am looking into it) that a fash activist worked for 192.com at one point, and was doing a bit of the old leaking of anti-fascist details to "interested parties".  Would it be beyond the realms of possibility for any other 192.com, 118 188 etc people to be corruptly handing over phone number etc details to journos for a bit of "pocket money" etc?


 
That was a large part of what the first enquiry (Motorman) was about - they had people in the DVLA, in the Met (a civilian communications officer at Wandsworth), at BT and at various other public and private organizations holding records on us all, (edit) doling out those records on request to Whittamore, who would then pass them on to journalists (from across Fleet Street - the Mail and Mirror being the worst offenders) who had commissioned such corruption.  For any organization they didnt have corrupt employees at, they had people who could blag such information out of gullible employees.

Hugh Grant giving Paul McMullan a kicking on BBC News now, great TV.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 6, 2011)

stephj said:


> I've got fuck all time or sympathy with Rebekah Brooks, but can we fucking leave out the attacks on her looks. I thought/hoped this forum rose above this shit.



I agree


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

*UPDATED CONFIRMED WITHDRAWN ADVERTISERS:*

Ford 
Renault (“no advertising planned”)
Cadbury’s (“no advertising planned”)
Mumsnet
NatWest (‘Won’t be advertising in the next issue”)
Coca Cola
The Body Shop
Debenhams (“No plans to advertise with NOTW. Like everyone we are watching the developing situation very closely”)
Marks & Spencers (“No plans to advertise”)
Lloyds Banking Group
Vauxhall
Virgin Holidays
Halifax
Co-operative
Magners 
Aldi 
mistibushi (and donating ad spend to childline)


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> Hugh Grant giving Paul McMullan a kicking on BBC News now, great TV.



shock horror! hugh grant is spot on 

it's like the world turned upside down


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> That was a large part of what the first enquiry (Motorman) was about - they had people in the DVLA, in the Met (a civilian communications officer at Wandsworth), at BT and at various other public and private organizations holding records on us all, (edit) doling out those records on request to Whittamore, who would then pass them on to journalists (from across Fleet Street - the Mail and Mirror being the worst offenders) who had commissioned such corruption.  For any organization they didnt have corrupt employees at, they had people who could blag such information out of gullible employees.
> 
> Hugh Grant giving Paul McMullan a kicking on BBC News now, great TV.



Cheers for that - your edit makes things more clear too.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> *UPDATED CONFIRMED WITHDRAWN ADVERTISERS:*
> 
> Ford
> Renault (“no advertising planned”)
> ...


 
add butlin's to the list!


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> The guardian have reported parts of Labour MP Tom Watson's speech. it's fucking devastating.


 Kudos to Watson,he's been utterly heroic throughout the whole saga unlike his spineless leader,irrespective of whether Brooks gets away with it or not she's damaged goods,this will stick to her like glue.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2011)

Yep, it's called a bandwagon. It'll last a couple of weeks until the public gets diverted elsewhere, at which point the imperative to promote will again override the imperative to appear moral. Either way, it's corporate self-interest.

How about folks get back to the substantive issues?


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 6, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> shock horror! hugh grant is spot on
> 
> it's like the world turned upside down


 Grant's got nothing to lose,he's rich and dos'nt need the tabloids,fair play to the chinless wonder


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Yep, it's called a bandwagon. It'll last a couple of weeks until the public gets diverted elsewhere, at which point the imperative to promote will again override the imperative to appear moral. Either way, it's corporate self-interest.
> 
> How about folks get back to the substantive issues?


 
I must admit I thought that would happen after Coulson went, but thanks to the Guardian, various lawyers and celebs, and the public generally it seems that this will run and run.  I just hope it extends beyond News International.


----------



## Santino (Jul 6, 2011)

I think he was referring to an advertising boycott bandwagon.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> add butlin's to the list!


 
have you a source as that would be amazing considering their holiday deals with the scum etc....

last i heard was:


> Butlins
> In response to the posts on here about our advertising in the News of the World, we just wanted to let you know that in light of the current situation, we are reviewing things, we are watching the investigation for more information and have no advertisement booked for this Sunday. In view of the ongoing police investigation, we're unable to comment further on this. Thanks as ever for your support.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2011)

yep, I was referring to the boycott. Someone crept in.... apols.

As for this story, I'd rather have the security of a public inquiry but there's no chance of that with the Etonians. It may 'run and run' as far as The Guardian is concerned, but will it remain a headline issue for as long as this time next week.....


----------



## strung out (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> Hugh Grant giving Paul McMullan a kicking on BBC News now, great TV.


 
i don't know why mcmullan bothers going on all these shows. every time he appears, he either gets abused and/or owned, by the people who are asked to appear opposite him.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> i don't know why mcmullan bothers going on all these shows. every time he appears, he either gets abused and/or owned, by the people who are asked to appear opposite him.


 
He looked a bit threadbare and dishevelled - maybe he needs the money?


----------



## Santino (Jul 6, 2011)

It's somewhere indoors to sit for a few hours.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> i don't know why mcmullan bothers going on all these shows. every time he appears, he either gets abused and/or owned, by the people who are asked to appear opposite him.


 
i think he's doing it for the lolz. also, maybe they pay him.

this just in from giles coren. snigger.



> Wow. Abused to my face in the butcher's for working for a (great) paper that is owned by a man who also owns a bad one. Dark days.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2011)

LOL. The Daily Mash headline made real.

There should be a register at the local nick for people who work for Murdoch.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 6, 2011)

Lots and lots of white noise. And when the football season resumes how many will have cancelled their Sky subscription and how long will it be before the business giants starts to re-advertise? Had any of them a scintilla of morality they'd never have used any product from the Murdoch regime in the first place.

And of course the rest of the media are all acting out their altruism by bringing us their excellent reports.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Now their share price down to 3.94%.


----------



## dylans (Jul 6, 2011)

I must say I am fucking loving watching the NOTW getting hammered. I honestly can't think of a more deserving target. This is revenge for all the decades of poisonous hate and self righteous hypocrisy, for every semi pornographic "expose" dressed up as moral crusading. This is revenge for all the vile and just plain nasty attacks on the unemployed and single parents, for all the cheap xenophic bile and fake moral outrage. Revenge is sweet and I hope this runs and runs and drowns the whole stinking lot in their own shit


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Lots and lots of white noise. And when the football season resumes how many will have cancelled their Sky subscription and how long will it be before the business giants starts to re-advertise? Had any of them a scintilla of morality they'd never have used any product from the Murdoch regime in the first place.
> 
> And of course the rest of the media are all acting out their altruism by bringing us their excellent reports.



Well of course the meedja are going to stab Murdoch et al in the front for less than pure reasons.  Having said that, "they" seem to be uncovering a lot of Murdoch, Plod, Cameron et al dirt at the moment, so it's a win of some description.


----------



## strung out (Jul 6, 2011)

practically no-one will cancel their sky sub, and tbh no-one should, unless you're happy to organise a boycott of every single NI company going (including watching no 20th C Fox films, not buying any Harper Collins Books, never looking at Myspace and lots more). that whole line of reasoning is just a shit one that i suspect is as much to do with people's perceptions of the kind of people who watch sky/read NotW as opposed to any principled opposition to NI products.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> I must say I am fucking loving watching the NOTW getting hammered. I honestly can't think of a more deserving target. This is revenge for all the decades of poisonous hate and self righteous hypocrisy, for every semi pornographic "expose" dressed up as moral crusading. This is revenge for all the vile and just plain nasty attacks on the unemployed and single parents, for all the cheap xenophic bile and fake moral outrage. Revenge is sweet and I hope this runs and runs and drowns the whole stinking lot in their own shit


+1


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> I must say I am fucking loving watching the NOTW getting hammered. I honestly can't think of a more deserving target. This is revenge for all the decades of poisonous hate and self righteous hypocrisy, for every semi pornographic "expose" dressed up as moral crusading. This is revenge for all the vile and just plain nasty attacks on the unemployed and single parents, for all the cheap xenophic bile and fake moral outrage. Revenge is sweet and I hope this runs and runs and drowns the whole stinking lot in their own shit


 This


----------



## Zabo (Jul 6, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Well of course the meedja are going to stab Murdoch et al in the front for less than pure reasons.  Having said that, "they" seem to be uncovering a lot of Murdoch, Plod, Cameron et al dirt at the moment, so it's a win of some description.



Agreed but I'd like to see more long term damage and I don't think that is likely. It's not as if it will bring down the present bunch of Con-Dem arseholes or bankrupt N.I.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> I must say I am fucking loving watching the NOTW getting hammered. I honestly can't think of a more deserving target. This is revenge for all the decades of poisonous hate and self righteous hypocrisy, for every semi pornographic "expose" dressed up as moral crusading. This is revenge for all the vile and just plain nasty attacks on the unemployed and single parents, for all the cheap xenophic bile and fake moral outrage. Revenge is sweet and I hope this runs and runs and drowns the whole stinking lot in their own shit


 
Abso-fucking -lutely.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> I must say I am fucking loving watching the NOTW getting hammered. I honestly can't think of a more deserving target. This is revenge for all the decades of poisonous hate and self righteous hypocrisy, for every semi pornographic "expose" dressed up as moral crusading. This is revenge for all the vile and just plain nasty attacks on the unemployed and single parents, for all the cheap xenophic bile and fake moral outrage. Revenge is sweet and I hope this runs and runs and drowns the whole stinking lot in their own shit


 Could'nt happen to a nicer shower of cunts ,there's a German word for it I believe


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Agreed but I'd like to see more long term damage and I don't think that is likely. It's not as if it will bring down the present bunch of Con-Dem arseholes or bankrupt N.I.


 
Now that I agree with 100%.  I don't see the NOTW being closed down (and even if it was, Murdoch would still open up another title peddling the exact same crap), and Disco will do his famous dance moves to cover his backside (and attempt to drop Clegg in it once more), and keep good old Rupe sweet.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> there's a German word for it I believe


 
hosenscheisse?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 6, 2011)

The 'I was on holiday' excuse from Wades/Brooks is despreately lame - laughable in fact. 

How long before Murdoch presses the button, the trapdoor opens under her chair and shes lands in a pool of piranahs?

And the tactic of NI releasing more shit about coulson is pretty stupid - its not distracting from anything, its just adding to the growing stench of corruption, cess pit morality and criminality engulfing news international.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

killer b said:


> hosenscheisse?



Bullenscheisse oder Pferdescheisse


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

it's maginificent just how ineptly they're dealing with it, tbh.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 6, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Could'nt happen to a nicer shower of cunts ,there's a German word for it I believe



_Schadenfreude
_


----------



## dylans (Jul 6, 2011)

strung out said:


> practically no-one will cancel their sky sub, and tbh no-one should, unless you're happy to organise a boycott of every single NI company going (including watching no 20th C Fox films, not buying any Harper Collins Books, never looking at Myspace and lots more). that whole line of reasoning is just a shit one that i suspect is as much to do with people's perceptions of the kind of people who watch sky/read NotW as opposed to any principled opposition to NI products.


 
All true but tbh I don't really care. I am just enjoying seeing them suffer. Right now they are reviled and detested by everyone which is richly deserved. They are wounded and they are hurting and, no matter how long it runs and no matter what the final outcome, it's great to see so I will do my best to add the their pain in my little way and just enjoy watching the show in the hope that the scandal causes as much damage to them and those associated with them as possible before they recover.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> I must say I am fucking loving watching the NOTW getting hammered. I honestly can't think of a more deserving target. This is revenge for all the decades of poisonous hate and self righteous hypocrisy, for every semi pornographic "expose" dressed up as moral crusading. This is revenge for all the vile and just plain nasty attacks on the unemployed and single parents, for all the cheap xenophic bile and fake moral outrage. Revenge is sweet and I hope this runs and runs and drowns the whole stinking lot in their own shit


 
Whilst I agree with you, I do find it a bit bittersweet knowing that the NOTW is _not_ getting mauled because people are sick of their hatemongering, their loathsome politics or their atrocious journalistic standards but rather because one incident has kicked of the big moral-outrage-o-matic that is the british public when they're told to be outraged. The knee-jerk reaction that is biting them in the arse now is the same one they've expolited themselves for decades to manipulate the public mood and distort public perception. And I don't think anything good can come of it to be honest. 

Lets not forget that the Daily Mail will escape unscathed and quite possibly stronger than ever despite not being a rizla's breadth away from Murdoch and pals in terms of content and (lack of) integrity. Let's not forget either that the lies the NOTW has sold to the public will not disappear from the public consciousness. The poor will still be scroungers; every public park will still have its squadron of resident nonces; asylum seekers will still drive BMWs and smoke monte cristos at your expense.

But that's not to say I'm not enjoying watching all this unfold. In fact I'm seriously worried I might die laughing if Brooks ends up in prison.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 6, 2011)

SpookyFrank. Best post on the thread.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 6, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> Whilst I agree with you, I do find it a bit bittersweet knowing that the NOTW is _not_ getting mauled because people are sick of their hatemongering, their loathsome politics or their atrocious journalistic standards but rather because one incident has kicked of the big moral-outrage-o-matic that is the british public when they're told to be outraged. The knee-jerk reaction that is biting them in the arse now is the same one they've expolited themselves for decades to manipulate the public mood and distort public perception. And I don't think anything good can come of it to be honest.
> 
> Lets not forget that the Daily Mail will escape unscathed and quite possibly stronger than ever despite not being a rizla's breadth away from Murdoch and pals in terms of content and (lack of) integrity. Let's not forget either that the lies the NOTW has sold to the public will not disappear from the public consciousness. The poor will still be scroungers; every public park will still have its squadron of resident nonces; asylum seekers will still drive BMWs and smoke monte cristos at your expense.
> 
> But that's not to say I'm not enjoying watching all this unfold. In fact I'm seriously worried I might die laughing if Brooks ends up in prison.


 
True to an extent, but also there many people in quite influential postions who resent murdoch and the power of News Interantional, some of this is for personal reasons, some are media rivals and some are people who are genuninely morally and ideological opposed to the cancer on democracy that is Murdoch. The multiple scandals now engulfing NI and the public outrage have given these people a perfect opportunity to get their teeth into the dirty digger - and at the same time expsoing the culpable spinlessness of the much of the rest of the media and all the main political parties.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> True to an extent, but also there many people in quite influential postions who resent murdoch and the power of News Interantional, some of this is for personal reasons, some are media rivals and some are people who are genuninely morally and ideological opposed to the cancer on democracy that is Murdoch. The multiple scandals now engulfing NI and the public outrage have given these people a perfect opportunity to get their teeth into the dirty digger - and at the same time expsoing the culpable spinlessness of the much of the rest of the media and all the main political parties.


 
Personally I am just a bit bemused by all the excitement about it. 

I don't use any News International products, as far as I can tell, I am completely ambivalent about Murdock himself. 

Yes, hacking murder victims phones is not on, the police should take action, but it somehow does not surprise me. 

And, this all took place under new Labour. Why did they do nothing?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

Just listening to BBC News now - Murdoch's still backing Brooks to stay on as Chief Exec at N.I., though he's muttered something about being "concerned".


----------



## magneze (Jul 6, 2011)

Ok, so advertisers targetted. Who distributes NOTW? That could be an additional pressure point..


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Personally I am just a bit bemused by all the excitement about it.
> 
> I don't use any News International products, as far as I can tell, I am completely ambivalent about Murdock himself.
> 
> ...


 
Read the thread you bellend.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> Whilst I agree with you, I do find it a bit bittersweet knowing that the NOTW is _not_ getting mauled because people are sick of their hatemongering, their loathsome politics or their atrocious journalistic standards but rather because one incident has kicked of the big moral-outrage-o-matic that is the british public when they're told to be outraged. The knee-jerk reaction that is biting them in the arse now is the same one they've expolited themselves for decades to manipulate the public mood and distort public perception. And I don't think anything good can come of it to be honest.
> 
> Lets not forget that the Daily Mail will escape unscathed and quite possibly stronger than ever despite not being a rizla's breadth away from Murdoch and pals in terms of content and (lack of) integrity. Let's not forget either that the lies the NOTW has sold to the public will not disappear from the public consciousness. The poor will still be scroungers; every public park will still have its squadron of resident nonces; asylum seekers will still drive BMWs and smoke monte cristos at your expense.
> 
> But that's not to say I'm not enjoying watching all this unfold. In fact I'm seriously worried I might die laughing if Brooks ends up in prison.


 
Disgusting hate filled snobbish filth. As per normal. Others peoples anger isn't as good as mine.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> True to an extent, but also there many people in quite influential postions who resent murdoch and the power of News Interantional, some of this is for personal reasons, some are media rivals and some are people who are genuninely morally and ideological opposed to the cancer on democracy that is Murdoch. The multiple scandals now engulfing NI and the public outrage have given these people a perfect opportunity to get their teeth into the dirty digger - and at the same time expsoing the culpable spinlessness of the much of the rest of the media and all the main political parties.


 
Perhaps I am being a bit too cynical. Perhaps we actually are witnessing the beginning of the end for the idea of the media empire. But it can't just be left to outrage to sort it all out. The advertisers abandoning the NOTW are not doing so for moral reasons, they're just arse-covering like corporations always do. If the polictical establishment were any further up Murdoch's arse you'd see the top of David Cameron's head whenever he yawned. 

Soon there will be another story for everyone to get mad about and just like with MPs expenses a few sacrificial lambs will be cast aside and life will continue more or less as normal. Let's not forget we are relying on other media outlets to lead the witch hunt. You're not going to see the Guardian or the Torygraph printing editorials about how the whole of British journalism is an excercise in putting carts before horses, about how its true purpose is not to inform the public but to dictate to them, to narrow the political and cultural spectrum and generally make everyone easier to manipulate, coerce and control. If Murdoch falls, he will be replaced. And he won't be replaced by someone nice. 

e2a: I notice that while I'm sat here doommongering, other people are out doing their darndest to help cripple the NOTW and NI in general. Perhaps I should be doing that instead...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 6, 2011)

magneze said:


> Ok, so advertisers targetted. Who distributes NOTW? That could be an additional pressure point..


iirc News International Distribution Limited, so not really worth putting pressure on.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2011)

.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Disgusting hate filled snobbish filth. As per normal. Others peoples anger isn't as good as mine.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 6, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...
> If Murdoch falls, he will be replaced. And he won't be replaced by someone nice.
> ...


 
That is also my feeling. 

His organisation is the one in the media storm, because his was the one caught out, I seriously doubt his is the only media organisation that did these sorts of things.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yes but you say that about everything I post. And with as little explanation as to the reasons for your ire. So you'll forgive me if I ignore you.


 
Not sure why such transparent snobbish simpleton stuff needs much of an explanation. Over to you though. You always bottle out and pretend you were joking anyway.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

> To all our customers we would like to clarify the situation. This morning, Specsavers pulled its advertising from the News of the World following the allegation that the paper hacked in to the mobile phones of terrorist and murder victims.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2011)

e2a: No, I can't be bothered.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 6, 2011)

Can this thread not get filled with posters taking potshots at each other?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 6, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Can this thread not get filled with posters taking potshots at each other?


 
This is P&P, what do you expect?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Can this thread not get filled with posters taking potshots at each other?


 
I've removed my last two posts as they looked a bit too much like troll food.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

Have Cash 4 Gold pulled their advertising yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> So I'm too stupid to understand why you're upset? Now who's being snobbish eh? Go on, try me. Make an actual point.


 
Your post was that of a moral simpleton. Your anger is pure, that of others is ' force fed' - the bovine fakers. The anguished howl of the teenage band name on the pencil case.


----------



## Voley (Jul 6, 2011)

It's a really good thread for keeping up with a story that's developing rapidly. The usual P&P spats won't help that much. Typing this I am suddenly gripped by an immense feeling of futility but I think I'll hit 'post reply' anyhow.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Have Cash 4 Gold pulled their advertising yet?


 
I doubt it, after all if they had any kind of morality they wouldnt be in business in the first place.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 6, 2011)

NVP said:


> It's a really good thread for keeping up with a story that's developing rapidly. The usual P&P spats won't help that much.


This.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 6, 2011)

Behave yourself butchers .. it's an irrelevent aside !


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

I need to know if any pizza places advertise?


----------



## dylans (Jul 6, 2011)

> Rupert Murdoch has said that Rebekah Brooks will stay as chief executive of News International. In a statement, he said that *she will be in charge of the company's efforts to restore its reputation*



Well that makes sense. I can think of no one better able to restore the NOTW to its former place as the nations foremost shining light of journalistic integrity and honesty. I wish her well in her endeavor. I think we can all agree that The nation needs her at this time. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Dear Mr. AKA, 
Thank you for your email to our Managing Director, Thierry Sybord, on the subject of the alleged phone hacking by the News of the World.
In response to your request and to clarify our advertising position with the News of the World, we have made the following statement:
Renault acknowledges the concerns raised regarding the allegations of phone hacking by the News of the World. As a result of the seriousness of the continued allegations, we can confirm that Renault has no media advertising currently planned with the News of the World, nor will we commit to any future activity, until the outcome of the formal investigations is complete.

Once again we would like to thank you for having taken the time to share your view on this subject with us.


----------



## laptop (Jul 6, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Just listening to BBC News now - Murdoch's still backing Brooks to stay on as Chief Exec at N.I., though he's muttered something about being "concerned".


 
So she has his "full confidence"?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2011)

Butchers will be pissed by now so expect the usual evening menu of sneering and abuse.

Why do people buy into this self-serving 'we're pulling our advertising' nonsense - do you really think it'll last longer than a month? 

FFS get back to the substance.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 6, 2011)

Paul McMullen (former features editor at the NOTW) gets kinda pwned by Hugh Grant on the TV. Worth a look:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052690


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2011)

skyscraper101 said:


> Paul McMullen (former features editor at the NOTW) gets kinda pwned by Hugh Grant on the TV. Worth a look:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052690


That's some quality pwnage. And Hugh Grant's reinvention as a campaigner is another unexpected twist.


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

stephj said:


> I've got fuck all time or sympathy with Rebekah Brooks, but can we fucking leave out the attacks on her looks. I thought/hoped this forum rose above this shit.


Thanks for that. 



marty21 said:


> by announcing that they are withdrawing their ads from NOTW, these companies are getting a load of free advertising


So what. _Use their strengths against them_. 

There's one huge great big set of very powerful dominoes set up to topple here, but it is going to take one almighty shove to get the first one going. It's pointless agonising about the moral purpose of the advertisers who might provide that. 

Just like it is pointless taking the focus off Murdoch, the Met and Downing Street just because The Mail et al are also guilty as sin. They'll get theirs, but right now we need a wedge strategy.

The government was very wobbly before this. Let's not hold fire, or be too fussy about the ammunition, when there's a chance to get them on the ropes. We need maximum collateral damage here.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

laptop said:


> So she has his "full confidence"?



I think we can say a super, soaraway "Yes" to that one.


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> I think we can say a super, soaraway "Yes" to that one.


Massive error on Murdoch's part, I think. I think he made that statement having decided to throw Coulson to the wolves, but probably before he knew it would come out about Brooks's interview with the police about NOTW interfering in (yet) a(nother) murder investigation.

He's playing this very badly indeed so far, AFAICS.


----------



## dylans (Jul 6, 2011)

ymu said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> So what. _Use their strengths against them_.
> 
> ...


 
Spot on. It doesn't matter that the advertisers have self interest in their minds. It doesn't matter that the Mail and the rest of the press is also shit. It doesn't matter that the Guardian and the BBC have their own motives for attacking Murdoch. These are weapons and I will take whatever weapons are available. Right now Murdoch is wounded and bleeding and the task right now is to open the wound as wide as possible and that means focusing on his relationships with the powerful. We may be on the verge of Britains Watergate here so stay on target


----------



## co-op (Jul 6, 2011)

skyscraper101 said:


> Paul McMullen (former features editor at the NOTW) gets kinda pwned by Hugh Grant on the TV. Worth a look:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052690



Bloody hell, McMullen really is a what Central Casting would send along if you asked for a shifty little creep.


----------



## co-op (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> We may be on the verge of Britains Watergate here so stay on target



+1

The really interesting stuff is surely issues like the extent to which Coulsden (and/or cronies) was using phone hacks on Labour politicians during the election, or of senior civil servsnts and/or the lib-dem leadership during the coalition negotiations.

The Milly Dowler/Soham/July 7th stuff is instinctively revolting, but the political constitutional stuff is a potential bombshell.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2011)

Not to derail, but Hugh Grant has aged terribly...

e2a: still, a comprehensive kneecapping of McMullen. Fair play.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

mcmullen is hilarious. if i was the digger i'd be offering him oodles of cash to shut the fuck up - he's doing immesurable damage to the NOTW. tbh, i wonder if that's what he's trying to do?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> Spot on. It doesn't matter that the advertisers have self interest in their minds. It doesn't matter that the Mail and the rest of the press is also shit. It doesn't matter that the Guardian and the BBC have their own motives for attacking Murdoch. These are weapons and I will take whatever weapons are available. Right now Murdoch is wounded and bleeding and the task right now is to open the wound as wide as possible and that means focusing on his relationships with the powerful. We may be on the verge of Britains Watergate here so stay on target



I agree, it shows weakness as well as disgusting corruption. The papers have had a fuck you mentality to their crude and agenda driven reporting. I hope this changes thinking on press matters by all parties. Political, police, media and corporates need to realise the public are not all silent obedient fools.


----------



## dylans (Jul 6, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I agree, it shows weakness as well as disgusting corruption. The papers have had a fuck you mentality to their crude and agenda driven reporting. I hope this changes thinking on press matters by all parties. Political, police, media and corporates need to realise the public are not all silent obedient fools.


 
I don't think the public have ever been fools.  Indifferent yeah but the real silent obedient fools are the Politicians of all parties who have been running scared of him and his rags for years. I was just reading the following Simon Hoggart article in the guardian. 


> In 1992 Kelvin McKenzie, who edited the Sun for Rupert Murdoch, was phoned by the prime minister, John Major, who asked him how he intended to cover Britain's ignominious exit from the European exchange rate mechanism. He replied, "I've got this big bucket of shit … and I'm going to pour it all over your head."
> 
> Well, there was no doubt about who held the bucket on Wednesday. MPs lined up one after the other, each with their own pail, filled with the foulest, rankest, most pungent manure.
> 
> ...



What a damning indictment of this countries political representatives, that they admit they have been cowering in the shadow of this grubby man and his sewer press for decades and only now, dare speak out. What does that tell us about their integrity?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/06/simon-hoggart-murdoch-phone-hacking


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> I don't think the public have ever been fools.  Indifferent yeah but the real silent obedient fools are the Politicians of all parties who have been running scared of him and his rags for years. I was just reading the following Simon Hoggart article in the guardian.
> 
> 
> What a damning indictment of this countries political representatives, that they admit they have been cowering in the shadow of this grubby man and his sewer press for decades and only now, dare speak out. What does that tell us about their integrity?
> ...



As usual that is better worded than me. Fear of public opinion has tied political hands on the worst of the gutter press.  If NI have political anger, and other anger alongside massive loss of revenue then effect will knock on to the Associated publications. I wish I had more spare time to turn the knife I really do.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 6, 2011)

killer b said:


> mcmullen is hilarious. if i was the digger i'd be offering him oodles of cash to shut the fuck up - he's doing immesurable damage to the NOTW. tbh, i wonder if that's what he's trying to do?


 
Just been watching him on c4 news - neither makes NOTW or himself look good.


----------



## strung out (Jul 6, 2011)

stephj said:


> Just been watching him on c4 news - neither makes NOTW or himself look good.


 
i think he craves the notoriety tbh. epitomises these tabloid journalists - doesn't give a shit about morals and will do anything for a story/sales/attention


----------



## dylans (Jul 6, 2011)

stephj said:


> Just been watching him on c4 news - neither makes NOTW or himself look good.


 
It's because he is strangely honest and unrepentant about being thoroughly dishonest and horrible.  Who could sit there with a straight face and claim that hacking a murdered girls phone was "no big deal" and, worse, mean it? At least he doesn't wring his hands and pretend fake outrage like the rest of his colleagues.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

he's a pub landlord now, so it's not the stories or sales. must be just the attention... i can't imaging much of it will be positive though: the amount of people yelling 'cunt' at him as they pass him in the street must've shot up the past few days...


----------



## Santino (Jul 6, 2011)

Actors will be queueing up to play him in the film.


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> It's because he is strangely honest and unrepentant about being thoroughly dishonest and horrible.


Aye. It's brilliant. 

He personifies the attitude, and keeps insisting anyone would do it. It's not unlike the complete disconnect at the other end of the power ladder. Murdoch et al don't seem to have got to grips with the idea that their power is assailable, it's still unthinkable.

This is the kind of truth-revealing that leads ex-Zionists to respond with fury when they realise just how badly they've been lied to. Please, please, please let Middle England take this bit between its teeth.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)

co-op said:


> Bloody hell, McMullen really is a what Central Casting would send along if you asked for a shifty little creep.


 
Grant: "You should try real journalism, you're not an idiot Paul, you could probably do it"

hilarious.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 6, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Grant: "You should try real journalism, you're not an idiot Paul, you could probably do it"
> 
> hilarious.


 
Is that the News of the World and the Sun then? A home for journalists with low self-esteem. Care in the community/ corporation for cunts.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

And Easy Jet flies away:



> Thank you for your email to Carolyn McCall, Chief Executive Officer.
> 
> We would like to assure you that we fully understand the concerns that you have raised, these are also shared by many of our own staff and passengers. Whilst we have advertised in the News of the World in the past we have no current plans to do so and are actively monitoring the situation and await the outcome of the police investigations.
> 
> ...



Hit em where it hurts.. no matter how short term! keep the pressure on!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)

Poor old NoTW journos will have to go out and find some real stories to fill the blank space left by dropped ads


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 6, 2011)

Im sure they could fill a few wriggling pages this week about their very selves.

Loads of people will want to see them sink including natural allies. How much crap have they brought  upon the royals over the years?


----------



## paolo (Jul 6, 2011)

Much more detail now about Brooks/NotW involvement in the murder investigation, and a little light on why the Met didn't pursue it (a very questionable decision of course now the bigger picture is emerging)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-rebekah-brooks


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Full text of email from News of the World Editor Colin Myler to staff:



> Dear Colleague
> 
> I know you will be as appalled as I am by claims that a private investigator working for the News of the World intercepted the voicemails of Milly Dowler, victims of the 7/7 atrocity and others.
> 
> ...



A wapping vulture talking about ethics.....
sick bucket....


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 6, 2011)

The thing is though, it's almost ten years ago that they were hacking into people's phones. Fuck knows what they are involved in these days. Probably far more disturbing.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

while he takes care to call it 'allegations' early on in the email, he seems to accept they're true later on. nice slip.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

ymu said:


> Massive error on Murdoch's part, I think. I think he made that statement having decided to throw Coulson to the wolves, but probably before he knew it would come out about Brooks's interview with the police about NOTW interfering in (yet) a(nother) murder investigation.
> 
> He's playing this very badly indeed so far, AFAICS.


 
Agreed.  I reckon Murdoch's natural bullish arrogance might play well with his allies, Prime Ministers, MPs, big business etc, but it sure ain't doing him any favours with us who live outside the Murdoch bubble.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 6, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> The thing is though, it's almost ten years ago that they were hacking into people's phones. Fuck knows what they are involved in these days. Probably far more disturbing.



Hopefully hacking into phones of the American establishment, theyll get extradition demands as agreed under nulabour and theyll all claim they had aspergers syndrome.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 6, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Hopefully hacking into phones of the American establishment, theyll get extradition demands as agreed under nulabour and theyll all claim they had aspergers syndrome.


 
I'm hoping now


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

Tesco:



> Firstly, please allow me to apologise for the delay in getting back to you. Please let me assure you that we try to endeavour to get back to all enquiries as quickly as possible, and I’m very sorry that we’ve let you down in that respect.
> 
> I'm very sorry to learn of your concerns with us advertising with The News of the World.
> 
> ...


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

One of Tescos chief execs sits on the board of News International... go figure hey?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 6, 2011)

killer b said:


> it's maginificent just how ineptly they're dealing with it, tbh.


 
Yes.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

From the head honcho at O2....


> Thank you for your note. Following careful consideration and input from customers and employees, we have taken the following position:
> 
> ..."We share the concerns of customers and employees about these quite shocking claims. Whilst the situation unfolds, we will not be purchasing advertising in News of the World. We'll continue to monitor the situation closely."
> 
> ...


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jul 6, 2011)

Well in AKA. 

Good Peter Oborne article here. http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7075673/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml


----------



## pk (Jul 6, 2011)

At this point, I think it's time to have a friendly word with the newsagent.

Ask him to hide the NOTW as a protest.

If everyone convinced their local newsagent and/or larger stores we could kill this vile rag within a month.

This is war, Rebekah Wade/Brooks is a cunt, lets kick them to death whilst their down on their knees - which is what they did to the 7/7 victims. Woe betide the next twat I see reading that paper.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> One of Tescos chief execs sits on the board of News International... go figure hey?


 
I did answer for all the good it will do...



> It is not a matter for the police who are potentially implicit in this farce. Suspend advertising until such time as a proper enquiry is complete. Until such time I will boycott your stores and strongly advise my family, friends and business associates to do the same.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> From the head honcho at O2....


 
Good news. 
I am awaiting a reply. 
T-Mobile have not come back to me either.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 6, 2011)

If the Mail publish Brooks's photo with the headline  *IS THIS THE MOST HATED WOMAN IN BRITAIN?* for the first time in history, the answer to a question in the Daily Mail will be yes.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

pk said:


> At this point, I think it's time to have a friendly word with the newsagent.
> 
> Ask him to hide the NOTW as a protest.
> 
> ...


 
This crossed my mind too. 
I honestly have not seen a single copy of the Sun since this started. 
One person (only one mind) needs to get a NOTW to report back advertisers.


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

I see no need to buy it. Just read it in the newsagents then buy your usual. It'll only be going back as a return, ask nicely and most newsagents would be delighted to pocket the cover price and not have to pass any of it on to Murdoch.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 6, 2011)

Agree with Dylans and YMU - so fucking what if its mumsnet and middle england tweeting up a froth of self righteous ire? So what that advertisers are pulling out purely for comercial reasons? So what if the BBC and Channel 4 news have their own agenda for going after murdoch? And its great that politicians are sizing the opportunity to kick murdoch as hard in the bollocks as they possibly can. 

Its a truly liberating to see Murdoch empire getting royallly fucked in the arse by exactly the same shit storm that they have used again and again and again against  against anyone they have seeked to demonise in order to further their shitty right wing agenda  - the poorest and most vuneralbe people in the country, against the families of dead football fans and murder victims, against the miners, against refugees, gay people, immigrants, the homeless, protestors, against victims of police stitch ups, violence and murder - fucking eat it you fucking cunts. 

And to see murdoch and co being so utterly cack handed in their efforts to defuse the row is just beautiful.  

Agree with Dylans that this could be the UKs watergate -we dont know how much more shit is going to come out. Real possibility that the met and possibly cameron could be next in line. 

In the past two years public confidence in key pillars of power in the land has been shattered - the banks, the MPs and now the media - with the cops taking a major hit into the bargain.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Good news.
> I am awaiting a reply.
> T-Mobile have not come back to me either.



Im thinking the domino effect will kick in soon.... 
We have gathered as many as 'statements' as we can.... shame em... name.. feck em... by any means necessary, tis only the start innit?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Agree with Dylans and YMU - so fucking what if its mumsnet and middle england tweeting up a froth of self righteous ire? So what that advertisers are pulling out purely for comercial reasons? So what if the BBC and Channel 4 news have their own agenda for going after murdoch? And its great that politicians are sizing the opportunity to kick murdoch as hard in the bollocks as they possibly can.
> 
> Its a truly liberating to see Murdoch empire getting royallly fucked in the arse by exactly the same shit storm that they have used again and again and again against  against anyone they have seeked to demonise in order to further their shitty right wing agenda  - the poorest and most vuneralbe people in the country, against the families of dead football fans and murder victims, against the miners, against refugees, gay people, immigrants, the homeless, protestors, against victims of police stitch ups, violence and murder - fucking eat it you fucking cunts.
> 
> ...


 
Well said.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

ymu said:


> I see no need to buy it. Just read it in the newsagents then buy your usual. It'll only be going back as a return, ask nicely and most newsagents would be delighted to pocket the cover price and not have to pass any of it on to Murdoch.


 
The newsagent might even give you a beer on the return if you did not crease it.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jul 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Agree with Dylans and YMU - so fucking what if its mumsnet and middle england tweeting up a froth of self righteous ire? So what that advertisers are pulling out purely for comercial reasons? So what if the BBC and Channel 4 news have their own agenda for going after murdoch? And its great that politicians are sizing the opportunity to kick murdoch as hard in the bollocks as they possibly can.
> 
> Its a truly liberating to see Murdoch empire getting royallly fucked in the arse by exactly the same shit storm that they have used again and again and again against  against anyone they have seeked to demonise in order to further their shitty right wing agenda  - the poorest and most vuneralbe people in the country, against the families of dead football fans and murder victims, against the miners, against refugees, gay people, immigrants, the homeless, protestors, against victims of police stitch ups, violence and murder - fucking eat it you fucking cunts.
> 
> ...


 
Yup


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Im thinking the domino effect will kick in soon....
> We have gathered as many as 'statements' as we can.... shame em... name.. feck em... by any means necessary, tis only the start innit?



Oh yes, only takes a little bit of time  

Shame to put so much money in PR companies pockets but not to worry eh?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

I managed to catch a glimpse of the Scum on the way home today (mucho unsold copies nr work), and whilst it's been kicking off on pretty much all the front pages today (save the Star - another Cheryl Cole story or something irrelevant), what did the Soaraway have?  "Victoria Beckham's baby bump".  Woo hoo.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 6, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> I managed to catch a glimpse of the Scum on the way home today (mucho unsold copies nr work), and whilst it's been kicking off on pretty much all the front pages today (save the Star - another Cheryl Cole story or something irrelevant), what did the Soaraway have?  "Victoria Beckham's baby bump".  Woo hoo.


 
It is Rupert Murdoch's baby, though.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

This celeb obsession thing is selling papers despite not deserving column inches. However there are plenty of stupid magazines that don't pretend to be anything other than stupid shit for stupid people.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 6, 2011)

After all this stuff, can we have a British summer?  There is wide scale corruption going on with th pigs, governments and journalists. Isnt about time we fucked them off?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

A British summer eh? 
That will be smashing


----------



## pk (Jul 6, 2011)

Badgers said:


> This celeb obsession thing is selling papers despite not deserving column inches. However there are plenty of stupid magazines that don't pretend to be anything other than stupid shit for stupid people.


 
There are now other sources of sleb gossip crap.

It needs to be a situation where even holding a copy of these rags will result in a row. On a train or bus, don't let it slip by, make it socially and morally wrong to buy this shit and trend it and Facepage it.

The herd mentality will eventually get the message. Don't even give the leeches a foothold.

If the Arabs can have their Spring we can take these evil fuckers down and have our Summer.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 6, 2011)

Just seen someone from the telegraph really laying into cameron on bbc news 24 - 'his reputation is irritreavably damaged (by this scandal) and he needs to somehow pull himself out of the sewer' - interesting - are the rightwing  knives out for disco dave?


----------



## MikeMcc (Jul 6, 2011)

Spot on, cracking post.  I'd given up on those cunts a while back.  It's good to see them getting a kicking nationally.

When I get back I'm ghoing to have a chat with my local newsagent, see how he would be affected by a campaign against these evil little cunts.

It's amazing how a couple of weeks as changed perceptions away from evil MPs trashing the expenses laws to now being journalists breaking privacy laws, as if there was some sort of either / or situation.  We can watch both of the unscrupulous bunches of bastards.


----------



## pk (Jul 6, 2011)

Besides, the boss himself always was a poor man's Robert Maxwell.

Let's hope this episode is Murdoch's Lady Ghislane..


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Agree with Dylans and YMU - so fucking what if its mumsnet and middle england tweeting up a froth of self righteous ire? So what that advertisers are pulling out purely for comercial reasons? So what if the BBC and Channel 4 news have their own agenda for going after murdoch? And its great that politicians are sizing the opportunity to kick murdoch as hard in the bollocks as they possibly can.
> 
> Its a truly liberating to see Murdoch empire getting royallly fucked in the arse by exactly the same shit storm that they have used again and again and again against  against anyone they have seeked to demonise in order to further their shitty right wing agenda  - the poorest and most vuneralbe people in the country, against the families of dead football fans and murder victims, against the miners, against refugees, gay people, immigrants, the homeless, protestors, against victims of police stitch ups, violence and murder - fucking eat it you fucking cunts.
> 
> ...



Excellent post. 

Yup it's just so fucking great to see the fuckers squirm!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

pk said:


> There are now other sources of sleb gossip crap.
> 
> It needs to be a situation where even holding a copy of these rags will result in a row. On a train or bus, don't let it slip by, make it socially and morally wrong to buy this shit and trend it and Facepage it.
> 
> ...


 
Have you seen a Sun in public this week? 
I have been on a dozen trains and buses and not seen one.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

diddums.....


----------



## pk (Jul 6, 2011)

Leaflets, nice little flowery leaflets appealing for local shops to refuse NOTW papers - start small.

Don't make them black and red, and don't put any fucking political slogans on them.

Leave the bright coloured leaflets where the community can make use of them. Every little helps, and those Tesco cunts might want to wipe their smug grins off too, they're not far down the list of matters to be addressed.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 6, 2011)

skyscraper101 said:


> Paul McMullen (former features editor at the NOTW) gets kinda pwned by Hugh Grant on the TV. Worth a look:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052690



That's great 

McMullen manages to make shifty rodent types look respectable.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 6, 2011)

apparently BBc news might present evidence families of dead soldiers were tapped, should cause further stinkage.

Edit: they went with it in the introduction as i typed that.


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

sunny jim said:


> After all this stuff, can we have a British summer?  There is wide scale corruption going on with th pigs, governments and journalists. Isnt about time we fucked them off?


 
That_ does_ sound like a good idea. I do hope lots of people have it.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 6, 2011)

Dead soldiers' families 'hacked by newspaper'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052909



> Phones owned by relatives of dead UK soldiers were allegedly hacked by the News of the World, a national newspaper reports.
> 
> The Daily Telegraph claims the phone numbers of relatives of dead were found in the files of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.
> 
> ...


----------



## pk (Jul 6, 2011)

Leaflets, nice little flowery leaflets appealing for local shops to refuse NOTW papers - start small.

Don't make them black and red, and don't put any fucking political slogans on them.

Leave the bright coloured leaflets where the community can make use of them. Every little helps, and those Tesco cunts might want to wipe their smug grins off too, they're not far down the list of matters to be addressed.


----------



## MikeMcc (Jul 6, 2011)

The biggest thing is that the police (the Met in particular) have been scene to be an utterly complacent bunch of bastards in dealing with this.  They've danced around the Murdoch print shops, but I doubt any of the others have been any better.  If anything this is worse than the problems raised by the Stephen Lawrence case (inbuild old school racism) or the d'Menenzies (?sp) killing ( a grand cluster-fuck of mistakes).  This is a case of the police either being too scared of the Murdoch Empire or, even worse, paid off.

There should be legislation to definifively put an end to this (a privacy bill).
 - A police investigation of the practices of all newspapers (not the content, but the methods of investigation).
 - A public judical review of the police investigations to date to look at the short-comings.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 6, 2011)

Families of dead servicemen now according to the Telegraph. That is not going to go down at all well.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 6, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> The biggest thing is that the police (the Met in particular) have been scene to be an utterly complacent bunch of bastards in dealing with this.  They've danced around the Murdoch print shops, but I doubt any of the others have been any better.  If anything this is worse than the problems raised by the Stephen Lawrence case (inbuild old school racism) or the d'Menenzies (?sp) killing ( a grand cluster-fuck of mistakes).  This is a case of the police either being too scared of the Murdoch Empire or, even worse, paid off.
> 
> There should be legislation to definifively put an end to this (a privacy bill).
> - A police investigation of the practices of all newspapers (not the content, but the methods of investigation).
> - A public judical review of the police investigations to date to look at the short-comings.


 It's not complacency, it's corruption.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 6, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Have you seen a Sun in public this week?
> I have been on a dozen trains and buses and not seen one.



I threw one in the bin when I got into work (left behind by the person I was taking over from). I might try having a chat with him but I don't have high hopes.


----------



## pk (Jul 6, 2011)

stephj said:


> Dead soldiers' families 'hacked by newspaper'
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052909


 
What's this "a senior source" bullshit?

Who was the spokesman???

They're finished. Smash anything that moves. Put em out of their misery.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

Fingers said:


> Families of dead servicemen now according to the Telegraph. That is not going to go down at all well.


 
the public didn't really care when it was celebs and royals - but now it's dead children and dead soldiers - it has become a real shit storm - can't see how they can allow the BskyB deal to go through atm - the government has become quite skilled at u-turns - this will be another one.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> The biggest thing is that the police (the Met in particular) have been scene to be an utterly *complacent* bunch of bastards in dealing with this.



It's actually spelled _complicit._ Com-pli-cit.


----------



## MikeMcc (Jul 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Just seen someone from the telegraph really laying into cameron on bbc news 24 - 'his reputation is irritreavably damaged (by this scandal) and he needs to somehow pull himself out of the sewer' - interesting - are the rightwing  knives out for disco dave?


Maybe at the telegraph praying that they won't be put under the same examination  that Murdochs rags are.


----------



## moochedit (Jul 6, 2011)

pk said:


> What's this "a senior source" bullshit?


 
someone who would only talk to the bbc if it was "off the record" ?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> Maybe at the telegraph praying that they won't be put under the same examination  that Murdochs rags are.


 
MPs would love to have a go at the Telegraph - it fucked them over expenses, but they'll make do with  the NOTW atm


----------



## MikeMcc (Jul 6, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's actually spelled _complicit._ Com-pli-cit.


I think I would have had more of a complaint about 'scene' rather than 'seen', but I get your point.


----------



## pk (Jul 6, 2011)

This shit should have happened whey they smeared Hillsborough and Liverpool.

And yet they climbed out of that one. Not this time. The repercussions of this will affect a lot of sport.

There's no reason Murdoch wouldn't fuck up league finances out of sheer spite.

It's clear he doesn't give a shit, for anyone's dignity.


----------



## MikeMcc (Jul 6, 2011)

marty21 said:


> the public didn't really care when it was celebs and royals - but now it's dead children and dead soldiers - it has become a real shit storm - can't see how they can allow the BskyB deal to go through atm - the government has become quite skilled at u-turns - this will be another one.


 
Bet Vince Cable is grinning ear-to-ear.


----------



## pk (Jul 6, 2011)

moochedit said:


> someone who would only talk to the bbc if it was "off the record" ?


 
Precisely.

Murdoch bears more than a passing resemblance to Mubarak these days too...


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> Bet Vince Cable is grinning ear-to-ear.


 

he must be absofuckinglutely loving this - doesn't have to do anything , they are fucking  themselves and the deal.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

marty21 said:


> he must be absofuckinglutely loving this - doesn't have to do anything , they are fucking  themselves and the deal.


 
It is great isn't? I am really happy (while sorry for those affected) and fancy doing some more wacky fun stuff to further the cause.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

MikeMcc said:


> The biggest thing is that the police (the Met in particular) have been scene to be an utterly complacent bunch of bastards in dealing with this.  They've danced around the Murdoch print shops, but I doubt any of the others have been any better.  If anything this is worse than the problems raised by the Stephen Lawrence case (inbuild old school racism) or the d'Menenzies (?sp) killing ( a grand cluster-fuck of mistakes).  This is a case of the police either being too scared of the Murdoch Empire or, even worse, paid off.
> 
> There should be legislation to definifively put an end to this (a privacy bill).
> - A police investigation of the practices of all newspapers (not the content, but the methods of investigation).
> - A public judical review of the police investigations to date to look at the short-comings.


 
I have said this on the other thread, but this is not that simple as a corrupt or complacent Met.  The short version of the argument is this:

What the tabloid media - this is after all not limited to the NOTW, or even News International - have been up to is much bigger, and much worse in moral and legal terms, than what we have seen so far, and it has gone on for at least ten to fifteen years.  Large numbers of journalists are probably involved, as probably is an informal network of corrupt politicians, civil servants, cops, private detectives and employees of various other organizations who facilitated what went on.  The last completed investigation into what went on (by the Information Commissioner and the Met in 2003) into this particular area came up against a lot of legal pressure from the media itself (so much so that none of them were actually charged), suffered from a chronic lack of support from the government (which was of course a Labour government at the time) and politicians generally, and took place against a backdrop of almost total silence in the media itself (it was only Nick Davies in the Guardian who covered it in any depth).  This investigation resulted in conditional discharges for those involved, even though it found that a corrupt police employee had been selling information from police databases to journalists, via a private detective.  

Given the above, is it that surprising that - faced with everything else it has to do - the Met apparently decided to conduct a limited investigation based on a sample of the information it had from Mulcaire?  The alternative (ie: a full investigation into everything) would almost certainly involve hundreds of detectives, working for an extended (months/years) amount of time, with an uncertain outcome at the end of it and would have to come up against the tabloid media as a whole.  A public inquiry would come up against the same problem, btw.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 6, 2011)

Why is the focus solely on NotW (and not The Sun)?

I assumed everyone's all in the same office and NotW - The Sun on Sunday? Or with Chinese walls at best? Surely it's not possible that such tactics were rife at NotW and staff didn't talk to each other and The Sun were up to it too?

Whilst NotW do perhaps specialise in less timely investigative pieces, the Sun would have staff doing similar?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

Badgers said:


> It is great isn't? I am really happy (while sorry for those affected) and fancy doing some more wacky fun stuff to further the cause.



it is, seeing them squirm, I've seen some anonymous News International corporate type squirming several times on telly - they aren't letting the big guns on to defend the indefensible - I think Coulson is being hung out to dry - Cameron already ditched him (he must have known) and Brooks is family almost to Rupert


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> Given the above, is it that surprising that - faced with everything else it has to do - the Met apparently decided to conduct a limited investigation based on a sample of the information it had from Mulcaire?  The alternative (ie: a full investigation into everything) would almost certainly involve hundreds of detectives, working for an extended (months/years) amount of time, with an uncertain outcome at the end of it and would have to come up against the tabloid media as a whole.  A public inquiry would come up against the same problem, btw.


 
No, a limited investigation makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is the police failing to act on this information all those years ago.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jul 6, 2011)

Badgers said:


> and fancy doing some more wacky fun stuff to further the cause.


 
As am I. I've been unemployed as late, and other than writing letters what else can I do? Might try and get a local leafleting campaign going whilst in the pub with mates tomorrow.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 6, 2011)

Time for bed and sweet dreams. I wonder if everyone in the UK will be enjoying calm, stress free sleep this evening? Lots to discuss tomorrow and things to do


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> No, a limited investigation makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is the police failing to act on this information all those years ago.


 
They did, with the effects described in the first paragraph.


----------



## Santino (Jul 6, 2011)

Nick Clegg's keeping his fucking mouth shut, isn't he?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 6, 2011)

Camerons refusal to call for Brooks to go and refusing to stop the BSkyB takeover look increasingly stupid. He is in danger of being widely seen as Murdochs lap dog as his very cosy relationship with News international is increasingly becoming part of the story. 

Its an intersting lesson in the nature of power that organisations like NI have - its abstract power, its in their power to influence the public for profit and how that enables them to influence political institutions through a combination of  punsihment and reward. They have no guns or troops of their own and they do not control huge resources (like the oil corporations). 

As a result they are now suddenly vunerable and what what seemed like an unassailble behemoth is starting to disintergrate in front of our eyes - a plaster demon all along. The share price is falling, advertisers are pulling out, teh BSkyB deal is looking shaky. Murdoch himself has part of the story - and he's suddenly toxic. Nick Robinson on the BBC mentioned that Cameron and Milliband were both at a garden party with him two weeks ago - and he  wondered who would turn up at such an event today. That represents a huge blow to Murdochs influence - and therfore his power.   

And all because the mask slipped, the true face of the Murdoch was revealed to the public and the spell was broken. And many of those who had been too scraed to take on the monster lost their fear. 

Its almost like the end  of Ceausescu.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> What a damning indictment of this countries political representatives, that they admit they have been cowering in the shadow of this grubby man and his sewer press for decades and only now, dare speak out. What does that tell us about their integrity?


 
It tells us what we already knew... they have none.


----------



## N_igma (Jul 6, 2011)

I can sense a momentous change coming! Media will be changed forever after this make no doubt about it!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Camerons refusal to call for Brooks to go and refusing to stop the BSkyB takeover look increasingly stupid. He is in danger of being widely seen as Murdochs lap dog as his very cosy relationship with News international is increasingly becoming part of the story.
> 
> Its an intersting lesson in the nature of power that organisations like NI have - its abstract power, its in their power to influence the public for profit and how that enables them to influence political institutions through a combination of  punsihment and reward. They have no guns or troops of their own and they do not control huge resources (like the oil corporations).
> 
> ...


 
Yep. Good post. Murdoch has only ever had power because people thought he had power.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2011)

N_igma said:


> I can sense a momentous change coming! Media will be changed forever after this make no doubt about it!


 
There's no need to be totally negative, though. Individuals do matter - if (and of course, it's a huge if) Murdoch were brought down by this, it would be a victory. Things change. Bad things, such as Murdoch's empire, do come to an end.


----------



## Santino (Jul 6, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> It tells us what we already knew... they have none.


 
It'd be nice if a few MPs came out and said 'Yes, we were afraid of him. Sorry about that.'


----------



## mauvais (Jul 6, 2011)

I would have thought that the soldiers' families one is going to have the biggest effect on public opinion yet. After all they use so much of that 'our boys' rhetoric to sell papers. See also the Mirror and the 'fake photos' debacle.

On a lighter note I can't help wondering what this scandal would have been like if they'd worked the other six days.


----------



## pk (Jul 6, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Why is the focus solely on NotW (and not The Sun)?
> 
> I assumed everyone's all in the same office and NotW - The Sun on Sunday? Or with Chinese walls at best? Surely it's not possible that such tactics were rife at NotW and staff didn't talk to each other and The Sun were up to it too?
> 
> Whilst NotW do perhaps specialise in less timely investigative pieces, the Sun would have staff doing similar?


 
I think one battle at a time. The Sun will fall if it's younger brother is cut down. Think of it like a thicket.


----------



## pk (Jul 6, 2011)

After that it's Sky. Internet killed the printed page for most tabloid buyers now anyway.

There a better sources of idle gossip than News International.

I just hope he lives to see it all crumble before his eyes.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

sweet... this weeks NOTW has just been proper pwned by the people!!!



> Procter & Gamble, Britain's biggest advertiser, plus O2, Vauxhall, Butlins and Virgin Holidays joined Ford in pulling ads from this weekend's News of the World. P&G, which spent almost £1.5m in the News of the World in the last year, said it shared the "growing concern" over the phone-hacking allegations.



Guardian

And we is only starting


----------



## Balbi (Jul 6, 2011)

Santino said:


> It'd be nice if a few MPs came out and said 'Yes, we were afraid of him. Sorry about that.'


 



			
				GBlog on Commons Debate said:
			
		

> Bryant says parliament came into existence to hold the Crown to account. Now it must hold other powers to account. Politicians have colluded "for far too long" with the media. "Sometimes that means we are not courageous or spineful enough to stand up when wrong has occurred ... We have let one man have far to much sway over our national life. At least Berlusconi lives in Italy.




and  




			
				Zac Goldsmith said:
			
		

> "We have seen, I would say, systemic abuse of almost unprecedented power. There is nothing noble in what these newspapers have been doing. Rupert Murdoch is clearly a very, very talented businessman, he's possibly even a genius, but his organisation has grown too powerful and has abused that power. It has systematically corrupted the police and in my view has gelded this Parliament to our shame."


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 6, 2011)

stephj said:


> I did actually. But it gets a bit fucking tiring on here especially as it's invariably aimed at women, and besides, it detracts from the discussion.


 
Seconded. Though primarily because when somebody is guilty of the sort of tawdry morally bankrupt corrupt behaviour that Brooks is, then it's rather a waste of time attacking her for things that aren't totally disgusting. We should "stay on message" as the pond slime who have spent the last few decades in parliament scoffing from the Murdoch trough, would put it. Always hit where it actually hurts.


----------



## pk (Jul 6, 2011)

The Sun printed 3 inches on the apology column inside page 2 about Milly's phone tap today.

That's ALL they had to say. 3 inches of matter of fact reporting.

Oh and how long before Maddie's parents step forward... if anyone would have been tapped they would, probably still are.

The police are up to their fucking necks in this too. Disgusting.


----------



## dylans (Jul 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's no need to be totally negative, though. Individuals do matter - if (and of course, it's a huge if) Murdoch were brought down by this, it would be a victory. Things change. Bad things, such as Murdoch's empire, do come to an end.


 
I hope for more than Murdoch's head. This scandal has revealed endemic corruption within the police I want to see this scandal engulf the police as a whole. I want to see senior police figures dismissed and prosecuted for corruption.  Also Murdochs relationship with politicians. This has the potential to reach all the way to Cameron. I hope this brings the fucking government down and if it brings Miliband down with him that's fine too.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 6, 2011)

N_igma said:


> I can sense a momentous change coming! Media will be changed forever after this make no doubt about it!



erm, righto


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2011)

dylans said:


> I hope for more than Murdoch's head. This scandal has revealed endemic corruption within the police I want to see this scandal engulf the police as a whole. Also Murdochs relationship with politicians. This has the potential to reach all the way to Cameron. I hope this brings the fucking government down.


 
Of course that would be fantastic. Unfortunately I would credit Cameron with enough sense to have ensured there is nothing directly linking him to any of this. I don't see Cameron falling over this matter.


----------



## pk (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> sweet... this weeks NOTW has just been proper pwned by the people!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Until every double-glazing firm and sex chat line has pulled out - this must continue.


----------



## pk (Jul 6, 2011)

cantsin said:


> erm, righto


 
Well of course it will.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

mauvais said:


> On a lighter note I can't help wondering what this scandal would have been like if they'd worked the other six days.


 
You can see what that would be like by buying a copy of the _Daily Mail_.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2011)

pk said:


> Well of course it will.


 
It will if, and only if, senior names are held to account, prosecuted and sent to jail over it.

They will, of course, try to ensure only lowly journos are prosecuted.


----------



## dylans (Jul 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Of course that would be fantastic. Unfortunately I would credit Cameron with enough sense to have ensured there is nothing directly linking him to any of this. I don't see Cameron falling over this matter.


 
Well let's see how this builds but his relationship to Coulson is damaging. He is also close friends with Brooks. There may yet be more to come.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2011)

There would have to be direct links to the wrongdoing. He can ditch his friends easily enough if needs be.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 6, 2011)

editor said:


> Can I just add that I've instructed the urban75 buyers to permanently withdraw all advertising from the NoTW and to go down to their offices and piss on every desk.


 
GOt any vacancies for ad buyers? I could enjoy that.

"Sorry about pissing on your workstation, mate. But I'm just doing my job."


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There would have to be direct links to the wrongdoing. He can ditch his friends easily enough if needs be.


 
This, plus of course there will inevitably be some digging into him / his family / his friends that will have gone on, which he can use to portray himself as a victim.


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

yesterday, it was all 'cameron begged murdoch not to sack brooks'

today it's 'brooks is like family to murdoch, he'll never sack her'

which is it?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Of course that would be fantastic. Unfortunately I would credit Cameron with enough sense to have ensured there is nothing directly linking him to any of this. I don't see Cameron falling over this matter.


 
What if Murdoch's minions have been hacking into Disco dave's mobile phone? That would be interesting.


----------



## gavman (Jul 6, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> As long as "film stars" and "celebrities" have existed, it's been acknowledged, by the media and the public at least, that their privacy, as public persons with public personas, is limited. This isn't to make excuses for the media, but to state that Grant (and many other people in the "public eye", could have, but didn't, take simple steps to protect his privacy.
> 
> For him therefore to call his privacy a "stolen" commodity reeks of the kind of arrogant self-regard that got him in the tabloid viewfinder in the first place.


 
does that include his medical records?
i think we can allow him his outrage there


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> What if Murdoch's minions have been hacking into Disco dave's mobile phone? That would be interesting.


 
As agricola says, that might serve Cameron's purposes very nicely! In fact it could be terrible if this were the case - Cameron could come out the hero who cleaned up Fleet Street.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As agricola says, that might serve Cameron's purposes very nicely! In fact it could be terrible if this were the case - Cameron could come out the hero who cleaned up Fleet Street.


 
By going against Murdoch? Would he dare? The Prime Minister who stood up to the Dirty Digger and banished him from the British body politic. Hmmm.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 6, 2011)

Apologies if already posted. Top advertisers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-advertising, with the info I know below:



> 1. BSkyB £2.1m
> 2. Everything Everywhere £1.5m - *under review*
> 3. P&G £1.3m - *under review*
> 4. O2 £1.2m - *pulled during developments*
> ...


----------



## Balbi (Jul 6, 2011)

They've found Georgie boy's details. Watch this space.

This will do to Cameron what the dodgy donations did to Blair, tarnish him with his core support. Can't see it being the end of all things, but there's certainly going to be a more cynical view of the press and politicians get slammed further down the ladder before the expenses scandal stuffs worn off.

Take a deep breath though, because you may not breathe air so full of schadenfreude for another generation.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 6, 2011)

Did anyone hear Simon Hughes on newsnight say that a public inquiry needs to be run by a judge who isnt a freemason, and suggests this might be hard to find! Jazzz wouldve loved it.


----------



## harpo (Jul 6, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> What if Murdoch's minions have been hacking into Disco dave's mobile phone? That would be interesting.


 
They've benn hacking Osbourne, according to him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> By going against Murdoch? Would he dare? The Prime Minister who stood up to the Dirty Digger and banished him from the British body politic. Hmmm.


 
He might have no choice. But Kaka Tim is spot on - Murdoch is only powerful for as long as enough people think he is powerful. He owns newspapers, not oil wells. If Murdoch is already discredited, standing up to him will be easy-peasy.


----------



## paolo (Jul 6, 2011)

SpookyFrank said:


> No, a limited investigation makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is the police failing to act on this information all those years ago.


 
Naivety, workload, lack of balls. And maybe fear, along the way.

The Police don't like playing by anyone else's agenda. The idea that they were in cahoots is 2+2=5. They've massively bollocksed up though. Prescott on Newsnight just now reckons that (finally) they are now taking the whole thing seriously. Nearly ten years too late mind.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He might have no choice. But Kaka Tim is spot on - Murdoch is only powerful for as long as enough people think he is powerful. He owns newspapers, not oil wells. If Murdoch is already discredited, standing up to him will be easy-peasy.


 
Fucking hell, if he did that - he'd be as difficult as fuck to get out of Downing Street.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> The Police don't like playing by anyone else's agenda. .


 
Eh? That's the Police's job.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

Jaysus the scum are so helping us


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Fucking hell, if he did that - he'd be as difficult as fuck to get out of Downing Street.


 
Yep.  

But if the end result genuinely were a more pluralistic media, it would weaken the likes of Cameron in the long run. Cameron has cosied up to Murdoch for a good reason.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 6, 2011)

pk said:


> Until every double-glazing firm and sex chat line has pulled out - this must continue.



lol.. the NOTW will look like the Sunday Sport on Sunday.....

We still have time on our side and a growing movement.....


----------



## 8115 (Jul 6, 2011)

Was it only the News of the World or was it more widespread?  I think there was something on Sky earlier about the Guardian, did I mishear?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 6, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Jaysus the scum are so helping us
> View attachment 16218


 
Straight out of his phone records, presumably. Murdoch's feeling invincible, obviously.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Prescott on Newsnight just now reckons that (finally) they are now taking the whole thing seriously. Nearly ten years too late mind.


 
Thats the thing though - Prescott was in government (a government that was in bed with Murdoch, dont forget) when all this was going on.  It really winds me up watching him, and the rest of his mob, harp on about this as if 1997-2010 never actually happened.


----------



## cointreauman (Jul 6, 2011)

Not sure if this has been posted but seems that the push to lean on the Chiefs of the big companies to pull advertising revenue might be assisted by a targetted email uprising - apologies if the links are alread in play on here

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?hl=en_GB&key=tNYNhuJL7bcUwlXMQJ4zF9g&toomany=true

That said if 100,000 emails blocked these accounts - would it have the desired effects?

I have to agree - the taking apart of the NI monolith and perhaps the total wipe out of The Sun and NoTW owuld make this old bloke a very happy man indeed. (A good few Scousers would indulge a smile or twoo as well).

http://twitpic.com/5lxpqg

C


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> Thats the thing though - Prescott was in government (a government that was in bed with Murdoch, dont forget) when all this was going on.  It really winds me up watching him, and the rest of his mob, harp on about this as if 1997-2010 never actually happened.


 
Yep. The layers of hypocrisy are staggering.


----------



## paolo (Jul 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Eh? That's the Police's job.


 
I'm probably not explaining myself properly. If you look at things such as the legal formation of ACPO, their response to DNA european rulings etc, they're general behaviour is "we do what we think is right, and stuff anyone else who disagrees".

What I'm driving at is that they aren't a particularly compliant institution with regards to outside forces, and I as such I doubt they were in cahoots. More a case of being dumb.


----------



## paolo (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> Thats the thing though - Prescott was in government (a government that was in bed with Murdoch, dont forget) when all this was going on.  It really winds me up watching him, and the rest of his mob, harp on about this as if 1997-2010 never actually happened.


 
Paxman did pull Prescott up on exactly that, Prescott swerved.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> they're general behaviour is "we do what we think is right, and stuff anyone else who disagrees".


 I'm not sure I agree with that. The police's general behaviour, from what I can see, is to do what their political masters tell them is right. They're the most compliant institution there is, almost by definition: they don't make the law, they are just charged with enforcing it, and enforcing it in the way their masters deem appropriate.


----------



## paolo (Jul 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that. The police's general behaviour, from what I can see, is to do what their political masters tell them is right. They're the most compliant institution there is, almost by definition: they don't make the law, they are just charged with enforcing it, and enforcing it in the way their masters deem appropriate.


 
Hmm. Something for another thread. I'm wary of derailing, but happy to debate elsewhere.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Hmm. Something for another thread. I'm wary of derailing, but happy to debate elsewhere.


 
Yes, fair enough. I would say only this - the police show their humanity in the degree to which they are prepared _not_ to enforce the law in order to instead do what is right. I'm not sure what relevance that point has to this discussion, though.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Paxman did pull Prescott up on exactly that, Prescott swerved.


 
Good.  Perhaps they will start on Tom Baldwin (edit: Labour press drone, ex-Times hack, ex-coke fiend and the man who outed David Kelly as Gilligans source before his death) tomorrow.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 6, 2011)

No way is cameron going to benefit from this. He's already made himself look complacent and out of step by refusing to call for (his freind) Brooks' head and thats before we even get onto the whole coulsen thing. And this is potentailly political gold for milliband.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> And this is potentailly political gold for milliband.


 
Is it? Is _anything_ political gold for that clueless cretin?

He's just managed to make _himself_ look bad over the teachers dispute.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it? Is _anything_ political gold for that clueless cretin?


 
arsenic would be


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> No way is cameron going to benefit from this. He's already made himself look complacent and out of step by refusing to call for (his freind) Brooks' head and thats before we even get onto the whole coulsen thing. And this is potentailly political gold for milliband.


 
He'll chuck it away. He's dead anyway, after the strike stuff. They're all going down.


----------



## gabi (Jul 6, 2011)

Yep, cos with a tiger like ed miliband on his ass what chance does Cameron have?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2011)

gabi said:


> Yep, cos with a tiger like ed miliband on his ass what chance does Cameron have?


 
a bloody good one


----------



## PursuedByBears (Jul 6, 2011)

Even if David Cameron and Rupert Murdoch were found with Maddie's corpse, Milliband wouldn't be able to make political capital out of it.  The man is a joke.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

PursuedByBears said:


> Even if David Cameron and Rupert Murdoch were found with Maddie's corpse, Milliband wouldn't be able to make political capital out of it.  The man is a joke.


 
he is effete and ineffectual


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It will if, and only if, senior names are held to account, prosecuted and sent to jail over it.
> 
> They will, of course, try to ensure only lowly journos are prosecuted.


 
Who the fuck is "they"??

Sorry but.. "they" is us. They won't be held to account by the Met Police, because members of the Met Police were taking bribe money in exchange for phone tapping.

The judges and the jury here bypass the norms of "law and order" and justice will be served regardless of law, in much the same manner that Tunisia and Egypt said "enough is enough".

This hasn't even started yet.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Fair point, pk. and yes, clearly there are coppers arse-deep in the shit over this. 

I hope you're right.


However, 'they' is not a completely vague conspiraloon reference. 'They' are Cameron, Murdoch and their powerful friends (friends and powerful for now, that is). That specific 'they' will be doing their damndess to try to keep the blame on the few 'bad apples' at the bottom. Ronald Reagan was not brought down by the Iran-Contra affair, remember. Blair is still walking free. Getting the blame to rise to where it truly belongs is not an easy task.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Good.  Perhaps they will start on Tom Baldwin (edit: Labour press drone, ex-Times hack, ex-coke fiend and the man who outed David Kelly as Gilligans source before his death) tomorrow.


yep, cos that's the big story here innit? 

i think what's interesting is one, that it took a member of the "normal people" to be hacked that bought the thing to a head in the first place, when previously people had been relaxed when it was "celebrities" or politicians; and two, the issue of the notw allegedly paying the cops to both provide info and go easy on the inquiry has been kicked into the long grass largely by the focus on the "horror" for the "victims".

which isn't to downplay the severity of what occurred or the distress i can imagine it's caused, but i think there are bigger fish to fry than simply identifying ever more speculative "victims" or deflect attention onto players who, quite frankly, don't mean a damn.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Well of course it will.



any criminal cases will probably take a year or so to conclude, at which point a toothless, long winded public enquiry will start with main aim being to further dampen any remaining anger amongst weary populace. 

What kind of  'changes' does anyone see coming in terms of the way the media will be regulated / overseen ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

cantsin said:


> What kind of  'changes' does anyone see coming in terms of the way the media will be regulated / overseen ?


 
That's not the problem. The problem is who owns  the media. If you don't change that, you haven't changed anything important.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

cantsin said:


> any criminal cases will probably take a year or so to conclude, at which point a toothless, long winded public enquiry will start with main aim being to further dampen any remaining anger amongst weary populace.
> 
> What kind of  'changes' does anyone see coming in terms of the way the media will be regulated / overseen ?


 
What is important is the mantra of hearts and minds, the mainstay of UK public opinion.

Forget law. "Regulation". It's over. The internets is here! This really is it folks. You're either with it or against it.

And of course companies like Google have been collecting and scraping data from us all for over a decade, they're probably looking at everyone here right now.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

WE own the fucking media. That's the change.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not the problem. The problem is who owns  the media. If you don't change that, you haven't changed anything important.


 

IN the massively unlikely event of  Murdoch / his offspring being no longer able to own papers / digital media channels etc in this country ( and only this country ) , do you believe someone more enlightened is likely to replace him/them ?


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> yep, cos that's the big story here innit?
> 
> i think what's interesting is one, that it took a member of the "normal people" to be hacked that bought the thing to a head in the first place, when previously people had been relaxed when it was "celebrities" or politicians; and two, the issue of the notw allegedly paying the cops to both provide info and go easy on the inquiry has been kicked into the long grass largely by the focus on the "horror" for the "victims".
> 
> which isn't to downplay the severity of what occurred or the distress i can imagine it's caused, but i think there are bigger fish to fry than simply identifying ever more speculative "victims" or deflect attention onto players who, quite frankly, don't mean a damn.


 
Agree completely about agricola's weirdly tribal bitterness, but I disagree about the importance of finding more 'victims'. Rose Gentle was just on the Beeb ("If it's true I'll never buy any of their papers ever again"), Reg Keays will surely be on it soon (if I haven't missed him already). There are loads of military families who will vent their righteous fury, and they will have masses of support. And they fucking hate Blair too, and he needs to stay firmly in that frame, along with every other PM in the last 30 years.

I don't know who is responsible for drip-feeding these details, but they are doing a magnificent job of keeping fresh interviewees on each day. I can't remember the TV news being so obsessed by something since 9/11.


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Jaysus the scum are so helping us
> View attachment 16218


 
At this rate, in a few weeks time, it'll be big enough news to headline! 

They are so digging themselves a hole.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

That bird off Harry Potter has grown up quickly....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

What is needed is a move towards a different model of media ownership. In a true democracy no one individual or organisation would be allowed to own more than one media outlet in any given medium. 

These are huge questions that go way beyond Murdoch and concern the meaning of democratic discourse. The fall of Murdoch could facilitate a discussion about such things.


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

owls live shorter lives


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

Err yeah, but that bird off Harry Potter has grown up quickly....


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> WE own the fucking media. That's the change.



We are the media!!!!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

ymu said:


> Agree completely about agricola's weirdly tribal bitterness, but I disagree about the importance of finding more 'victims'. Rose Gentle was just on the Beeb ("If it's true I'll never buy any of their papers ever again"), Reg Keays will surely be on it soon (if I haven't missed him already). There are loads of military families who will vent their righteous fury, and they will have masses of support. And they fucking hate Blair too, and he needs to stay firmly in that frame, along with every other PM in the last 30 years.
> 
> I don't know who is responsible for drip-feeding these details, but they are doing a magnificent job of keeping fresh interviewees on each day. I can't remember the TV news being so obsessed by something since 9/11.


i don't think its "important" to find more victims, i think its being used to cover up the bigger story, which is the systematic use of hacking by more or less all printed media in this country, apparently.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> WE own the fucking media. That's the change.


 
Problem is, most people don't think like that. Most people are consumers of the media, not producers of it. That's why the likes of Murdoch have been able to thrive. 

Bottom line is that until millions people stop thinking it is a good thing to read papers like the Sun every day, there's little hope of real change. To get rid of the likes of Murdoch, a cultural change needs to take place. I'm not sure how near we are to effecting such a change.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

cantsin said:


> IN the massively unlikely event of  Murdoch / his offspring being no longer able to own papers / digital media channels etc in this country ( and only this country ) , do you believe someone more enlightened is likely to replace him/them ?


 
Yes We Can.


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

i think the whole question of media ownership, by conglomerates or outside interests, needs to be examined.
my view is that newspapers should be run as either co-operatives, worker's collectives, or partnerships in the manner of legal practises, so no one person can influence more than one outlet


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Yes We Can.


 
How many of the people who buy the Sun, the Star and other such rags every day also think that? To be blunt, how many of them even think that deeply about it? Yes, you have to tackle Murdoch and his like, but you also have to tackle the demand that they have produced/has produced them (it seems like a classic dialectical relationship).


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

gavman said:


> i think the whole question of media ownership, by conglomerates or outside interests, needs to be examined.
> my view is that newspapers should be run as either co-operatives, worker's collectives, or partnerships in the manner of legal practises, so no one person can influence more than one outlet



And where in that scenario is the mechanism for the absolute imperative of toothsome politcal watchdog?

The one thing the Murdoch press does better than any organisation in the world is sniff out the merest hint of political wrongdoing. 'kin Rottweilers.


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> yep, cos [Baldwin]'s the big story here innit?


 
Agricola has a point about Baldwin.

Peter Oborne - Tory to the marrow but entirely on the ball on this:


> Perhaps Baldwin, like his former News International colleagues, doesn’t find phone hacking too shocking. Indeed, one of his first actions as Miliband’s spin-doctor was to instruct Labour MPs to go easy on the scandal. In a leaked memo, he ordered them not to link it to the impending takeover decision on BSkyB. But this was to let News International crucially off the hook. For the key question — and it burns deeper than ever in the light of the Milly Dowler revelations — is exactly whether the owner of News International is any longer a ‘fit and proper’ person to occupy such a dominant position in the British media.
> 
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7075673/part_5/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

Yep, well that's OFCOM's position. They brought that phrase into play, I believe.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 7, 2011)

News of the World hires QC involved in botched hacking inquiry http://gu.com/p/3vcp5/tf


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> it is, seeing them squirm, I've seen some anonymous News International corporate type squirming several times on telly - they aren't letting the big guns on to defend the indefensible - I think Coulson is being hung out to dry - Cameron already ditched him (he must have known) and Brooks is family almost to Rupert


 
Pretty sure I read in Private Eye that James Murdoch was the best man at the Brooks marriage


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 7, 2011)

There's never been a campaign like this to fuck off advertisers from a company we hate but because of social media this has been a success. Dont get me wrong, I hate all corporations, but I would be so glad if them cunts at NI hit the dust. 
One things true the hapless hacks have got loads of space to fill up, what with 18 companies not advertising with them.


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

sunny jim said:


> One things true the hapless hacks have got loads of space to fill up, what with 18 companies not advertising with them.


 

Nope. The thing to watch is the total page-count of Sunday's edition and the one after, compared to last Sunday and the one before.

When there's shedloads of advertising the hacks have to produce filler pieces, to keep the editorial:advertising ratio up - not least because advertising in amongst editorial material commands much higher prices than that in the "ad desert" near the back.

When ads are scarce, editorial is cut back too.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2011)

In case anyone missed it, the shit just keeps on getting shittier:


> News of the World investigator may have targeted families of dead soldiers
> Scotland Yard investigating claims that contact details of soldiers' relatives appear in Glenn Mulcaire's notebooks
> 
> Scotland Yard is investigating claims that families of members of the armed forces killed in Afghanistan and Iraq have been targeted by Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator who worked for the News of the World.
> ...


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

laptop said:


> Agricola has a point about Baldwin.
> 
> Peter Oborne - Tory to the marrow but entirely on the ball on this:


 
Thanks for that, and that Oborne piece deserves to be read in full.  That graph is brilliant, as well:


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i don't think its "important" to find more victims, i think its being used to cover up the bigger story, which is the systematic use of hacking by more or less all printed media in this country, apparently.


 
Oh. We've covered that. Wedge strategy - concentrate all the force on the weakest point. If Murdoch topples, the whole sorry lot are in our sights. He wriggles out, and we lose the chance. 

And besides, the other media are decidedly small fry compared to getting the Met and Downing Street on the hook.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 7, 2011)

I never thought I would link to the Spectator on U75, but this appears to be a very good piece.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7075673/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml

ETA: Soz, I see it's been done.


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

ymu said:


> Oh. We've covered that. Wedge strategy - concentrate all the force on the weakest point. If Murdoch topples, the whole sorry lot are in our sights. He wriggles out, and we lose the chance.


 
Which is why, if you listened carefully to Cameron's "concession" at PM's Question Time at lunchtime, it was an inquiry or two into the whole of the media - to get Murdoch off the hook.

And himself off the hook for consorting with Murdoch - which is why Labour will go along with it, aware of their consortingness.


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> News of the World hires QC involved in botched hacking inquiry http://gu.com/p/3vcp5/tf


 
He's a Lib Dem peer, too. That's beautiful, just beautiful. The illusion of competence has entirely disappeared. They are so fucking fucked.  




laptop said:


> Which is why, if you listened carefully to Cameron's "concession" at PM's Question Time at lunchtime, it was an inquiry or two into the whole of the media - to get Murdoch off the hook.
> 
> And himself off the hook for consorting with Murdoch - which is why Labour will go along with it, aware of their consortingness.


Oh yes. He is desperate to make this into a story about bad hacks and not craven governments.

Tad too late, methinks, Davey boy. It's much more fun following the trail to Maggie's old front door. We have scores to settle.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 7, 2011)

these kind of dynamics are well addressed in the Oborne / Spectator piece above.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

ymu said:


> And besides, the other media are decidedly small fry compared to getting the Met and Downing Street on the hook.


 
That is nonsensical, though.  This whole issue is about the tabloid media, and what they (ie: not just NI as should be clear) have been up to - if it does affect the Met, it would be because of corruption of some officers by the tabloid media, and/or intimidation of the police by the tabloid media.  The same goes for Downing Street - except of course that the alternative to Cameron et al is of course the party that was even further up Murdochs arse than iDave is, to the extent that they employed Baldwin, despite his history.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 7, 2011)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...s-unite-in-anger-at-enemy-within-2308269.html

"The Enemy Within" indeed.


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> That is nonsensical, though.  This whole issue is about the tabloid media, and what they (ie: not just NI as should be clear) have been up to - if it does affect the Met, it would be because of corruption of some officers by the tabloid media, and/or intimidation of the police by the tabloid media.  The same goes for Downing Street - except of course that the alternative to Cameron et al is of course the party that was even further up Murdochs arse than iDave is, to the extent that they employed Baldwin, despite his history.


 
You are obsessed!

C4 News  yesterday put Blair firmly in the frame, if it makes you happy. But, once more, 'Downing Street' refers to the office of the Prime Minister, not an individual. Every PM since Daniel Morgan was murdered is in this frame. And yes, the finger is pointing at Thatcher as the originator of this craven obeisance to Murdoch.

And if you think the Met isn't in the frame, well ... we'll see, eh.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

ymu said:


> You are obsessed!
> 
> C4 News  yesterday put Blair firmly in the frame, if it makes you happy. But, once more, 'Downing Street' refers to the office of the Prime Minister, not an individual. Every PM since Daniel Morgan was murdered is in this frame. And yes, the finger is pointing at Thatcher as the originator of this craven obeisance to Murdoch.
> 
> And if you think the Met isn't in the frame, well ... we'll see, eh.


 
Do you have those links that suggest the NOTW was involved in Morgan's murder yet?


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Do you have those links that suggest the NOTW was involved in Morgan's murder yet?


Ooh, touchy!

I take it you concede the point, as you choose not to defend it. Now, did you watch the C4 news report like I suggested? Or are you too busy wrapping yourself in cognitive dissonance?


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

ymu said:


> Ooh, touchy!
> 
> I take it you concede the point, as you choose not to defend it. Now, did you watch the C4 news report like I suggested? Or are you too busy wrapping yourself in cognitive dissonance?


 
The C4 report did not contain what you claim it contained - it reported that the officer investigating the Daniel Morgan murder (as part of the fourth or fifth inquiry) was being followed by private investigators from the NOTW, *not* that Morgan was himself being followed by such people before he died.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 7, 2011)

I just can't see an endgame for this, it started with guardian making accusations and it as got bigger over time.Brooks is the main target by her association with cameron,i think my reading of news stories has quadruple over the last few days


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> The C4 report did not contain what you claim it contained - it reported that the officer investigating the Daniel Morgan murder (as part of the fourth or fifth inquiry) was being followed by private investigators from the NOTW, *not* that Morgan was himself being followed by such people before he died.


You're correct, my apologies. That is a highly confuddled post!

I'd be shocked if it didn't come back to them though. NOTW interfered with a murder investigation, fifteen years after the murder took place. That fifteen years saw multiple police cover-ups and corruption, leading to five collapsed trials as of 2010. At the time of the murder, the victim was about to expose massive police corruption, and his partner was making a great living tapping corrupt police for information to sell to the tabloids. Other suspects include another firm of detectives who were working for NOTW at the time.

And the murder happened in 1987, at the height of Thatcher and her craven sucking up to the all powerful Murdoch.

I am not buying the coincidence theory, sorry. There is no way in the world they were following him because they thought he was having an affair with his own wife. It's a ludicrous excuse.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

> According to the 2010 list of Forbes richest Americans, Murdoch is the 38th richest person in the US and the 117th-richest person in the world, with a net worth of $6.2 billion.



BBC radio this morning estimate that this week the Murdoch family have lost £600m. 
News Corp's share price down 3.5% at the New York open on Wednesday.


----------



## rollinder (Jul 7, 2011)

somebody else to target or boycott by not clicking or buying from his affiliate links:
Mr moneysavingexpert Martin Lewis is trying to justify carrying on taking NOTW money
for his column & even rabid mser's are turning against him.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3342530
 Apparently the current editor's told it's a completely different paper now and all that nasty phone hacking
had stopped by the time he joined (in 2008 I think)


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

Biggest advertisers by revenue according to the BBC: 






How about the following companies: 

Amazon 
eBay 
British Gas 
Microsoft
Apple 
HTC
Dell 
Hewlett Packard


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

rollinder said:


> Mr moneysavingexpert Martin Lewis is trying to justify carrying on taking NOTW money
> for his column & even rabid mser's are turning against him.


 
Good point, who are the other columnists writing for the NOTW? 
We need lists dammit!!!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Good point, who are the other columnists writing for the NOTW?
> We need lists dammit!!!


 
Does Julie Birchill still write for Murdoch's lot?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Does Julie Birchill still write for Murdoch's lot?


 
I have no idea who writes? Quick Google which may not be 100% current or correct and not complete. Will look later....

Gary Lineker
Dave Gorman
Martin Lewis 
Dr Hilary Jones
Ian Hyland
Andy Dunn
Rob Shepherd
Carole Malone
Anna Smith
Amanda Holden
Lee Nelson
Fraser Nelson
Dan Wootton
Sam Dunn
Robbie Collin


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

Another (smaller) advertiser to contact 
http://www.westminstercollection.com/information/about-us.aspx



> The Westminster Collection is a leading distributor of collectable stamps and coins, acting on behalf of Postal Administrations, Mints and Ministries of Finance across the globe.  However, the roots of our family business go right back to 1945.


----------



## Voley (Jul 7, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052909

Potentially equally damaging?



> Col Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, told the BBC when he heard about the allegations he was "absolutely speechless with anger".
> 
> "If these allegations are true the thing that makes it most shocking is that this newspaper, the News of the World, and its sister paper the Sun, have been so incredibly staunch in their support for British soldiers and British forces," he said.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 7, 2011)

Five NOTW journalists and executives expected to be arrested in the coming few days. 

Looks like they have actually lost any 'control' they had. Hopefully we're going to see proper justice this time.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

BBC London mentioned that The Sun have a postage stamp size story on its front page.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

The advertisers will look after themselves. The more interesting (of that type of) question is how will the sales of NofW be on Sundy - what will be the response of the great tabloid-buying British public.....  I imagine it'll be 'What's Cheryl been up to this week?'


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> BBC London mentioned that The Sun have a postage stamp size story on its front page.


 
Tis true - I saw a scan of it this morning, but (dammit) can't source it at the moment (have to get to work too) - it's at the top left hand hand of the front page.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

All this information is old right? I mean, the police had the notebooks that contained these details as long ago as 2006. The stuff about Dowlers phone, the stuff about the soldiers. All this was contained in the PIs notebooks. There is nothing in these revelations which is recent or new. Which raises the very real issue of why the police sat on this until now.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

You don't think that question has been "raised" quite a lot in the past few days already? What do you think the second inquiry is about?


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> You don't think that question has been "raised" quite a lot in the past few days already? What do you think the second inquiry is about?


 
It's just a question of clarification really. I am right to think that this info has been in police possession for years right?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

Yep, in doc's they picked up from Mulcaire in 2006.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> All this information is old right? I mean, the police had the notebooks that contained these details as long ago as 2006. The stuff about Dowlers phone, the stuff about the soldiers. All this was contained in the PIs notebooks. There is nothing in these revelations which is recent or new. Which raises the very real issue of why the police sat on this until now.



There was the Sheridan trial to get out of the way first...


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> It's just a question of clarification really. I am right to think that this info has been in police possession for years right?


 
Yeah. Remember the Keir Starmer/John Yates spat about which one of them had decided it was only illegal to hack someone's voicemail if they hadn't already listened to the messages? That's the trick they used to keep the last investigation very limited, and then they tried to blame each other when the shit hit the fan.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Yep, in doc's they picked up from Mulcaire in 2006.


 
yeah, Mulcaires notebooks. So how and why has the guardian been able to release it now. I mean has the information been held confidentially by the police. Or has it been out there all the time without anyone picking up on it. Why and how has Guardian been able to reveal this now. I mean we have the drip drip of the celeb stuff all through this year. What was the guardians source for the Dowler story? I have looked back through the Guardian but all it says is "the Guardian can reveal".


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> yeah, Mulcaires notebooks. So how and why has the guardian been able to release it now. I mean has the information been held confidentially by the police. Or has it been out there all the time without anyone picking up on it. Why and how has Guardian been able to reveal this now. I mean we have the drip drip of the celeb stuff all through this year. What was the guardians source for the Dowler story? I have looked back through the Guardian but all it says is "the Guardian can reveal".


 
The Met has been forced to investigate, and seem to be doing it properly this time. 70 officers on it - the largest Met investigation of modern times, according to one article. 

We've already speculated about the source and timing of this week's stuff. Not sure we know yet.


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> yeah, Mulcaires notebooks. So how and why has the guardian been able to release it now. I mean has the information been held confidentially by the police. Or has it been out there all the time without anyone picking up on it. Why and how has Guardian been able to reveal this now. I mean we have the drip drip of the celeb stuff all through this year. What was the guardians source for the Dowler story? I have looked back through the Guardian but all it says is "the Guardian can reveal".



I've been assuming it's the victims/victims' reps.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I've been assuming it's the victims/victims' reps.



Yes, I've had the impression that plod have been going round informing potential victims over the past few months, and that has been filtering back to the Guardian.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

I saw a copy of the Sun this morning. 
Surprisingly on the dashboard of a white Transit van


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

ymu said:


> The Met has been forced to investigate, and seem to be doing it properly this time. 70 officers on it - the largest Met investigation of modern times, according to one article.
> 
> We've already speculated about the source and timing of this week's stuff. Not sure we know yet.



oh ok, so basically the cops got hold of Mulcaires documents around 2006 complete with all this revelatory stuff and instead of opening it up and reading it they stuck it in a file and left it to gather dust and only now that they have been forced to investigate properly has anyone bothered to open his notebooks and read them? Nah I don't buy it. If this stuff has been in the police's possession since 2006 then they knew what it contained and they chose to sit on it. This was a policy decision from the top


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 7, 2011)

so is anybody organising a public news of the world paper burning session?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 7, 2011)

rollinder said:


> somebody else to target or boycott by not clicking or buying from his affiliate links:
> Mr moneysavingexpert Martin Lewis is trying to justify carrying on taking NOTW money
> for his column & even rabid mser's are turning against him.
> http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3342530
> ...


 
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2011/07/06/my-column-at-the-news-of-the-world/

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3342530


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2011)

It seems to me that the police are still leaky like a sieve. 

From whom else could this current information be coming. 

So there may be other newspapers than NOTW paying for information from the police. Of if not paying, then getting it leaked. 

Or are the police revealing this information in press releases / conferences?


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> oh ok, so basically the cops got hold of Mulcaires documents around 2006 complete with all this revelatory stuff and instead of opening it up and reading it they stuck it in a file and left it to gather dust and only now that they have been forced to investigate properly has anyone bothered to open his notebooks and read them? Nah I don't buy it. If this stuff has been in the police's possession since 2006 then they knew what it contained and they chose to sit on it. This was a policy decision from the top


 
Well, yes. Obviously. Check my Keir Starmer/John Yates post just above the one you replied to. John Yates is now trying to blame his corrupt minions for lying to him (he seems to prefer 'gullible incompetent twat' to 'criminal' as a label).


----------



## miss.w (Jul 7, 2011)

I heard on R4 this morning that Murdoch has put Brooks in charge of the internal investigation- its just getting even more farcical


----------



## xenon (Jul 7, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> so is anybody organising a public news of the world paper burning session?


 

Someone else's copy, obv.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

ymu said:


> Well, yes. Obviously. Check my Keir Starmer/John Yates post just above the one you replied to. John Yates is now trying to blame his corrupt minions for lying to him (he seems to prefer 'gullible incompetent twat' to 'criminal' as a label).


 
Yeah, Yates has already been accused of misleading Parliament by Labours Chris Bryant during the Commons Home Affairs Committee in 2010. So this goes all the way to the top.



> Mr Bryant has claimed Mr Yates misled Parliament over the number of alleged phone-hacking victims when he appeared before the committee last year.
> In his latest appearance before MPs, Mr Bryant said: "There is a real danger that the Met (Police) is at least, it might be perceived, to be in collusion with the newspapers that we are talking about."
> When it was put to him that that was a "very serious allegation", he responded: "Mr Yates has defended the idea that senior police officers regularly have to dine with senior  executives at newspapers and journalists.
> 
> ...



http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...Over-Met-Police-Probe/Article/201103415962217


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Sky News link?? Pinch of salt required...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

BBC just reported that N-Power is the latest to suspend their ads with the NOTW.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2011)

Does anyone know how it has come out that NOTW may have been hacking the families of killed soldiers?

What I mean is, who released that information to the media?


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Sky News link?? Pinch of salt required...


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/05/phone-hacking-john-yates-police



> Yates has claimed repeatedly that police found only 10 or 12 people whose voicemail had been intercepted by the News of the World. Evidence has since emerged, however, that police knew of "a vast number" of victims.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Does anyone know how it has come out that NOTW may have been hacking the families of killed soldiers?
> 
> What I mean is, who released that information to the media?



Can't be too hard to hack the cellphones of the journos...


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> BBC just reported that N-Power is the latest to suspend their ads with the NOTW.


 
Excellent news. 
Anyone know if British Gas advertise with them?


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 7, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052909
Royal British Leigon are going to drop the NoTW as it's campaigning partner,that's a big blow to the rag that 'cares for Our Boys'


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

has anyone seen this thats doing the rounds of Facebook?

Subject: scum freepost address
The Sun and News of the World Voucher Exchange, FREEPOST SL2163,
Gerrards Cross SL9 0ZX - THERE YA GO PEEPS tell them what ya think at their expense


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

i think it's bizarre that its taken this for companies to withdraw advertising, given all the evils Murdoch has done in the past, but who's complaining!!


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yeah. Remember the Keir Starmer/John Yates spat about which one of them had decided it was only illegal to hack someone's voicemail if they hadn't already listened to the messages? That's the trick they used to keep the last investigation very limited, and then they tried to blame each other when the shit hit the fan.


 
Just been reading back about this. Basically Yates was attempting to justify not investigating or prosecuting on the basis of a narrow interpretation of one law  ( the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) which he interpreted as only applying if the messages had not been heard by the intended recipient. It seems a particularly grubby attempt to defend inaction  and anyway was rejected by witnesses who pointed out that the police knew that RIPA wasn't the only law available to them.



> Starmer said police had certainly been aware that Ripa was not the only law available to them. They had been told that a conspiracy charge or a charge under the Computer Misuse Act would raise no question about whether voicemail had been heard: "They were aware of, advised of and proceeded on the basis that other offences were available," he said.





> "The police must have known in 2006 that prosecutors were not working with the narrow version of the law ... Had the police thought at the time that the only messages which counted were those which had not been listened to, they would certainly have queried the indictment as soon as they saw it. The indictment is clear, contemporaneous evidence of the state of mind of the police and counsel at the time of the prosecution, namely that before/after did not matter."
> 
> In a statement, Chris Bryant said: "His evidence makes it abundantly clear that, contrary to the evidence given by John Yates, there was absolutely no legal reason why the Metropolitan police should have restricted their investigation in 2006."


In a nutshell Yates is a corrupt cunt who should go to jail
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/05/phone-hacking-john-yates-police


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> has anyone seen this thats doing the rounds of Facebook?
> 
> Subject: scum freepost address
> The Sun and News of the World Voucher Exchange, FREEPOST SL2163,
> Gerrards Cross SL9 0ZX - THERE YA GO PEEPS tell them what ya think at their expense



can we send poo?

( or better, we could send them our garbage.)


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I saw a copy of the Sun this morning.
> Surprisingly on the dashboard of a white Transit van



fucking ignorant chavs


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 7, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> so is anybody organising a public news of the world paper burning session?


 
How about going after their suppliers à la Huntingdon Life Sciences? There's a company that makes red ink in Belgium who possibly supply the News of the World's printers. We could burn all their families' houses down, just need to start a Facebook group.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> can we send poo?
> 
> ( or better, we could send them our garbage.)


 
Heavy items will be charged to the account, lets cost them money.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> How about going after their suppliers à la Huntingdon Life Sciences? There's a company that makes red ink in Belgium who possibly supply the News of the World's printers. We could burn all their families' houses down, just need to start a Facebook group.


 
Was that necessary? Come on, serious issue and all that.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Heavy items will be charged to the account, lets cost them money.


 
right.  Emptying my garbage into cardboard boxes it is then


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2011)

Today they'll (newscorp) try and strengthen the stock, I suppose.   I don't see how, all the big money is walking away from them. 

It gets worse for them every day.

/goes off to by a bunch of envelopes to send freepost.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Name and shame the companies still paying for ad space.

Lots more to do to starve them of revenue.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Was that necessary? Come on, serious issue and all that.


 
More serious than cancer in fact. If only they'd spend more time talking about in parliament.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

Royal British Legion have dropped them


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 7, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> How about going after their suppliers à la Huntingdon Life Sciences? There's a company that makes red ink in Belgium who possibly supply the News of the World's printers. We could burn all their families' houses down, just need to start a Facebook group.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> How about going after their suppliers à la Huntingdon Life Sciences? There's a company that makes red ink in Belgium who possibly supply the News of the World's printers. We could burn all their families' houses down, just need to start a Facebook group.


 
where's murdoch's granny buried?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

I'm loving the dilemma faced by Disco Dave - stop the takeover of BskyB and piss off Rupert, or allow it to go through and have everyone think you are in Rupert's pocket. Cameron has managed to get through so far by letting others take the blame for u-turns and fuck ups - this might be the ending of him


----------



## Pingu (Jul 7, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052909
> Royal British Leigon are going to drop the NoTW as it's campaigning partner,that's a big blow to the rag that 'cares for Our Boys'


 
the various papers are getting a pasting on some of the military forums too with some people calling for the naffi etc to cancel subscriptions.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> Royal British Legion have dropped them


 
Dropping them isn't enough, urging members to boycott and protest their local newsagents is what's needed.

Another thing, early birds might catch the 4am deliveries of newspapers, shredding the spines with sandpaper renders them unsellable.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I'm loving the dilemma faced by Disco Dave - stop the takeover of BskyB and piss off Rupert, or allow it to go through and have everyone think you are in Rupert's pocket. Cameron has managed to get through so far by letting others take the blame for u-turns and fuck ups - this might be the ending of him


 
That would be so


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I'm loving the dilemma faced by Disco Dave - stop the takeover of BskyB and piss off Rupert, or allow it to go through and have everyone think you are in Rupert's pocket.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I'm loving the dilemma faced by Disco Dave - stop the takeover of BskyB and piss off Rupert, or allow it to go through and have everyone think you are in Rupert's pocket. Cameron has managed to get through so far by letting others take the blame for u-turns and fuck ups - this might be the ending of him


 Be great to see the slimy slithery fucker finally nailed,he's had it easy PR wise up to now.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 7, 2011)

@jsainsbury Due to the rising concerns of our customers we are suspending any advertising in the NOTW until the outcome of the investigation

After the British legion ending partnership with the NOTW methinks


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

mind you, is there any evidence that Cameron's phone was hacked?, they seem to be suggesting that the boy chancellor had his phone hacked - how much does Rupert's mob have to do to piss off the Government?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> @jsainsbury Due to the rising concerns of our customers we are suspending any advertising in the NOTW until the outcome of the investigation


 
Big one that - http://www.retail-week.com/news-by-...news-of-the-world-advertising/5027000.article

Could tip the balance for Asda and Tesco?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> @jsainsbury Due to the rising concerns of our customers we are suspending any advertising in the NOTW until the outcome of the investigation
> 
> After the British legion ending partnership with the NOTW methinks



Yeah, BBC just reported that Sainsbury's has pulled out too, the boycott is starting to snowball nicely. 

This particular one is going to leave Tesco, Asda  & Morrisons looking a bit stupid.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

Is this boycott solely against the NOTW? It's not really going to hurt Rupert if they redirect advertising to Sky, or the Sun , or the Times


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I'm loving the dilemma faced by Disco Dave - stop the takeover of BskyB and piss off Rupert, or allow it to go through and have everyone think you are in Rupert's pocket. Cameron has managed to get through so far by letting others take the blame for u-turns and fuck ups - this might be the ending of him



I suspect the Sky take-over will be kicked into the long grass, for now at least, with OFCOM announcing an investigation into if the management is fit to operate broadcast licences.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> All this information is old right? I mean, the police had the notebooks that contained these details as long ago as 2006. The stuff about Dowlers phone, the stuff about the soldiers. All this was contained in the PIs notebooks. There is nothing in these revelations which is recent or new. Which raises the very real issue of why the police sat on this until now.



They had to deal with the investigations and make their cases as the circumstances were. No doubt they were very pissed off with the NoTW meddling.

Now it's time for them to deal with the other issues. I suspect the hammer is going to fall in an almighty way. There is far too much to lose.

As for Murdoch putting Brooks in charge of the internal investigation.... give her enough rope... he's going to get himself off the hook so to speak.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 7, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> /goes off to by a bunch of envelopes to send freepost.



Would I get away with sending then an old abandoned toilet if it is packaged properly?


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Pingu said:


> the various papers are getting a pasting on some of the military forums too with some people calling for the naffi etc to cancel subscriptions.


 
ARSSE can pile on the pressure. Much of the readership is squaddies.

Be good to see some YouTube clips from UK troops in war zones urging a boycott.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

> Brian Paddick, the former Metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner and London mayoral candidate, has said that some officers received up to £30,000 from journalists for information.



First, how does he know and second why is he only revealing this now?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Yeah, BBC just reported that Sainsbury's has pulled out too, the boycott is starting to snowball nicely.
> 
> This particular one is going to leave Tesco, Asda  & Morrisons looking a bit stupid.



I can see Asda and Morrisons going today.... Tescos are pretty resolute and as mentioned one of their chief execs is on the NI board, and they have an ongoing coupons deal..

A lot of ire is gathering towards tescos and if they dont relent I can foresee a lot of actions going there way


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> Is this boycott solely against the NOTW? It's not really going to hurt Rupert if they redirect advertising to Sky, or the Sun , or the Times


 
Look, the type of apolitical fuckwit that buys the Scum will be woken from apathy if NOTW gets shut down, and could be prepared to join the cause once they see this cause is winnable.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> I can see Asda and Morrisons going today.... Tescos are pretty resolute and as mentioned one of their chief execs is on the NI board, and they have an ongoing coupons deal..
> 
> A lot of ire is gathering towards tescos and if they dont relent I can foresee a lot of actions going there way


 
Spineless cunts. I can see that ire building whatever they choose to do about this issue.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

If this is true, here's comes the next big explosion....



> 10.26 Niall Patterson, the Sky Defence Correspondent, tweets:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Look, the type of apolitical fuckwit that buys the Scum will be woken from apathy if NOTW gets shut down, and could be prepared to join the cause once they see this cause is winnable.


 
maybe, but if they shut down the NOTW, surely they would just launch a Sunday Sun?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> Is this boycott solely against the NOTW? It's not really going to hurt Rupert if they redirect advertising to Sky, or the Sun , or the Times


 
I have always boycotted all these. 
Confess that I do watch some Fox stuff (Simpsons, Futurama adn films) though.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> maybe, but if they shut down the NOTW, surely they would just launch a Sunday Sun?



The Sunday Sun is a regional rag, it would have to be 'The Sun On Sunday', or something similar - I seem to remember they are planning to combine the newsrooms of the two rags as a cost saving exercise, so it wouldn't surprise me if they did drop the NOTW brand at some point.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> First, how does he know and second why is he only revealing this now?


 
is there another election coming up that he's standing in?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I have always boycotted all these.
> Confess that I do watch some Fox stuff (Simpsons, Futurama adn films) though.


 
My dad has been reading the NOTW for about 50 years, part of his routine on a Sunday - gets the People, the Mirror and the NOTW - I think he is mostly interested in the racing pages though as he spends an age over those, whilst watching his favourite TV channel , At the Races , I think its' called. I never buy those papers but a few times a year , if I'm there on a Sunday , I might have a peek. My dad probably won't change his routine at all, continue buying it, and when I do ask him why, he will no doubt reply "that's why' which is his response to any question he doesn't know the answer to, or can't be arsed thinking about


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> The Sunday Sun is a regional rag, it would have to be 'The Sun On Sunday', or something similar - I seem to remember they are planning to combine the newsrooms of the two rags as a cost saving exercise, so it wouldn't surprise me if they did drop the NOTW brand at some point.


 
Not good enough. Nobody will get behind a rebrand.

Murdoch has to be taught a lesson once & for all. The entire family does.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 7, 2011)

Someone needs to go after the answering machine software writers for having default passwords and not mandating a password change on first usage.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> My dad has been reading the NOTW for about 50 years, part of his routine on a Sunday - gets the People, the Mirror and the NOTW - I think he is mostly interested in the racing pages though as he spends an age over those, whilst watching his favourite TV channel , At the Races , I think its' called. I never buy those papers but a few times a year , if I'm there on a Sunday , I might have a peek. My dad probably won't change his routine at all, continue buying it, and when I do ask him why, he will no doubt reply "that's why' which is his response to any question he doesn't know the answer to, or can't be arsed thinking about


 
Why shouldn't he continue to buy it if he likes the racing pages? How many companies that have done bad things do you boycott?


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Someone needs to go after the answering machine software writers for having default passwords and not mandating a password change on first usage.


 
True but not the point. Also, do we know the cops hadn't gained access via other means?


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Why shouldn't he continue to buy it if he likes the racing pages? How many companies that have done bad things do you boycott?


 
I would think the reasons are pretty fucking obvious.

These are precisely the people that need convincing.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Why shouldn't he continue to buy it if he likes the racing pages? How many companies that have done bad things do you boycott?


 
I boycott Sky/News International , ever since the Wapping days, that wasn't my point though - I'd say there are a hard core of NOTW readers who will continue to read it - it sells about 2m a week?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> First, how does he know and second why is he only revealing this now?



Because there were ongoing murder investigations that needed to be concluded as rightly and as properly as they could be in the circumstances. Opening such a huge can of worms at the time would/could have diverted the course of justice in the cases involved.

It seems that the police/law courts/whoever have decided now is the time to deal with an increasing problem that is spoiling the free press, civil liberties, justice system and much more. This is HUGE for many, many reasons. A fundamental change in the politics of the World we live in. No surprise that new technologies are being abused for financial gain by evil fuckers, but it's reached the point when something has to be done.

This is the real Big Brother.


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Someone needs to go after the answering machine software writers for having default passwords and not mandating a password change on first usage.



Yes, but that wouldn't _stop_ Mulcaire, NotW et al. They've been blagging the long password that enables engineers to re-set your four-digit PIN when you forget it.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I boycott Sky/News International , ever since the Wapping days, that wasn't my point though - I'd say there are a hard core of NOTW readers who will continue to read it - it sells about 2m a week?


 
This isn't over until I hear news reports beginning "The tabloid newspaper News of the World is to cease publication after 168 years..."


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I boycott Sky/News International , ever since the Wapping days, that wasn't my point though - I'd say there are a hard core of NOTW readers who will continue to read it - it sells about 2m a week?


 
I'm sure there's a hard core of Primark shoppers and a hardcore of Nestle baby milk killer supporters, but such is capitalism.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

laptop said:


> Yes, but that wouldn't _stop_ Mulcaire, NotW et al. They've been blagging the long password that enables engineers to re-set your four-digit PIN when you forget it.


 
This.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I'd say there are a hard core of NOTW readers who will continue to read it - it sells about 2m a week?


 
Cover price is about £1 isn't it? 
If 50% boycott then only 1m sell. 
That is £1m of lost revenue before you take out lost advertising revenue. 

Might be rich but business costs are not going to go down by 50% are they? Things are just getting started too


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Not good enough. Nobody will get behind a rebrand.
> 
> Murdoch has to be taught a lesson once & for all. The entire family does.


Time to cancel those Sky+ contracts if you really want to hurt Murdoch.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> I'm sure there's a hard core of Primark shoppers and a hardcore of Nestle baby milk killer supporters, but such is capitalism.


 
Not like you to be so defeatist. Shit or get off the pot mate, there's work to be done.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

editor said:


> Time to cancel those Sky+ contracts if you really want to hurt Murdoch.


 
Yup. Virgin is better anyway.


----------



## strung out (Jul 7, 2011)

editor said:


> Time to cancel those Sky+ contracts if you really want to hurt Murdoch.


 
and stop watching 20th century fox films, and the simpsons, oh and harper collins books are out too (list of authors you can't read anymore)


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2011)

strung out said:


> and stop watching 20th century fox films, and the simpsons, oh and harper collins books are out too (list of authors you can't read anymore)


The difference with a Sky+ contract is that you're personally handling Murdoch your money each month.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

strung out said:


> and stop watching 20th century fox films, and the simpsons, oh and harper collins books are out too (list of authors you can't read anymore)


 
One tree at a time, get NOTW shut down and the momentum will undoubtedly drag much of the other shit down too.

Most of the TV stuff is available via bittorrent.


----------



## strung out (Jul 7, 2011)

editor said:


> The difference with a Sky+ contract is that you're personally handling Murdoch your money each month.


 
so going to the cinema to watch his films, and buying his books isn't personally handing murdoch your money?


----------



## shinkyshonky (Jul 7, 2011)

Now we have a advertising boycott going on, is it possible we could get the tweets/email addresses of guest columnists who write for NOTW, to try to get them to walk, this is in response to Martin Lewis`s stance on his column in the NOTW http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2011/07/06/my-column-at-the-news-of-the-world/
which I think is totally wrong


----------



## trashpony (Jul 7, 2011)

strung out said:


> and stop watching 20th century fox films, and the simpsons, oh and harper collins books are out too (list of authors you can't read anymore)


 
Just take books out of the library - the author gets royalties, the publisher gets nowt


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 7, 2011)

This is why i steal sky TV


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

editor said:


> Time to cancel those Sky+ contracts if you really want to hurt Murdoch.


 
This would be the jewel in the crown but will take a long time.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

Press watchdog attacks NI investigation


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> This would be the jewel in the crown but will take a long time.


 
Precisely. Lets focus on the trophy killing, the NOTW, then use that to go after the bigger fish.

The PR fallout and unification of folk from all walks of life will defeat them if the pressure is maintained.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Anyone know how NewsCorp / News internationals shares are doing this morning?

How far do they have to fall before Brooks goes I wonder.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Not good enough. *Nobody will get behind a rebrand.*
> 
> Murdoch has to be taught a lesson once & for all. The entire family does.



I would like that to be true, but I doubt it, ATM The Sun is detached from the NOTW stuff, so a re-brand to the Sun on Sunday is likely to work.

Although, that could all change if, or when, the shit hits the Sun.


----------



## strung out (Jul 7, 2011)

these boycotts for NI products like sky, 20thC Fox, HC etc are all very laudable, and if you go ahead and do it, then fair play to you, but it all strikes me as being way too ambitious, too soon, for now. as badgers says, bringing down the whole empire would be the jewel in the crown but all that these calls for binning off sky+ do, is serve to alienate the majority of the people who will actually be needed as part of a longer term fight against this corporation (and others).


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 7, 2011)

How's this being reported in yanky land?


----------



## Geri (Jul 7, 2011)

strung out said:


> and stop watching 20th century fox films, and the simpsons, oh and harper collins books are out too (list of authors you can't read anymore)


 
Lulu


----------



## strung out (Jul 7, 2011)

Geri said:


> Lulu


 
to think stephen fry would be involved in this whole affair too


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> How's this being reported in yanky land?



I doubt Fox News are giving it much coverage tbh


I might have to boycott my Dad if this goes on


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Anyone know how NewsCorp / News internationals shares are doing this morning?


 


> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/351c656a-a7fa-11e0-afc2-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1RPnvnnA0
> 
> Shares in News Corp fell 3.6 per cent in New York as shareholders feared that the political firestorm could jeopardise the group’s chances of taking full control of its satellite broadcaster, British Sky Broadcasting. BSkyB shares continued to fall on Thursday. By mid-morning they were down another 1.5 per cent at 814.5p, taking the losses for the week to more than 4 per cent.



Looking for a chart...


----------



## Geri (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I might have to boycott my Dad if this goes on



My dad buys it too.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 7, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> How's this being reported in yanky land?


 
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/07/uk.phone.hacking.brand/

Good good.


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

strung out said:


> these boycotts for NI products like sky, 20thC Fox, HC etc are all very laudable, and if you go ahead and do it, then fair play to you, but it all strikes me as being way too ambitious, too soon, for now. as badgers says, bringing down the whole empire would be the jewel in the crown but all that these calls for binning off sky+ do, is serve to alienate the majority of the people who will actually be needed as part of a longer term fight against this corporation (and others).


You can get the Premiership much cheaper from Euro broadcasters, now Rupert's lost his case to prevent cross-border trade. You have to be a serious mug to be paying Sky still anyway.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Yeah, BBC just reported that Sainsbury's has pulled out too, the boycott is starting to snowball nicely.
> 
> This particular one is going to leave Tesco, Asda  & Morrisons looking a bit stupid.



Sunday Mail's ad revenue must be going through the roof


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

A chart:

(C) Financial Times


The bounce in the last couple of hours is likely program trading, not political judgement.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 7, 2011)

They'll save the money and not just spend it on other papers. NotW has a quite hard to reach readership.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 7, 2011)

laptop said:


> Looking for a chart...


 
Try the Wall Street Journal website.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

I'm wondering about the Suns standing with its readers. With the likes of mudered kids and dead service personal's families phones being hacked and the story being massive on the TV news the Sun is all but ignoring it. But its exactly the sort of story they would usually be going mental over - OUTRAGE! DISGUSTING! OUR BOYS! HOLLY AND JESSICA! - surely their credibility with their readerships must be taking a major hit (not their 'credibility' with people who read the b/sheets). 

The Times is in a sticky enough position but is now (belatedly) covering the story properly - but the Sun is the sister paper of the NOTW and is Murdochs flagship.

To a lesser extent the reluctance of the Mail and Express to go to town is also looking pretty embarassing for them. 

Oh to be a fly on the wall at the Suns editorial meeting! If they cover it they are attacking themsleves. If they ignore it they look stupid. If they try to counter attack they are lining themselves up against the likes of the British Legion.

I think montgomery-burns murdoch should start giving interviews so as to  win over hearts and minds with his charm, grace and humility.


----------



## 8115 (Jul 7, 2011)

If Rebekah Brookes loses her job I'll be quite tempted to go and have a pint.  I doubt very much that it's going to happen.  Doesn't she go round Cameron's for dinner or something?


----------



## strung out (Jul 7, 2011)

ymu said:


> You can get the Premiership much cheaper from Euro broadcasters, now Rupert's lost his case to prevent cross-border trade. You have to be a serious mug to be paying Sky still anyway.


 
well yes, but that's not really the point i was making.

anyway, the fact you can get it cheaper is beside the point. there are 10 million (ish) sky subscribers in the uk, and telling all of them they should cancel their sub is the worst kind of liberal finger wagging that will just result in a big fuck off from the majority of them, alienating them from any further action that would actually help to bring NI down. focussed boycotts progressing as they are, are fine for now. attempting anything bigger just yet, will be doomed to failure.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 7, 2011)

Think the relatives of dead soldiers isn't really going to help matters.
 The British Legion have dropped the notw help 4 heroes to follow shortly.
  wouldn't want to be a war correspondent for News international in afghan at the mo or in colchester or any garrison town


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Brooks is toast. And Murdoch has fucked up by rushing to defend her - he will have to eject her and end up looking stupid and guilty of - oh the irony -  utterly missjudging the public mood.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

How about a flash mob turning up at  wapping and all doing this?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

strung out said:


> well yes, but that's not really the point i was making.
> 
> anyway, the fact you can get it cheaper is beside the point. there are 10 million (ish) sky subscribers in the uk, and telling all of them they should cancel their sub is the worst kind of liberal finger wagging that will just result in a big fuck off from the majority of them, alienating them from any further action that would actually help to bring NI down. focussed boycotts progressing as they are, are fine for now. attempting anything bigger just yet, will be doomed to failure.


 
I think starting 'small' as it were or, as you say, focused, with a boycott of the NOTW and also pressure to stop the BskyB deal is a good way to go. Then, hopefully, ratchet things up to encompass more of NI as things progress.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

strung out said:


> these boycotts for NI products like sky, 20thC Fox, HC etc are all very laudable, and if you go ahead and do it, then fair play to you, but it all strikes me as being way too ambitious, too soon, for now. as badgers says, bringing down the whole empire would be the jewel in the crown but all that these calls for binning off sky+ do, is serve to alienate the majority of the people who will actually be needed as part of a longer term fight against this corporation (and others).


 
Which is why it's best to pick at the already wounded NOTW and use the rotten leaves to begin infecting the larger tree.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> I'm wondering about the Suns standing with its readers. With the likes of mudered kids and dead service personal's families phones being hacked and the story being massive on the TV news the Sun is all but ignoring it. But its exactly the sort of story they would usually be going mental over - OUTRAGE! DISGUSTING! OUR BOYS! HOLLY AND JESSICA! - surely their credibility with their readerships must be taking a major hit (not their 'credibility' with people who read the b/sheets).
> 
> The Times is in a sticky enough position but is now (belatedly) covering the story properly - but the Sun is the sister paper of the NOTW and is Murdochs flagship.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3682400/David-Cameron-slams-the-latest-phone-hacking-allegations-as-absolutely-disgusting-and-calls-for-inquiry.html


----------



## strung out (Jul 7, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I think starting 'small' as it were or, as you say, focused, with a boycott of the NOTW and also pressure to stop the BskyB deal is a good way to go. Then, hopefully, ratchet things up to encompass more of NI as things progress.


 


pk said:


> Which is why it's best to pick at the already wounded NOTW and use the rotten leaves to begin infecting the larger tree.


 
yep to both of these


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

strung out said:


> to think stephen fry would be involved in this whole affair too


 
Use that to pressure him to make a stand.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Jul 7, 2011)

Was she the on Question Time refusing to apoligise for her papers mistake in listin an innocent man as a paedophile?


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

This will end in a full page "We're Sorry" on the cover, and they'll hope to return to business as usual.

This can never be allowed to happen.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

USA Today - http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-07-06-phone-hacking-murdoch_n.htm


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Brooks is toast. And Murdoch has fucked up by rushing to defend her - he will have to eject her and end up looking stupid and guilty of - oh the irony -  utterly missjudging the public mood.


 
Sacking Brooks is not enough.

Shut them down, piece by piece.


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Sacking Brooks is not enough.



Indeed:



> But Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff believes Brooks, whose relationship with Murdoch has often been compared to that of a daughter, is among the high profile heads likely to have to roll.
> 
> "Rebecca is toast," he told CNN. "It wouldn't be the first time that Rupert has thrown a family member overboard."
> 
> ...







> Shut them down, piece by piece.



Not a likely outcome  There are, after all, still "investors" not called Murdoch.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

WHSmith email to me: 



> Thank you for your email expressing your concerns about the availability of the News of the World in our stores.  We are obviously concerned, like you, regarding recent allegations.
> 
> We continually review our ranges to make sure they meet our customer’s expectations.  We try not to act as a censor but believe that our customers should choose the products they buy.
> 
> ...



Another pathetic, vague cut and paste


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> WHSmith email to me:
> 
> 
> 
> Another pathetic, vague cut and paste



I have sympathy with WHS's position. I would not expect newsagents to lead any boycott.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have sympathy with WHS's position. I would not expect newsagents to lead any boycott.


 
They tried to give me a free Times with my magazine, this morning.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> They tried to give me a free Times with my magazine, this morning.


 
Seriously? Engaging in special promotions is another thing altogether.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have sympathy with WHS's position. I would not expect newsagents to lead any boycott.


 
WHSmith can get behind this boycott or get to fuck.

Send the appeal to them again. And again. Send it to every member of the board. Likewise with Menzie's distribution.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Seriously? Engaging in special promotions is another thing altogether.


 
I do not think we will see the Sun / NOTW paper sellers outside the tube/train stations for a while. 

If so then (((poor them)))


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Seriously? Engaging in special promotions is another thing altogether.


 
who do you think distributes News Int titles?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Seriously? Engaging in special promotions is another thing altogether.


 
Indeed. It came with my Total Film magazine.


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2011)

Send it to the NOTW freepost address, wrapped around a brick.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

smokedout said:


> who do you think distributes News Int titles?


 
I don't know, but I would suppose that whoever it is also distributes lots of non-NI titles too.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Commons announcement - the government is reviewing its advertising contracts with the NOTW.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

On Sunday, list the advertisers buying space in NOTW. 
Name and shame them, they will be fair game for whatever evil mischief the on and offline world can come up with.

I mean every single one of them should be made aware of this.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

O2 have pulled out 

"We share the concerns of customers and employees about these quite shocking claims. While the situation unfolds, we will not be purchasing advertising in the News of the World. We'll continue to monitor the situation closely."


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> Send it to the NOTW freepost address, wrapped around a brick.


 
newsflash - all the posts with that on on Facebook have been removed!! Murdoch even more powerful than we thought!!!!


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Let's be aware that many of these firms are buying extra ads in The Sun instead.

Such companies should also be named and shamed.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know, but I would suppose that whoever it is also distributes lots of non-NI titles too.


 
WH Smith


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

editor said:


> Time to cancel those Sky+ contracts if you really want to hurt Murdoch.


 
agreed!


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

strung out said:


> well yes, but that's not really the point i was making.
> 
> anyway, the fact you can get it cheaper is beside the point. there are 10 million (ish) sky subscribers in the uk, and telling all of them they should cancel their sub is the worst kind of liberal finger wagging that will just result in a big fuck off from the majority of them, alienating them from any further action that would actually help to bring NI down. focussed boycotts progressing as they are, are fine for now. attempting anything bigger just yet, will be doomed to failure.


 
Oh, I agree with that. I still think they're fucking mugs though. 

Good time for someone to become a UK distributor for a Greek Premiership broadcaster.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> newsflash - all the posts with that on on Facebook have been removed!! Murdoch even more powerful than we thought!!!!


 
Are you sure???


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

smokedout said:


> WH Smith


 
This is a different relationship, though. Advertisers pay NI. WH Smith, etc, are paid by them. 

Pulling advertising is a hell of a lot easier as a business decision than cancelling a major contract.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> WHSmith can get behind this boycott or get to fuck.
> 
> Send the appeal to them again. And again. Send it to every member of the board. Likewise with Menzie's distribution.


 
From Wiki: 



> On 19 June 2009, WH Smith apologised after promoting a book on cellar rapist Josef Fritzl as one of the "Top 50 Books for Dad" as a Father's Day gift



So they have some morals perhaps? Sent a short petty reply to keep them busy at least... 



> Thank you for the reply.
> 
> Sorry but should you censor things like WH Smith stocking cellar rapist Josef Fritzl as one of the "Top 50 Books for Dad" or not?
> 
> ...


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Commons announcement - the government is reviewing its advertising contracts with the NOTW.


 
Fucking big of them


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Let's be aware that many of these firms are buying extra ads in The Sun instead.
> 
> Such companies should also be named and shamed.


 
Bully boy tactics are unlikely to work.  The advertisers are not the villains in this saga.


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

We have a couple of old porta-pottis that I'd like rid of. Can you send really big, heavy parcels through the post? Cos we can get 20 litres of shit into each of them ...


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Are you sure???


 
yes, i was looking for it in my email inbox and the message/link has gone and when i looked on the FB pages it was on - all gone!!


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Fucking big of them


 
it means "sounds good while the furore is going on but when it dies down it's back to being best mates with - lets face it - the Tory paper again"


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Bully boy tactics are unlikely to work.  The advertisers are not the villains in this saga.


 
If they continue to advertise in the rag, knowing full well the outrage caused by the despicable organ - then they are at the very least, complicit in this saga


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

This lots still advertising then? 

T Mobile and Orange
Vodafone
Easyjet
Marks and Spencer
Morrisons


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> If they continue to advertise in the rag, knowing full well the outrage caused by the despicable organ - then they are at the very least, complicit in this saga


 
Kind of.  But I'm kind of against the tactics pk is advocating.

"Name and shame them, they will be fair game for whatever evil mischief the on and offline world can come up with."

That's pretty threatening.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> That's pretty threatening.


 
It's supposed to be threatening - continue advertising and bad stuff will happen to you.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

another tactic would be to point out the huge decrease in circ figures from now


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

ASDA are out


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> ASDA are out


 
really? Fuck me, i thought they'd be the last to go - run in the US by religious fanatics similar to Murdoch!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> ASDA are out


 
Good news, even Walmart c*nts are dropping them  

So that leaves Marks and Spencer, Morrisons and of course Tesco of the big food retail chains?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Kind of.  But I'm kind of against the tactics pk is advocating.
> 
> "Name and shame them, they will be fair game for whatever evil mischief the on and offline world can come up with."
> 
> That's pretty threatening.



I don't think it means "we are going to go round and kill your child's rabbit" rather that if they persist in advertising in the NOTW we will stop using their products or services. Which is a legitimate threat.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

this is probably the only thread that has united Urban!! Wierd but i'm having a fantastic time!


----------



## 8115 (Jul 7, 2011)

Honestly, I don't really care what happens to the News of the World, I mean they've already been hit pretty hard by this.  I do care that it's properly investigated and explained how deep the involvement/ complicity of the police/ government was.  Any sort of over the top campaign against the News of the World is frankly taking on a fairly easy target and damages the legitimacy of asking questions about the rest of it.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is a different relationship, though. Advertisers pay NI. WH Smith, etc, are paid by them.
> 
> Pulling advertising is a hell of a lot easier as a business decision than cancelling a major contract.


 
what kind of business pisses off there biggest customer

there's lots of people think they can get a bit of free PR out of this, lots of people got a reason to fuck over murdoch, lots more got a reason to suck up to him - this is just market shit playing out, capital will be stronger than ever

x factor for liberals


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Good news, even Walmart c*nts are dropping them
> 
> So that leaves Marks and Spencer, Morrisons and of course Tesco of the big food retail chains?


 
saw the M&S boss on the telly , utter wanker , think he'll dig his heels in


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

8115 said:


> Honestly, I don't really care what happens to the News of the World, I mean they've already been hit pretty hard by this.  I do care that it's properly investigated and explained how deep the involvement/ complicity of the police/ government was.  Any sort of over the top campaign against the News of the World is frankly taking on a fairly easy target and damages the legitimacy of asking questions about the rest of it.


 
fuck off


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> this is probably the only thread that has united Urban!! Wierd but i'm having a fantastic time!


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> ASDA are out


 
Boots are out too.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Bully boy tactics are unlikely to work.  The advertisers are not the villains in this saga.


 
Oh I think you will find that they are as of now.

Come Monday morning this shit will hit the fan, any company greedy/stupid enough to but ad space deserves all it gets.

We run this.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


>


 
heh heh


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

smokedout said:


> what kind of business pisses off there biggest customer
> 
> there's lots of people think they can get a bit of free PR out of this, lots of people got a reason to fuck over murdoch, lots more got a reason to suck up to him - this is just market shit playing out, capital will be stronger than ever
> 
> x factor for liberals


 
Sorry, I don't understand your point. Advertisers are NI's customers. Distributors are employed by NI. I'm not saying WHSmith shouldn't pull the plug, but for them to do so would cost them a lot of money. Pulling advertising from NOW actually saves companies money. It's a completely different kind of decision.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

8115 said:


> Honestly, I don't really care what happens to the News of the World, I mean they've already been hit pretty hard by this.  I do care that it's properly investigated and explained how deep the involvement/ complicity of the police/ government was.  Any sort of over the top campaign against the News of the World is frankly taking on a fairly easy target and *damages the legitimacy of asking questions about the rest of it*.


 
No it doesn't. The two go in tandom surely. Also going after the NOTW and NI will, hopefully, keep the whole issue in the public consciousness.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Boots are out too.


 
We're winning already.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Kind of.  But I'm kind of against the tactics pk is advocating.
> 
> "Name and shame them, they will be fair game for whatever evil mischief the on and offline world can come up with."
> 
> That's pretty threatening.


 
We should tell them that if they don't stop we are going to come around and kill their pet rabbits


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 7, 2011)

Just been listening to Martin 'Money saving expert' Lewis on 5 live as he wriggled and squirmed and failed to say whether or not he'd continue his notw column. I wonder how much they pay him.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> saw the M&S boss on the telly , utter wanker , think he'll dig his heels in


 


> Ford, Renault, Cadbury's, Mumsnet (eh?), NatWest, Coca Cola, The Body Shop, Debenhams, *Marks & Spencer*, LLoyds Bank, Vauxhall, Virgin Holidays, The Halifax, the Co-Op, Aldi and Talk Talk *have all either withdrawn ads or diplomatically stated they have 'no advertsing plans'* according to a handy live blog of the affair being regularly updated by Political Scrapbook.



http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/7/6/notw-advertisers-dropping-out-hour/#ixzz1RQ3iLUlG

*Contact details:*
The Registered Office and Head Office of Marks & Spencer is
Marks and Spencer Group plc, Waterside House, 35 North Wharf Road, London, W2 1NW

Telephone: 020 7935 4422 

For Retail Customer Services please call: 0845 302 1234.  
Alternatively email retailcustomer.services@marksandspencer.com

Investor Relations: 020 8718 1563
Email enquiries: investorrelations@marks-and-spencer.com


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

8115 said:


> Honestly, I don't really care what happens to the News of the World, I mean they've already been hit pretty hard by this.  I do care that it's properly investigated and explained how deep the involvement/ complicity of the police/ government was.  Any sort of over the top campaign against the News of the World is frankly taking on a fairly easy target and damages the legitimacy of asking questions about the rest of it.


 
"hit pretty hard by this"

Not as hard as The Dowler family.

In fact, yeah, fuck off.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> this is probably the only thread that has united Urban!! Wierd but i'm having a fantastic time!


 
Yes.  I think that's the problem.  You're all enjoying yourself enormously at the thought of hurting Murdoch and chums.  Do any of you actually give a toss about the victims of the phone hacking, or are you just getting off on the Murdoch hate-frenzy?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Just been listening to Martin 'Money saving expert' Lewis on 5 live as he wriggled and squirmed and failed to say whether or not he'd continue his notw column. I wonder how much they pay him.


 
Complaints about the main MoneySavingExpert.com site - Martin@moneysavingexpert.com

news@moneysavingexpert.com


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> We should tell them that if they don't stop we are going to come around and kill their pet rabbits



And if they don't have one we will buy them one...and then kill it!


(((rabbits)))


----------



## mauvais (Jul 7, 2011)

A few more changes in advertising land: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...World-quot?p=11913249&viewfull=1#post11913249


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.  I think that's the problem.  You're all enjoying yourself enormously at the thought of hurting Murdoch and chums.  Do any of you actually give a toss about the victims of the phone hacking, or are you just getting off on the Murdoch hate-frenzy?


 
I'd say that, in many ways, we are worse than the phone-hacking journalists.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Oh I think you will find that they are as of now.
> 
> Come Monday morning this shit will hit the fan, any company greedy/stupid enough to but ad space deserves all it gets.
> 
> We run this.



You run nothing.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 7, 2011)

Bang goes that epoch defining moment of unity...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

smokedout said:


> there's lots of people think they can get a bit of free PR out of this, lots of people got a reason to fuck over murdoch, lots more got a reason to suck up to him - this is just market shit playing out, capital will be stronger than ever
> 
> x factor for liberals


 
The Murdoch empire and its malign hold over politics is taking a major, richly deserved and long overdue kicking. And this is kicking coming from ordinary, non-political people who are disgusted by what is being revealed. In addition it dips Cameron and the Met right into the shit as a brucie bonus.  

Whats not to like? 

I mean seriously - how is this anyhting other than something to be celebrated?

Of course their will be other media moguls and more police corruption and politicians will still be heaviuly influecned by right wing media and big corporations - but its an ongoing battle agasint power, corruption and tyranny and right now those forces are being pushed back.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

According to the Belfast Telegraph, the face behind Walker's Crisps (Gary Lineker) is "considering his position" as a columnist for the News Of The World.

e2a:  Apparently Michael Mansfield QC (who represented Dodi Fayed at the time of Princess Diana's death, and also the family of Jean Charles de Menezes) was targeted as well.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> It seems that the police/law courts/whoever have decided now is the time to deal with an increasing problem that is spoiling the free press, civil liberties, justice system and much more. This is HUGE for many, many reasons. A fundamental change in the politics of the World we live in. No surprise that new technologies are being abused for financial gain by evil fuckers, but it's reached the point when something has to be done.


 
I wouldnt hold my breath - this is still being reported as a problem limited to News International, after all.  Even as all this is coming out, the same techniques that were used to conceal it from everyone are still being used to conceal the rest of the guilty.




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> Sunday Mail's ad revenue must be going through the roof



Which is the depressing thing.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Want to tweet at some of the NOTW's advertisers?

Here's a site that makes it easy...

http://www.pint.org.uk/notw.html


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Bang goes that epoch defining moment of unity...


 
We'll always have the 'Bono - Cunt / not a cunt?' thread.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> The Murdoch empire and its malign hold over politics is taking a major, richly deserved and long overdue kicking. And this is kicking coming from ordinary, non-political people who are disgusted by what is being revealed. In addition it dips Cameron and the Met right into the shit as a brucie bonus.
> 
> Whats not to like?
> 
> ...



This, Elizabeth of York, is why we are all "getting off" on the current situation. And no it doesn't mean that we don't feel sympathy for the people who have had their phones hacked....or their rabbits.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.  I think that's the problem.  You're all enjoying yourself enormously at the thought of hurting Murdoch and chums.  Do any of you actually give a toss about the victims of the phone hacking, or are you just getting off on the Murdoch hate-frenzy?


 
How about BOTH?? I'd lay good money they were tapping the phone of Sarah Payne's mum too.

You can fuck off too if you're here to defend them or divert this operation.

They are going down whether you like it or not. By fair means or foul.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> How about BOTH?? I'd lay good money they were tapping the phone of Sarah Payne's mum too.
> 
> You can fuck off too if you're here to defend them or divert this operation.
> 
> They are going down whether you like it or not. By fair means or foul.



So you admit you're using bully boy tactics, threats and intimidation.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2011)

Tonight on Question Time : 

David Dimbleby is joined in Basingstoke by Hugh Grant, Chris Grayling, Baroness Williams, Douglas Alexander and Jon Gaunt


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> How about BOTH?? I'd lay good money they were tapping the phone of Sarah Payne's mum too.
> 
> You can fuck off too if you're here to defend them or divert this operation.
> 
> They are going down whether you like it or not. *By fair means or foul*.



I doubt she's here to defend them, rather balk at tactics


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Which is the depressing thing.


 
The Daily Mail employ equally scurrilous tactics via private detectives etc., but as they haven't been caught and aren't doing anything about it, then obviously it's ok to advertise with them instead and buy their papers.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I doubt she's here to defend them, rather balk at tactics


 
Exactly that.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.  I think that's the problem.  You're all enjoying yourself enormously at the thought of hurting Murdoch and chums.  Do any of you actually give a toss about the victims of the phone hacking, or are you just getting off on the Murdoch hate-frenzy?


 
Sorry but that's not only bollocks, it's insulting bollocks. How can people not feel for the family of a murdered child left with false hope by these assholes just so they can sell a few papers and for you to suggest that people here don't care about that is a disgraceful comment to make frankly. But this goes way beyond the pain and grief and violation of one family. This scandal raises the most serious questions about the hold that an unaccountable tycoon has on the political life of this country and that should concern us all.

  So yes I am loving this, watching this dreadful corporation reap the consequences of what it has sown. This is richly deserved and I am enjoying every second of it. They deserve it.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

mauvais said:


> A few more changes in advertising land: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...World-quot?p=11913249&viewfull=1#post11913249


 
You need to update Boots, after a review they have now pulled out.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.  I think that's the problem.  You're all enjoying yourself enormously at the thought of hurting Murdoch and chums.  Do any of you actually give a toss about the victims of the phone hacking, or are you just getting off on the Murdoch hate-frenzy?



How could anyone not care? I think you have to take that as read. 

Enjoying the hurt inflicted on Murdoch and his chums is fully justified, they've been hurting people for decades but unfortunately it's only now that the wider public are beginning to see just what shits they really are.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.  I think that's the problem.  You're all enjoying yourself enormously at the thought of hurting Murdoch and chums.  Do any of you actually give a toss about the victims of the phone hacking, or are you just getting off on the Murdoch hate-frenzy?


 
Hatred of Murdoch and his organsiation is rooted in hatred of what it has done to its many many victims over the past 30+ years. Direcetly - as in the case of the Hillsborough dead and the families of murdred kids  - and indirecitly in its role as cheerleader in chief for all the nastiest poliies and hate campaigns since the 80s - campaings and policies that have created uncountable victims from the smashed communities of Thatchers wrecking ball,  to refugees, immigrants and gay people beaten up, to the demonsiation of the poor and disabled to  the 100s of thousands of corpses in Iraq.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> You need to update Boots, after a review they have now pulled out.


Source? Shall do.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

mauvais said:


> Source? Shall do.



BBC News Channel.

Can't see it on their site yet.

ETA:



> Latest
> 
> 13.00 Boots becomes the latest company to pull future NOTW ads: "In light of the evolving situation, we have put on hold further advertising with the News of the World", says a statement.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...707/News-of-the-World-phone-hacking-live.html


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> bully boy tactics, threats and intimidation.


 


(((Rupert))))


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Exactly that.


 
So what tactics do you suggest be used?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> (((Rupert))))


 
Aye, so much irony.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.  I think that's the problem.  You're all enjoying yourself enormously at the thought of hurting Murdoch and chums.  Do any of you actually give a toss about the victims of the phone hacking, or are you just getting off on the Murdoch hate-frenzy?


 
That's a moronic post. Really, all your posts so far have been moronic.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> The Daily Mail employ equally scurrilous tactics via private detectives etc., but as they haven't been caught and aren't doing anything about it, then obviously it's ok to advertise with them instead and buy their papers.


 
No - they have been caught, and they did try to do something about the people who tried to expose it.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

TO - martin@moneysavingexpert.com

CC - news@moneysavingexpert.com, forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com, webmaster@moneysavingexpert.com, vouchers@moneysavingexpert.com, press@moneysavingexpert.com 



> Dear Martin Lewis,
> 
> Until you stop contributing to the News of the World paper in ANY format I will boycott your website. I have also made family, friends and business associates aware of your position on this.
> 
> You portray your work as a public service, but your association with a newspaper happy to tap the phones of murder victims makes your work seem like a shallow, selfish excercise lacking in morals.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So you admit you're using bully boy tactics, threats and intimidation.


 
No, but I am open to suggestions


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> So what tactics do you suggest be used?


 
This I would love to hear.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> (((Rupert))))


 
Predictable.  And childish.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So you admit you're using bully boy tactics, threats and intimidation.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 7, 2011)

And lo! The infighting begins...


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 7, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> So what tactics do you suggest be used?


 
"A major, and I mean major....leaflet campaign"


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> TO - martin@moneysavingexpert.com
> 
> CC - news@moneysavingexpert.com, forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com, webmaster@moneysavingexpert.com, vouchers@moneysavingexpert.com, press@moneysavingexpert.com



Excellent. Will do!


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 7, 2011)

Fightin' talk from NI legal deprt. in response to the HoC situation and comments  yesterday

"All of these statements have been made under the cloak of Parliamentary privelige and we would challenge anybody to reapest them outside the house , where they have no legal protection"

Translation -We are bigger and richer than you lot We have no regrets whatsoever about what happend so dont fuckin' try it on


----------



## past caring (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> How about BOTH?? I'd lay good money they were tapping the phone of Sarah Payne's mum too.
> 
> You can fuck off too if you're here to defend them or divert this operation.
> 
> They are going down whether you like it or not. By fair means or foul.



Keep this pompous guff coming, chief - it's pure gold.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.  I think that's the problem.  You're all enjoying yourself enormously at the thought of hurting Murdoch and chums.  Do any of you actually give a toss about the victims of the phone hacking, or are you just getting off on the Murdoch hate-frenzy?


 
it is an absolute disgrace that a newspaper would hack into ANYONE's private phone and even worse when it is someone suffering tragedy be it Milly Dowler , families of bereaved soldiers or whoever . You do not have to personally know someone to enjoy evil bastards like Murdoch getting their comuppance
Sounds to me it's only YOU who are upset about this evil man


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Predictable.  And childish.


 
Sanctimonious. And patronising.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

Some info here about press reaction in the States, which I think someone asked about earlier in the thread

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live-coverage


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

I think the NOTW has managed to drop themselves below Paedos in the pecking order of who the public hates more - which is quite a feat


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 7, 2011)

The Octagon said:


> "A major, and I mean major....leaflet campaign"


 
Strangely, Arnold Rimmer there looks like any number of hipsters you might see walking the streets of the trendy areas of our large cities.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> And lo! The infighting begins...


 
not really infighting, just a Tory sympathiser against the rset of us


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> The Daily Mail employ equally scurrilous tactics via private detectives etc., but as they haven't been caught and aren't doing anything about it, then obviously it's ok to advertise with them instead and buy their papers.


 
i think there'll be a knock on effect, i hope so anyway!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

News Corps shares still heading south acording to the  Guardian.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> not really infighting, just a Tory sympathiser against the rset of us


 
Try not to talk shit please.

I'm questioning the bullying tactics that are being called for by people like pk.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Try not to talk shit please.
> 
> I'm questioning the bullying tactics that are being called for by people like pk.


 
Different people have different approaches, what would you like to see happen?


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I think the NOTW has managed to drop themselves below Paedos in the pecking order of who the public hates more - which is quite a feat


 
are there any left wing paedophile suicide bombers out there? They're gonna need em!


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Try not to talk shit please.
> 
> I'm questioning the bullying tactics that are being called for by people like pk.



so you're ok with hacking the phones of the families of murder victims, and the families of dead soldiers?


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Try not to talk shit please.
> 
> I'm questioning the bullying tactics that are being called for by people like pk.


 
you tried to imply some of us don't care about what happened to Milly Dowler, where's the bullying tactics in that?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

The Met refers the hacking investigation to the IPCC...



> 1.12pm: Statement from the Metropolitan police on their decision to refer the hacking investigation to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
> 
> The decision was taken "in view of the significant public and political concern" – full statement below, with thanks to reporter Caroline Davies:
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm questioning the bullying tactics that are being called for by people like pk.


 
you shouldn't really take pk seriously tbf.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

past caring said:


> Keep this pompous guff coming, chief - it's pure gold.


 
Keep buying the newspaper then eh, chief, we know your morals fall short of your supposed political credentials.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm questioning the bullying tactics that are being called for by people like pk.


 
I am calling for them too


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Try not to talk shit please.
> 
> I'm questioning the bullying tactics that are being called for by people like pk.


 
Sorry but you are doing more than that. You are questioning the integrity of people's anger and suggesting that they don't really care about the victims of this


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Can we ignore mrs right-and-proper-knickers and get back to the the crumbling into dust of news interantional please?


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Try not to talk shit please.
> 
> I'm questioning the bullying tactics that are being called for by people like pk.


 
i just found another of your posts where you dare to suggest the Tories leave a strong economy for Labour to fuck up. You are a Tory sympathiser . Why lie? I suppose that there's now 0 unemployment?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I am calling for them too


 
Bully! *hides any nearby rabbits*


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> The Met refers the hacking investigation to the IPCC...


 
Wow, you know the police are really trying to whitewash something when they get the ipcc involved.  Anyone care to predict the outcome of the ipcc investigation?


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Can we ignore mrs right-and-proper-knickers and get back to the the crumbling into dust of news interantional please?


 
yes agreed. sorry i got sidetracked. Back to the gloating!!!!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> so you're ok with hacking the phones of the families of murder victims, and the families of dead soldiers?


 
No of course not.  What an unfathomable leap to make.  

I'm against the bullying tactics against the advertisers.  Calling for a boycott of the paper itself would be far more ethical.  I'm sure it would be very effective too - there's a huge feeling of disgust against News International.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

killer b said:


> you shouldn't really take pk seriously tbf.


 
Not if you prefer not to.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No of course not.  What an unfathomable leap to make.
> 
> I'm against the bullying tactics against the advertisers.  Calling for a boycott of the paper itself would be far more ethical.  I'm sure it would be very effective too - there's a huge feeling of disgust against News International.


 
without advertisers there would BE no News International


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

And another charity campaign withdrawn..



> 13.14 Beatbullying is suspending its anti-bullying campaigns with the News of the World while the phone hacking investigations are carried out. The charity said in a statement:
> 
> "Our supporters are deeply shocked by the revelations, which are untenable to a charity which seeks to protect children."
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...707/News-of-the-World-phone-hacking-live.html



Extra pressure for the remaining advertisers.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Calling for a boycott of the paper itself would be far more ethical.  I'm sure it would be very effective too - there's a huge feeling of disgust against News International.



Who should we be calling?


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No of course not.  What an unfathomable leap to make.
> 
> I'm against the bullying tactics against the advertisers.  Calling for a boycott of the paper itself would be far more ethical.  I'm sure it would be very effective too - there's a huge feeling of disgust against News International.


 
Why not call for both? I'm waiting for Tesco to pull out, otherwise there will have to be action directed at them.

Anyway - Tory sympathiser?? Fuck off.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No of course not.  What an unfathomable leap to make.
> 
> I'm against the bullying tactics against the advertisers.  Calling for a boycott of the paper itself would be far more ethical.  I'm sure it would be very effective too - there's a huge feeling of disgust against News International.


 
the advertisers aren't being bullied, they are being made aware that people are pissed off and that they should share this huge feeling of disgust


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> without advertisers there would BE no News International


 
Without readers there'd be no advertising.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No of course not.  What an unfathomable leap to make.
> 
> I'm against the bullying tactics against the advertisers.  Calling for a boycott of the paper itself would be far more ethical.  I'm sure it would be very effective too - there's a huge feeling of disgust against News International.


 What kind of upside-down world do you live in? If you can afford to advertise in the NotW, you are by definition a huge corporation. How the _fuck_ are ordinary folk 'bullying' them? 

Moronic. Utterly moronic.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Calling for a boycott of the paper itself would be far more ethical.  I'm sure it would be very effective too - there's a huge feeling of disgust against News International.



Who should we be calling?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No of course not.  What an unfathomable leap to make.
> 
> I'm against the bullying tactics against the advertisers.  Calling for a boycott of the paper itself would be far more ethical.  I'm sure it would be very effective too - there's a huge feeling of disgust against News International.



As pk said why not both? They are both legitimate techniques I feel and neither, I feel, could be construed as bullying.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Butchers will be pissed by now so expect the usual evening menu of sneering and abuse.
> 
> Why do people buy into this self-serving 'we're pulling our advertising' nonsense - do you really think it'll last longer than a month?
> 
> FFS get back to the substance.


 
A little reflexivity would have shown you the irony in making such a post.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Without readers there'd be no advertising.





Save the advertisers!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Without readers there'd be no advertising.


 
Well guess what, most of us on here are already non-readers of notw.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 7, 2011)

not-bono-ever said:


> Fightin' talk from NI legal deprt. in response to the HoC situation and comments  yesterday
> 
> "All of these statements have been made under the cloak of Parliamentary privelige and we would challenge anybody to reapest them outside the house



...or on someones voicemail


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What kind of upside-down world do you live in? If you can afford to advertise in the NotW, you are by definition a huge corporation. How the _fuck_ are ordinary folk 'bullying' them?
> 
> Moronic. Utterly moronic.


 
No need for insults, love.

When pk said "They are going down whether you like it or not. By fair means or foul", that sounded like bullying to me.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

I wonder if all of this attention will mean that the story of how the _Sun_ almost bankrupted the girlfriend of a serviceman finally comes out?


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

"oh noes! Tesco are being bullied!!"

If they continue to support the NOTW with ad revenue - fuck em. Hard. In the face.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Tesco has refused to pull its advertsising according to the guardian blog http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live-coverage

And i dont see how advertsiing revenue pulled from the NOTW will just be spent taking out more advertising in the Sun (or any other paper) - these companises already advertise in those papers - what would be the point of advertising the same thing twice?

Expeect a few more to donate the revenue to relevant charities - probably more effective marketing wise than another reminder of the great deals avaialble on a new ford focus/can of beans/pension plan etc.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well guess what, most of us on here are already non-readers of notw.


 
So what?  The paper has millions of readers.  It would be worthwhile to raise awareness among those millions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No need for insults, love.
> 
> When pk said "They are going down whether you like it or not. By fair means or foul", that sounded like bullying to me.


 
Your posts are moronic. That isn't intended as an insult. Just a description.


----------



## past caring (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Keep buying the newspaper then eh, chief, we know your morals fall short of your supposed political credentials.


 
Do we know this? How, where, when? Evidence?

p.s. - a little clue, as you're clearly struggling today - taking the piss out of your self-importance and bombast is evidence only of the regard in which I hold you, not of my reading habits of a Sunday.


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

How newspapers work:

Cover price, roughly speaking, covers the print and distribution cost only. The editorial budget and promotion and profits are paid for by advertising - the great majority of turnover.

Ad pages are priced according to audited circulation. Drive down the circulation through a boycott, and the advertisers get to pay less per page. So that's merely an indirect way of hitting ad revenue.

Ohh, soorrry, how _vulgar_ of me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> I don't think the public have ever been fools.  Indifferent yeah but the real silent obedient fools are the Politicians of all parties who have been running scared of him and his rags for years. I was just reading the following Simon Hoggart article in the guardian.
> 
> 
> What a damning indictment of this countries political representatives, that they admit they have been cowering in the shadow of this grubby man and his sewer press for decades and only now, dare speak out. What does that tell us about their integrity?
> ...


 
Unfortunately there are plenty of historical antecedents to this sort of behaviour by Parliament.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So what?  The paper has millions of readers.  It would be worthwhile to raise awareness among those millions.


 
How better to raise said awareness than to force a whole string of companies that they shop with to withdraw advertising? It isn't either/or.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

So will sales go up or down on Sunday?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 7, 2011)

erm have I missed the part where EoY answered the question of what tactics theyd suggest ?


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No need for insults, love.
> 
> When pk said "They are going down whether you like it or not. By fair means or foul", that sounded like bullying to me.


 
Ask your local bankrupted small shops about Tesco bullying tactics...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Tesco has refused to pull its advertsising according to the guardian blog http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live-coverage



Tweet the bastards, I have....

@UKTesco Until you withdraw your ads from #notw, I'll be withdrawing my shopping from Tesco & returning to Sainsbury's.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

laptop said:


> How newspapers work:
> 
> Cover price, roughly speaking, covers the print and distribution cost only. The editorial budget and promotion and profits are paid for by advertising - the great majority of turnover.
> 
> ...


 
Yes - well known quote within media studies - "Newspapers exist to deliver audiences to advertisers" - (cant remember who said it).


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> So will sales go up or down on Sunday?


 
I'd say down, maybe by half?


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

past caring said:


> Do we know this? How, where, when? Evidence?
> 
> p.s. - a little clue, as you're clearly struggling today - taking the piss out of your self-importance and bombast is evidence only of the regard in which I hold you, not of my reading habits of a Sunday.


 
Fuck your "regard" you and your type are stuck in the 1970's anyway.

Great that campaigns like this have fuck all to do with Marxist groups and other such cunts.


----------



## xenon (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Brooks is toast. And Murdoch has fucked up by rushing to defend her - he will have to eject her and end up looking stupid and guilty of - oh the irony -  utterly missjudging the public mood.


 

Thought she'd been appointed to lead the NoTW internal enquiry? Which, is monumentally aroogant obviously. I'll beleive she's toast when we can smell the burning. A few largely anonamous back room peple or hacks are more likely to sacrifised. Although Today program speculation yesterday, mentioned divisions between a Coulson and Brooks camp. I wonder what the back draught of an internal division might throw out at Cameron.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

it's slightly better for Cameron if Brooks gets ousted, Coulson taking the blame will make Cameron look worse


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

xenon said:


> Thought she'd been appointed to lead the NoTW internal enquiry? Which, is monumentally aroogant obviously. I'll beleive she's toast when we can smell the burning. A few largely anonamous back room peple or hacks are more likely to sacrifised. Although Today program speculation yesterday, mentioned divisions between a Coulson and Brooks camp. I wonder what the back draught of an internal division might throw out at Cameron.



Cameron's got to walk a tightrope, hopefully the it'll all blow up in his face.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> At this point, I think it's time to have a friendly word with the newsagent.
> 
> Ask him to hide the NOTW as a protest.



Or, if he's planning a barbecue...


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> the advertisers aren't being bullied, they are being made aware that people are pissed off and that they should share this huge feeling of disgust


 
Precisely. Nobody is 'bullying' the advertisers (and the idea that people are bullying Tesco is laughable anyway) - just showing them how disgusted people are with the NotW, and dropping a broad hint that it will do them no good to continue their association with it.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Fuck your "regard" you and your type are stuck in the 1970's anyway.
> 
> Great that campaigns like this have fuck all to do with Marxist groups and other such cunts.



Yes because the left (including many marxists) have not been invovled in any far reaching critiques and ongoing campaings agasint murdoch and concentration of media ownership have they? 

And of course they completly ignored the wapping dispute.


----------



## past caring (Jul 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or, if he's planning a barbecue...



Torch his gaff?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

laptop said:


> How newspapers work:
> 
> Cover price, roughly speaking, covers the print and distribution cost only. The editorial budget and promotion and profits are paid for by advertising - the great majority of turnover.
> 
> Ad pages are priced according to audited circulation. Drive down the circulation through a boycott, and the advertisers get to pay less per page. So that's merely an indirect way of hitting ad revenue.



That _was / is_ my understanding too ^ 

2,606,397 average circulation per week - 04 Apr 11 - 01 May 11 so £2,606,397 is the average weekly revenue from sales to readers. So that is an annual revenue (from sales) of approx £135m for the NOTW at current readership. 

From the BBC it is less clear: 

Like most newspapers, it is heavily dependent on advertising revenue, which provided it with some £40m in the past 12 months - although the paper makes more than three times that from its sales to readers

However their top 10 advertisers spent pretty much £40m over 12 months. That £40 is only their top 10, what about the hundreds of others?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> So yes I am loving this, watching this dreadful corporation reap the consequences of what it has sown. This is richly deserved and I am enjoying every second of it. They deserve it.


 
The past few days have had something of the flavour of the last days of Richard Nixon, and I certainly loved every second of that.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> I'd say down, maybe by half?


 
You've got to be joking...


----------



## xenon (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What kind of upside-down world do you live in? If you can afford to advertise in the NotW, you are by definition a huge corporation. How the _fuck_ are ordinary folk 'bullying' them?
> 
> Moronic. Utterly moronic.


 

Yup.

(((corporate marketting depts)))


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> "oh noes! Tesco are being bullied!!"
> 
> If they continue to support the NOTW with ad revenue - *fuck em. Hard. In the face*.



What are you personally going to do to Tescos, out of curiosity?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

xenon said:


> Thought she'd been appointed to lead the NoTW internal enquiry? Which, is monumentally aroogant obviously. I'll beleive she's toast when we can smell the burning. A few largely anonamous back room peple or hacks are more likely to sacrifised. Although Today program speculation yesterday, mentioned divisions between a Coulson and Brooks camp. I wonder what the back draught of an internal division might throw out at Cameron.



She cant survive. News International will have to sacrifce her to try and being some closure and protect NIs reputation (good luck with that BTW rupe). And Cameron is under intense pressure from his own side to call for her head. Coulson is already fucked and likely to go to prison.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> You've got to be joking...


 
I agree.

Down, yes, but not by anything like half - I doubt that many NOTW readers will give a flying fuck TBH.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Yes because the left (including many marxists) have not been invovled in any far reaching critiques and ongoing campaings agasint murdoch and concentration of media ownership have they?
> 
> And of course they completly ignored the wapping dispute.


 
Campaigns like THIS have not been anything to do with previous failed attempts to destroy these papers.

The world has moved on. Even Mumsnet has more influence than what's left of the anarchists.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Hatred of Murdoch and his organsiation is rooted in hatred of what it has done to its many many victims over the past 30+ years. Direcetly - as in the case of the Hillsborough dead and the families of murdred kids  - and indirecitly in its role as cheerleader in chief for all the nastiest poliies and hate campaigns since the 80s - campaings and policies that have created uncountable victims from the smashed communities of Thatchers wrecking ball,  to refugees, immigrants and gay people beaten up, to the demonsiation of the poor and disabled to  the 100s of thousands of corpses in Iraq.



but this isn't anything like that - this is grubby little hacks doing grubby little hack things, unpleasant but comparatively trivial in the wider scheme of things


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

Labour are covered in shit over this as well, their only saving grace is the shit hit the fan after they lost the election - Alan Johnson was in the Guardian today basically saying they avoided taking action a few years ago - and the press spokesman (can't remember his name) was advising them until a few days ago, not to criticise Murdoch.

Basically every PM since Thatcher has tried to cosy up to Murdoch.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> What are you personally going to do to Tescos, out of curiosity?


 
Use your imagination.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> I'd say down, maybe by half?


 
I would guess half too
Dropping their approx paper sales revenue from £2.6m to £1.3m. 
Advertising will drop by a lot more that half I reckon
The staff, office, print, distribution and other overheads will be pretty static


----------



## xenon (Jul 7, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Cameron's got to walk a tightrope, hopefully the it'll all blow up in his face.


 

Yep. And there's plenty of opportunity for him to say something self damning while this is going on, even if no effect is seen just yet.

@Marty21 I thought Brooks was friends with the Cameronss. Re that intervention he made on her behalf before.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> You've got to be joking...


 
As a one off, maybe. That being said I don't know how much of their distribution is to subscribers and paper boys etc, I don't think may will be cancelling subscriptions.

I think a lot of of their readership will want to make their thoughts clear, if only for one week.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Campaigns like THIS have not been anything to do with previous failed attempts to destroy these papers.
> 
> The world has moved on. Even Mumsnet has more influence than what's left of the anarchists.


 
Yes you are right. The relish and speed with which people have put the boot into Murdoch has come from nowhere and has no basis in decades of anipathy coming mainly from the politcal left. In fact its year zero and its all happening in a vacumn.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 7, 2011)

Giles Coren is getting it and dishing it out on Twatter


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

*NOTW CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS*



> If you'd like to find out more about corporate subscriptions email us at CorporateSubscriptions@notw.co.uk or call 0800 001 4258



Busy line today


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Cameron's got to walk a tightrope, hopefully the it'll all blow up in his face.


 
tightropes are of course not famous for their explosive quality. i think you meant to say he faces the possibility of being blown off (ooer missus) by a great gust of hot air. which would have made more sense.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 7, 2011)

I dont know if anyones mentioned....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14061557


im sorry if it has been , this thread is flying so fast....


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

xenon said:


> Yep. And there's plenty of opportunity for him to say something self damning while this is going on, even if no effect is seen just yet.
> 
> @Marty21 I thought Brooks was friends with the Cameronss. Re that intervention he made on her behalf before.


 
they all live close by, I think she lives in Chipping Norton (I drove through that the other day - very posh) next door to Cameron's constituency in Witney, I think someone already mentioned that Murdoch jr was best man at her wedding - they probably have hilarious dinner parties


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Yes you are right. The relish and speed with which people have put the boot into Murdoch has come from nowhere and has no basis in decades of anipathy coming mainly from the politcal left. In fact its year zero and its all happening in a vacumn.


 
What is is not is a campaign that Socialist Circlejerker can claim any credit for, not this time.

Though they'll try.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Just seen someone from the telegraph really laying into cameron on bbc news 24 - 'his reputation is irritreavably damaged (by this scandal) and he needs to somehow pull himself out of the sewer' - interesting - are the rightwing  knives out for disco dave?


 
The Tory right has been sharpening their knives for him since he became leader. They knew they needed him to get a sniff of power, but if they can use this as a reason for an internal _coup_, to get one of their own in the driving seat, they will.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> tightropes are of course not famous for their explosive quality. i think you meant to say he faces the possibility of being blown off (ooer missus) by a great gust of hot air. which would have made more sense.


 
Nope I deliberatly mixed my metaphors, I'm in a kind of early weekend mood and I'd thought I'd throw caution to the wind and see where it takes me.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Use your imagination.


 
Boycott it like the rest of us?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Tory right has been sharpening their knives for him since he became leader. They knew they needed him to get a sniff of power, but if they can use this as a reason for an internal _coup_, to get one of their own in the driving seat, they will.


 
trouble is - the cupboard's bare of potential leaders - who do they have?

Jeremy Hunt?   He was doing ok until this bit him on the arse
The Boy Chancellor? - lol
Michael Gove? 
Kenneth Clarke - oh yes, the Right hate him too


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> *NOTW CORPORATE SUBSCRIPTIONS*
> 
> 
> 
> Busy line today



Something like this....

"Hi Id like to make an enquiry about a corporate subscription?"

"Certainly sir"

"Nahh not really, you bunch of cunts"


----------



## likesfish (Jul 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> tightropes are of course not famous for their explosive quality. i think you meant to say he faces the possibility of being blown off (ooer missus) by a great gust of hot air. which would have made more sense.


 
unless somebody replaces said tight rope with for example det cord.
  then it will


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Looks like Tesco could be back-paddling over their recent statement.




> 13.29 Harry Wallop, our Consumer Affairs Editor, says Tesco is under fire from its customers for putting out a "disgraceful" statement, updating its position about advertising in the NOTW.
> 
> I happened to be chatting to a board director of Tesco last night and they said it would be wrong for the supermarket to pull advertising from the paper, while an official investigation was underway.
> 
> ...



Get those tweets in...

*@UKTesco *Until you withdraw your ads from #notw, I'll be withdrawing my shopping from Tesco & returning to [insert Sainsbury's, Co-op or Asda].


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

Advertising contacts - http://nicommercial.com/contacts

Advertising rates - http://nicommercial.com/assets/pdfs/NGN Display Rate Card Oct-2010.pdf



> The World's biggest Sunday newspaper sets the agenda and gets the nation (and sometimes the World) talking. News of the World fulfils that brief in an unprecedented fashion. *Founded in 1843 with the words ‘Our motto is the truth, our practice is fearless advocacy of the truth’* – it’s the World’s biggest-selling English language Sunday newspaper with a readership of almost 7.5m every week


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Besides, the boss himself always was a poor man's Robert Maxwell.
> 
> Let's hope this episode is Murdoch's Lady Ghislane..


 
Except I doubt Murdoch will be obliging enough to follow his own stream of piss off the prow of a yacht and into the briny, the miserable old cunt!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> What are you personally going to do to Tescos, out of curiosity?


 
Maybe he'll refuse to shop there any more.  He'll buy his beans from Sainsbury's instead.  Pow!  That'll fuck em hard in the face.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Yes you are right. The relish and speed with which people have put the boot into Murdoch has come from nowhere and has no basis in decades of anipathy coming mainly from the politcal left. In fact its year zero and its all happening in a vacumn.


 
that's because you don't understand it. it's not come from nowhere, and only a thick fuck would suggest it had. it's similar to the reaction people have when they see that a friend has let them down or fucked them over very badly, and any sort of amity turns to hatred.

for politicians, however, as has been pointed out a lot of them have wanted to put the boot in for some time but hadn't dared.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Tory right has been sharpening their knives for him since he became leader. They knew they needed him to get a sniff of power, but if they can use this as a reason for an internal _coup_, to get one of their own in the driving seat, they will.


 
Yeah they're not impressed with disco and only went along with his crap so they could get elected and he couldent even do that properly.  Question is who is their starlet waiting in the wings?  Surely not London botherer Boris?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's not complacency, it's corruption.


 
The former does facilitate the latter, though.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 7, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Something like this....
> 
> "Hi Id like to make an enquiry about a corporate subscription?"
> 
> ...



Hang on, maybe you shouldn't target the poor sods who have to man the phones as well?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> that's because you don't understand it. it's not come from nowhere, and only a thick fuck would suggest it had. it's similar to the reaction people have when they see that a friend has let them down or fucked them over very badly, and any sort of amity turns to hatred.



this is a good point, but is that what's really going on


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> 2,606,397 average circulation per week... so £2,606,397


 
Less distributors' and newsagents' cut. Small magagazines get only 45 per cent of the cover price from the distributors. NotW may do better, but not much. Say £1.5M max.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Boycott it like the rest of us?


 
To put it in stark terms - any firm continuing to fund NOTW is effectively CONDONING the hacking of the war dead, 7/7 victims & the families of murdered children.

With all that that entails.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 7, 2011)

Dixons has pulled its advertising with the News of the World. Graeme Wearden emails:



> Business editor Julia Finch tells me that Dixons, the high street retail chain, has decided to pull its advertising from the News of the World "until further notice". The company, which was ranked 16th in our list of the top 50 advertisers, is expected to release a statement soon.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Hang on, maybe you shouldn't target the poor sods who have to man the phones as well?


 
Nothing wrong with wasting their time so they can't book as many corporate subscriptions is there? 
They will still get paid


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah they're not impressed with disco and only went along with his crap so they could get elected and he couldent even do that properly.  Question is who is their starlet waiting in the wings?  Surely not London botherer Boris?


 
Boris, despite coming across like Forrest Gump, is canny. He'd probably avoid stepping into "dead man's shoes", because then he'd have to do all the hard work in salvaging the Tory brand (such as it is). I'd reckon on Iain Duncan Shit or David Davis being in the running with the backing of the Tory grandees, though.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

laptop said:


> Less distributors' and newsagents' cut. Small magagazines get only 45 per cent of the cover price from the distributors. NotW may do better, but not much. Say £1.5M max.


 
Yeah, so about £75-80m a year?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

It is snowballing. 

Soon nobody will want to be the last donkey in the paddock, and they'll all go.


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> trouble is - the cupboard's bare of potential leaders - who do they have?
> 
> Jeremy Hunt?   He was doing ok until this bit him on the arse
> The Boy Chancellor? - lol
> ...



David Davis perhaps. Or Hague again as a temporary pair of 'safe hands'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

smokedout said:


> this is a good point, but is that what's really going on


 
obviously it's a bit more complicated that that, but it's fucking stupid to say it's all come out of nowhere. another motor driving this is that people like being part of a good feeding frenzy, which builds up its own momentum. given the number of people the news of the world has managed to offend, it's no great surprise that so many people have involved themselves in it.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Tory right has been sharpening their knives for him since he became leader. They knew they needed him to get a sniff of power, but if they can use this as a reason for an internal _coup_, to get one of their own in the driving seat, they will.


 
Ah yes - a properly no-nonsnese right wing leader - just what the country is crying out for!

Can they really be that deluded? (well yes -  of course they can) 

Disco Dave is obviously a grade A cunt, but he has the ability to communicate effectively and like a human being -  a skill that eludes nearly all the rest of his party.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> Or Hague again as a temporary pair of 'safe hands'.


 
This sounds most likely. In fact, many would probably see Hague as PM as the correcting of an error in the first place.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> To put it in stark terms - any firm continuing to fund NOTW is effectively CONDONING the hacking of the war dead, 7/7 victims & the families of murdered children.
> 
> With all that that entails.


 
I don't dispute that, said as much a few pages back.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

N_igma said:


> I can sense a momentous change coming! Media will be changed forever after this make no doubt about it!


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Nothing wrong with wasting their time so they can't book as many corporate subscriptions is there?
> They will still get paid


 
Just don't be verbally abusive to them personally, that's all I'm saying!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Ah yes - a properly no-nonsnese right wing leader - just what the country is crying out for!
> 
> Can they really be that deluded? (well yes -  of course they can)
> 
> Disco Dave is obviously a grade A cunt, but he has the ability to communicate effectively and like a human being -  a skill that eludes nearly all the rest of his party.


no, hitler was a grade a cunt, stalin was a grade a cunt, so cameron's at best a grade b cunt. unless you know something you'd like to share with the rest of us.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Maybe he'll refuse to shop there any more.  He'll buy his beans from Sainsbury's instead.  Pow!  That'll fuck em hard in the face.


 
Actually that's a £150 per week spend, combine that with several schools worth of purchase power and that's my local branch wondering what happened. Get the likes of Mumsnet & other groups who make supermarket runs and yes, that's going to hurt them.

Their cash pays for Mulcaire and co. It's that simple.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Get those tweets in...
> 
> *@UKTesco *Until you withdraw your ads from #notw, I'll be withdrawing my shopping from Tesco & returning to [insert Sainsbury's, Co-op or Asda].



And copy it to their CEO - *@clarkepatesco*


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> David Davis perhaps. Or Hague again as a temporary pair of 'safe hands'.


 
Not after the mess he made of Libya.  David Davis maybe, with Boris as a wildcard.  Although theres little doubting Boris is a cunt it would be quite funny to have him as pm for a week, if just to troll the rest of the world.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Just don't be verbally abusive to them personally, that's all I'm saying!


 
No need, just tie their time up a bit with some friendly chat.
What are they going to do, make outgoing calls to keen subscribers? 

Would you have gone to work at the NOTW today?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Maybe he'll refuse to shop there any more.  He'll buy his beans from Sainsbury's instead.  Pow!  That'll fuck em hard in the face.


 
Why don't you just fuck off?


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 7, 2011)

I might take out an advert this week, i recon i could get a full page for about £100


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 7, 2011)

Stop squabbling and concentrate on how to bring more pressure on the advertisers.


----------



## creak (Jul 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Tory right has been sharpening their knives for him since he became leader. They knew they needed him to get a sniff of power, but if they can use this as a reason for an internal _coup_, to get one of their own in the driving seat, they will.


 
They'd take a further battering for hypocrisy after giving Labour such stick for installing Brown as PM without calling a new General Election, too


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> I might take out an advert this week, i recon i could get a full page for about £100


 
The whole paper is going to be covered in ad's for various Sky packages.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

What is happening with orange/t-mobile btw? Last I heard they were reviewing things. As an orange user my fingers are getting itchy to e-mail but I want to get my facts straight first.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> I might take out an advert this week, i recon i could get a full page for about £100


 
Pretend your name is Cesar Reiners


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Why don't you just fuck off?


 
Now this is verbal abuse I can really get behind.


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Not after the mess he made of Libya.  David Davis maybe, with Boris as a wildcard.  Although theres little doubting Boris is a cunt it would be quite funny to have him as pm for a week, if just to troll the rest of the world.


 
Libya? That's a far-away place with a funny name. 

How do people think Boris would get from where he is - incumbent mayor of London who's running for office again soon, to become an MP and then PM?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Much as I love the speculation, I don't see Cameron falling over this. Grovelling admissions that he made a misjudgement, perhaps, but that's it.

If he did fall, I would see Hague as the obvious replacement. Not sure how much of a step forward that would be tbh.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 7, 2011)

@clarkepatesco no more shopping at Tesco - every little helps!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

killer b said:


> yesterday, it was all 'cameron begged murdoch not to sack brooks'
> 
> today it's 'brooks is like family to murdoch, he'll never sack her'
> 
> which is it?


 
It's whichever best serves Murdoch by making him seem to have a modicum of control over this cluster-fuck.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Much as I love the speculation, I don't see Cameron falling over this. Grovelling admissions that he made a misjudgement, perhaps, but that's it.


 
You're right, but the speculation is more about his own party stabbing him in the back, which is possible but not likely, not yet anyway.


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 7, 2011)

from Twitter: "journo friend at NOTW says newsroom is in meltdown" about a minute ago...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> that's because you don't understand it. it's not come from nowhere, and only a thick fuck would suggest it had. it's similar to the reaction people have when they see that a friend has let them down or fucked them over very badly, and any sort of amity turns to hatred.
> 
> for politicians, however, as has been pointed out a lot of them have wanted to put the boot in for some time but hadn't dared.



Er .. I was parodying PKs argument. 

Whats seems to be happending is that large numbers of usually unpolitical people are (rightly) disgusted by whats been revealved and they are being used as a battering ram by the many many people who are opposed to Murdoch - yes that includes other media orgs with their own agenda and MPs with personal grudges, but it also includes every left leaning political person in the country (including people within the meda and politics)   whose opposition is partly fuelled on  HUGE amoount of in deph criticism of NI (and media ownerships/practice genrally) built up over many years. So all the detailed stuff about the baleful influecne of the murdoch over politics is suddenly becoming relevant after being pretty much ignored  as an uncomfortable truth for years. 

And I swear you can  hear BBC staff pissing themselves laughing in the background on News24.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jul 7, 2011)

Loads of things going wrong but I am sure the take over will go as planned...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> @clarkepatesco no more shopping at Tesco - every little helps!


 
You bully, you!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> no, hitler was a grade a cunt, stalin was a grade a cunt, so cameron's at best a grade b cunt. unless you know something you'd like to share with the rest of us.


 
you want to get into a debate about who sits where on a scale of cuntishness? 

Or were you just nit-picking for the sake of it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

gavman said:


> does that include his medical records?
> i think we can allow him his outrage there


 
I haven't said that he has no reason for outrage, and of course his medical records should be sacrosanct (although taking a pic of him trotting along to the clap clinic would be a different story), but as I *did* say, his privacy is limited, and it's limited by the fact that as a public person, he's been collusive with the media often enough to know the score and to act accordingly, at least *minimising* the amount of shit the media can generate.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> What is happening with orange/t-mobile btw? Last I heard they were reviewing things. As an orange user my fingers are getting itchy to e-mail but I want to get my facts straight first.


 
According to Forbes - they are "reviewing" their position - so get emailing/Twittering!!


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Loads of things going wrong but I am sure the take over will go as planned...


 
Even tory backbenchers are concerned about that deal.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Loads of things going wrong but I am sure the take over will go as planned...


 




> 1.52pm: The Financial Times is reporting that the decision on BSkyB has been delayed "until September".
> 
> More as we get it.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live-coverage


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> According to Forbes - they are "reviewing" their position - so get emailing/Twittering!!


 
Cheers!


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

damnhippie said:


> from Twitter: "journo friend at NOTW says newsroom is in meltdown" about a minute ago...


 
Good. They know where the windows are. Just watch not to hit anyone on the pavement below.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


>


 
We'll hide here until the heat is off.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

damnhippie said:


> from Twitter: "journo friend at NOTW says newsroom is in meltdown" about a minute ago...


 
I can well imagine it is a pretty ugly place to work right now!!!


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 7, 2011)

Hunt expected to delay decision on BSkyB takeover, according to the FT:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5f81603a-a890-11e0-8a97-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1RQQhxm9Y


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I can well imagine it is a pretty ugly place to work right now!!!


 
I'm sure the shredders are working overtime. The whole place should be shut down and treated as a crime scene with cops in those white suits and that "do not cross" tape around the building and a tent in the car park.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 7, 2011)

so , they are delaying the decision are they ? how about having a spine and making a decision not to let Murdoch buy the remaining share?

it all stinks


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

Anyone know if Beko have pulled their fridge-freezer adverts yet?


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 7, 2011)




----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Actually that's a £150 per week spend, combine that with several schools worth of purchase power and that's my local branch wondering what happened. Get the likes of Mumsnet & other groups who make supermarket runs and yes, that's going to hurt them.


 
Great!  They'll be able to make quite a lot of minimum-wage checkout staff redundant.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Great!  They'll be able to make quite a lot of minimum-wage checkout staff redundant.


 
Like you care.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Great!  They'll be able to make quite a lot of minimum-wage checkout staff redundant.


 
Says the patron saint of the poorly paid.


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Hunt expected to delay decision on BSkyB takeover, according to the FT:
> 
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5f81603a-a890-11e0-8a97-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1RQQhxm9Y



From the above:



> In a first round of consultation last March, the government received 40,000 responses. Reading each one of those took civil servants and outside lawyers three working weeks.
> 
> At the same rate, it would take seven and a half weeks to consider 100,000 submissions, taking the earliest date for an announcement to August 30.



You have until lunchtime tomorrow to send in your submission.

You can obtain the full text of _Beowulf_ here (26,000 words / 200k) - please adapt this template to express your own views on heirs, dragons, etc


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Great!  They'll be able to make quite a lot of minimum-wage checkout staff redundant.


 
How many?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> I'm sure the shredders are working overtime. The whole place should be shut down and treated as a crime scene with cops in those white suits and that "do not cross" tape around the building and a tent in the car park.


 
I think that is a good point!


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 7, 2011)

laptop said:


> From the above:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think that is a good point!


 
Don't worry, McNulty and Freeman are on it


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Great!  They'll be able to make quite a lot of minimum-wage checkout staff redundant.



Have you never come across a campaign before? 

If the pressure is kept up I am sure Tesco will pull their ads long before anything like that happens, you daft twat.


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

damnhippie said:


> from Twitter: "journo friend at NOTW says newsroom is in meltdown" about a minute ago...


 
Moar! ?


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think that is a good point!


 
The problem is of course is that the cops can't be trusted not to do a bit of shredding themselves


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I can well imagine it is a pretty ugly place to work right now!!!


 
When was it not an ugly place to work????


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Great!  They'll be able to make quite a lot of minimum-wage checkout staff redundant.


 
Maybe they'll be able to get decent jobs then.

As if a Tory like you gives a toss about them.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> The problem is of course is that the cops can't be trusted not to do a bit of shredding themselves


 
Indeed... 

There seems to be a silly duality in this ..

Rebeka Brooks investigating herself - I think we all know how that will turn out 

And 

The Police investigating themselves - and they have had the info for years, so how is that going to work out I wonder ..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> Is this boycott solely against the NOTW? It's not really going to hurt Rupert if they redirect advertising to Sky, or the Sun , or the Times


 
It's not that simple. Advertising bought in the NOTW would be targeted at a particular demographic (i.e. readers of a right-wing Sunday red-top). Shifting the advertising to other fora of the same publishing group wouldn't reach that demographic.

I'm more worried about the NOTW doing a Hearst and running the advertising anyway, _gratis_, in an effort to ingratiate themselves with their former advertisers.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Maybe they'll be able to get decent jobs then.
> 
> As if a Tory like you gives a toss about them.


 
Just pointing out the ramifications of your bully boy tactics.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Elizabeth of York = Elizabeth Murdoch ??


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> When was it not an ugly place to work????


 
The Mail is worse, or so an old mate of mine who used to be a tabloid hack said.  It's a shame he and I have lost touch, because I'd love to know what he makes of all this...


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Just pointing out the ramifications of your bully boy tactics.


 
You're rubbish at this.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Just pointing out the ramifications of your bully boy tactics.


 
If they're made redundant it's a nice payout, and local shops can again thrive, they need staff too!

By your logic it's sad that NOTW employees will soon be made redundant too.

Awww, diddums.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm more worried about the NOTW doing a Hearst and running the advertising anyway, _gratis_, in an effort to ingratiate themselves with their former advertisers.



I doubt they would have the required artwork to do that, besides the boycotting advertisers would be seriously pissed-off it they did, as it would leave them with egg on their faces.

Anyway, meanwhile more shit hitting the fan - Evidence in Tommy Sheridan trial to be investigated amid phone-hacking revelations


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 7, 2011)

laptop said:


> Moar! ?


 
well the same twitter guy went on to express his sympathy with 'hard working' NOTW staff or some such... 

i agree they should cordon off the place and send in the lab boys tbh. what else is in those filing cabinets and hard drives.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm more worried about the NOTW doing a Hearst and running the advertising anyway, _gratis_, in an effort to ingratiate themselves with their former advertisers.



Will hardly happen if at all


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Lots of grounds to appeal plenty of murder conviction, child murders too.

Nice one NOTW. This shit is potentially setting paedophiles free.

You utter cunts.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> The Mail is worse, or so an old mate of mine who used to be a tabloid hack said.  It's a shame he and I have lost touch, because I'd love to know what he makes of all this...


 
I think it's only a question of time before someone starts leaking info on the Mail, and others, but lets enjoy the mess News International is in first, before moving on.


----------



## xenon (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Great!  They'll be able to make quite a lot of minimum-wage checkout staff redundant.


 

So do nothing. Stop "bullying" companies and carry on business as usual. 

Righto.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This sounds most likely. In fact, many would probably see Hague as PM as the correcting of an error in the first place.


 
don't see Hague doing it - he's already been targetted by the tabloids - all that is he or isn't he gay, and sharing a room with a researcher and that 

Theresa May?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

xenon said:


> So do nothing. Stop "bullying" companies and carry on business as usual.
> 
> Righto.


 
No.  Boycotting the paper itself, and making the millions of people who read it aware of what's been going on would be more effective, I think.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  Boycotting the paper itself, and making the millions of people who read it aware of what's been going on would be more effective, I think.


 
Wrong. Advertisers are pulling out NOW. This is costing NOTW money NOW, before the paper has even hit the stands. 

You're so wrong on this it hurts reading your crap. Don't you see, attacking them like this involves everyone who uses all the companies who advertise in it, not just the couple of million who actually buy it.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  Boycotting the paper itself, and making the millions of people who read it aware of what's been going on would be more effective, I think.


 
How are you making the millions aware?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Hunt expected to delay decision on BSkyB takeover, according to the FT:
> 
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5f81603a-a890-11e0-8a97-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1RQQhxm9Y


 
Guardian said this morning that they could delay it fairly easily - just putting off making a decision and hoping that by September that things would have quietened down, unlikely I'd have thought - if the Police and the CPS get into gear


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's supposed to be threatening - continue advertising and bad stuff will happen to you.


 
The baddest stuff, in most advertiser's minds, being people stopping consuming their product.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wrong. Advertisers are pulling out NOW. This is costing NOTW money NOW, before the paper has even hit the stands.
> 
> You're so wrong on this it hurts reading your crap. Don't you see, attacking them like this involves everyone who uses all the companies who advertise in it, not just the couple of million who actually buy it.


 
Advertisers who are choosing to pull out is fine.  I'm against advertisers being bullied.

That is all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The baddest stuff, in most advertiser's minds, being people stopping consuming their product.


 
Exactly. And it's actually a really easy business decision to pull advertising. It saves them money to pull the adverts.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> How are you making the millions aware?


 
Well the story is all over the other tabloids, it's all over the tv news, it's all over daytime-type telly, and it's all over facebook.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Advertisers who are choosing to pull out is fine.  I'm against advertisers being bullied.
> 
> That is all.


 
you're a fucking idiot.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> you're a fucking idiot.


 
Thank you for your input.


----------



## Ivana Nap (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wrong. Advertisers are pulling out NOW. This is costing NOTW money NOW, before the paper has even hit the stands.
> 
> You're so wrong on this it hurts reading your crap. Don't you see, attacking them like this involves everyone who uses all the companies who advertise in it, not just the couple of million who actually buy it.


 
Actually it's not costing them money now - this weeks ads will already be paid for according to Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011...-eu-phone-hacking-murdoch-empire_8551810.html


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Thank you for your input.


 
He's right though.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 7, 2011)

Murdoch's 'Downfall' (it had to happen...):


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Advertisers who are choosing to pull out is fine.  I'm against advertisers being bullied.



These are coporations. They have no feelings. They cannot be 'bullied'.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Advertisers who are choosing to pull out is fine.  I'm against advertisers being bullied.
> 
> That is all.


 

((((((((multi-million pound advertisers)))))))))


----------



## dennisr (Jul 7, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> These are coporations. They have no feelings. They cannot be 'bullied'.



In Elizabeth's world they can.... )


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Advertisers who are choosing to pull out is fine.  I'm against advertisers being bullied.
> 
> That is all.


 
I don't think consumers making their feelings known to advertisiers is any kind of bullying. It is quite within their rights for consumers to make their views known and is in fact a well known anti-corporatist stance that consumers take organised action. 

In fact there is a history of this going right back to Ralph Nader in the USA and GM vehicles, and probably a lot before that.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> These are coporations. They have no feelings. They cannot be 'bullied'.


 
The people who are likely to be hurt are the low-paid workers of the companies.  If you all stop shopping at Tescos, who do you think will bear the brunt of that?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I don't think consumers making their feelings known to advertisiers is any kind of bullying. It is quite within their rights for consumers to make their views known and is in fact a well known anti-corporatist stance that consumers take organised action.
> 
> In fact there is a history of this going right back to Ralph Nader in the USA and GM vehicles, and probably a lot before that.


 
No problem with making your views known.  My problem is with some of the tactics being discussed here, like "fuck em hard in the face" and "do whatever it takes", which sound threatening.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The people who are likely to be hurt are the low-paid workers of the companies.  If you all stop shopping at Tescos, who do you think will bear the brunt of that?


 
plenty of farmers might have a thing to say about that - Tescos and the other big supermarkets have driven down prices by reducing the amount they will pay to farmers for their fruit and veg -


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The people who are likely to be hurt are the low-paid workers of the companies.  If you all stop shopping at Tescos, who do you think will bear the brunt of that?


 
Like Tesco haven't been putting smaller firms out of business and their employees out of work for the last few decades...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The people who are likely to be hurt are the low-paid workers of the companies.  If you all stop shopping at Tescos, who do you think will bear the brunt of that?


 
Tesco's loss is the local grocer's gain. So what? You think customers owe it to Tesco of all fucking people to spend their money there? 

But as has been pointed out, they will pull their advertising long before that happens. That's the whole point - this is a business decision based on which action makes the company look better. and as has also been pointed out, it is not possible to bully a corporation, you utter fucking tool.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Like Tesco haven't been putting smaller firms out of business and their employees out of work for the last few decades...


 
Oh, that makes it okay then.  Okay, fine.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The people who are likely to be hurt are the low-paid workers of the companies.  If you all stop shopping at Tescos, who do you think will bear the brunt of that?


 
No they will not.  I'll spell it out for you, which scenario do you think is more likely?

a) Tesco start a 8 week consultation period when a certain amount of people will be told they are at risk.  They will then go through due process before finally selecting several candidates for redundency.  They will then pay out accordingly for thoses leaving the business.

Or 

b) Tesco pull a couple of adverts in one publication until the heat is off?

Which do you think is more likely?


----------



## dennisr (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> plenty of farmers might have a thing to say about that - Tescos and the other big supermarkets have driven down prices by reducing the amount they will pay to farmers for their fruit and veg -



...... and forcing many veg, milk and meat farmers out of business in the process

I love the fained concern of Lizzie - its like Murdoch, or Coulson, or Cameron or the lovely Rebecca showing their 'disgust'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> plenty of farmers might have a thing to say about that - Tescos and the other big supermarkets have driven down prices by reducing the amount they will pay to farmers for their fruit and veg -


 
Yep. bringing down Tesco would be a Brucie bonus in all this. Of course it won't happen because the people who run Tesco are not as fucking stupid as certain posters on this thread.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> you're a fucking idiot.



the problem is the idiot is about to de-rail another thread with his/her inanity


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh, that makes it okay then.  Okay, fine.


 
It does, actually. If I could force Tesco out of business, I would. The harm they have done to the food production and retail systems of this country far outweigh the benefit they bring through the people they employ.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It does, actually. If I could force Tesco out of business, I would. The harm they have done to the food production and retail systems of this country far outweigh the benefit they bring through the people they employ.


 
That'll be of great comfort to the ex-cashiers when they're in the dole queue, I'm sure.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

dennisr said:


> the problem is the idiot is about t ode-rail another thread with his/her inanity


 
True, idiot or troll.  Enough is enough.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> That'll be of great comfort to the ex-cashiers when they're in the dole queue, I'm sure.


 
Alright, I'll leave it alone now. The stupid fucking twat that it is.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Well the story is all over the other tabloids, it's all over the tv news, it's all over daytime-type telly, and it's all over facebook.


 
Is it?


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2011)

can this tedious derail be put to bed? maybe - as suggested last night - we should avoid having lengthy spats on this thread, so we can keep up to date without having to scroll through a bunfight?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

In Hackney we are swamped by Tescos and Sainsbury's - opening up large and little mini-supermarkets all over the place - between them trying to drive out of business the established shops in the area.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> That'll be of great comfort to the ex-cashiers when they're in the dole queue, I'm sure.


 
oh do fuck off


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh, that makes it okay then.  Okay, fine.


 
Seriously, fuck off. Your utterly retarded input has only served to strengthen my resolve.

I'll be doubling my efforts to "bully" Tescos and it'll be all your fault.

You see the ramifications of your actions??


----------



## xenon (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  Boycotting the paper itself, and making the millions of people who read it aware of what's been going on would be more effective, I think.


 


Most of us dont' read the paper anyway. Millions already know, if they're minded to stick a TV or radio on, read anything other than the NoTW. Through voiceing concerns to the advertisers and make them aware of who / what they're associating with by continuing to advertise in the NoTW. That is logical and having definite effects. How can you think there's something wrong with that tactic? Your sense of power balances is screwed up.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

OK everyone ignore the fucktard and focus upon applying hurt to Tesco and anyone else not yet confirmed to have pulled ad space?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 7, 2011)

dennisr said:


> Murdoch's 'Downfall' (it had to happen...):


 
"but I LOVE the co-op!"


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> That'll be of great comfort to the ex-cashiers when they're in the dole queue, I'm sure.


 
Actually they will probably be in gainful paid employment at one of the myriad of smaller businesses that Tesco drive out of business, or better yet actually owning and running a business themselves.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

And have a search on Pastebin for the complete list of NOTW jounos and their details.

Might want to call them and ask how is their day so far??


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Advertisers who are choosing to pull out is fine.  I'm against advertisers being bullied.
> 
> That is all.



Most are only pulling out because of the pressure from the campaign. 

Why am I responding to this trolling fuckwit?  @ self


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No problem with making your views known.  My problem is with some of the tactics being discussed here, like "fuck em hard in the face" and "do whatever it takes", which sound threatening.


 
But what do you think is meant by this, what apart from the targetted voicing of concern do you actually think any individuals on here are actually going to do?  

Tesco stopping their ad campaign in NOTW is not going in the short term to affect at all how many people shop at Tesco. All it is going to do is make NOTW less financially viable for the period while the adverts are stopped. 

And that seems a perfectly viable and ethical aim to me.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Actually they will probably be in gainful paid employment at one of the myriad of smaller businesses that Tesco drive out of business, or better yet actually owning and running a business themselves.


 
Precisely. Nobody wants to be a slave to the Cohen empire.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Why am I responding to this trolling fuckwit?  @ self


----------



## dennisr (Jul 7, 2011)

lets put the troll/idiot on ignore


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Stay on target - ignore the soon to be jobless cashier trolling


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

smokedout said:


> what kind of business pisses off there biggest customer
> 
> there's lots of people think they can get a bit of free PR out of this, lots of people got a reason to fuck over murdoch, lots more got a reason to suck up to him - this is just market shit playing out, capital will be stronger than ever
> 
> x factor for liberals


 
I may be a bit out-of-date, but last I knew, News International titles are all distributed by News International Distribution Ltd, and have been since Wapping, and WHS and J. Menzies' wholesale arms have no involvement with them.


----------



## Giles (Jul 7, 2011)

Given that most "phone hacking" simply involves  obtaining the mobile number of someone in the news, working out which network they are on, and then phoning the voicemail access number for that network, and typing in the "victim"s phone number and (if they have not set a PIN) listening to their voicemails, I can't believe that most of the papers (or their paid-but-not-directly-employed snoopers) have not been doing this. A lot.

The other papers must be breathing an (undeserved) sigh of relief.

It's rather like when protestors attack Tesco for being big, ruthless, ruining local high streets etc, and mostly ignore Sainsburys, Morrisons, Asda etc who are just as bad, just not the biggest.

Or the same when people slate McDs for selling overpriced, unhealthy food, bad employment practices etc, and ignore BK, KFC etc.

I'm sure most, if not all, of the papers have benefitted from information obtained in this way for years. 

This has a lot further to go, I think.

Giles..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Giles said:


> Given that most "phone hacking" simply involves  obtaining the mobile number of someone in the news, working out which network they are on, and then phoning the voicemail access number for that network, and typing in the "victim"s phone number and (if they have not set a PIN) listening to their voicemails, I can't believe that most of the papers (or their paid-but-not-directly-employed snoopers) have not been doing this. A lot.


 
A burglar is still a burglar even if the door to the house is left open. 

The rest of your post is just strawman drivel.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The people who are likely to be hurt are the low-paid workers of the companies.  If you all stop shopping at Tescos, who do you think will bear the brunt of that?


ermm....the Shareholders? Just a thought.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Hatred of Murdoch and his organsiation is rooted in hatred of what it has done to its many many victims over the past 30+ years. Direcetly - as in the case of the Hillsborough dead and the families of murdred kids  - and indirecitly in its role as cheerleader in chief for all the nastiest poliies and hate campaigns since the 80s - campaings and policies that have created uncountable victims from the smashed communities of Thatchers wrecking ball,  to refugees, immigrants and gay people beaten up, to the demonsiation of the poor and disabled to  the 100s of thousands of corpses in Iraq.


 
Plus his own contribution to the Thatcherite agenda with Wapping and its' consequences.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I may be a bit out-of-date, but last I knew, News International titles are all distributed by News International Distribution Ltd, and have been since Wapping, and WHS and J. Menzies' wholesale arms have no involvement with them.



No, News International Distribution Ltd only handles distribution to the 130+ wholesaler depots, not direct to the retailers. 

There's only about 5 independent wholesale depots, something like 97% of the market is in the hands of WHSmith & J. Menzies'.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 7, 2011)

BBC news ticker...._Detectives investigating hacking expecting to contact nearly 4,000 potential victims_

Four thousand?! If nothing else you've got to give the man credit for record keeping!


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> ermm....the Shareholders? Just a thought.


 
Well it certainly wont be the Treasury, given how fond Tesco are of seeking ever more fun ways to not pay tax.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> BBC news ticker...._Detectives investigating hacking expecting to contact nearly 4,000 potential victims_
> 
> Four thousand?! If nothing else you've got to give the man credit for record keeping!



BBC were saying 11,000 hacks this morning. 
I think NI had admitted to 15 and claimed it was the end of the matter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> So what tactics do you suggest be used?


 
To be frank, the tactic of going after the supply lines (money and _materiel_) is entirely sound. Capture the "baggage train" and you inhibit room to manouvre for "the enemy". It's a tactic that's been successfully used for thousands of years, and it sometimes works to bring conflict to an end more quickly.

Perhaps EoY is suggesting a Father ted-like standing around with placards declaring "down with this sort of thing"?


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> BBC news ticker...._Detectives investigating hacking expecting to contact nearly 4,000 potential victims_
> 
> Four thousand?! If nothing else you've got to give the man credit for record keeping!


 
Given who he was dealing with, you cant blame him.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 7, 2011)

This time of the year is normally known as the 'Silly Season' in Fleet Street. It seems the BBC have excelled themselves with their articles and radio coverage.

The latest being the so called hacking of forces telephones. The article below is probably one of the very best at creating a story from pure conecture. Not a single fact!



> Rose Gentle, whose son Fusilier Gordon Gentle died in Iraq in 2004, said it would be "pretty disgusting" *if true*.





> The head of the armed forces, General Sir David Richards, said he would be "appalled" *if the claims were proved.*





> Gen Richards said: "First of all we don't want to get ahead of ourselves because there's a police investigation ongoing, and we need to see the results of that. But *I have to say if these actions are proved to be verified, I'm appalled, I find it quite disgusting."*



Poor, poor reporting. Create an emotional knee-jerk article based on conjecture not fact. Shame on Radio 4's "Today" for carrying an interview with Ms. Gentle.

I look forward to C4's expose this evening.

BBC. We'll write anything to fill our web pages.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> BBC were saying 11,000 hacks this morning.
> I think NI had admitted to 15 and claimed it was the end of the matter.


 
We decide when this ends. Only just getting warmed up...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Now this should piss off ElizabethofFuckwitty....



> 14.35 Specsavers and FlyBe join the list of companies withdrawing their advertising from the NOTW.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...707/News-of-the-World-phone-hacking-live.html


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> BBC news ticker...._Detectives investigating hacking expecting to contact nearly 4,000 potential victims_
> 
> Four thousand?! If nothing else you've got to give the man credit for record keeping!


 
If he was routinely hacking that many phones it is no wonder he kept detailed records.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps EoY is suggesting a Father ted-like standing around with placards declaring "down with this sort of thing"?


 
Or perhaps she's just a fucking idiot who can't see the writing on the wall.


----------



## Giles (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A burglar is still a burglar even if the door to the house is left open.
> 
> The rest of your post is just strawman drivel.


 
I totally agree with your first comment. 

I was not saying that because it is simple to do, it is OK. It is not. Just that because it is so trivially easy to do, that I'll bet it is pretty widespread, and not limited to the staff of one paper. The temptation, given some celebs phone number, to listen to voicemails from other celebs, their ex, etc, and get a "scoop" on some affair, scandal or whatever, to someone who's whole job is about digging the dirt on people in the public eye, would be hard to resist.

Just saying that everyone is focussing on NOTW and The Sun, whereas I bet the other papers have done exactly the same. It's just not come out (yet).

And everything else I said was just pointing out the tendency for everyone to focus on one "bad guy" while ignoring all the others.

I am not defending the behaviour of NOTW, Sun etc at all: just pointing out that the other papers have been doing exactly the same thing.

Giles..


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

An amusing tweet...

Almost all of the companies still advertising in the Screws are mobile phone networks. Alanis Morissette would call that "ironic".


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> This time of the year is normally known as the 'Silly Season' in Fleet Street. It seems the BBC have excelled themselves with their articles and radio coverage.
> 
> The latest being the so called hacking of forces telephones. The article below is probably one of the very best at creating a story from pure conecture. Not a single fact!
> 
> ...




Erm... The report is about the police investigation. Is that pure conjecture also in your mind?

How the fuck anyone can be so dumb as to equate all this with 'silly season' is unbelievable.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> This time of the year is normally known as the 'Silly Season' in Fleet Street. It seems the BBC have excelled themselves with their articles and radio coverage.
> 
> The latest being the so called hacking of forces telephones. The article below is probably one of the very best at creating a story from pure conecture. Not a single fact!
> 
> ...


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2011)

Giles said:


> ...
> just pointing out that the other papers have been doing exactly the same thing.
> 
> Giles..


 
But, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, I think by dylans, they were not caught red handed and their investigators have now had plenty of time to shred the evidence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> She cant survive. News International will have to sacrifce her to try and being some closure and protect NIs reputation (good luck with that BTW rupe). And Cameron is under intense pressure from his own side to call for her head. Coulson is already fucked and likely to go to prison.


 
Thing is, if Murdoch and his Newscorp board are thinking strategically, they'll realise quite how important it is (in terms of sending messages of reassurance to their major institutional shareholders) to bin Brooks at a time of their own choosing, rather than while the public are calling for it, so unless things become untenable, she'll be safe at least until any criminal proceedings start (at which time she'll discover she's infected with early-onset Saundersitis and retire on a fat pension).


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> This time of the year is normally known as the 'Silly Season' in Fleet Street.


 
The official beginning of the Silly Season is the first day of the Parliamentary recess


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

Muclaire (can't remember the spelling) the hacker who did actually serve time,  was doorstepped by the media yesterday - said he couldn't comment further and asked them to respect his privacy - immense lol


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> But, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, I think by dylans, they were not caught red handed and their investigators have now had plenty of time to shred the evidence.


 
Dylans was wrong though - they were caught red handed, and doing stuff that was far worse than what News Corp were doing with Mulcaire.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 7, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Erm... The report is about the police investigation. Is that pure conjecture also in your mind?
> 
> How the fuck anyone can be so dumb as to equate all this with 'silly season' is unbelievable.



Instead of being stupid why don't you address the facts or rather lack of? Where is the evidence to say that they hacked into military families phones? It's nothing but emotional conjecture worthy of The Sun and News Of The World.

The article is indicative of what gets printed in the silly season - anything goes.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> Muclaire (can't remember the spelling) the hacker who did actually serve time,  was doorstepped by the media yesterday - said he couldn't comment further and asked them to respect his privacy - immense lol


 
Anyone got an address for this cunt??

I've a phone he might want to buy.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Instead of being stupid why don't you address the facts or rather lack of? Where is the evidence to say that they hacked into military families phones? It's nothing but emotional conjecture worthy of The Sun and News Of The World.
> 
> The article is indicative of what gets printed in the silly season - anything goes.



There is a police investigation - FACT.

The reporters were simply asking for reactions to that FACT. 

It may well be being used as emotional stirring stick by Murdoch's competitors, but it is FACT that there is a police investigation. The investigation is the news.


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> It's nothing but emotional conjecture.


 
No it's not. It's a charge levelled at News International on the basis of evidence. You'd like the corporation to be tried in secret, perhaps, and allow no discussion until after the Supreme Court has ruled? Or do you think you're the Supreme Court?


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Instead of being stupid why don't you address the facts or rather lack of? Where is the evidence to say that they hacked into military families phones? It's nothing but emotional conjecture.
> 
> The article is indicative of what gets printed in the silly season - anything goes.


 
MPs found that members of HM Forces had had their phones hacked last year.  We know that the _Sun_, at least, has behaved badly towards the family members of service personnel in the past.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 7, 2011)

Nobody is denying that there is a police enquiry taking place but that article is nothing but conjecture. Prosecutions are not based on conjecture but fact and evidence. I can't find one piece of evidence in that article.




			
				xenon said:
			
		

> The Police have been contacting people who *may* have had their phone messages hacked.



Correct


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Instead of being stupid why don't you address the facts or rather lack of? Where is the evidence to say that they hacked into military families phones? It's nothing but emotional conjecture worthy of The Sun and News Of The World.
> 
> The article is indicative of what gets printed in the silly season - anything goes.


 
Bollocks. They hacked the phones of anyone they wanted. You think they'd stop at military families or 7/7 victims???

No, this is going all the way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Precisely. Nobody wants to be a slave to the Cohen empire.


 
You're all slaves to the Cohen empire, bitch!


----------



## xenon (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Instead of being stupid why don't you address the facts or rather lack of? Where is the evidence to say that they hacked into military families phones? It's nothing but emotional conjecture worthy of The Sun and News Of The World.
> 
> The article is indicative of what gets printed in the silly season - anything goes.


 
The Police have been contacting peple who may have had their phone messages hacked. The rest of the media have then been contacted by representatives of those famlies it appears. Have you not been keeping up or you on a pathetic paper thin windup?


----------



## Zabo (Jul 7, 2011)

pk. Nobody is arguing what they have and have not done nor the incompetence of the Met'. Some are facts others are vacuous allegations waiting for time to prove otherwise. I'd like to see you get somebody charged on conjecture.



xenon said:


> The Police have been contacting peple who *may* have had their phone messages hacked.


 

Correct


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Bollocks. They hacked the phones of anyone they wanted. You think they'd stop at military families or 7/7 victims???
> 
> No, this is going all the way.


 
Indeed.  It is also a matter of public record that they used the dark arts on at least one victim of 9/11, for instance.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Dylans was wrong though - they were caught red handed, and doing stuff that was far worse than what News Corp were doing with Mulcaire.


 
Thanks for that, it makes an interesting read. 




			
				guardian said:
			
		

> ...
> The newspapers who commissioned this activity were never prosecuted and attempts to prosecute Whittamore's network ended in fiasco with Whittamore and three others receiving conditional discharges, and a trial of other members collapsing before it even started.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Bollocks. They hacked the phones of anyone they wanted. You think they'd stop at military families or 7/7 victims???
> 
> No, this is going all the way.


 
Yeah phone hacking is as bad as computer hacking. These people deserve some serious jail time.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 7, 2011)

From SabCat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> No, News International Distribution Ltd only handles distribution to the 130+ wholesaler depots, not direct to the retailers.
> 
> There's only about 5 independent wholesale depots, something like 97% of the market is in the hands of WHSmith & J. Menzies'.


 
I'm surprised. 
Back when Wapping happened, and for at least 10 years after (after which I stopped keeping track), not only did NI have their own fleet for street deliveries, the unionised wholesalers (i.e. Smiths and Menzies) wouldn't handle any NI rags, even _Today_ once NI bought it from Shah.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

It's Menzie's group (HQ in Edinburgh and massive distribution warehouse in Ashford, Kent) and WHSmiths that is doing the deliveries.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Arrests imminent, according to the Standard.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Dylans was wrong though - they were caught red handed, and doing stuff that was far worse than what News Corp were doing with Mulcaire.


 
That article doesn't mention which papers were recieving information from Whittamore and others it but it does note that 


> The 1998 Data Protection Act would allow access to some confidential databases if the journalist were acting in the public interest. However, the public interest is not obvious in the work summaries that Whittamore listed on his weekly pay claims: "Bonking headmaster, Lonely heart, Dirty vicar, Street stars split, Miss World bonks sailor, Dodgy landlord, Judge affair, Royal maid, Witchdoctor, Footballer, TV love child, Junkie flunkie, Orgy boss, BBC gardening blunder, Hurley and Grant, EastEnders star … "



Given the above headlines I think we can hazard a guess which papers he is referring to.


----------



## Ivana Nap (Jul 7, 2011)

Moneysavingexpert Martin Lewis and Dave Gorman have quit their columns.
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2011/07/06/my-column-at-the-news-of-the-world/


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Without readers there'd be no advertising.



hey, there's an idea. Instead of contacting advertisers asking them to search their conscience, we could contact the 2m readers individually instead!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

Butlins still advertising then? Guess they are too busy *banning adults with severe learning difficulties* from their parks. 

Speak to a 'friendly' Butlins advisor:

Special needs bookings or enquiries:
0845 070 4748

Or email theiraward-winning call centre butlins.holidays@bourne-leisure.co.uk with your requirements, questions or feedback and we'll get back to you within 48 hours.

These numbers replace the 0845 numbers -  01442 286365 or 0800 222555


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Dave Gorman has just quit his NOTW comedy column.

This is getting good. Email campaign is working!!


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

Ivana Nap said:


> Moneysavingexpert Martin Lewis and Dave Gorman have quit their columns.
> http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2011/07/06/my-column-at-the-news-of-the-world/


 
I bet they were nice earners too, Lewis appeared reluctant - given that he makes money from referrals and the paper and website would have linked to his website - that's serious coin - 

I was surprised Gorman was on there, not reading the NOTW, I have no idea who actually writes columns for it.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Arrests imminent, according to the Standard.


 
From that piece:



> Corrupt Met police received more than £100,000 in unlawful payments from senior journalists and executives at the News of the World, the Evening Standard can reveal.
> 
> The bribes were made to officers in "sensitive" positions in return for confidential information. Sources say several "high-profile" NoW staff and the officers concerned are likely to be arrested within days and that "serious crimes" have been committed.



I feel more Claude Rains every day.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> That article doesn't mention which papers were recieving information from Whittamore and others it but it does note that
> 
> 
> Given the above headlines I think we can hazard a guess which papers he is referring to.


 
There is a full list, with links, in a post here (found via a Google search, so I have no idea whether the site is any good):

http://www.digitalworldz.co.uk/244358-peter-fainton-phone-hacking.html

edit:  here is the table for anyone who doesnt want to read the whole thing -


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> hey, there's an idea. Instead of contacting advertisers asking them to search their conscience, we could contact the 2m readers individually instead!


 
more than 2m, each paper probably gets read by 2 or 3 people - and good luck with persuading my dad


----------



## SLK (Jul 7, 2011)

Ivana Nap said:


> Moneysavingexpert Martin Lewis and Dave Gorman have quit their columns.
> http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2011/07/06/my-column-at-the-news-of-the-world/


 
Lewis hasn't quit. Yet.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> It's Menzie's group (HQ in Edinburgh and massive distribution warehouse in Ashford, Kent) and WHSmiths that is doing the deliveries.



Aye.



> The Association of Newspaper and Magazine Wholesalers (ANMW) is a trade association representing over 99% of wholesalers of newspapers and magazines in the United Kingdom.
> 
> The membership consists of the two multiple companies - Smiths News and Menzies Distribution, which between them account for 97% and 86% of the magazine & newspaper markets respectively and five Independent News Wholesalers.
> 
> Operating from 113 distribution centres across England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, our members deliver to approximately 54,000 retailers ranging from the largest supermarkets and major high street stores to thousands of independent newsagents and convenience stores.



Anyway, the Sun is out (no not that one, the big yellow thing in the sky), so I am off out into the garden - I am going to have BBC News24 on the radio, because they seem to be enjoying all this as much as I am.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

Ivana Nap said:


> Moneysavingexpert Martin Lewis and Dave Gorman have quit their columns.
> http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2011/07/06/my-column-at-the-news-of-the-world/


 
Martin Lewis has not according to that link?



> If I pulled from the paper now, it wouldn’t stop the hideous past, nor would it stymie the investigations and punishments due to those involved. It would just mean News of the World readers got less information about money.



Some comments are good: 



> The longer you stay with NOTW, the lower your credibility as an actual human being will be. I know now that to read something with your by-line is probably prostituted to the almighty dollar.





> I am disgusted. Your article above reeks of hypocrisy and greed. You are clearly trying to justify something that is unjustifiable. Resign and take a lesser paid job on another paper but keep your integrity.





> When I've finished typing this I will cancel my subscription to your email newsletter, and then advise all my email/facebook/twitter contacts to do the same.Perhaps from here on in you'll just be known as Martin Lewis, columinist in the News of The World.Good luck, hope you do the right thing morally and for you.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> more than 2m, each paper probably gets read by 2 or 3 people - and good luck with persuading my dad



Um, I wasn't being serious...


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Maybe they'll be able to get decent jobs then.
> 
> As if a Tory like you gives a toss about them.


 
How are you not a tory. You hate people on the dole and want to kill paedos. That's pretty much on a par with the readership of the Sun and NOTW.


----------



## likesfish (Jul 7, 2011)

I think lewis explained the NOW column got his news to people who possibly would'nt see his website debatable as he's on gmtv and other progammes and arguable that  the other tabloids are only slightly less smelling of shit or will be when this is over hence a bit hypocritical to jump from one to the another.
 trouble is he's right in a way but seriously wrong as well the milly thing was a new low and criminal actions.
 but 7/7 relatives and friends family of KIA hidious


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Will NI have to pay out tens of thousands to everybody they have hacked then?

Thats tens of millions we're talking. 

Ouch. Ha Ha. LOL etc ...


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> There is a full list, with links, in a post here (found via a Google search, so I have no idea whether the site is any good):
> 
> http://www.digitalworldz.co.uk/244358-peter-fainton-phone-hacking.html
> 
> edit:  here is the table for anyone who doesnt want to read the whole thing -


 
Daily Mail top of the list. wow


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Our old pal Brian Paddick has told the Daily Mail (the same paper that fucked his career!!) that bribes were paid in cash to top cops.

Rebekah Brooks head on a spike imminent. About fucking time. Enjoy jail!!


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Martin Lewis has not according to that link?
> 
> 
> 
> Some comments are good:


 
Read the update at the bottom


> Since writing last night, I’ve watched further news and slept (or not slept) on this, plus taken on board the overwhelming volume and tone of your responses. I’ve spoken with the paper’s editor this morning and asked that instead of running my column (filed last week) I have some space to write something of my feelings on what’s happened and the fact that it mustn’t be allowed to happen again – to which he’s agreed.
> 
> I’ve also decided to take some time to think this through calmly and listen to the facts as they develop – while I do so I won’t be writing for the paper.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> How are you not a tory. You hate people on the dole and want to kill paedos. That's pretty much on a par with the readership of the Sun and NOTW.


 
What the fuck are you babbling about? Is that the retarded boyfriend on this login again?

I'd sooner see paedophiles killed than freed, yes, but as for "hating people on the dole", fuck off you twat.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2011)

> I’ve spoken with the paper’s editor this morning and asked that instead of running my column (filed last week) I have some space to write something of my feelings on what’s happened and the fact that it mustn’t be allowed to happen again – to which he’s agreed.
> 
> I’ve also decided to take some time to think this through calmly and listen to the facts as they develop – while I do so I won’t be writing for the paper.



so he's both not writing for them and writing for them at the same time


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Um, I wasn't being serious...


 
you wouldn't want to piss of my dad tbf


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 7, 2011)

smokedout said:


> so he's both not writing for them and writing for them at the same time


 
Somebody suggested he donate his fee to charity and he swerved round that like a motherfucker 

Money-saving expert indeed.

Shameless.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Tommy Sheridan's lawyer is on Sky News now (in a press conference with Tom Watson MP), apparently they have found Rebekah Brooks personally authorised three transactions in the Whittamore (the Motorman case mentioned above) files, one of which is mobile phone conversion (ie: hacking).  Worth watching for those who arent boycotting Sky.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 7, 2011)

smokedout said:


> so he's both not writing for them and writing for them at the same time



This might be a big chunk of the guy's income - surely you can accept that this a harder decision for him than for someone merely "boycotting" a product they don't buy anyway, or sending a few automated tweets?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> This might be a big chunk of the guy's income - surely you can accept that this a harder decision for him than for someone merely "boycotting" a product they don't buy anyway, or sending a few automated tweets?


 
he might lose far more if people start boycotting his website tbf


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Will NI have to pay out tens of thousands to everybody they have hacked then?
> 
> Thats tens of millions we're talking.
> 
> Ouch. Ha Ha. LOL etc ...



A very intresting question.  Whilst some cases have been settled out of court they would have been done so without predjudice so no precedent has been set.  I believe there is a test case of 10 celebrities / politcians / sportstars and gazza going through the courts now, should it find against the NOW the flood gates will be well and trully open.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

There will be *no* adverts in this Sundays NOTW.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blo...he-world-phone-hacking-live-coverage#block-88



> 4.26pm: News of the World will not be running any advertising this Sunday.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

wow. So, to an earlier poster, don't you worry about the fact the NOTW has already been paid for the adverts - all the advertisers will get their money back. 

So this week's notw will be one long grovelling apology? I can't see how they can do anything else. It will be free also, I would guess.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> And another charity campaign withdrawn..
> 
> 
> 
> Extra pressure for the remaining advertisers.


 
Beat Bullying advertising in the biggest bullying paper of em all???????? Still, all's well that ends well!


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 7, 2011)

Anyone other than Ed Milliband would be able to make some serious shit stick to Cameron for his Brooks/Coulson connections.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 7, 2011)

*"4.38pm: Sunday will be the last issue of the News of the World."*

Guardian


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> There will be *no* adverts in this Sundays NOTW.


 


DaveCinzano said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blo...he-world-phone-hacking-live-coverage#block-88



Even better, from agricola's link:



> 4.38pm: Sunday will be the last issue of the News of the World.



E2A: Curse you Zabo! May your name be blotted out!


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> he might lose far more if people start boycotting his website tbf



Well, exactly. Tricky, isn't it?


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> *"4.38pm: Sunday will be the last issue of the News of the World."*
> 
> Guardian


 
Confirmed on Sky News.

LOL


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> What the fuck are you babbling about? Is that the retarded boyfriend on this login again?
> 
> I'd sooner see paedophiles killed than freed, yes, but as for "hating people on the dole", fuck off you twat.


Ouch! Hit a nerve  



pk said:


> We are all "employed" to some degree. It's all about proving it. For the records, like.
> 
> Sorry but if you're able bodied/minded, child-free, young, fit and single in London claiming HB and JSA, it's time to learn about the art of washing pots for £3.60 per hour.
> 
> The world does not work like your mum's house. Grow up or go hungry.


 

You've got more in common with the NOTW than you think. Maybe not "hate" but not feeling the love exactly here http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...ority-quot?p=11468001&viewfull=1#post11468001


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> wow. So, to an earlier poster, don't you worry about the fact the NOTW has already been paid for the adverts - all the advertisers will get their money back.
> 
> So this week's notw will be one long grovelling apology? I can't see how they can do anything else. It will be free also, I would guess.


 
i predict something along the lines of "left wing journalists conspire to make up stories about the troops/Milly Dowler etc etc" or "the people concerned were freelancers .

i just saw a post on Facebook that said they paid £100,000 bribes to Met officers!! If this is true then there are interesting times ahead!


----------



## creak (Jul 7, 2011)

4.38pm: James Murdoch is saying this Sunday's News of the World will be the final issue.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> There will be *no* adverts in this Sundays NOTW.


 
Off that same ticker it says that Cameron will be meeting up with Milliband to discuss the terms of the enquiry, wtf?  Cameron should be nowhere near this enquiry, its a massive conflict of interest and the fact that Milliband is going along with it shows just how useless he is, presented with a great opportunity to kick Cameron and he gives him a vote of confidence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Right. Next The Sun!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> *"4.38pm: Sunday will be the last issue of the News of the World."*
> 
> Guardian


 
Hopefully past editors like Coulson and Brooks will have guest columns in which they can wistfully recall the highlights of each's own tenure at this noble and historic newspaper.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 7, 2011)

> 4.39pm: Colin Myler will edit final edition and all the News of the World revenue will go to good causes, James Murdoch says in his statement.
> 
> 4.38pm: James Murdoch is saying this Sunday's News of the World will be the final issue.



Fuckin' get in!


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

> A final announcement on whether News Corp's proposed takeover of Sky will be permitted will take "several weeks" after Jeremy Hunt received 100,000-plus submissions from the public, sources close to the minister said this lunchtime, my colleague Dan Sabbagh reports.
> 
> Hunt's aides insist his decision has not been delayed in the light of further hacking revelations (which the minister insists are irrelevant to the "media plurality" review he is undertaking). Instead the wait reflects the sheer weight of correspondence he has received, almost all of which is opposed to the deal going through. In practice this mean an announcement is likely in September



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blo...he-world-phone-hacking-live-coverage#block-64

they have delayed the decision on the take-over , hunt claiming it has nothing to do with the hacking stuff, but the 'sheer weight of correspondence'  which was because of the hacking stuff   Hunt is having a mare - his credentials as leader-in waiting are having a bucket of shit poured all over them (have to give ex sun editor Kelvin the credit for that line)


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2011)

beeb just reported the same


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

BBC says this Sunday will be the last edition of the News of the World.

It's being closed down?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 7, 2011)

fuck! hilarious...

and on the same day a new newspaper is launched and which is... ???


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2011)

Hopefully when they're packing up the _NOTW_ offices nothing evidence-shaped is 'mislaid'.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

creak said:


> 4.38pm: James Murdoch is saying this Sunday's News of the World will be the final issue.


 
fucking hell!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 7, 2011)

'kin hell, that's a bit of a turn up.

Will it return with another face though


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> fucking hell!


 
My thoughts exactly!


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

creak said:


> 4.38pm: James Murdoch is saying this Sunday's News of the World will be the final issue.


 
I never expected that - they are at panic stations !


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Confirmed on Sky News.
> 
> LOL


 
really??


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

Blimey!!!!  




			
				grauniad said:
			
		

> 4.39pm: Colin Myler will edit final edition and all the News of the World revenue will go to good causes, James Murdoch says in his statement.
> 
> 4.38pm: James Murdoch is saying this Sunday's News of the World will be the final issue.
> 
> 4.38pm: Sunday will be the last issue of the News of the World.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 7, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Fuckin' get in!



Back of the net!


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

my dad won't be happy


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

creak said:


> 4.38pm: James Murdoch is saying this Sunday's News of the World will be the final issue.


 
and they will announce the launch with a brand new Sunday newspaper with exactly the same staff and editor and exactly the same content


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2011)

Wonderful news.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> 'kin hell, that's a bit of a turn up.
> 
> Will it return with another face though


 
probably . Though there's already a Sunday Sun in Newcastle so that could rule out one possibility


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> fuck! hilarious...
> 
> and on the same day a new newspaper is launched and which is... ???


 
Your soaraway Sunday Sun, edited by Colin Myler!


----------



## Zabo (Jul 7, 2011)

Damage limitation and all that. It won't stop all the impending prosecutions.

Next on the list: Sky.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> and they will announce the launch with a brand new Sunday newspaper with exactly the same staff and editor and exactly the same content


 
Same old hacks, then?

*gets coat*


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Back of the net!


 
tremendous!


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> and they will announce the launch with a brand new Sunday newspaper with exactly the same staff and editor and exactly the same content



Exactly. Same shit, different name.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Your soaraway Sunday Sun, edited by Colin Myler!


 
it would be funny if they did that then the Newcastle one sued because of tarnished reputations!


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 7, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> probably . Though there's already a Sunday Sun in Newcastle so that could rule out one possibility


 
The Morning Star tried to stop the Daily Star calling itself that, when it first appeared. The judge in the case through the Stalinists' claim out, saying that 'only a moron in a hurry would be unable to tell the difference'.

And do you know where that moron ended up?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 7, 2011)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Well, exactly. Tricky, isn't it?



Hahaha, he needn't have bothered with all that angst.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> and they will announce the launch with a brand new Sunday newspaper with exactly the same staff and editor and exactly the same content


 
Depends. Depends how much money they've lost and how much credibility they've lost. A new Sunday paper from Murdoch? Get tweeting, folks - advertisers beware!


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 7, 2011)

the Sun on Sunday is now confirmed, apparently.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

So, it's goodbye to the News of the World.

And, hello to the Sun on Sunday.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 7, 2011)

damnhippie said:


> the Sun on Sunday is now confirmed, apparently.


 
Meet the new cunts, same as the old cunts, then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> So, it's goodbye to the News of the World.
> 
> And, hello to the Sun on Sunday.


 
And hello to a new campaign to stop advertisers from touching it, surely.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

They can kill the name, but can they kill the shame?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 7, 2011)

I would imagine that he would expect a lot of former NofW readers to jump ship to the Sun


----------



## Kanda (Jul 7, 2011)

Tesco cunts:


> 4.30pm: I just spoke to Tesco and they said they would not be expanding on their earlier statements confirming they would keep advertising with the News of the World, but if the NoW is dropping all advertising this Sunday that may get the supermarket chain off the hook.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 7, 2011)

My money would be on 'Sun day'.

Tbf, it's hardly lived up to the description 'News of the World' for some time.


----------



## jakethesnake (Jul 7, 2011)

They risk spreading the boycott to the daily edition of the Sun now


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Our old pal Brian Paddick has told the Daily Mail (the same paper that fucked his career!!) that bribes were paid in cash to top cops.
> 
> Rebekah Brooks head on a spike imminent. About fucking time. Enjoy jail!!


 
jail only happens to those who PISS OFF News International, i think you have not grasped British Justice!


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 7, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Meet the new cunts, same as the old cunts, then.


 
yep. i wonder if Murdoch will even lose *that much* money on this...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 7, 2011)

It just occurred to me (as it has no doubt done to many others already - I'm slow, ok?) that there seems to be a distinction between people who's phone it is ok to hack (all the celebs and famous people already named) and those it's not ('innocent' victims/members of the public). You'd like to think it'd be a black and white "you can't go snooping on people's private phonecalls", but apparently not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Tesco cunts:


 
See their clueless misreading of the situation just adds to the fun. They misjudged it and left it so late that they couldn't pull out. Ha.


----------



## magneze (Jul 7, 2011)

Been getting on with some work and I return to the thread to find this. HaHaHAAAAAAAA. Fucking brilliant.  x 1000000


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 7, 2011)

jakethesnake said:


> They risk spreading the boycott to the daily edition of the Sun now


 
ha 

you can bet the Scum will come out guns blazing to try and avoid it


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

I think dropping a title which has been around for many years and has a big readership just to save a couple of execs is just another example of how badly this whole affair has been managed by news international.  Its been a fucking shambles.


----------



## Flavour (Jul 7, 2011)

fan fucking tastic


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 7, 2011)

damnhippie said:


> the Sun on Sunday is now confirmed, apparently.


Fuck me, they didn't even try to hide that, did they?


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

jakethesnake said:


> They risk spreading the boycott to the daily edition of the Sun now


 
That, and the obvious cheek of the thing, is why I dont think there will be an immediate replacement.  It does sort of lead on to what on earth they are going to do with all the hacks though - you would think there would be a strong incentive in ditching most of them as well.  (edit - and noone is reporting the replacement paper yet either).


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> So, it's goodbye to the News of the World.
> 
> And, hello to the Sun on Sunday.



At least all the innocent folk caught up in this shit storm of corruption who worked for the NOTW, won't be out of a job?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

*An Email Regarding Butlins NOTW Advertising & Banning Vulnerable Adults*

*Sent To*
butlins.holidays@bourne-leisure.co.uk, geoffrey.smith@bourne-leisure.co.uk, carly.bilson@bourne-leisure.co.uk, bourne@leisureconnection.co.uk, bbutlin@bourneleisure.co.uk, tanya.smith@bourne-leisure.co.uk, leo.gunn@bourne-leisure.co.uk, owners.exclusive@bourne-leisure.co.uk, tom.kirkpatrick@bourne-leisure.co.uk, warnergroupsales@bourne-leisure.co.uk, agency.sales@bourne-leisure.co.uk, webmaster@bourne-leisure.co.uk, Jennifer.Stretton@bourne-leisure.co.uk, bdcustomercare@bourne-leisure.co.uk, rebecca.caradine@bourne-leisure.co.uk, rockley.holidays@bourne-leisure.co.uk, andy.pope@bourne-leisure.co.uk, pressoffice@bourne-leisure.co.uk

*Copied To*
abta@abta.co.uk, holiday@which.co.uk, response@scope.org.uk, help@mencap.org.uk, info@britishtravelawards.com, info@enjoyengland.com, customerservice@awardsinternational.eu, simon.thorpe@ubm.com, ashley.williamson@ubm.com, emilie.oliveira@ubm.com, jedd.barry@ubm.com, mailbox@tommys.org



> To whom it may concern,
> 
> I was disappointed at the length of time Butlins took to take the small step of pulling advertising from 'this weekend's News of the World paper. Despite billing yourself as a family company Butlins this is a poor reflection on how you view people.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

So - no more News of the World! 

GOTCHA!! 

Wheres the info about a new Sun on Sunday coming from? 

Cant see owt on bbc or gruniad.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 7, 2011)

jakethesnake said:


> They risk spreading the boycott to the daily edition of the Sun now


 
I think we need to point our efforts at the Sun now.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> So - no more News of the World!
> 
> GOTCHA!!


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> It just occurred to me (as it has no doubt done to many others already - I'm slow, ok?) that there seems to be a distinction between people who's phone it is ok to hack (all the celebs and famous people already named) and those it's not ('innocent' victims/members of the public). You'd like to think it'd be a black and white "you can't go snooping on people's private phonecalls", but apparently not.



Theres a whole thread about it.  I think whilst it was who said what to who and who shagged who gossip, then a lot of people werent that bothered.  The deleting of messages on a missing child's phone was the turning point.  There are some lines that should not be crossed, it would seem.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2011)

James Murdoch statement on closure of _NOTW_:

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/31458/


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Wheres the info about a new Sun on Sunday coming from?



It's a guess on my behalf, not heard anything official, but that's what I would do in their shoes.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jul 7, 2011)

Bets on the exact time Ms Brooks will be escorted from her office?

After 6pm, please, I don't want to miss Pointless...


----------



## likesfish (Jul 7, 2011)

Success not sure how NI could relaunch under another name and not get shafted its just given everybody proof that people can have a result


----------



## kained&able (Jul 7, 2011)

hearing that news of the world will be closing down as of sunday!!!

So Sunday edition of the Sun, then. 

dave


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

The statement strongly suggests that there will not be a replacement, and that people will be getting p45s (and innocent* people as well)



> News International today announces that this Sunday, 10 July 2011, will be the last issue of the News of the World.
> 
> Making the announcement to staff, James Murdoch, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, News Corporation, and Chairman, News International said:
> 
> ...



* albeit they work(ed) for News International


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 7, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Theres a whole thread about it.  I think whilst it was who said what to who and who shagged who gossip, then a lot of people werent that bothered.  The deleting of messages on a missing child's phone was the turning point.  There are some lines that should not be crossed, it would seem.


Aye, fair enough, on a personal level I just think the other lines shouldn't have been crossed either.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2011)

> News of the World newsroom staff in tears I hear as paper is shutdown



http://twitter.com/frasereC4/statuses/88999474776649728

(Ed Fraser, head of Home News at Channel 4 News)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> It's a guess on my behalf, not heard anything official, but that's what I would do in their shoes.


 
They can't announce any plans to replace it just yet.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

kained&able said:


> hearing that news of the world will be closing down as of sunday!!!
> 
> So Sunday edition of the Sun, then.
> 
> dave



link?


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jul 7, 2011)

Just saw wow! this morning this thread only had 36 pages, much catching up needed.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

> *We will run no commercial advertisements this weekend. Any advertising space in this last edition will be donated to causes and charities that wish to expose their good works to our millions of readers.*



Hmmmmmmmm


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> link?


 
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3683538/News-of-the-World-closing-down.html


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 7, 2011)

FUCKING ACE!!!


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They can't announce any plans to replace it just yet.


 
wait till the shit hits the fan with the other press, then relaunch as the 'decent people's newspaper' - could be a clever move


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> link?


 
All over the news mate


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 7, 2011)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Just saw wow! this morning this thread only had 36 pages, much catching up needed.


 
This is only page 39 on my computer.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

How many people have to be thrown on the bonfire to save Brooks?


----------



## Ae589 (Jul 7, 2011)

Nice try.  Now let's have Rebecca in gaol and Murdoch's takeover turned down, and we can all be happy that justice has been done.


----------



## Sunray (Jul 7, 2011)

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


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Having read the statement in full it does make one wonder exactly how important Brooks is to Murdoch - after all, in order to try and save her they have opened fire on Coulson, got rid of a paper with more than 100 years history and which brings in quite a bit of wedge, and sacked numerous employees live on national TV.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> I think we need to point our efforts at the Sun now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Hmmmmmmmm


 
Need to ensure nobody takes them up on their generous offer now, surely?


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 7, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> fucking ace!!! :d :d :d  :d


 
:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 7, 2011)

Ae589 said:


> Nice try.  Now let's have Rebecca in gaol and Murdoch's takeover turned down, and we can all be happy that justice has been done.


 
It'll take more than that to right the wrongs of Murdoch.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They can't announce any plans to replace it just yet.



No, I think they will leave that until next week in The Sun, or they could be stupid enough to announce it in the final edition of NOTW, but I can't see them missing a single Sunday without a paper - readers will drift elsewhere.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 7, 2011)

Money making idea: Stalk out your local garages and newsagents and bagsie all the NOTWs on Saturday night at the 24hr and sell them for a tenner each on Sunday. Jobs a goodun.


----------



## salem (Jul 7, 2011)

Any idea if the NOTW was making money? I seem to recall that the Times has been losing money for a while.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 7, 2011)

I like the irony that Murdoch who closed down the traditional press with a big axe and embraced the new digital technology is  badly damaged by that very same technology.

Marvellous!


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Having read the statement in full it does make one wonder exactly how important Brooks is to Murdoch - after all, in order to try and save her they have opened fire on Coulson, got rid of a paper with more than 100 years history and which brings in quite a bit of wedge, and sacked numerous employees live on national TV.


 
It has become quite apparent that she knows where the bodies are buried, probably because she helped put them there.  To save her skin they are throwing everything at the fire, what does she know?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

salem said:


> Any idea if the NOTW was making money? I seem to recall that the Times has been losing money for a while.



Yes, both The Sun and the NOTW/Sun on Sunday are very profitable and underwrite the loses of The Times.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

salem said:


> Any idea if the NOTW was making money? I seem to recall that the Times has been losing money for a while.


 
IIRC it was bringing in £160 million a year, unknown what its costs were.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> It has become quite apparent that she knows where the bodies are buried, probably because she helped put them there.  To save her skin they are throwing everything at the fire, what does she know?


 
It must be good, otherwise it would be cheaper to just push her off a yacht.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2011)

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2011/07/07/news-of-the-world-the-downfall/


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 7, 2011)

They'll launch a replacement of course - there's no way Murdoch will keep his paws off a market as lucrative as that. be fun watching them trying to distance NOTW v 2.0 from the old one, though...."NOTW? Nah mate, nuffink to do with us...we're um, News of the ...Week! Yes, That's it"


----------



## Dandred (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Well the story is all over the other tabloids


 
Really? I didn't see it in the Sun, did you?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> there's no way Murdoch will keep his paws of a market as lucrative as that.


 
There is one way - if said paws were handcuffed behind his back.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 7, 2011)

Dandred said:


> Really? I didn't see it in the Sun, did you?



http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...olutely-disgusting-and-calls-for-inquiry.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3683538/News-of-the-World-closing-down.html


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 7, 2011)

Dandred said:


> Really? I didn't see it in the Sun, did you?


 
You just weren't squinting hard enough!


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Not that people here need to be told this of course, but it will be interesting to see what happens to this bandwagon over the next few days.  I am sure most of the tabloid press, and a lot of politicians, want to have one of those usual periods of calm reflection that leads to business as usual starting again after a couple of weeks.


----------



## Chester Copperpot (Jul 7, 2011)

I suspect this has a lot to do with the BskyB take over

Clever move


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Good stuff. Suck it Elizabeth of York!

Now, The Sun is the target.

No mercy for these fucks.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 7, 2011)

_The truth is in what you see - not what you read
Little men tapping things out - points of view
Remember their views are not the gospel truth

Don't believe it all
Find out for yourself
Check before you spread
News of the world_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Not that people here need to be told this of course, but it will be interesting to see what happens to this bandwagon over the next few days.  I am sure most of the tabloid press, and a lot of politicians, want to have one of those usual periods of calm reflection that leads to business as usual.


 
They will. But this reminds me a little of the promises Mubarak made just before he was ousted - when he basically promised the Egyptian people all and everything just so long as please he could stay in power.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 7, 2011)

Now, The Daily Mail. Haven't they been up to much more of this nonsense?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Tommy Sheridan's lawyer is on Sky News now (in a press conference with Tom Watson MP), *apparently they have found Rebekah Brooks personally authorised three transactions in the Whittamore (the Motorman case mentioned above) files, one of which is mobile phone conversion (ie: hacking).*  Worth watching for those who arent boycotting Sky.


 

Any more news on this?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Not that people here need to be told this of course, but it will be interesting to see what happens to this bandwagon over the next few days.  I am sure most of the tabloid press, and a lot of politicians, want to have one of those usual periods of calm reflection that leads to business as usual starting again after a couple of weeks.



Although a lot of the ire over the last few days has been directed at news international and specifically Brooks, I can't remember anyone saying they thought the paper should close down.  It seems to me people wanted the people responsible held to account, and I hope they still do.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Good stuff. Suck it Elizabeth of York!



lol


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

So, it's goodbye to the News of the World, and hello to the Sun on Sunday, different title, same shite. #notw


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Chester Copperpot said:


> I suspect this has a lot to do with the BskyB take over
> 
> Clever move


 
Means a lot to Murdoch, that. We must all ensure it doesn't happen.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Jail for Rebekah Brooks or this means nothing.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> So, it's goodbye to the News of the World, and hello to the Sun on Sunday, different title, same shite. #notw


 
but hopefully with hugely reduced readership....at least till it all dies down


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Jail for Rebekah Brooks or this means nothing.


 
Yes. But we have to remember that the real prize is Murdoch himself.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Jail for Rebekah Brooks or this means nothing.


 
she's gonna be the fall guy or gal should that be. They would never ever jail Murdoch , too close to the establishment


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

Reading between the lines, notice how NI's statements in the last 48 hours have gone from platforming Brooks as a leader of change, to - in the case of this shutdown - not mentioning her *at all*. Even whilst J Murdoch now admits paying people off was his doing and it was wrong.

It will be interesting to see if Brooks gets a mention from NI anytime soon. If not, and the longer they airbrush her out of the 'regime of change', the more one has to think they are preparing to pull the big handle.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> Any more news on this?


 
There isnt an account of what went on at the press conference yet, it seems to have been buried by the landslide which followed it.  Will try and find a video of it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 7, 2011)

So closing the paper down....has this been done to defer from the likelihood that more hacking/scandal was about to be uncovered?


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So closing the paper down....has this been done to defer from the likelihood that more hacking/scandal was about to be uncovered?


 
Not sure that's very much under their control.

More that it's become a toxic brand, and they want to avoid contagion within the group.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> but hopefully with hugely reduced readership....at least till it all dies down


 
I doubt that, the circulation of The Scum & News of the Screws is near enough the same, as is the readership.

The Scum has, so far, escaped the shit, the NOTW readers will just pick-up the SoS* instead.

*Edit - SoS - that sums it up! < lol


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is one way - if said paws were handcuffed behind his back.


forget that - that's one bastard they'll NEVER nail. There's simply too many people below him to take the flak


----------



## salem (Jul 7, 2011)

1719: Reaction from Justice Secretary Ken Clarke: "All they're going to do is rebrand it".


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. But we have to remember that the real prize is Murdoch himself.


I'd settle for James Murdoch.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Not sure that's very much under their control.
> 
> More that it's become a toxic brand, and they want to avoid contagion within the group.


 
Too late. 
Time for The Sun then


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Sky reporting that there is mass anger in the NOTW newsroom aimed at Rebekah Brooks - not unreasonably, after all to paraphrase General Kléber she has left them with her trousers full of shit.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 7, 2011)

Jemima Khan on twitter:Just heard that Coulson to be arrested this afternoon


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 7, 2011)

Watch everyone rush out and buy thier last ever copy now


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> I doubt that, the circulation of The Scum & News of the Screws is near enough the same, as is the readership.
> 
> The Scum has, so far, escaped the shit, the NOTW readers will just pick-up the SoS* instead.
> 
> *Edit - SoS - that sums it up! < lol


 
thing is though, the revelations about soldiers/families phones being tapped WILL have an effect whatever they call the paper


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 7, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So closing the paper down....has this been done to defer from the likelihood that more hacking/scandal was about to be uncovered?


 
News Int. have been making noises about integrating their daily and sunday tabloids for about a week now... did they realise the shit was about to fly, and plan this all along??

Guardian business article 28th June


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Watch everyone rush out and buy thier last ever copy now


 
I was pondering getting one myself, as a happy souvenir.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 7, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Watch everyone rush out and buy thier last ever copy now


 
Oh jesus...this will happen...The NOTW will be sold out everywhere...Murdoch will view it as a victory.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I was pondering getting one myself, as a happy souvenir.


 
Kinda defeats the object of boycotting a paper into oblivion.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I was pondering getting one myself, as a happy souvenir.


 
Don't. Really. Do not. There still needs to be a mass boycott of the paper come Sunday.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 7, 2011)

Chester Copperpot said:


> I suspect this has a lot to do with the BskyB take over
> 
> Clever move


yup - same here.


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Murdoch will view it as a victory.


 
He's not *that* stupid


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Watch everyone rush out and buy thier last ever copy now


 
I've gone from planning a one-man protest outside the village shop, to intending to buy it now - after all every penny is going to good causes and I am interested in seeing what's in it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Oh ffs. Do not buy this paper. wtf is wrong with people?


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't. Really. Do not. There still needs to be a mass boycott of the paper come Sunday.


 
It was a tongue-in-cheek thought.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Sky reporting that there is mass anger in the NOTW newsroom aimed at Rebekah Brooks - not unreasonably, after all to paraphrase General Kléber she has left them with her trousers full of shit.


 
Looking forward to the news tonight, close up shots of tearful hacks leaving the offices with no jobs to go to!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 7, 2011)

The 200 people #NotW employs will be offered other jobs at News International - Spokesperson on Radio 4


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

Actually, all we need is for there to be one scanned copy available on t'internet, for gawping and posterity.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 7, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I'd settle for James Murdoch.


 
Sword. Fall on.



Please.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Actually, all we need is for there to be one scanned copy available on t'internet, for gawping and posterity.


 
Exactly.

As for the good causes, if anyone's feeling guilty, go out and give a quid to a beggar or something.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 7, 2011)

Domain name registered two days ago.

The Sun On Sunday


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 7, 2011)

Just heard the Sun is to become a 7-day paper, I must admit I didn't think they would do that this quickly.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 7, 2011)

Just hearing the (soon to be ex) Political Editor David Wooding saying how it was a previous regime and nothign to do with him etc.

Wholeheartedly see his PoV, though struggle to find sympathy for someone who took Murdoch's coin for work in the gutter. 

Good riddance.


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Domain name registered two days ago.
> 
> The Sun On Sunday


 
Could well be a speculative 3rd party.


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Just heard the Sun is to become a 7-day paper, I must admit I didn't think they would do that this quickly.


 
Any source on that?


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The 200 people #NotW employs will be offered other jobs at News International - Spokesperson on Radio 4


 
Funny, thats not what James Murdoch said in his statement:



> Many of you, if not the vast majority of you, are either new to the Company or have had no connection to the News of the World during the years when egregious behaviour occurred.
> 
> I can understand how unfair these decisions may feel. *Particularly, for colleagues who will leave the Company.* Of course, we will communicate next steps in detail and begin appropriate consultations.



Prescott on Sky News now, pointing out that the NOTW were not unique and mentioning Motorman.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> forget that - that's one bastard they'll NEVER nail. There's simply too many people below him to take the flak


 
Bollocks, they nailed Robert Maxwell.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Just heard the Sun is to become a 7-day paper, I must admit I didn't think they would do that this quickly.


 
Surely this is the perfect opportunity to spread the contagion to the Sun. After all, the NOTW closing without the Sun closing means little.


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

yardbird said:


> Sword. Fall on.
> 
> 
> 
> Please.




Will no-one think to leave a loaded revolver discreetly on his desk? And his dad's?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Any source on that?



It was on Radio 6Music news...


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jul 7, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Just hearing the (soon to be ex) Political Editor David Wooding saying how it was a previous regime and nothign to do with him etc.
> 
> Wholeheartedly see his PoV, though struggle to find sympathy for someone who took Murdoch's coin for work in the gutter.
> 
> Good riddance.



Same. He was also saying he was inundated with well wish messages from people in Westminster; really? The same people in parliament yesterday who admitted to living in fear from the NOTW?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 7, 2011)

And now for Milliband's input...can't ever picture him talking now without mentioning that _the strikes are wrong at a time when negotiations are still going on. But parents and the public have been let down by both sides because the government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner..._


----------



## Zabo (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Could well be a speculative 3rd party.



More than a grain of truth in your comment methinks.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Surely this is the perfect opportunity to spread the contagion to the Sun. After all, the NOTW closing without the Sun closing means little.


 This , I've already started on face bitch


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The 200 people #NotW employs will be offered other jobs at News International - Spokesperson on Radio 4


 
Apart from the ones facing jail.

Big money offered by rival papers for ex-employees to spill the beans!!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 7, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It was on Radio 6Music news...


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Apart from the ones facing jail.
> 
> Big money offered by rival papers for ex-employees to spill the beans!!


 
Rather more money will be on offer to shut the fuck up, I fear.  After all, the only paper who has really gone for this is the Grauniad, and they are broke.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> More than a grain of truth in your comment methinks.



I can't see NI registering a domain with 123-reg


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2011)

Would now be the right time for someone to organise that 25yr anniversary celebration of the Wapping dispute?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 7, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


>


 
Shut it you, I'm in the car


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I was pondering getting one myself, as a happy souvenir.


 
If you really must,  then shoplift it


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 7, 2011)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Same. He was also saying he was inundated with well wish messages from people in Westminster; really? The same people in parliament yesterday who admitted to living in fear from the NOTW?


 
Actually, the more he talks, the more he sounds like the moronic journo scum that will always shirk allegations of their wrongdoing, and shout 'free speech' in the face of criticism of their blinkered rhetoric and half truths. Cunt. One prays this whole mini revolution sees the end of the shit these people call news and political engineering.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 7, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Shut it you, I'm in the car


No, no, very credible news outlet.

For Glastonbury rumours


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Bollocks, they nailed Robert Maxwell.



Hello Jazzz.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> If you really must,  then shoplift it


 
Why? All proceeds from it are going to 'good causes'

It's the only time it's ok to buy it


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 7, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Would now be the right time for someone to organise that 25yr anniversary celebration of the Wapping dispute?



Already happening isn't it? Can't find the thing on faceache now!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> If you really must,  then shoplift it



Amen!


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 7, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Although a lot of the ire over the last few days has been directed at news international and specifically Brooks, I can't remember anyone saying they thought the paper should close down.  It seems to me people wanted the people responsible held to account, and I hope they still do.


 
I'm saying it. Actually I'm saying it on a different thread. However the combined result of this and other press scandals over the last couple of years has led me to the conclusion that the ethical standards of British journalism as a whole have to change. That means not just the NOTW closing down. I think that the NUJ should be looking at the situation in terms of journalists have to show some basic morality in the way they go about their profession, or the profession shouldn't exist and we should rebuild from the amateurs and bloggers upwards. If any management insist on their employees behaving unethically should lead to strike action. If the NUJ won't defend their profession by imposing some basic moral standards then we should all boycott all British newspapers and broadcast news sources.

Tough on the small number of perfectly ethical journalists out there, but there isn't a mainstream publication or broadcaster where they are the majority. What have we got to lose? We can't believe a bloody word they say anyway so what's the point?

I want ALL the newspapers cleaned up or closed down.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Why? All proceeds from it are going to 'good causes'
> 
> It's the only time it's ok to buy it


 
News of the World "good causes"? no thanks


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Why? All proceeds from it are going to 'good causes'
> 
> It's the only time it's ok to buy it


 
No it is not. It's really important that as few people buy it as possible. Buying it means accepting their fucking apology.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No it is not. It's really important that as few people buy it as possible. Buying it means accepting their fucking apology.



Nail on the head. Fuck em.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Jul 7, 2011)

Sun on Sunday already registered online, does that have to mean it was them? Could it be someone else trying to cash in?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 7, 2011)

Aaaaahhhh rfom the BBC it seems the web addresses SunonSunday.com and SunonSunday.co.uk were registreed as web addresses 2 days ago by persons unknown.....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Already happening isn't it? Can't find the thing on faceache now!


 
Happened already - loads of events earlier this year on the anniversary. Bone is trying to get ex-printers down there tmw morning as well.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 7, 2011)

Where on earth will shit films get their guaranteed 5 stars now?

((((shit films)))))


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Aaaaahhhh rfom the BBC it seems the web addresses SunonSunday.com and SunonSunday.co.uk were registreed as web addresses 2 days ago by persons unknown.....


 
Will piss myself laughing if its someone from the Hillsborough Justice campaign.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Will piss myself laughing if its someone from the Hillsborough Justice campaign.


 
They were registered to a company called mediaspring - chancers it sounds like.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Just hearing the (soon to be ex) Political Editor David Wooding saying how it was a previous regime and nothign to do with him etc.


 
In other news: Bormann places blame squarely on shoulders of Hess.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 7, 2011)

Who is going to carry on the hunt for Maddie???


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Miliband being interviewed now, calling for Brooks to go.  Do they really have him in exactly the same room and the same pose as his strikes interview?

edit: they have - except the lamp and some pictures have gone


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Aaaaahhhh rfom the BBC it seems the web addresses SunonSunday.com and SunonSunday.co.uk were registreed as web addresses 2 days ago by persons unknown.....


 
Could be some random chancer, might not be NI


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Where on earth will shit films get their guaranteed 5 stars now?


 
Paul Ross still gives good gush for cash.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 7, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Aaaaahhhh rfom the BBC it seems the web addresses SunonSunday.com and SunonSunday.co.uk were registreed as web addresses 2 days ago by persons unknown.....


 
http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=thesunonsunday.co.uk


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 7, 2011)

salem said:


> Any idea if the NOTW was making money? I seem to recall that the Times has been losing money for a while.


 
The Times was losing money and the NOTW was making enough to keep the Times going as well. This is a major victory, NOTW was the UK's most read sunday and now its no more. Sure another paper will be started but closing down such a widely read paper is not something the execs wanted to do.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=thesunonsunday.co.uk


That could just be domain leeches though.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Who is going to carry on the hunt for Maddie???


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 7, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> "News of the World newsroom staff in tears I hear as paper is shutdown"
> 
> http://twitter.com/frasereC4/statuses/88999474776649728
> 
> (Ed Fraser, head of Home News at Channel 4 News)


 
I am so saddened by this, and so sympathetic, that I've had to turn the music up to drown out my hysterical laughter. I assume that they will all be malingering no good lazy dole scroungers from next week and I hope they all get the treatment they've been demanding for others.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2011)

Reaction from Justice Secretary Ken Clarke: "All they're going to do is rebrand it".


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Sky - there is a "lynch mob mentality" amongst NOTW staff for Rebekah Brooks.  She needed security guards when she broke the news that they were being thrown under the bus on her behalf.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Could be some random chancer, might not be NI


 
Lets hope so


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Sky - there is a "lynch mob mentality" amongst NOTW staff for Rebekah Brooks.  She needed security guards when she broke the news that they were being thrown under the bus on her behalf.


 
Oh the irony


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 7, 2011)

smokedout said:


> wait till the shit hits the fan with the other press, then relaunch as the 'decent people's newspaper' - could be a clever move


 
If they actually operate with a decent standard of ethics then I'm all in favour of that. However I suspect what we all have to do is keep them under some serious scrutiny and make as much fuss as possible every time they "push the envelope".

I'd love there to be a decent newspaper, however there currently isn't a single decent national newspaper in the UK. Even the Guardian and the Independent have taken to printing propaganda pretty much verbatim and have relegated fact checking to an optional extra.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

> Dan Wooton, the showbiz editor of the NoW, has put out this "personal statement on News of the World phone hacking":
> 
> I'm not going to lie. Having a column in the News of the World this week has not been easy. Like you, I feel sickened by the stories about the alleged hacking of Milly Dowler and others' voicemail accounts. It is disgusting. To be honest, I feel sick about the hacking of anyone. I would NEVER even think about doing that or believe it is acceptable in any way. What I have to stress to you is this: I do NOT work for the newspaper you are reading about. The vast majority of my colleagues, including journalists and management, were not working on this newspaper during those years. There is a new regime in place here. I have only ever worked under Colin Myler as editor. Here's what he said yesterday about this situation. *Now, just remember, my job is to bring you guys the best showbiz stories in the business week in week out – the X Factor, Cheryl and Ashley, Kate Moss, TOWIE and all of that good stuff.* I do so in a legal, ethical and moral way and will continue to do so. Thank you so much for the people who understand that and have let me know during this difficult week.



Well for that alone, good fucking riddance


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Sky - there is a "lynch mob mentality" amongst NOTW staff for Rebekah Brooks.  She needed security guards when she broke the news that they were being thrown under the bus on her behalf.




Nothing can save her. It's jail time.


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Sky - there is a "lynch mob mentality" amongst NOTW staff for Rebekah Brooks.  She needed security guards when she broke the news that they were being thrown under the bus on her behalf.



Sky not holding back... perhaps demonstrating that Murdoch doesn't yet have his majority control over them.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 7, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


>


 
That's like some joke front page. What's wrong with these people?


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Nothing can save her. It's jail time.


 
I agree, its just mental to watch Murdoch trash so many of his own business interests, his own reputation and many of his staff for one person who isnt a relative, wasnt a great editor anyway and who is directly responsible for all the shit she has found herself in, in such an obviously futile attempt to save her.


----------



## trabant (Jul 7, 2011)

"Shocked and saddened by closure of the News of the World. Scandals of past week indefensible, but has been a great British newspaper."

http://twitter.com/#!/piersmorgan/status/89008436796338176


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

This is all good stuff but it is clear that this was done so Murdoch could get the BSKYB takeover. We have to ensure that this doesn't happen


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

I'd like to see Brooks get lynched, or thrown under a bus. Vile woman deserves it. Doubt she'd last long in jail.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> This is all good stuff but it is clear that this was done so Murdoch could get the BSKYB takeover. We have to ensure that this doesn't happen


 
Thats probably what they have convinced themselves, but this is a profoundly stupid way to go about it.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> This is all good stuff but it is clear that this was done so Murdoch could get the BSKYB takeover. We have to ensure that this doesn't happen


 
Absolutely, this isn't over yet by a long chalk.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Er .. I was parodying PKs argument.


which would explain why it was so shit


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> I'd like to see Brooks get lynched, or thrown under a bus. Vile woman deserves it. Doubt she'd last long in jail.


 
you don't like bus drivers, do you?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 7, 2011)

Decision on BSkyB takeover postponed by government until September... ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> I agree, its just mental to watch Murdoch trash so many of his own business interests, his own reputation and many of his staff for one person who isnt a relative, wasnt a great editor anyway and who is directly responsible for all the shit she has found herself in, in such an obviously futile attempt to save her.


 
yes, it's brilliant, isn't it?


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> which would explain why it was so shit


 
And why you were too thick to understand it was sarcasm


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Decision on BSkyB takeover postponed by government until September... ?


 
yeah in the hope that by then this will have calmed down and the bastard can do the deal.


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> If the NUJ won't defend their profession by imposing some basic moral standards then we should all boycott all British newspapers and broadcast news sources.



The NUJ Code of Conduct isn't dreadful. But (a) it's had no teeth since Thatcher outlawed the closed shop; and (b) almost all the few members within Fortress Wapping did their best to keep their membership secret from management, which was liable to fire them on some pretext if it found out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> And why you were too thick to understand it was sarcasm


 
given the barking nonsense you've come out with in the past - for example friendships you've alleged which have no basis in fact, that arson incident - you're beyond parody.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Very angry statement from the NUJ:



> NUJ condemns Murdoch’s closure of the News of the World
> 
> In a shock announcement this afternoon James Murdoch has informed staff at the News of the World that the newspaper is being wound up, with its last edition printed on Sunday.
> 
> ...



http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2152

Any chance of hacks at other Murdoch-owned media outlets going out on strike in sympathy?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 7, 2011)

NUJ statement - http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2152


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 7, 2011)

Not everyone's taste, but always gets me


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

editor said:


> Reaction from Justice Secretary Ken Clarke: "All they're going to do is rebrand it".


 
Which makes it certain that this has been a very, very stupid move.


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

watching BBC News24 and am very pleased to see that cynicism isn't dead. so far they have had the father of a dead soldier, the deputy culture secretary, and Max Fucking Clifford, saying that should this be just a rebranding exercise it (i.e. a "Sun on Sunday") will and must fail.

also, won't Tesco et al who _hadn't_ pulled their ads from Sunday's edition feel like the fucking cunts they are now? 

that said, pressure on NI, their advertisers, buyers, and first and foremost rebekah teflon brooks shouldn't let up now, if anything it has to increase. i don't generally "do" moral outrage, but the fucking spunk chumps who were responsible for this need to be put out of business and dragged before the courts. 

worst though, NI may well still come out of this smelling of roses, BSkyB share price plummeting, so they can buy their 69% at bargain basement prices, consolidating their print products into just the Sun, thereby saving salaries, and get revenue from the now-to-be-established sun paywall, etc. 

(ah also... first post. 'ullo! )


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

Giles said:


> Given that most "phone hacking" simply involves  obtaining the mobile number of someone in the news, working out which network they are on, and then phoning the voicemail access number for that network, and typing in the "victim"s phone number and (if they have not set a PIN) listening to their voicemails, I can't believe that most of the papers (or their paid-but-not-directly-employed snoopers) have not been doing this. A lot.
> 
> The other papers must be breathing an (undeserved) sigh of relief.
> 
> ...


 this was mentioned in chris bryant's speech yesterday but seems to have been forgotten in the notw feeding frenzy


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Advertisers who are choosing to pull out is fine.  I'm against advertisers being bullied.
> 
> That is all.


 
Really? Personally I just see it as aggressive advertising against the advertisers. I'm against the right wing "just put up and shut up and be nice well behaved little comsumers" attitude. I've had enough of the owners of big companies telling me what to do, and of them paying politicians to tell me what to do, that I really couldn't give a fuck any more. I'd probably draw the line at members of their immediate families being threatened with physical violence, short of that I'm afraid it's just what goes around comes around.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> watching BBC News24 and am very pleased to see that cynicism isn't dead. so far they have had the father of a dead soldier, the deputy culture secretary, and Max Fucking Clifford, saying that should this be just a rebranding exercise it (i.e. a "Sun on Sunday") will and must fail.
> 
> also, won't Tesco et al who _hadn't_ pulled their ads from Sunday's edition feel like the fucking cunts they are now?
> 
> ...


 
Good first post and hello


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> watching BBC News24 and am very pleased to see that cynicism isn't dead. so far they have had the father of a dead soldier, the deputy culture secretary, and Max Fucking Clifford, saying that should this be just a rebranding exercise it (i.e. a "Sun on Sunday") will and must fail.
> 
> also, won't Tesco et al who _hadn't_ pulled their ads from Sunday's edition feel like the fucking cunts they are now?
> 
> ...


good to see a decent first post - have a hobnob etc


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 7, 2011)

http://twitter.com/#!/TheSunOnSunday


----------



## xenon (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No it is not. It's really important that as few people buy it as possible. Buying it means accepting their fucking apology.


 
Exactly.

FFS peple. Buying it now makes a mockery of anything you've said against it. Symbology is important.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

The AP wire is reporting that all 200 NOTW employees will be sacked.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> The AP wire is reporting that all 200 NOTW employees will be sacked.


 
it's a start i suppose


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

Who saw _that_ coming.... phew.

I really, _really_ feel like a party!


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 7, 2011)

Unlikely.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The people who are likely to be hurt are the low-paid workers of the companies.  If you all stop shopping at Tescos, who do you think will bear the brunt of that?


 
Come off it. Whatever happened to the much vaunted free market? Now we all HAVE to shop at Tesco regardless just so they can stay in business? That's just plain insane. If I stop shopping at Tescos it just means Iceland, Lidl, Nour's and Low Price all get more money and can employ more staff.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Come off it. Whatever happened to the much vaunted free market? Now we all HAVE to shop at Tesco regardless just so they can stay in business? That's just plain insane. If I stop shopping at Tescos it just means Iceland, Lidl, Nour's and Low Price all get more money and can employ more staff.


 
Give her a break, she has probably just had some bad news.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Give her a break, she has probably just had some bad news.


 
yeh, her bskyb shares are fucked and she's just got her p45


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Give her a break, she has probably just had some bad news.


 
not really Brookes is still standing. Its the NOTW staff who are paying the price of saving her skin


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 7, 2011)

Brilliant news. The last Harry Potter film and the last News of The World edition on the same weekend.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> not really Brookes is still standing. Its the NOTW staff who are paying the price of saving her skin


 
I meant EoY - I mean, have you seen her since the news broke?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 7, 2011)

That's simplistic. People not involved in wrongdoing will suffer. I'm not saying it's wrong or right... but it's worth keeping in mind in all the gloating. Hypocrisy is most rife in the victor.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, her bskyb shares are fucked and she's just got her p45


 
lol


----------



## xenon (Jul 7, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> watching BBC News24 and am very pleased to see that cynicism isn't dead. so far they have had the father of a dead soldier, the deputy culture secretary, and Max Fucking Clifford, saying that should this be just a rebranding exercise it (i.e. a "Sun on Sunday") will and must fail.
> 
> also, won't Tesco et al who _hadn't_ pulled their ads from Sunday's edition feel like the fucking cunts they are now?
> 
> ...


 

Good points. I've not read latest but I'd think the Sunday Sun might be a while before appearing wouldn't it? Aside the lagistics. They'll be a period of brand detoxification through the Daily Sun, once these initial couple of weeks are through. They'll set up advertising contracts again for the Sunday Sun, after a bit and they'll ease back in with,tales of new staff, new ethical standards, lessons learned etc. Whilst a few, maybe Brooks, get thrown to the courts or the wind. And Subjudicy taking care of any detailed public comments there after. the rug is pulled back over the whole wriving mound of thilf and the system at large goes on, relatively unscathed.

So I fear.

And hello BTW.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Hypocrisy is most rife in the victor.


 i haven't seen a copy of the _victor_ in years, thought it had stopped coming out


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

private eye are sure to bring something out about this, will make interesting reading


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i haven't seen a copy of the _victor_ in years, thought it had stopped coming out



Due to the hypocrisy perhaps ?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 7, 2011)

xenon said:


> Good points. I've not read latest but I'd think the Sunday Sun might be a while before appearing wouldn't it? Aside the lagistics. They'll be a period of brand detoxification through the Daily Sun, once these initial couple of weeks are through. They'll set up advertising contracts again for the Sunday Sun, after a bit and they'll ease back in with,tales of new staff, new ethical standards, lessons learned etc. Whilst a few, maybe Brooks, get thrown to the courts or the wind. And Subjudicy taking care of any detailed public comments there after. the rug is pulled back over the whole wriving mound of thilf and the system at large goes on, relatively unscathed.
> 
> So I fear.
> 
> And hello BTW.


 
Or, the lid is off the box and we see a raft of draconian laws introduced across all media in order to permit the illusion of privacy.

Twitter Ye Not.

And with that punning headline you can see clearly why I never got that sub's job at the Sun.


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> private eye are sure to bring something out about this, will make interesting reading


 
Unfortunately the latest edition hit the streets yesterday: next is in a fortnight. Might have been timed to spite them


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

laptop said:


> Unfortunately the latest edition hit the streets yesterday. Might have been timed to spite them


 
It will give all the disappeared of Wapping a lot of time to pass over all the dirt though.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 7, 2011)

ruffneck23 said:


> Due to the hypocrisy perhaps ?


 
Can't be. Hypocrisy sells faster than tits.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 7, 2011)

have I got news for you might be actually worth watching tomorrow


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2011)

laptop said:


> Unfortunately the latest edition hit the streets yesterday: next is in a fortnight. Might have been timed to spite them


 
probably was


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> It will give all the disappeared of Wapping a lot of time to pass over all the dirt though.


 
Oh, I do hope so.


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> good to see a decent first post - have a hobnob etc


 
Ta 



xenon said:


> Good points. I've not read latest but I'd think the Sunday Sun might be a while before appearing wouldn't it? Aside the lagistics. They'll be a period of brand detoxification through the Daily Sun, once these initial couple of weeks are through. They'll set up advertising contracts again for the Sunday Sun, after a bit and they'll ease back in with,tales of new staff, new ethical standards, lessons learned etc. Whilst a few, maybe Brooks, get thrown to the courts or the wind. And Subjudicy taking care of any detailed public comments there after. the rug is pulled back over the whole wriving mound of thilf and the system at large goes on, relatively unscathed.
> 
> So I fear.
> 
> And hello BTW.



I would be surprised if they didn't have an NI Sunday tabloid out by the end of the month. No chance in hell Murdoch's gonna let 2.3 million loyal customers wander off to the competition, lest they like it. Oh, the new paper will feature some new names and of course they will be contrite like shit for a while, but give it a month or so and it'll be business as usual as far as NI is concerned.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 7, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Can't be. Hypocrisy sells faster than tits.




Fair point (((((((tits))))))


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2011)

Well, that was certainly decisive. 

160 odd years in print, what a bad / sad way to close. 

But will it be enough to get the BskyB Takeover approved? 

BTW: Hugh Grant is on Question Time tonight.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Just pointing out the ramifications of your bully boy tactics.


 
No you aren't. You seem to be completely incapable of understanding even the basics of the situation, so in fact you are simply generating pointless and irrational comment.

Firstly. Nobody is suggesting we should boycott ALL shops. That would be somewhat difficult verging on impossible anyway. So the overall amount of shopping we do will be the same, requiring the same total number of check out assistants, store cleaners, and shelf fillers. It's just that we want them to be working for somebody other than Tesco.

Secondly it isn't bully boy tactics. This is the same shit that gets pulled every time ordinary people attempt to act collectively against the interests of the wealthy and powerful. Fuck them. They employ more than enough of the same tactics against the rest of us, and plenty worse. As consumers we have the right to decide what we consume and where we purchase it or there is no basis on which capitalism can possibly work. We have the right to communicate and confer with others about those choices. We have the right to come to collective conclusions and act on them. Where it would become a problem would be if anyone was suggesting beating people up if they shopped at Tesco. Nobody is even suggesting peaceful picketing of Tesco, so it's not bully boy tactics even in the very vaguest sense of the word, it's simply the free market biting back at the people who think it's supposed to only operate in their interests.

There are reasonable and logical objections to what I'm saying, but they ALL require a belief that a capitalist free market economy is an inherently bad thing.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> watching BBC News24 and am very pleased to see that cynicism isn't dead. so far they have had the father of a dead soldier, the deputy culture secretary, and Max Fucking Clifford, saying that should this be just a rebranding exercise it (i.e. a "Sun on Sunday") will and must fail.
> 
> also, won't Tesco et al who _hadn't_ pulled their ads from Sunday's edition feel like the fucking cunts they are now?
> 
> ...


 
Nice one, & welcome to the urban jungle!


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 7, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> Ta
> 
> 
> 
> I would be surprised if they didn't have an NI Sunday tabloid out by the end of the month. No chance in hell Murdoch's gonna let 2.3 million loyal customers wander off to the competition, lest they like it. Oh, the new paper will feature some new names and of course they will be contrite like shit for a while, but give it a month or so and it'll be business as usual as far as NI is concerned.


 
They make fuck all from newspapers.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

James Murdoch has just (on Sky) claimed that the reason why the investigation was reopened earlier this year was because of NI proactively releasing documents.  I shit you not.


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> They make fuck all from newspapers.


 
Really, do they?

Then again it's not only about revenue, is it? It's about control of the political scene. And for that you need to have a paper out. 

Also, the staff at the Times may start feeling a bit chilly now, what with the NOTW essentially paying to keep their title in print.


----------



## strung out (Jul 7, 2011)

fry and laurie's sketch on a world without News International...


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> James Murdoch has just (on Sky) claimed that the reason why the investigation was reopened earlier this year was because of NI proactively releasing documents.  I shit you not.


 
Lying cunt, like his old man.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

He's a fantastic piece of work. Son of his father.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2011)

Who expected this? 

Be honest.


----------



## Voley (Jul 7, 2011)

I didn't think it'd go this far, no.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Lying cunt, like his old man.


 
His old man is a much better teller of fibs, judging by some of the nonsense James has spouted in this interview.  He appears to be arguing that the reason they have done all of this is because they wanted to expose what had gone on.

edit: he has just come out with an absolute peach, boasting of how his company treats its people and its customers with respect.  This is on the same day as he has just sacked more than 200 people, with no notice, live on TV.


----------



## gabi (Jul 7, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> They make fuck all from newspapers.



Eh? the sun and NoW are hugely profitable or so i thought?


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 7, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> NUJ statement - http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2152


 
Sorry, but NUJ members have long been complicit in this and many other scandals caused by journalists, editors, and publishers acting with absolutely no ethics. Unless the NUJ makes some effort to show that it accepts that many of it's members have acted wrongly, and makes at least some show of warning managements that they should not be able to force journalists to behave unethically, then I have no sympathy.

If I saw evidence that most journalists actually deplore this sort of thing then I'd feel differently, at the moment what I see is mostly embarassed silence. That's not good enough.

The NUJ shouldn't simply be bleating about Murdoch and his senior management. They have to be laying down markers about what their membership can be expected to do in future at any publication.

When a newsroom is exposed as completely corrupt it's the journalists that suffer. The management will simply walk away and start again. There are other publications just as ripe for "taking down" in the court of public opinion. The NUJ shouldn't simply be hoping that it will all calm down and be business as usual again. That's not fair to their members working for other publications that may suffer the same fate.

British journalism needs to be cleaned up. Not just the News Of The Screws.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

xenon said:


> Good points. I've not read latest but I'd think the Sunday Sun might be a while before appearing wouldn't it? Aside the lagistics.


 
Firstly, it'll not be the Sunday Sun - that title is taken already by a regional title [owed by the Mirror group] in Newcastle.

Secondly, the logistics of bringing out the 'Sun on Sunday', using both the existing Sun team and former NOWT staff would be piss easy to do. In fact, I would be very surprised if an edition of the Sun doesn't appear on Sunday week, why let 2.6 million sales drift off elsewhere?

*Finally, hang on a minute, I remember reading something recently about plans to combine the newsrooms & editorial resources of the two rags to save costs anyway, so isn't this move somewhat convenience in moving that forward without the need for negotiations?*

ETA - the bit I've bolded has just been mentioned by some chap, missed who it was, being interviewed on BBC News24


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Sorry, but NUJ members have long been complicit in this and many other scandals caused by journalists, editors, and publishers


 
Some may have.

But there were, as I said above, very, very few NUJ members in Wapping. 

More at the Mail - but, as I understand it, more on the sub-editing side.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

NOTW staff on Sky now, reporting that Brooks offered to resign last night.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 7, 2011)

Hmmm, it seems that the shit just got a great deal deeper and smellier if a certain Mr. Paddick is right about what he's saying:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...upert-Murdochs-links-criminal-underworld.html


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

So, Brooks still AWOL in any official capacity.

Maybe they're going to keep her out of the way and play wait and see with the investigation / public inquiry. With one finger always on the eject button.


----------



## rollinder (Jul 7, 2011)

Benjamin Cohen (channel 4 news) on twitter "A relatively informed source told me a new NI publication might be called the SunDay. They own sunday.co.Uk already #notw" http://twitter.com/#!/benjamincohen


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> Hmmm, it seems that the shit just got a great deal deeper and smellier if a certain Mr. Paddick is right about what he's saying:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...upert-Murdochs-links-criminal-underworld.html



We all know this must happen - how else would the papers get hold of the stories they get hold of. But it's the proof that has been lacking. This needs not to be confined to the NOTW, which is surely what NI are trying to do. It needs to be spread at least to the Sun but further if possible - to the Times, anyone.


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 7, 2011)

dunno if anyone has seen it but the register published the email from james murdoch to the NOFW staff:


> I have important things to say about the News of the World and the steps we are taking to address the very serious problems that have occurred.
> 
> It is only right that you as colleagues at News International are first to hear what I have to say and that you hear it directly from me. So thank you very much for coming here and listening.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2011)

What the fuck has Brooks got on Murdoch?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What the fuck has Brooks got on Murdoch?


 Are you serious? She was there at the start, at junior 'journalist' level  - there is nothing she doesn't know. Almost nothing Coulson doesn't know either.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We all know this must happen - how else would the papers get hold of the stories they get hold of. But it's the proof that has been lacking. This needs not to be confined to the NOTW, which is surely what NI are trying to do. It needs to be spread at least to the Sun but further if possible - to the Times, anyone.


 
True enough. I hope certain people like the taste of porridge, because they may well have plenty of time to get used to it.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Who expected this?
> 
> Be honest.


 
I did! 

I posted this post at 11.01 this morning, although I admit I didn't expect it to come so soon.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 7, 2011)

NOTW's Sunday edition front page:


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

**the James Murdoch interview is on Sky News again**


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2011)




----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 7, 2011)

laptop said:


> Some may have.
> 
> But there were, as I said above, very, very few NUJ members in Wapping.
> 
> More at the Mail - but, as I understand it, more on the sub-editing side.


 
It doesn't matter. The entire profession should be wary regardless of where they work. This is an opportunity for the NUJ to mean something again, or it can choose to simply continue to fade into irrelevance. It certainly shouldn't be simply attacking Murdoch and his senior management as if nobody else shares in the blame and as if there are no potential repurcussions for any publication other then the NotW.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

I agree, eric. The bribing of the police must be endemic, and certainly not confined to Murdoch's rags. I want to see some coppers behind bars for this too.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jul 7, 2011)

hhmmmmm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jun/28/newsinternational-rebekahwade



> *28 June 2011 *
> Wapping executive changes herald move to seven-day operation
> 
> Share233 reddit this Comments (8)
> ...


----------



## rorymac (Jul 7, 2011)

strung out said:


> fry and laurie's sketch on a world without News International...




Love that !!


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 7, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I am so saddened by this, and so sympathetic, that I've had to turn the music up to drown out my hysterical laughter. I assume that they will all be malingering no good lazy dole scroungers from next week and I hope they all get the treatment they've been demanding for others.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> It doesn't matter. The entire profession should be wary regardless of where they work. *This is an opportunity for the NUJ to mean something again*, or it can choose to simply continue to fade into irrelevance. It certainly shouldn't be simply attacking Murdoch and his senior management as if nobody else shares in the blame and as if there are no potential repurcussions for any publication other then the NotW.


 
This.  If a union cannot demonstrate why it, and membership of it, are vital when 200 employees are being sacked solely to protect an executive then it should really just fuck off.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Shame Fry has a contract with a News International company, eh? 

Hypocritical, smug, politically unaware millionaire cunt that he is.

I don't blame authors for taking NI money. But I do blame authors who would have their pick of publishers for doing so.


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

James Murdoch said:
			
		

> I can understand how unfair these decisions may feel, particularly for colleagues who will leave the company.



And that is the point people who still support NI and their advertisers need to understand. They will shaft the many at the bottom, to save the few at the top. They'll throw out every single good apple, to save the bad ones.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 7, 2011)

As if by magic


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> private eye are sure to bring something out about this, will make interesting reading


 
Cant wait for that


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> This.  If a union cannot demonstrate why it, and membership of it, are vital when 200 employees are being sacked solely to protect an executive then it should really just fuck off.


 
Probably it's just recruited about 190 freelance journalists; and, yes, it'll need to have words with them about ethics.

Those who worked at the NotW were those who were prepared to work in a place where union membership was effectively forbidden.

Suggestions for how the new General Secretary could actually do something about standards are welcome...

ETA - especially standards among non-members.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 7, 2011)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-23968124-some-mps-suspected-a-year-ago-but-nobody-wouldve-believed-it.do



> With a grimace, Chris Bryant recalls the last time he met Rupert Murdoch's embattled lieutenant Rebekah Brooks face to face.
> 
> "She came up to me and said, 'Oh, Mr Bryant, it's after dark - shouldn't you be on Clapham Common?"
> 
> "At which point Ross Kemp [the ex-EastEnders actor and her then husband] said, 'Shut up, you homophobic cow'."


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 7, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> They make fuck all from newspapers.


You have GOT to be kidding. The tabloid/redtop end of the market is hugely profitable - it's their 'quality' brethren that are in financial trouble


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> This.  If a union cannot demonstrate why it, and membership of it, are vital *when 200 employees are being sacked* solely to protect an executive then it should really just fuck off.



Many of those will be re-employed on the SoS, those that aren't would have been out anyway when the two newsrooms were combined TBF.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 7, 2011)

They're all in trouble. Do you really think that 20p, or even close, covers wages, printing, marketing and distribution?

Nope.

It's the advertising that they are after. And all titles are sold together as a group. Revenue of scale.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

Politcal editor of the NOTW just been on the BBC trying to blame it on "bad apples" and the old regime. He also got quite close to 'they were only following orders' though in this case it was more don't know who gave orders or if even they were given!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 7, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> They're all in trouble. Do you really think that 20p, or even close, covers wages, printing, marketing and distribution?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> It's the advertising that they are after. And all titles are sold together as a group.



Never the less The Sun and until this week the NOTW are/were big money makers so obviously you're wrong. In fact they were helping to subsidise the Times, which should make things interesting over there.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 7, 2011)

Glen Mulcare is on C4 News at 7.30

He might say that hacking was approved by committee.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 7, 2011)

NOW makes about 600k a week from adverts.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 7, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Never the less The Sun and until this week the NOTW are/were big money makers so obviously you're wrong. In fact they were helping to subsidise the Times, which should make things interesting over there.


 
Good, let's hope this deals a death blow to the Times as well. Some of us haven't forgotten what they did to Parnell.

(and no, I'm  not being funny)


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

NVP said:


> I didn't think it'd go this far, no.


 
me neither.

The last issue is giving proceeds to charidee - is that an attempt to get off being done for wrong-doing - will paedos now be able to make a donation to child-line and get off, where will it end?


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 7, 2011)

There's something else about the claims from Brian Paddick which, IMHO, would certainly serve to incriminate senior figures if Paddick's right. Paddick alleges that police officers were paid bribes in five-figure sums to some officers in return for confidential information. Now, there's no way on earth that regular bribes of that size could have been concealed from senior staff at the NOTW. No senior editor or newsroom boss is going to sign off paying anybody that amount of money without knowing what it's for, even the highest-paid hacks couldn't claim that on expenses without somebody noticing and asking questions.

So, it does look suspiciously like, judging by the size of the bribes said to have been paid, that there's no way on Earth that no senior figure at the NOTW wasn't aware of what was happening.


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

. (sorry double post)


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

Congratulations AK, Badgers et al. That's quite a handy first domino.





laptop said:


> From the above:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you. 



> News International (NI) have just announced the closure of the largest circulation English language newspaper in the world. NI have only owned this paper for a tiny fraction of its 168 year history. There is no longer even a business case for allowing this incompetent and corrupt organisation to take over any more British media, and surely now a very strong case for barring them from any media ownership in this country at all.
> 
> This is a democracy. It is inconceivable that we would allow an organisation that has preyed on our children, our dead, our bereaved, on any innocent, private individual who found themselves unwillingly in the public eye, to continue to operate here.
> 
> ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> So, it does look suspiciously like, judging by the size of the bribes said to have been paid, that there's no way on Earth that no senior figure at the NOTW wasn't aware of what was happening.


 
You're right. I'm sure Murdoch himself knew. The problem as always is proving it. Murdoch will have no paper trail to his door. Brooks will have - in fact, any editor will have. What we need to get Murdoch, I would think, is for one of his sacrificial lambs to turn on him.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 7, 2011)

Unless you have the raw figures in front off you I would advise not trusting a single statistic on revenue or readership they give you.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> Political editor of the NOTW on the BBC just now didn't sound like someone who's out of a job. Making very sure to point out that whatever happened under "the old regime" had nothing to do with them yet at the same time making very clear that darling Rebekah wasn't to blame either and in fact that, quote, "Rupert Murdoch is one of the best employers I've ever worked for".  The amount of doublespeak today is truly staggering.


 
That was quite an, how shall I put it, interesting interview wasn't it. It was pass the blame parcel! At one point I was willing him to say "they were just following orders!"  Took the phrase "It wasn't me!" to a whole new plateau.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Unless you have the raw figures in front off you I would advise not trusting a single statistic on revenue or readership they give you.


 
It's entirely irrelevant anyway. Murdoch's power rests in the perception of him as an opinion-former. That perception relies on his control of the biggest selling papers in the country, regardless of how much money those papers generate.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 7, 2011)

That much is true. And it's kinda the point I was getting at when I said they make fuck all from selling newspapers.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 7, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> You have GOT to be kidding. The tabloid/redtop end of the market is hugely profitable - it's their 'quality' brethren that are in financial trouble


 
NOTW took £700 k pw advertising  pw according to stats I saw today ( seems v low ? ) , £2. m on cover price , all gross, lots of journos and hacking gizmology to pay for, lots of paper n print  = peanuts in the greater scheme of things . 

So , fwd to the Sun on Sunday, better developed digital strategies, and 100 % of Bsky B . 

+ R Brooks till on board, and keepin schtum.


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> "they were just following orders!"


 


sadly, once it's all said and done, the outrage over fucking with dead children, terror victims and soldiers has subsided, the dust has settled and the "Sun on Sunday" is well established that may well be the narrative people will remember.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Unless you have the raw figures in front off you I would advise not trusting a single statistic on revenue or readership they give you.


 
News of the World (News International Newspapers Ltd)
2,657,232 Average Net Circulation - 02 May 2011 - 29 May 2011

http://www.abc.org.uk/Products-Services/Product-Page/?tid=134


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

I'd be very surprised if Murdoch kicks off a new Sunday rag whilst BSkyB is in the balance.

The latter is worth waaay more than a few months newspaper revenue.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

James Murdoch ORDERED that vital documents and evidence be destroyed, PERVERTED the course of justice, COVERED UP the criminal activity, and Rebekah Brooks knew it too.

Jail the cunts, or this will get worse.

Shutting down one newspaper changes nothing.

Let's hope the police save face by making these arrests, because they are just as culpable.

It'll look worse if they're found to have helped criminals evade justice in a month or two, because one way or another the truth will out, even if that truth has to be stolen from News International's servers and distributed via Wikileaks or some such site.

Trust me, this is not over by a long stretch.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 7, 2011)

I'd forget about ABC as well... might as well stand for Absent By Consent.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 7, 2011)

> "Just lost my job on the News of the World. Absolutely devastated that a talented group of people are suffering right now," tweeted Tina Campanella, a news reporter at the paper, roughly half an hour after it emerged this afternoon that this Sunday's edition of her paper would be the last.
> 
> Tom Latchem, the TV editor summed it up thus: "Thanks for all your kind words all – we will all survive, nobody died. Viva NOTW!!" Another senior staff member, Rachel Richardson, editor of the Fabulous magazine supplement, wrote: "Feeling pretty numb right now but wanted to say long live @Fabulousmag. The best mag team in Fleet Street. Fact."
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-closure-twitter-row


----------



## xenon (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Firstly, it'll not be the Sunday Sun - that title is taken already by a regional title [owed by the Mirror group] in Newcastle.
> 
> Secondly, the logistics of bringing out the 'Sun on Sunday', using both the existing Sun team and former NOWT staff would be piss easy to do. In fact, I would be very surprised if an edition of the Sun doesn't appear on Sunday week, why let 2.6 million sales drift off elsewhere?
> 
> ...


 

Yeah, soz. think you mentioned that Sunday Sun earlier. OK if it's gonna be more like a merger of editorial staff, than creating a new title. This could all easily fizzle out if the wider links aren't continually pointed out.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Sacked via email LOL not even deemed worthy enough for Brooks or James Murdoch to pay a personal visit.

Spineless cunts. This is perfect.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

I've had one job working for the daily/weekly press, and I was sacked from that by email too. By a bloke sat about 5 metres away from me. Seems to be the done thing.


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

Newsroom consolidation is no particular big deal. Alot of titles have been re-orged over the last few years to reduce costs.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 7, 2011)

> "Heartfelt condolences to anyone at #notw who's just become unemployed. Very very sad," wrote India Knight, a Sunday Times columnist, adding: "As for 'victory for people power' – yeah, well done on making hundreds of people lose their jobs. *MASSIVE EYEROLL*"



Eh? Doesn't she realise that lots of people have lost/are losing their jobs at the moment and the majority of them not because their management are as disgusting as those at the NOTW....oh yeah...those others are not 'people' worthy of empathy are they. According to the pages of the NOTW and alike they are slack/layabouts/benefit scoungers... *Even bigger rolleye!*

Instead of holding the management up to account, blame the people who want the management to answer for this?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Newsroom consolidation is no particular big deal. Alot of titles have been re-orged over the last few years to reduce costs.


 
Anyway, that's not what this is. Even a month without a Sunday title will hurt NI enormously. Politicians might start to learn to say things without their permission. Their power will start to evaporate very quickly, and it won't be easy to get back.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 7, 2011)

apparently thesunonsunday.co.uk domain was registered 2 days ago


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh? Doesn't she realise that lots of people have lost/are losing their jobs at the moment and the majority of them not because their management are as disgusting as those at the NOTW....oh yeah...those others are not 'people' worthy of empathy are they. According to the pages of the NOTW and alike they are slack/layabouts/benefit scoungers... *Even bigger rolleye!*
> 
> Instead of holding the management up to account, blame the people who want the management to answer for this?



Also, it's fucking rich of anyone working for News International to play the victim "look what you have done" card now. A) It's their own fucking management who culled their jobs, not us. B) chances are the majority of current NOTW staff will either get taken on by the successor paper, or at least get a good payout, and C) good staff should hopefully find a new job quickly enough


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Bollocks to them. They worked for a cunty rag owned by a cunt. Let them improve themselves by doing something more worthwhile.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

India Knight, you say??

Yeah, coz it's not their fault they worked in a newsroom where phonetapping messages was considered the norm.

I'm glad they're out of a job. Maybe next time they'll pick an employer with integrity.

Maybe India Knight should direct her rage at the fucking management, for dropping what were arguably in some cases perfectly honest staff who knew nothing. Anyway - let's hope she is next.

Keep an eye on these Twitters and statements, they will be good to collect and keep.


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> So you admit you're using bully boy tactics, threats and intimidation.


 
same way the viet cong did. this is asymetric warfare, up 'til now murdoch has had all the power, but we're finally getting organised


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2011)

Beeb are just saying that a source at The Sun has said there will be a "7 day Sun"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Notice Elizabethof York has disappeared now.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're right. I'm sure Murdoch himself knew. The problem as always is proving it. Murdoch will have no paper trail to his door. Brooks will have - in fact, any editor will have. What we need to get Murdoch, I would think, is for one of his sacrificial lambs to turn on him.


 
That's increasingly the way that cops manage to bring down groups of crooks nowadays. They get a couple of small-fry, let them know that they've been caught bang to rights and then lean on them while perhaps offering a deal to go easy on them in return for their testimony the same way as an angler will use a small fish as bait to catch a big one. If Paddick's claims about police officers accepting bribes for confidential information are correct then that would be a good place to start as one thing bent coppers fear more than anything else is ending up doing porridge themselves.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I'd be very surprised if Murdoch kicks off a new Sunday rag whilst BSkyB is in the balance.



It'll not be a *new* Sunday rag, just an existing rag extending publication to 7-days a week. 

At the end of the day, Murdoch had two strong brands that were not in direct competition, one went bad, the only logical thing to do is drop that brand and extend the other to fill the gap.

Especially, as plans were already under way to combine them, all but in name/brand, anyway.

Although I suspect that's [or was] the plan, the growing coverage about such a move being well dodgy may change their mind.

I honestly think the chances of Murdoch taking full control of Sky is over anyway now, this shit is going to continue on for years.


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anyway, that's not what this is. Even a month without a Sunday title will hurt NI enormously. Politicians might start to learn to say things without their permission. Their power will start to evaporate very quickly, and it won't be easy to get back.


 
Small beer compared with BSkyB.


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Hatred of Murdoch and his organsiation is rooted in hatred of what it has done to its many many victims over the past 30+ years. Direcetly - as in the case of the Hillsborough dead and the families of murdred kids  - and indirecitly in its role as cheerleader in chief for all the nastiest poliies and hate campaigns since the 80s - campaings and policies that have created uncountable victims from the smashed communities of Thatchers wrecking ball,  to refugees, immigrants and gay people beaten up, to the demonsiation of the poor and disabled to  the 100s of thousands of corpses in Iraq.


 
well said


----------



## two sheds (Jul 7, 2011)

Presumably we should do some rebranding to match murdoch's, from now on: 'News International hacked into voicemail of Milly Dowler and 7/7 victims, bribed police, etc. etc.'


----------



## teqniq (Jul 7, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Decision on BSkyB takeover postponed by government until September... ?



I can think of two reasons why this would be happening:

a) The interested parties are hoping that, by then the public's ire will have faded and the whole thing will be a lot easier to push through.

b) NI's share price is not looking so good (as pointed out by Laptop). It may be that this would adversely effect the offer for the BskyB shares by NI and this is going to give them time to recover.

As for NOTW closing down; well that as pointed out by others is pure damage limitation with an eye to the takeover.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Small beer compared with BSkyB.


 
I'm not sure that's right. Although Sky News is incredibly biased, there is some expectation still of tv news that it will not overtly editorialise. No such restrictions exist for the printed media. Trevor Kavanagh is Murdoch's political spokesman. He works for the Sun, not Sky, and that is not a coincidence.


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Try not to talk shit please.
> 
> I'm questioning the bullying tactics that are being called for by people like pk.


 
you can't bully someone more powerful than you. this is all about us standing up to a bully


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

The Guardian is reporting that Coulson will be arrested tomorrow



> Andy Coulson has been told by police that he will be arrested on Friday morning over suspicions that he knew about, or had direct involvement in, the hacking of mobile phones during his editorship of the News of the World.
> 
> The Guardian understands that a second arrest is also to be made in the next few days of a former senior journalist at the paper.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/07/andy-coulson-arrest-phone-hacking

Now this is the good stuff. Only a step away from Cameron


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not sure that's right. Although Sky News is incredibly biased, there is some expectation still of tv news that it will not overtly editorialise. No such restrictions exist for the printed media. Trevor Kavanagh is Murdoch's political spokesman. He works for the Sun, not Sky, and that is not a coincidence.



I mean small beer moneywise.

(As for Sky News, it gets split off as an independent entity as part of the deal).


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> Any more news on this?


 
The Guardian have a story up now, and the Independent reported on it yesterday:



> In Glasgow on Thursday, they presented documents to Strathclyde police outlining allegations about News of the World witnesses at the trial. It includes notes Sheridan's solicitor, Aamer Anwar, alleges detail services requested from the private detective Steve Whittamore by News of the World employees, including Rebekah Brooks, then known as Wade.
> 
> On four occasions, says Anwar, the name RebekahWade is mentioned in the notes and in one of the references her name is listed next to the words "Mob Conv" which Anwar alleged could refer to "mobile conversion".
> 
> Anwar said the dossier also includes private information allegedly accessed by the News of the World of individuals such as football players, heart surgeons, lord mayors and a murder victim. The documents also contain information on evidence given by News International executives at Sheridan's perjury trial. The MSP was jailed for three years in January for committing perjury during a defamation case against the Sunday newspaper.



For anyone who doesnt know, Whittamore ran a network that used a mix of corrupt police officers and staff, corrupt civil servants and corrupt employees at a variety of bodies, as well as people who could blag information out of any organization they didnt have a corrupt employee at.  Wade (or Brooks as she will now) is alleged to have tried to get him to do "mobile conversion", which is basically a subscriber check on a mobile phone number, and something which they could only obtain via a blag, or by having someone bent at one of the telecommunications firms.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I mean small beer moneywise.
> .


 
It's all interlinked. It was through Murdoch's political power that he was able to manipulate politicians into allowing him to build up a monopoly over televised sports. That political power rests on the perception of him as an opinion former, which is what makes politicians scared of him. That perception of him as an opinion former rests, largely in his control of the top-selling newspapers. 

The Sun has to be the next target. If Murdoch loses the Sun, everything could unravel for him very quickly indeed. He could die a penniless man.


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

teqniq said:


> b) NI's share price is not looking so good (as pointed out by Laptop). It may be that this would adversely effect the offer for the BskyB shares by NI and this is going to give them time to recover.



On that note, News Corp's share price doesn't seem to suffer much: http://www.google.co.uk/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:NWSA (half a percentage point up now), and BSkyB has been fairly steady after yesterday's losses as well: http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=LON%3ABSY

So I reckon it's fair to say the investors also believe this will blow over by September and Fox News will be allowed to take charge of British television.


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Cameron's got to walk a tightrope, hopefully the it'll all blow up in his face.


 
he's riding a tiger, and might lose his paddle at any time


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> David Davis perhaps. Or Hague again as a temporary pair of 'safe hands'.


 
portillo has been positioning himself for years


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Watching his interview on Sky now, the NOTW Features Editor Jules Stenson has clearly kept his job at News International.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

gavman said:


> portillo has been positioning himself for years


 
LOL - he's not even an MP.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

Boris is poised to march in I reckon, I'm sure a supporter will step aside for him to get a safe seat.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 7, 2011)

Paul McMullan seems to be on a mission to appear on every news programme in the country

He really looks like the archetypal tabloid hack - scruffy, shifty, evasive


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Paul McMullan seems to be on a mission to appear on every news programme in the country
> 
> He really looks like the archetypal tabloid hack - scruffy, shifty, evasive


 
scruffy & shifty perhaps. he isn't at all evasive though. amusingly un-evasive.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 7, 2011)

killer b said:


> scruffy & shifty perhaps. he isn't at all evasive though. amusingly un-evasive.


 
might be found dead in a gutter in the next 72 hrs, would not surprise me


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

@lbj The Times closed for a year (pre Murdoch) and survived. The Sun is/was a strong enough brand to similarly pick things up when the timing suits Murdoch. He doesn't flinch easily.


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

marty21 said:


> plenty of farmers might have a thing to say about that - Tescos and the other big supermarkets have driven down prices by reducing the amount they will pay to farmers for their fruit and veg -


 
and milk especially


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

little_legs said:


> might be found dead in a gutter in the next 72 hrs, would not surprise me


 
Is that you, Jazzz?


----------



## 8den (Jul 7, 2011)

It's been a few years since I had to go in there, but tonight is one of the nights I genuinely wished I was freelancing back in Sky News.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2011)

rumours of a sun subeditors walkout abound...


----------



## little_legs (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Is that you, Jazzz?


----------



## strung out (Jul 7, 2011)

killer b said:


> rumours of a sun subeditors walkout abound...


 
yep http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2153



> In solidarity with colleagues at the News of the World, tonight Sub-Editors at The Sun newspaper have walked out of work in protest.
> 
> At the same time as the protest, inside the building, News of the World staff were being told about the redundancies.
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2011)

not just rumours!

http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2153


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

gavman said:


> and milk especially


 
Counter intuitively, Tesco pay the best, Co-Op pay the worst.

(According to an hour long expose documentary on dairy about a year ago. Maybe they got their facts wrong. Dunno.)


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> @lbj The Times closed for a year (pre Murdoch) and survived.


 
Not in any commercial sense, it only survives because Murdoch wants it too.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

killer b said:


> not just rumours!
> 
> http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2153


 
That article is down at the moment.  Good luck to them though.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

killer b said:


> not just rumours!
> 
> http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2153



Server down.

YAY if this is true, no Sun tomorrow?


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Server down.
> 
> YAY if this is true, no Sun tomorrow?


 
Its just that article, the rest of the NUJ site looks up.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2011)

Worked for me


----------



## strung out (Jul 7, 2011)

i posted the article text in the post above killer b


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> @lbj The Times closed for a year (pre Murdoch) and survived. The Sun is/was a strong enough brand to similarly pick things up when the timing suits Murdoch. He doesn't flinch easily.


 
He doesn't, no. You don't get to his position without being a mean fucking bastard. But his power in the UK, which remains the centre of his business even if he's an American officially now, rests specifically on his control of the Sun/NOTW. 

Even now, his power has greatly diminished. Cameron won't be doing what Murdoch tells him to. I'm not sure anyone will be doing what Murdoch tells them to at the moment. They'll all be too busy saving their own necks.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 7, 2011)

Nick Clegg is probably thinking now 'Fuck me... if only I had my referendum scheduled for next year'


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Not in any commercial sense, it only survives because Murdoch wants it too.


 
The Graun doesn't make money, nor does the Indy.

But that's not the point. What I'm saying is that it makes no sense for Murdoch to make moves a month or two ahead of getting bSkyb. He's not (yet) a desperate man. Probably very very pissed off though.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 7, 2011)

OOooo Sun staff have walked out!


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

BBC reporting that Sun workers have walked out over solidarity with NOTW workers?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 7, 2011)

> Tom Watson has said there is more evidence to come which will implicate more News International newspapers.
> 
> The Labour MP, who has been one of the key players in driving the phone hacking agenda, told Channel 4 news that there is more evidence against the Murdoch empire, which involves "the use of computer hacking", and will "cross over into other News International newspapers".



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-closes-live-coverage#block-35


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Sing, canaries, sing!


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

Interesting to see the political responses (or lack thereof) so far. Ed Milliband coming out guns blazing, very good bit of adlibbing when the news was sprung on him, but sadly later saying something along the lines of "people power" that forced the decision. Still, all in all, well handled. Also kudos to Chris Bryant who definitely seems passionate about the subject. And also some good outRAGE (rawr) from Two Jags throughout the day, and be it only for the comic relief. 

On the other side of the aisle... some bland statement from Rebekah's BFF Call-me-Dave about how the judicial process will continue, and tumbleweeds as far as whatsisface thingy of the LibDems is concerned. Noted.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Welcome to Urban, tfs. Quality posting so far.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

This is good. Whilst they are weakened, bring in the big guns in the form of NUJ.

Writing's been on the wall for years... if Branson launched a tabloid now and the Indie put a few more tits in the "i" and another page or two of footy it would be game over.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> Interesting to see the political responses (or lack thereof) so far. Ed Milliband coming out guns blazing, very good bit of adlibbing when the news was sprung on him, but sadly later saying something along the lines of "people power" that forced the decision. Still, all in all, well handled. Also kudos to Chris Bryant who definitely seems passionate about the subject. And also some good outRAGE (rawr) from Two Jags throughout the day, and be it only for the comic relief.
> 
> On the other side of the aisle... some bland statement from Rebekah's BFF Call-me-Dave about how the judicial process will continue, and tumbleweeds as far as whatsisface thingy of the LibDems is concerned. Noted.


 
No sign of Miliband getting rid of his own ex-News International Press bod, though.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 7, 2011)

Un-balloted strike action?

That's undemocratic, the mean hand of bullying sub-eds forcing other workers to miss out on fulfilling the important role as they cling to a faded dream of socialist doggrel. We should encourage readers mums to cover the sub-eds jobs for the duration of the action, and distribute media encouraging abuse and disregard for the very real fight they are facing.

THE SOCIALISTIC WORKSHY SCUM!


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

And by tits I don't mean Johann Hari.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> And by tits I don't mean Johann Hari.


 
they would be fake anyway, pk


----------



## 8den (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sing, canaries, sing!


 
And Ripper has just let 200 of buggers free!!!!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2011)

This thread is increasingly like the recreation room at an old folks' home.

"You're going to have fish for tea tonight, Lily, that's your favourite isn't it?"
"What are we having for tea tonight?"
"Fish, Lily, you're having fish tonight."
"Tonight's Thursday isn't it? Shouldn't we be having fish tonight?"
"Yes, Lily, tonight you are having fish."
"But we should be having fish! Thursday is definitely fish night!"
"You are right, Lily, you are having fish tonight, because it is Thursday night. Fish night."
"Look! In the dining room! I can definitely see fish being served! Why didn't you tell me we were having fish tonight?"

etc.


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> Nobody is denying that there is a police enquiry taking place but that article is nothing but conjecture. Prosecutions are not based on conjecture but fact and evidence. I can't find one piece of evidence in that article.


 
do you know the difference between evidence and a press article? 
were you reading a legal argument or a newspaper article?


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

If the NUJ got their shit together and pressured what's left of the unions to drop the Sun/Times business, but they won't...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

As others have pointed out, the importance of the News of the World to Murdoch is not the money it generates (quite a lot - but a small fraciton of what Sky makes) - but the size of its readship. Its gives it power to significently influence the news agenda and poltical process. Without that Murdochs power takes a hit. 

Yes a Sunday Sun will surely appear in time, but it will have to do some catching up as they will lose readers to its rivals and it will still have the whiff of this whole scandal attached to it. I'm not sure many of the staff at NOTW will be re-employed - although judging by the vile toadying interview that their political editor gave to Channel 4 news it seems his job may be safe - (or even worse he was just trying to curry favour with the forces of mordor/news international). 

Coulson to be arrested toomorrow apparently over bribing the cops. Surely Brooks will quickly follow? And doesn't  James Murdochs admission that he paid hush money to victims of phone-hacking puts him in the frame? He says he was 'badly informed' - maybe he'll be trying to explain that to a judge. 

Murdoch has always been seen as a canny operator - responding to attacks on his operation and scandals with ruthless effectiveness - but this more and more like headless chicken syndrome. 

2 Days ago I was expecting Brooks resign, Coulson in prison and NI embarassed. Now I really dont know how far and how damaging this will be for NI - Murdochs power is ebbbing away in front of our eyes and it I think it is now within the realms of possibility that the old cunt himself might have his collar felt.

And Cameron and the Met are badly damaged  with more to come. 

Walkout at The Sun is interesting news as well. Worms turning left and right!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 7, 2011)

Wildcat strike at The Sun.


You couldn't make it up.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Who is this twat on BBC News?  _"This is a win-win situation for News Corp."_


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 7, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> This thread is increasingly like the recreation room at an old folks' home.
> 
> "You're going to have fish for tea tonight, Lily, that's your favourite isn't it?"
> "What are we having for tea tonight?"
> ...


 
Smoked like a kipper


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

Zabo said:


> pk. Nobody is arguing what they have and have not done nor the incompetence of the Met'. Some are facts others are vacuous allegations waiting for time to prove otherwise. I'd like to see you get somebody charged on conjecture.


 
this is tag team stupidity


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> Interesting to see the political responses (or lack thereof) so far. Ed Milliband coming out guns blazing, very good bit of adlibbing when the news was sprung on him, but sadly* later saying something along the lines of "people power" that forced the decision. *



Thing is, it wasn't 'people power' nor 'advertiser power', most weren't looking to have the rag closed down, they wanted heads at the top to roll, not heads at the bottom.

What seems like a clever move by the Murdochs could seriously back-fire on them here.

Oh, & welcome btw.


----------



## xenon (Jul 7, 2011)

Sun sub editors walk out reported here too.
http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2011/...-out-in-protest-of-news-of-the-world-closure/


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 7, 2011)

"Don't bother doing the NoTW crossword this weekend, you'll be waiting a while for the answers...."


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

One thing's for certain, there's *alot* more to come.

Even with just the hacking, there's 3-4000 names yet.

And that's before the police bribes.

Epicness awaits.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 7, 2011)

stephj said:


> BBC reporting that Sun workers have walked out over solidarity with NOTW workers?


 
Shame they don't have the same empathy for other members of this society eh?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Shame they don't have the same empathy for other members of this society eh?


 
Aye.


I'm hoping that they're now realising that their own boss is so anti-worker that even when the shit hits the fan he'll protect himself and his execs at the cost of their fellow workers?


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> hey, there's an idea. Instead of contacting advertisers asking them to search their conscience, we could contact the 2m readers individually instead!


 
somehow i feel on firmer ground pressurising the companies spending OUR money


----------



## cantsin (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> No sign of Miliband getting rid of his own ex-News International Press bod, though.



no chance


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 7, 2011)

Looks like they are going to sack everybody apart from Rebekah Brooks. Her popularity must be hitting new heights outside of the Murdoch mafia clan.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 7, 2011)

Guardian



> Paul McMullan, former features executive at the News of the World, has again laid into Rebekah Brooks - this time on Sky News. He accused Brooks and Andy Coulson of failing to take responsibility for the phone hacking scandal and sticking up for their staff. McMullan said Brooks should have stood up for the paper's reporters and defended their practices, which he described as a "grey area" necessary for exposing corruption.
> 
> "Instead she's said, 'No, I didn't know ... I just happened to be the editor'. She's trashed the reputation of the News of the World, she's closed the paper, she should be sacked."


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

And still nowt from Brooks.

She's probably in a basement at Wapping wearing a gaffer-tape scowl.


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> Our old pal Brian Paddick has told the Daily Mail (the same paper that fucked his career!!) that bribes were paid in cash to top cops.
> 
> Rebekah Brooks head on a spike imminent. About fucking time. Enjoy jail!!


 
i reckon they know she's toxic, but areleaving it as long as possible before getting rid of her, so all the shit goes with her. right now she's the target, once she's gone cameron and murdoch are next. so she'll go at the last possible moment, and draw the most shit 'til then


----------



## smokedout (Jul 7, 2011)

gavman said:


> somehow i feel on firmer ground pressurising the companies spending OUR money to reach


 
your money lol


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> No sign of Miliband getting rid of his own ex-News International Press bod, though.


 
Oh, absolutely not, of course. It's yet another day, where nobody, absolutely nobody, who actually has vested interest in keeping the status quo, nor anyone who knows-someone-who-knows-someone will have to make any personal sacrifices. Smoke and mirrors, as always. That's why I agree with pk's and others' earlier sentiment that this isn't over by a long shot until those at the top and their enablers and supporters will face what's coming to them.



littlebabyjesus said:


> Welcome to Urban, tfs. Quality posting so far.



Thngyouvrymuch  Probably wouldn't have started posting for a while, but really feel very strongly about this, as I had a mate disappear some years ago, we all tried to get in touch for the five days until he was found dead, and just can't imagine how I would have felt if his voice mail had gone from "full" to "empty" and we had gotten our hopes up just to find out he was dead all the time and some scumbag arse had deleted his voice mail messages.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 7, 2011)

Sun journos have walked out - no Sun tommorow!!!! just on sky news


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

gavman said:


> i reckon they know she's toxic, but areleaving it as long as possible before getting rid of her, so all the shit goes with her. right now she's the target, once she's gone cameron and murdoch are next. so she'll go at the last possible moment, and draw the most shit 'til then



Yep. If they're going to offload, they'll do it when they think it's most advantageous - or when the law forces their hand.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

Rumours of Coulson arrest - Disco Dave must be shitting bricks right now  hopefully


----------



## strung out (Jul 7, 2011)

sunny jim said:


> Sun journos have walked out


 
hadn't heard that


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2011)

It's some sun sub-editors, not journos. Doesn't ness mean no paper.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 7, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Guardian


 
McMullan's a fucking embarrassment though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's some sun sub-editors, not journos. Doesn't ness mean no paper.


 
You reckon the journos can produce the paper without the subs? How many subs, do you know? No subeditors = no paper.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 7, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> And still nowt from Brooks.
> 
> She's probably in a basement at Wapping wearing a gaffer-tape scowl.


 
Apparently she had to be escorted off the premises by security - some angry people about!


----------



## 8den (Jul 7, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Un-balloted strike action?
> 
> That's undemocratic, the mean hand of bullying sub-eds forcing other workers to miss out on fulfilling the important role as they cling to a faded dream of socialist doggrel. We should encourage readers mums to cover the sub-eds jobs for the duration of the action, and distribute media encouraging abuse and disregard for the very real fight they are facing.
> 
> THE SOCIALISTIC WORKSHY SCUM!


 
Fan fucking tastic

And welcome Thirty Foot Smurf. Have a hob nob, you owe dubversion a fiver, you're clearly not firky, and don't forget to tell Dwyer to fuck off, when you see him


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> What seems like a clever move by the Murdochs could seriously back-fire on them here.


 
This.  For a start, you would think that it is now strongly in Coulsons interests to blab as long and as loudly as he possibly can tomorrow, since otherwise he is the fall guy (or rather one of the 200+ fall guys).  Secondly, even if the _Sun_ does go to a seven-day run, even the emotionless leeches who occupy employment positions there will have noticed how quickly the Sunday leeches were sacrificed to save Brooks, as well as this unannounced increase to their own working week.  Finally, even the Sun / NOTW readership are not so stupid as to line up at newsagents next week, or the week after that, and hand over money for a paper (which will inevitably be of even lower quality than normal) as if nothing has happened.


----------



## strung out (Jul 7, 2011)

tomorrow's indy







http://twitpic.com/5mnimx


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You reckon the journos can produce the paper without the subs? How many subs, do you know? No subeditors = no paper.


 
I don't know how many.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 7, 2011)

GUardian 



> More on the reports that subeditors at the Sun have walked out in protest at the sacking of colleagues on the News of the World. A source told the Guardian that some subs left their desk for 30 minutes but are now back at them.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 7, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> GUardian


 
Useless fucks


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

Wow a whole 30 minutes of solidarity.


----------



## paolo (Jul 7, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Apparently she had to be escorted off the premises by security - some angry people about!


 
I read about that earlier.

Nice that she's feeling some close-up heat.

Persona non grata at the fortress. I hope that continues. An extended period of gardening leave would give her time to absorb the news more engagingly than she's done so far.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You reckon the journos can produce the paper without the subs? How many subs, do you know? No subeditors = no paper.


 
Whereas, as the original Wapping dispute demonstrated, you can bodge together a paper with subs but no reporters.


----------



## strung out (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wow a whole 30 minutes of solidarity.


 
worst. strike. ever.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Jul 7, 2011)

probably a fag break


----------



## Balbi (Jul 7, 2011)

Also, that bannerline on the indie!

FREE FROM PARTY POLITICAL BIAS. FREE FROM PROPRIETORIAL INFLUENCE.


----------



## N_igma (Jul 7, 2011)




----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wow a whole 30 minutes of solidarity.


 
Innit.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2011)

Have they returned to work?


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. But we have to remember that the real prize is Murdoch himself.


 
this


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Aww - they were just teasing us.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

I can't believe how much they're protecting Brooks


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

It seems more than a few of the editors are being kept on:




			
				Dan Wootton said:
			
		

> There is devastation and fear. It is grief for the newspaper, that is what it is. It's not anger, it's grief. We were devastated. There were tears, and I know from a personal level we had huge sympathy for Rebekah Brooks delivering that news.



Really?  _Really?_


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Loving the indie frontpage. 

Closing the NOTW already looking like sheer panic from NI.


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> I've gone from planning a one-man protest outside the village shop, to intending to buy it now - after all every penny is going to good causes and I am interested in seeing what's in it.


 
don't fall for it. they will use the circulation figures to relaunch their advertising sales on the new title


----------



## idumea (Jul 7, 2011)

stephj said:


> I can't believe how much they're protecting Brooks


 
fevered speculation about what kind of dirt on what kind of people she must have to still have a job is one of the best bits of this whole thing (though I admit 'Sun staff on wild-cat strike' is into bizarro political wet-dream territory)


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

Andy Coulson to be arrested in the morning. Slowly making progress here. God, I've almost got a semi thinking about how Dave's gonna try and weasel out of that one. (Mind you, talking about arousal and Cameron in the same sentence will have made me unable to have sex for months, I guess).


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

this is brilliant fun


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 7, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> God, I've almost got a semi thinking about how Dave's gonna try and weasel out of that one.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> Andy Coulson to be arrested in the morning. Slowly making progress here. God, I've almost got a semi thinking about how Dave's gonna try and weasel out of that one. (Mind you, talking about arousal and Cameron in the same sentence will have made me unable to have sex for months, I guess).


 
Quite easily, one imagines - for a start, he wasnt at CCHQ for that long, none of this went on whilst he was at CCHQ, and Cameron did at least give him a job.  If anyone should be worried it is his ex-bosses at News International, who are clearly looking to pin this on him and who dont seem to have given him any reason not to grass them up.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 7, 2011)

idumea said:


> fevered speculation about what kind of dirt on what kind of people she must have to still have a job is one of the best bits of this whole thing (though I admit 'Sun staff on wild-cat strike' is into bizarro political wet-dream territory)


 
Another interesting area is that, given the Murdoch Mafia and their history of making enemies, of just how many people there are who will have axes to grind and information to sell or otherwise make public. Fired employees, people who've been subjected to exposes and still bear a grudge, other media barons seeking commercial advantage by burying the Murdoch Mafia in a shitstorm, politicians seeking electoral advantage and to distance themselves from all the shit that's already flying around and so on.

It's said that people meet the same folk on the way down as they did on the way up, in which case the Murdoch Mafia are more than likely to be revisited by all manner of old acquaintances.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 7, 2011)

gavman said:


> don't fall for it. they will use the circulation figures to relaunch their advertising sales on the new title


 
Don't be stupid, ad agencies don't work like that.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

gavman said:


> this is brilliant fun


yes, very good indeed 

i like the way that the dude videoing it also drops his remote with all the excitement towards the end....


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

http://www.hasrebekahbrooksbeensackedyet.com/


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 7, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> yes, very good indeed
> 
> i like the way that the dude videoing it also drops his remote with all the excitement towards the end....


 



'You're a bit dim!'


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> 'You're a bit dim!'


great innit, nice to see an mp saying what people think without worrying about a backlash for a change.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Jul 7, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> 'You're a bit dim!'


  almost as good as "dont lie"


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 7, 2011)

And, as the sun sets upon another busy day at Murdoch Towers, the Murdoch Mafia finally reaches the incontrovertible conclusion after recent events:


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> LOL - he's not even an MP.


 
you see? clean pair of hands, untainted, so to speak. working outside the political machine..all that guff.
his current tv series seems to be as middle of the road as possible, to expand his appeal to anyone who uses trains


----------



## gavman (Jul 7, 2011)

smokedout said:


> your money lol


 
your face lol


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Tory right has been sharpening their knives for him since he became leader. They knew they needed him to get a sniff of power, but if they can use this as a reason for an internal _coup_, to get one of their own in the driving seat, they will.


whilst I'd agree with you that many traditional tories would like to see disco dave being shown the door, i really can't see them wanting him ousted in these circumstances because of the wider impact it would have on their party. shit sticks and him being booted due to any perceived connection to this shit-storm would cause the tories untold grief at the ballot box i reckon.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

At the risk of being accused of being tribal again - whilst its good to see Burley put in her place, dont forget that Chris Bryant MP is not exactly a paragon of virtue.

http://welshramblings.blogspot.com/2010/08/chris-bryant-st-athan-and-2500-donation.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/533...d-home-twice-to-claim-20000-MPs-expenses.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8053327.stm


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> Another interesting area is that, given the Murdoch Mafia and their history of making enemies, of just how many people there are who will have axes to grind and information to sell or otherwise make public. Fired employees, people who've been subjected to exposes and still bear a grudge, other media barons seeking commercial advantage by burying the Murdoch Mafia in a shitstorm, politicians seeking electoral advantage and to distance themselves from all the shit that's already flying around and so on.
> 
> It's said that people meet the same folk on the way down as they did on the way up, in which case the Murdoch Mafia are more than likely to be revisited by all manner of old acquaintances.



Yep. News interanational kicked to death by all the people its fucked over in the past. 

Joy joy and joy.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 7, 2011)

I wonder if closing the News of the World might somehow limit the liabilities to News Corporation of this whole affair? 

It seems likely compensation claims might be big given that some hacked celebrity victims were reported as having received quite large payouts already. And then the organisation might have a penalty fine imposed on it by a court, you can't send a company to prison but you can fine it. You can of course send company officers to prison which seems a definate possibility. 

So, does closing the News of the World somehow limit the eventual liabilities to News Corporation?


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Quite easily, one imagines - for a start, he wasnt at CCHQ for that long, none of this went on whilst he was at CCHQ, and Cameron did at least give him a job.  If anyone should be worried it is his ex-bosses at News International, who are clearly looking to pin this on him and who dont seem to have given him any reason not to grass them up.


 
Well, yes and no. Of course I want to choose my words carefully, since this is all going to be sub judice soon enough, so not saying Coulson's done anything criminal but suffice it to say the Met seem to have enough evidence to make an arrest, and Dave can't be happy to be seen to have made such a fundamental error of judgement. Coulson gave him, quote, "general assurances", that he wasn't involved in any wrongdoings. Clearly that may well turn out to be a lie. Now, the good folk of U75 don't need no convincing that Dave is a callous fuck who would sell his mother for political gain, but there may well be (some) people in middle England who judge people by the company they keep. And seeing the Davester being closely associated with someone who got arrested in connection with bribing the police and emotionally raping the feelings of dead childrens' families could swing some votes. So, yeah, wouldn't want to be Cameron myself.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I wonder if closing the News of the World might somehow limit the liabilities to News Corporation of this whole affair?
> 
> It seems likely compensation claims might be big given that some hacked celebrity victims were reported as having received quite large payouts already. And then the organisation might have a penalty fine imposed on it by a court, you can't send a company to prison but you can fine it. You can of course send company officers to prison which seems a definate possibility.
> 
> So, does closing the News of the World somehow limit the eventual liabilities to News Corporation?


 
Nope.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> whilst I'd agree with you that many traditional tories would like to see disco dave being shown the door, i really can't see them wanting him ousted in these circumstances because of the wider impact it would have on their party. shit sticks and him being booted due to any perceived connection to this shit-storm would cause the tories untold grief at the ballot box i reckon.


 
No I cant see any move to oust him in the foreseeable - but the knives are definitely out for him within significent parts of the tory party - which is quite suprising but happy making.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

Brilliant little history of Murdoch's business in the UK here with some great footage of the wapping dispute and some early interviews with him

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/01/rupert_murdoch_-_a_portrait_of.html


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Yep. News interanational kicked to death by all the people its fucked over in the past.
> 
> Joy joy and joy.


 
The queue for that particular pleasure is likely to be a very long one indeed, possibly resembling the January sales when people camp out for days or weeks in advance.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

BBC reporting the seven-day _Sun_ is confirmed now.


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

gavman said:


> this is brilliant fun




Burley: "Should have just changed their PIN number then..."

Pretty much along the lines of "it's the woman's fault for getting assaulted. Shouldn't have worn those sexy clothes". 

FUcking revolting.


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> BBC reporting the seven-day _Sun_ is confirmed now.


 
Yep. Didn't take them long then. Time to lean on the Sun - hard!


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

Welcome to urbanz ThirtyFootSmurf


----------



## Balbi (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> BBC reporting the seven-day _Sun_ is confirmed now.


 
Wonder if the Sun Journo's will get extra pay for the extra day on the Not the News Of The World.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 7, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> FUcking revolting.



Fair's fair, it is Kay Burley we're talking about.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> Thanks for that, and that Oborne piece deserves to be read in full.  That graph is brilliant, as well:


yes, i have just read back through the posts and see where your comment came from and reallise i was missing your point. sorry.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> At the risk of being accused of being tribal again - whilst its good to see Burley put in her place, dont forget that Chris Bryant MP is not exactly a paragon of virtue.
> 
> http://welshramblings.blogspot.com/2010/08/chris-bryant-st-athan-and-2500-donation.html
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/533...d-home-twice-to-claim-20000-MPs-expenses.html
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8053327.stm


whereas this is a bit comparing apples and oranges imo


----------



## little_legs (Jul 7, 2011)

Ironically, Cameron had a reception for the 59 nominees for 2011 Police Bravery Award (sponsored by News International) at Number 10 tonight.


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2011)

Should I watch Newsnight or Question Time?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

flick between the two on a one-minute cycle, it'll probably make as much, if not more, sense....


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 7, 2011)

From a link on FB.....

'Rupert Murdoch’s soon-to-be shuttered tabloid may not be obliged to retain documents that could be relevant to civil and criminal claims against the newspaper—even in cases that are already underway. That could mean that dozens of sports, media, and political celebrities who claim News of the World hacked into their telephone accounts won’t be able to find out exactly what the tabloid knew and how it got the information.'

http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2011/07/07/is-murdoch-free-to-destroy-tabloids-records/


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 7, 2011)

gavman said:


> i reckon they know she's toxic, but areleaving it as long as possible before getting rid of her, so all the shit goes with her. right now she's the target, once she's gone cameron and murdoch are next. so she'll go at the last possible moment, and draw the most shit 'til then


 
Either that or she knows where the bodies are buried...


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 7, 2011)




----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 7, 2011)

gavman said:


> this is brilliant fun




isnt it!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> From a link on FB.....
> 
> 'Rupert Murdoch’s soon-to-be shuttered tabloid may not be obliged to retain documents that could be relevant to civil and criminal claims against the newspaper—even in cases that are already underway. That could mean that dozens of sports, media, and political celebrities who claim News of the World hacked into their telephone accounts won’t be able to find out exactly what the tabloid knew and how it got the information.'
> 
> http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2011/07/07/is-murdoch-free-to-destroy-tabloids-records/


there's also the implication that if the notw business has effectively ceased trading, anyone seeking financial redress may find it difficult to secure any compensation (can't remember where i just read this). 

there's so much more to this than meets the eye


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> From a link on FB.....
> 
> 'Rupert Murdoch’s soon-to-be shuttered tabloid may not be obliged to retain documents that could be relevant to civil and criminal claims against the newspaper—even in cases that are already underway. That could mean that dozens of sports, media, and political celebrities who claim News of the World hacked into their telephone accounts won’t be able to find out exactly what the tabloid knew and how it got the information.'
> 
> http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2011/07/07/is-murdoch-free-to-destroy-tabloids-records/


 
Well, there you go then. If the Met had any sense they would go in tonight, declare the place a potential crime scene and confiscate computers and papers. Obviously they won't. Dragging some teenage script-kiddie out of his room in Essex, yeah sure they can do that, going after the number one opinion leader in this country - not so much. 



8den said:


> And welcome Thirty Foot Smurf. Have a hob nob, you owe dubversion a fiver, you're clearly not firky, and don't forget to tell Dwyer to fuck off, when you see him





stephj said:


> Welcome to urbanz ThirtyFootSmurf


 
Thx.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2011)

The closure makes zero difference to any civil or criminal cases


----------



## yardbird (Jul 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> Should I watch Newsnight or Question Time?


 
I'm doing telly and laptop


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

Really interesting interview with Nick whatsit on the BBC news just now!


----------



## belboid (Jul 7, 2011)

yardbird said:


> I'm doing telly and laptop


 
me too. 

Coulson to be arrested tomrrow.  Ha!


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 7, 2011)

I reckon being the editor of the news of the world she must have a lot of dirt on a hell of a lot of people.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The closure makes zero difference to any civil or criminal cases


something i've read suggested that the likelihood of successful civil claims for compensation being realised would be minimal. doesn't stop someone taking civil action, simply their chances of securing compensation. tories think we're a litigation nation anyway, so they won't mind...anyways, minor point, not worth dwelling on.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Really interesting interview with Nick whatsit on the BBC news just now!


isn't fucking peston annoying though? i think nick robinson made some very pertinent points about culpability.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 7, 2011)

One sideline rant .. Kelvin Mackenzie the fuckin lowlife 

That's it !


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

I'm flabbergasted at how far they are going to protect Rebecca Brooks - and really whats in it for her now? She must know shes fucked, shes toxic  - I really dont get it. She could resign, negotiate a big pay off and dissapear. Apparently she offered he resignation and the NI board regected it!  And surely she odds on to have her collar felt. 

Are they all mental?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2011)

She's a lizard.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Its the only logical explanation.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> I'm flabbergasted at how far they are going to protect Rebecca Brooks - and really whats in it for her now? She must know shes fucked, shes toxic  - I really dont get it. She could resign, negotiate a big pay off and dissapear. Apparently she offered he resignation and the NI board regected it - I just dont get it. And surely she odds on to have her collar felt.
> 
> Are they all mental?



She's obviously got pics of her doing Rupert up the jacksie with a strap-on.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Posted earlier but for those who missed it - this was inevitable. You love it.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Are they all mental?


 
yes.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 7, 2011)

tomorrow's Guardian:


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2011)

QT lineup is a bit dull



> actor Hugh Grant, Employment Minister Chris Grayling, Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander, Liberal Democrat peer Shirley Williams and radio presenter Jon Gaunt.



had enough of hugh grant a couple of days ago, and the rest aren't going to be on fire. is gaunt any good?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 7, 2011)

No


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 7, 2011)

How many are being made redundant? I thought it was 200 but a mate is claiming 3K. Where the fuck would that figure come from?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

Gaunt's a cunt, he's bound to stick up for News International.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 7, 2011)

killer b said:


> QT lineup is a bit dull
> 
> had enough of hugh grant a couple of days ago, and the rest aren't going to be on fire. is gaunt any good?


 
Newsnight it is then.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2011)

newsnight it is then! hopefully it'll be better than it was the other day...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Unfortuneately there a documentory on at the same time about paint drying that seems more interesting.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jul 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> Should I watch Newsnight or Question Time?


 
Man v Food


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

As much as my heart wants to cheer at the demise of the News Of The Screws, my head tells me that Le Digger is a wily old sod who's made of pure Teflon.  This Sun on Sunday business sounds well suspect - sacked NOTW hacks "suddenly" re-employed, "celebrities" rally round to the new paper, ad revenues nice and healthy after a while, and "interesting" hack practices back on again.

For once, I'd love for my natural cynicism over Mag Dog Murdoch to be kicked out of the stadium.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

You may be onto something - 

From the guardian blog - 


The closure of the News of the World could be a cunning ploy to legally shred any incriminating evidence linked to the phone hacking scandal, according to a prominent media lawyer.

Mark Stephens, head of media with Finers Stephens Innocent lawyer, said under British law the paper "may not be obliged to retain documents that could be relevant to civil and criminal claims against the newspaper—even in cases that are already underway." 

If News of the World is to be liquidated, Stephens told Reuters, it "is a stroke of genius—perhaps evil genius."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-closes-live-coverage


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 7, 2011)

killer b said:


> QT lineup is a bit dull


 
Isn't it? Says a lot when Hugh Grant is the political pertinent powerhouse!

Jon Gaunt is a cunt who makes Nick Ferrari look intelligent and articulate.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 7, 2011)

> Editorial line & conduct of #notw not fault of sportswriters, etc facing the sack. Mind you, the astrologer should've seen it coming.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 7, 2011)

Im amazed that its already been released that the Sun is going to 7 days .....so cynical 

hope it gets boycotted


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

Ironically enough I shall be watching the Kurosawa film _Scandal_, which I bought yesterday.  I appreciate this may not help anyone torn between QT and Newsnight.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

little_legs said:


> Ironically, Cameron had a reception for the 59 nominees for 2011 Police Bravery Award (sponsored by News International) at Number 10 tonight.


 
Allegedly Brooks was meant to be at the main do yesterday, but was disinvited after threats of a protest.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Newsnight asks - 

"Is Murdochs empire holed below the waterline and sinking fast?"

Who ever thought they would hear those words - even five days ago?


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)




----------



## Tankus (Jul 7, 2011)




----------



## rorymac (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> Brilliant little history of Murdoch's business in the UK here with some great footage of the wapping dispute and some early interviews with him
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/01/rupert_murdoch_-_a_portrait_of.html



'Of course one enjoys the feeling of power blah blah blah can be a power for evil'


----------



## gawkrodger (Jul 7, 2011)

gawkrodger said:


> How many are being made redundant? I thought it was 200 but a mate is claiming 3K. Where the fuck would that figure come from?


 
.


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2011)

Still 200 on newsnight. There's a load of BS flying around, 3k sounds like balls.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 7, 2011)

killer b said:


> QT lineup is a bit dull
> 
> 
> 
> had enough of hugh grant a couple of days ago, and the rest aren't going to be on fire. is gaunt any good?



Fack off kb lol !!!


----------



## killer b (Jul 7, 2011)

Eh?


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

James Murdoch requests a late meeting with Rebekah Brooks...


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

200 is their actual staff - though there will be freelance journalists and whatnot that will be affected as well, but nowhere near 3000 I would have thought (unless they are talking about the bribe community).


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 7, 2011)

This is all rushing tsunami-like towards Disco Dave. Will he apologise for hiring Coulson? Will he shun Murdoch before he gets dragged down with the Dirty Digger?


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

pk said:


> James Murdoch requests a late meeting with Rebekah Brooks...


 
more like


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> 200 is their actual staff - though there will be freelance journalists and whatnot that will be affected as well, but nowhere near 3000 I would have thought.


 
Printers? Secretarial, accountancy, other support, ad sales? Going to be way more than 200.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> This is all rushing tsunami-like towards Disco Dave. Will he apologise for hiring Coulson? Will he shun Murdoch before he gets dragged down with the Dirty Digger?


 
He Is Finished.

He spent Christmas at Rebekah's house for fucks sake!!


----------



## rorymac (Jul 7, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Isn't it? Says a lot when Hugh Grant is the political pertinent powerhouse!
> 
> Jon Gaunt is a cunt who makes Nick Ferrari look intelligent and articulate.



I had dealings with Nick Ferrari myself years ago .. he thought any story at all was hilarious the more made up it was !
He used to laugh his arse off about it .. literally !!

Jon Gaunt is a slimy toad basically.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> more like


 
fucking LOLOLOLLED out loud at that


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

laptop said:


> Printers? Secretarial, accountancy, other support, ad sales? Going to be way more than 200.


 
Isnt the NOTW on the same presses as the Sun?  I would have thought they would have long since rationalized their other support roles as well.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

The closure of the News of the World which you all wanted has simply put innocent people out of work.  Will the guilty ever be brought to justice?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The closure of the News of the World which you all wanted has simply put innocent people out of work.  Will the guilty ever be brought to justice?


 
You make weltweit look like a critical thinker.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 7, 2011)

Someone on twitter was saying if he liquidates NOTW Murdoch is not obliged to keep records that my be of use in a criminal investigation, fakkin cant


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The closure of the News of the World which you all wanted has simply put innocent people out of work.  Will the guilty ever be brought to justice?



Innocent people?  Murdoch hacks?

You're having a LAUGH, SWEETHEART.

(And to your second point, you'd like Murdoch in the dock, yes?)


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The closure of the News of the World which you all wanted has simply put innocent people out of work.  Will the guilty ever be brought to justice?


 
Some already have been, Coulson is going to be arrested tomorrow, more will follow.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

Grant talking sense.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The closure of the News of the World which you all wanted has simply put innocent people out of work.



Yet you are critical of industrial action against putting innocent people out of work.

Would a bit of consistency be too much to ask of you?


----------



## little_legs (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The closure of the News of the World which you all wanted has simply put innocent people out of work.  Will the guilty ever be brought to justice?


 
go back for some more shoe shopping, you are pissing me off now.


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The closure of the News of the World which you all wanted has simply put innocent people out of work.  Will the guilty ever be brought to justice?


 
Seriously, try and leave this forum with some dignity. Like, soon.

I don't think you're smart enough to be trolling the forum. Though you are.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

Murdoch has cynically used this situation to piss off the unions, and will obviously re-employ some of the sacked people on worse salaries, terms & conditions


----------



## N_igma (Jul 7, 2011)

I love the fact that celebrities are secretly dying a little inside over all this. No one gave a fuck when it was them getting hacked like, definitely knocked them down a peg or two like.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 7, 2011)

Hugh is doing well.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Murdoch has cynically used this situation to piss off the unions, and will obviously re-employ some of the sacked people on worse salaries, terms & conditions


 
Weltweit, is that you?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Murdoch has cynically used this situation *to piss off the unions*, and will obviously re-employ some of the sacked people on worse salaries, terms & conditions



Wouldn't want them going on strike and inconveniencing anyone, eh?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2011)

*Actually,*


----------



## Tankus (Jul 7, 2011)

warehouse fire coming


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No.  Boycotting the paper itself, and making the millions of people who read it aware of what's been going on would be more effective, I think.


 


ElizabethofYork said:


> The closure of the News of the World which you all wanted has simply put innocent people out of work.  Will the guilty ever be brought to justice?



.


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The closure of the News of the World which you all wanted has simply put innocent people out of work.  Will the guilty ever be brought to justice?


 
Bull! Shit! To quote Chris Bryant: "You might be a bit dim, madam." News Corp management has decided to sacrifice a workforce of 200 to protect a) Rebekah Brooks and b) more importantly their BSkyB purchase. And, tbh, I don't believe for a second the majority of the NOTW staff will be actually out of work once the Sun on Sunday gets started. Don't twist the facts. If you listened to their statement earlier, in fact they are going to have a "three month consultation" with their staff, and no redundancies have been announced yet. 

Besides, people working at NOTW will have known full well they were working for a shit rag without any kind of morals, so them all coming out with the crocodile tears now is a bit fucking rich.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

Tankus said:


> warehouse fire coming


 
Why did I just think of Den Perry and "Phoenix Nights" there?


----------



## Tankus (Jul 7, 2011)

boycott the sunday sun ... Its coming out soon ...with the old NoTW mag.supplement inside


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Why did I just think of Den Perry and "Phoenix Nights" there?



I thought of Charles Saatchi.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The closure of the News of the World which you all wanted has simply put innocent people out of work.  Will the guilty ever be brought to justice?


 
They are not innocent workers anymore. They are feckless lazy benefit scroungers sponging off the taxpayer to pay for their plasma TV's, SKY TV subscriptions (oh the irony) and beer and fags.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> Besides, people working at NOTW will have known full well they were working for a shit rag without any kind of morals, so them all coming out with the crocodile tears now is a bit fucking rich.


 
You could say that about any commercial company that's in business to make money!  Should their workers have no rights?


----------



## IC3D (Jul 7, 2011)

> Here’s some News of the World news to spin the heads of American lawyers. According to British media law star Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (whom The Times of London has dubbed “Mr Media”), Rupert Murdoch’s soon-to-be shuttered tabloid may not be obliged to retain documents that could be relevant to civil and criminal claims against the newspaper—even in cases that are already underway. That could mean that dozens of sports, media, and political celebrities who claim News of the World hacked into their telephone accounts won’t be able to find out exactly what the tabloid knew and how it got the information.
> 
> If News of the World is to be liquidated, Stephens told Reuters, it “is a stroke of genius—perhaps evil genius.”


 link could be bullshit but pure evil if he can and really puts a different angle on it.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You could say that about any commercial company that's in business to make money!  *Should their workers have no rights?*


 
Faux concern for workers now is it?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> They are not innocent workers anymore. They are feckless lazy benefit scroungers sponging off the taxpayer to pay for their plasma TV's, SKY TV subscriptions (oh the irony) and beer and fags.


 
D'you reckon they should picket Wapping, dylans?  Or would that be an affront to honest workers whose taxes are splurged on public sector pensions?  Should we think of the children on this?


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You could say that about any commercial company that's in business to make money!  Should their workers have no rights?


 
No rights? Who's taking any rights away from them?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You could say that about any commercial company that's in business to make money!  Should their workers have no rights?



How many workers hack the phones of murdered children and terrorist victims for their own ends?

Jesus, do I have to draw you a diagram on this one?


----------



## rorymac (Jul 7, 2011)

I tried watching Question Time but I can't cos I think the BBC is a load of ol ponce as well 
Heads back to General


----------



## ymu (Jul 7, 2011)

*lightbulb moment*

They're protecting James Murdoch, not Rebekah Brooks. She's buying him time to get clear (they shifted him out of the UK recently and left her in charge). And 200 journos are buying time for her.

Wonder if she knows, and if she'll rat when they ditch her.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> They are not innocent workers anymore. They are feckless lazy benefit scroungers sponging off the taxpayer to pay for their plasma TV's, SKY TV subscriptions (oh the irony) and beer and fags.


 
But they should still look on the bright side. After all, and as hacks everywhere all know, they'll be able to afford all of life's luxuries and any that they can't afford will be given to them by the State, free, gratis and for nothing. And they'll never have to seek gainful employment ever again. 

Which will be handy for some of them as I don't see them being employed as reporters any more.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 7, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> Besides, people working at NOTW will have known full well they were working for a shit rag without any kind of morals, so them all coming out with the crocodile tears now is a bit fucking rich.


 
They took the soiled coin and chose to do so. Tough shit!


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

IC3D said:


> link could be bullshit but pure evil if he can and really puts a different angle on it.


 
The two problems with that are basically that (a) a lot of stuff has already been seized, and there will be records that are out of the control of News International, and (b) there is nothing to stop the liquidator selling the records to a rival - indeed you would probably see a lot of people wanting to get their hands on those documents.  

Plus, of course, if it was that easy to avoid legal action against a subsidiary I am sure firms would be doing it all the time.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 7, 2011)

The other half's pals work for the Fabulous magazine, so felt a twinge of sorrow for them, but now hear that part of it is carrying on! Happy days!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> How many workers hack the phones of murdered children and terrorist victims for their own ends?
> 
> Jesus, do I have to draw you a diagram on this one?


 
It would be interesting to see a diagram displaying how many of the redundant workers hacked the phones of murdered children and terrorist victims for their own ends.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

ymu said:


> *lightbulb moment*
> 
> They're protecting James Murdoch, not Rebekah Brooks. She's buying him time to get clear (they shifted him out of the UK recently and left her in charge). And 200 journos are buying time for her.
> 
> Wonder if she knows, and if she'll rat when they ditch her.



The only person James needs protecting from is his dad, or perhaps (to use one of Private Eyes ongoing jokes) his stepmother.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> The two problems with that are basically that (a) a lot of stuff has already been seized, and there will be records that are out of the control of News International, and (b) there is nothing to stop the liquidator selling the records to a rival - indeed you would probably see a lot of people wanting to get their hands on those documents.  Plus, of course, if it was that easy to avoid legal action against a subsidiary I am sure firms would be doing it all the time.



Anything in NI's possession that needed to be lost will have gone LONG ago. No question, not sure how the legal opinion changes this?


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2011)

Interesting that working for a Murdoch rag, churning out vicious anti-worker, pro-Tory bile is considered an honourable profession as long as you didn't engage in phone hacking.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It would be interesting to see a diagram displaying how many of the redundant workers hacked the phones of murdered children and terrorist victims for their own ends.


 
Yes.  it would also be VERY interesting to see how many of the redundant workers knew exactly what was going on, but chose to do nothing about it, hmm?

You seem to have missed my basic point too - one of Conscience.

Feel free to reply, though - I'll be here all evening, my sweet


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> Interesting that working for a Murdoch rag, churning out vicious anti-worker, pro-Tory bile is considered an honourable profession as long as you didn't engage in phone hacking.


 
You'd think it was much more honourable than teaching - the selfish cunts striking to keep their big pensions.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The closure of the News of the World which you all wanted has simply put innocent people out of work.  Will the guilty ever be brought to justice?



Have you ever read any of Nick Davies' columns (only the _latest_ example of very very many here)? 

Do you know who Greg Miskiw, Alex Marunchak, Glenn Mulcaire, Steve Whittamore, Jonathan Rees, Sid Fillery are??

Had you ever actually heard of any single one of them before you dove into this thread with bull in a chinashop sized boots?

Can you offer any knowledgeable and critical analysis (using NORMAL definitions of 'innocence' and guilt) of the *exact * details of what they all got up to?

If not, shove your *blatant trolling* up your Upchuck-like arse.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

You seem to be saying that anyone who works for a corporation should take the blame for anything that corporation does.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

Apparently Piers Moron is throwing his toys out of the pram on Twitter....and he is.  It's hilarious (follow the Moron on @piersmorgan, and get thee to trolling)


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Have you read Nick Davies' columns (only the _latest_ example of very very many here)?
> 
> Do you know who Greg Miskiw, Alex Marunchak, Glenn Mulcaire, Steve Whittamore, Jonathan Rees, Sid Fillery are??
> 
> ...


 
No, I don't know who they are.  I didn't realise we had to have certain qualifications and knowledge to be allowed to post here.  Perhaps you could let me know the rules?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> *No, I don't know who they are*.  I didn't realise we had to have certain qualifications and knowledge to be allowed to post here.  Perhaps you could let me know the rules?



Then you can fuck off. Upchuck/Annakey or whichever the fuck returning banned 'former' poster you happen to be.


----------



## N_igma (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You seem to be saying that anyone who works for a corporation should take the blame for anything that corporation does.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

Oh dear, looks like it's this time again.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You seem to be saying that anyone who works for a corporation should take the blame for anything that corporation does.


 
Anyone who works for a corporation and knows what the flying fuck it's doing should certainly search their conscience, yes.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Then you can fuck off.


 
Why?  What are the rules of being allowed to post here?


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Anyone who works for a corporation and knows what the flying fuck it's doing should certainly search their conscience, yes.





What, even the low-paid shitworkers?


----------



## little_legs (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why?  What are the rules of being allowed to post here?


----------



## IC3D (Jul 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Anyone who works for a corporation and knows what the flying fuck it's doing should certainly search their conscience, yes.


 
bollocks.


----------



## N_igma (Jul 7, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What, even the low-paid shitworkers?


 
If the NOTW has 200 employees then it's safe to say they all knew each others business.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What, even the low-paid shitworkers?


 
I'll give you that, LLETSA (how on earth is the cleaner is meant to influence the chairman etc).  Me were thinking more of the office worker type when it comes to corps, but yer right, corps is much more than office workers.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Anyone who works for a corporation and knows what the flying fuck it's doing should certainly search their conscience, yes.


 
Lord, what a twat.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

IC3D said:


> bollocks.



Sorry, I gues we'll have to agree to disagree.

Why do you disagree, by the way?


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Apparently Piers Moron is throwing his toys out of the pram on Twitter....and he is.  It's hilarious (follow the Moron on @piersmorgan, and get thee to trolling)


Whats he whingeing about?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Lord, what a twat.



Thanks for the compliment 

So I take it you disagree then.  Why?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why?  What are the rules of being allowed to post here?



Either post intelligently and critically and with *a basic level of actual knowledge* of whatever the hell you're purporting to offer your 'opinion' of? 

Showing some idea of who the relevant issues and persons involved might be?

Try educating yourself on the subject first. 

Them's great rules ....


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Whats he whingeing about?


 
Saying that the NOTW was a great paper, Hugh Grant v crap etc.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 7, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Whats he whingeing about?


 
He's just calling Hugh Grant a prick


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

I think what you mean is:

Agree with the majority on Urban, or don't post.


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I think what you mean is:
> 
> Agree with the majority on Urban, or don't post.


 
Sass?


----------



## N_igma (Jul 7, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Whats he whingeing about?


 
Let's just say Hugh Grant won't be on one of those insufferable Piers Morgan On... programmes!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I think what you mean is:
> 
> Agree with the majority on Urban, or don't post.


 
No.  State your case, back it up with facts on the ground, and debate.

Now, why do you disagree with me then on the last point?


----------



## N_igma (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I think what you mean is:
> 
> Agree with the majority on Urban, or don't post.



Fuck off back to whatever hole you came from turnip tits.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Saying that the NOTW was a great paper, Hugh Grant v crap etc.


 Ah,making sure he keeps well in with Uncle Rupey,fucking ass-kissing moron.


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> I'll give you that, LLETSA (how on earth is the cleaner is meant to influence the chairman etc).  Me were thinking more of the office worker type when it comes to corps, but yer right, corps is much more than office workers.





In most corporations, the office workers have no more power than the cleaners. To be able to search your conscience when it comes to what job you do is a middle class luxury, particularly in days of mass unemployment. I'm reminded of CND members who used to give me a hard time for going on CND demos but working on the shop floor in an arms factory. What the fuck was I supposed to do in 1981-82? Join hundreds of thousands of other kids on the dole for £13 a week?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

N_igma said:


> Fuck off back to whatever hole you came from turnip tits.


 
Fabulous repartee!  Well done!  That's told me.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Ah,making sure he keeps well in with Uncle Rupey,fucking ass-kissing moron.


 
The Moron on Hugh Grant (again) on Twitter:



> I'd like to regulate movies and ban Hugh Grant from making any more cheesy, crap, nauseatingly predictable films ever again.



Anyone want to buy any Viglen shares?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I think what you mean is:
> 
> Agree with the majority on Urban, or don't post.



If your opinions (or purported 'opinions'  ) are  in the minority of those prevailing in a particular thread, then don't post with blatant ignorance, and don't post without having done any research on the issue whatsoever?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 7, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What, even the low-paid shitworkers?



It's a terrible thing to bear, such shame.  If I didn't work funny hours, I don't know how I could sleep at night.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> In most corporations, the office workers have no more power than the cleaners. *To be able to search your conscience when it comes to what job you do is a middle class luxury, particularly in days of mass unemployment*. I'm reminded of CND members who used to give me a hard time for going on CND demos but working on the shop floor in an arms factory. What the fuck was I supposed to do in 1981-82? Join hundreds of thousands of other kids on the dole for £13 a week?



I guess the "form" may be to argue against what you say there, but y'know, that's pretty spot on, to be honest.

I dunno, perhaps by trying to hit the right target, I could end up taking potshots at just about everything, if you see what I mean.....I guess you've sussed 'm a tad emotive about all this!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2011)

Upchuck/Annakey/some other returning formerly banned poster said:
			
		

> I think what you mean is:
> 
> Agree with the majority on Urban, or don't post.





N_igma said:


> Fuck off back to whatever hole you came from turnip tits.



Pithier than what I posted!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Interesting Newsnight. 

They rekon camerons in serious shit and were asking wether murdoch empire is sinking - to witch their panel - William Shawcross (what a cunt), Alan Russthing from the graun, Rosie Boycott and (ex) political editor of the NOTW - pretty much answere 'could be/dunno'. 

Rusbridger praised how murdoch has kept the Times going and agreed with Shawcross' praise for him keeping the Wall Street Journal open - despite them losing shed loads of money. But they dont seem to realise hes not doing this out of love - these papers buy him influence and power - which is what murdoch is all about.

Guns are training on James Murdoch as well - and yeah i think brooks is being kept in place to protect him - nothing else makes sense.


----------



## Kippa (Jul 7, 2011)

What are the chances of Rebekah Brooks being bumped?  If she could link Murdoch senior to the shit then what are her chances without cutting a deal?


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Interesting Newsnight.
> 
> They rekon camerons in serious shit and were asking wether murdoch empire is sinking - to witch their panel - William Shawcross (what a cunt), Alan Russthing from the graun, Rosie Boycott and (ex) political editor of the NOTW - pretty much answere 'could be/dunno'.
> 
> ...


 
Journos will protect their own. Just listen to all the sentimental crap about honourable, innocent hacks at the NOTW who have lost their job.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Interesting Newsnight.
> 
> They rekon camerons in serious shit and were asking wether murdoch empire is sinking - to witch their panel - William Shawcross (what a cunt), Alan Russthing from the graun, Rosie Boycott and (ex) political editor of the NOTW - pretty much answere 'could be/dunno'.
> 
> ...


 
This suddenly came to me (speculation time) - how much dirt does the Digger have on other hacks and editors in the UK?  And would he be prepared to use it?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2011)

Interesting post KT, I haven't been watching Newsnight.

My immediate reaction when I heard about the 'NoTW to close' story earlier this eve (immedlately after I cheered and bought another pint that is  ) was to assume that Murdoch ws deliberately scuttling an already three quarters sunken ship, in order to salvage the rest of his empire ....


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> The Moron on Hugh Grant (again) on Twitter:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to buy any Viglen shares?


Another reason if any was needed to loath the fucking moron,Grant's played a fucking blinder on QT tonight.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Sorry, I gues we'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Why do you disagree, by the way?


 
Just that in an industry there will be only so many jobs and its unlikely half the people there do it cos its their dream job ££ innit


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

Yep, I'm sure Grant's old muckers Jemima and Zack are proud as punch.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

IC3D said:


> Just that in an industry there will be only so many jobs and its unlikely half the people there do it cos its their dream job ££ innit


 
Cheers for the reply.  True also, to be fair (see also my reply to LLETSA who asked a similar question)


----------



## binka (Jul 7, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Upchuck/Annakey or whichever the fuck returning banned 'former' poster you happen to be.


 
its amazing how some people who have been here for years still fall for an obvious troll/returning poster again and again and again. elizabethofyork has been doing some top trolling over a number of topics for ages now, its so obvious even ive noticed it and im rubbish at spotting things


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You seem to be saying that anyone who works for a corporation should take the blame for anything that corporation does.


 
What responsibility does a corporation have towards their workers? Why are you not angry at how the NOTW is shafting their workers to save the reputation/skins of their management?

You seem to be blaming the public for disapproving of the way this particular corporation works because the corporation is now doing the dirty on it's workers. What they are doing now, to the workers, is further evidence of the self-centred/preserving scum that they are.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

C'mon people, ElizabethofYork is on a permanent wind up. Move on, you're being mugged off.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> C'mon people, ElizabethofYork is on a permanent wind up. Move on, you're being mugged off.


 
Heh! My point above still stands though.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Interesting post KT, I haven't been watching Newsnight.
> 
> My immediate reaction when I heard about the 'NoTW to close' story earlier this eve (immedlately after I cheered and bought another pint that is  ) was to assume that Murdoch ws deliberately scuttling an already three quarters sunken ship, in order to salvage the rest of his empire ....


 
I dont think James Murdoch is the person they are protecting in this - he didnt have any control over the relevant part of News International until December 2007, and in any case he was never in a low enough position to sign anything incriminating (or at least, anything incriminating that might have come out in the records of Mulcaire etc).  The worst thing he could have done is organize a cover-up, which might of course include the threats to go after MPs if they had subpoena'd Rebekah Brooks (which they were going to do as she refused to attend the Select Committee hearings).  

Which would suggest its Brooks they are looking to protect, though admittedly I am at a loss as to why, or at least why they would go to this extent in an attempt to protect her.  (edit)It might even be that Murdoch Snr himself isnt actually behind any of this, and what we have seen over the past few weeks is the News Corp board panicking, making repeated wrong decisions, because it suddenly finds itself having to make decisions for itself - lets face it, he is usually a lot more competent than they have been over this.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Also those (ex) employess of NOTW who have appeared on telly have all flatly refused to directly slag off news interantional or Rebecca Brooks. We are told the employees are absolutley furious - but none are  talking to the cameras - so  I guess redundancy payments are linked to keeping schtum. Which means that those employess who are apperaing on the media are shameless careerist hacks who deserve nothing but contempt. "There were tears, there were hugs, we talked about the good times we've had, its sad, we've done a good job, such a shame - crawly crawaly bumlick rupert"


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> What responsibility does a corporation have towards their workers? Why are you not angry at how the NOTW is shafting their workers to save the reputation/skins of their management?
> 
> You seem to be blaming the public for disapproving of the way this particular corporation works because the corporation is now doing the dirty on it's workers. What they are doing now, to the workers, is further evidence of the self-centred/preserving scum that they are.


 
No, I'm sodding FURIOUS at what the NOTW has done to its workers.

Unlike some of the lovely people on Urban, who seem to be enjoying the fact that ordinary workers are being put on the dole


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> In most corporations, the office workers have no more power than the cleaners. To be able to search your conscience when it comes to what job you do is a middle class luxury, particularly in days of mass unemployment. I'm reminded of CND members who used to give me a hard time for going on CND demos but working on the shop floor in an arms factory. What the fuck was I supposed to do in 1981-82? Join hundreds of thousands of other kids on the dole for £13 a week?


 
The case of the NOTW is slightly different however. First because Murdochs entire wapping operation was built on the back of union busting. The entire previous staff of several thousand were fired for going on strike and its wapping staff bussed in in an operation of mass scabbing. This is the conditions that the present NOTW were and are quite happy to operate under until now.
Second, the staff of the NOTW have proven themselves to be my enemies and the enemies of the most vulnerable in society for decades. They have been quite happy to spew the most vicious anti working class, anti union,  racist, homophobic, sexist and pro war propaganda without a word of protest for decades. They happily went along with attacking single parents, the unemployed, strikers, foreigners, gay people, Muslims and quite happily dished out a diet of meaningless pap and hypocritical semi pornographic propaganda worthy of Orwell, all dressed up in the language of self righteousness and moral superiority for decades without complaint. So forgive me if I find it hard to find too much sympathy for them now they are being served up with just a taste of what they have helped to dish out for years. Fuck em frankly I don't really care about the fate of these 200 scabs and inheritors of the working conditions created by scabs. They chose to work for this poisonous rag and now they are tasting a bit of the poison and I really don't care.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

stephj said:


> You make weltweit look like a critical thinker.


 brilliant


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2011)

binka said:


> its amazing how some people who have been here for years still fall for an obvious troll/returning poster again and again and again. elizabethofyork has been doing some top trolling over a number of topics for ages now, its so obvious even ive noticed it and im rubbish at spotting things



No disagreement whatsoever there.

But I have to retire, work tomororow!

(Good posts from agricola and KT btw  )


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

Dylans, I'm sure you're aware that sometime if you want to work, you have to work for companies that you don't totally agree with.

All the cleaners, tea ladies, maintenance people, clerical workers, etc. that worked for the NOTW are being tarred by you as deserving their fate.

How sanctimonious of you.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

agricola said:


> I dont think James Murdoch is the person they are protecting in this - he didnt have any control over the relevant part of News International until December 2007, and in any case he was never in a low enough position to sign anything incriminating (or at least, anything incriminating that might have come out in the records of Mulcaire etc).  The worst thing he could have done is organize a cover-up, which might of course include the threats to go after MPs if they had subpoena'd Rebekah Brooks (which they were going to do as she refused to attend the Select Committee hearings).
> 
> Which would suggest its Brooks they are looking to protect, though admittedly I am at a loss as to why, or at least why they would go to this extent in an attempt to protect her.


 
Hes clearly moving into the firing line - hes admitted paying hush money - meaning he knew about the phone hacking, yet kept up the bullshit about a 'rouge reporter' - he did nothing to investigate what had happened and organsied a cover up. Theres plenty of shit to stick to him. Keeping Brooks only makes sense if shes there as a shit sponge. 

Not that it will work - I really think Murdoch empire will be finshed by this. American media are licking their lips over this as well - its starting to look like a pecking party.

Cos we can be sure that there is plenty more scandal to come once people start poking into news internationals files and the more toxic NI becomes, the less and less power Murdoch has.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Saying that the NOTW was a great paper, Hugh Grant v crap etc.


Shame Moron cant be dragged into this scandal.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No, I'm sodding FURIOUS at what the NOTW has done to its workers.
> 
> Unlike some of the lovely people on Urban, who seem to be enjoying the fact that ordinary workers are being put on the dole


When Luke destroyed the DeathStar there were independent contractors on it, it was still being built.

Shouldn't be working on the fucking DeathStar, should they.

And the lovely people of Urban are generally strongly in favour of a good welfare system to help those who become unemployed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> In most corporations, the office workers have no more power than the cleaners. To be able to search your conscience when it comes to what job you do is a middle class luxury, particularly in days of mass unemployment. I'm reminded of CND members who used to give me a hard time for going on CND demos but working on the shop floor in an arms factory. What the fuck was I supposed to do in 1981-82? Join hundreds of thousands of other kids on the dole for £13 a week?


 
"I was only obeying orders."

It's ridiculous to say that you should not search your conscience over what you do within the confines of the choices you have.

It's not a luxury. It is a responsibility that you either do or do not take upon yourself.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> The case of the NOTW is slightly different however. First because Murdochs entire wapping operation was built on the back of union busting. The entire previous staff of several thousand were fired for going on strike and its wapping staff bussed in in an operation of mass scabbing. This is the conditions that the present NOTW were and are quite happy to operate under until now.
> Second, the staff of the NOTW have proven themselves to be my enemies and the enemies of the most vulnerable in society for decades. They have been quite happy to spew the most vicious anti working class, anti union,  racist, homophobic, sexist and pro war propaganda without a word of protest for decades. They happily went along with attacking single parents, the unemployed, strikers, foreigners, gay people, Muslims and quite happily dished out a diet of meaningless pap and hypocritical semi pornographic propaganda worthy of Orwell, all dressed up in the language of self righteousness and moral superiority for decades without complaint.
> 
> So forgive me if I find it hard to find too much sympathy for them now they are being served up with just a taste of what they have helped to dish out for years. Fuck em frankly I don't really care about the fate of these 200 scabs and inheritors of the working conditions created by scabs. They chose to work for this poisonous rag and now they are tasting a bit of the poison and I really don't care.



Excellent post.

I happen to think that the NoTW in particular was much more focussed on 'celeb' scandal (along with with all the methods they used to grab the details on that  ) than they were on minority hate whipping up like the Sun prefers. 

Still, the exact proportions between those two things on those two rags  isn't much more than angels on the head of a pin semantics really.

And in any case you give great rant!


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> When Luke destroyed the DeathStar there were independent contractors on it, it was still being built.


 
It was those space wasps from Attack of the Clones.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> When Luke destroyed the DeathStar there were independent contractors on it, it was still being built.
> 
> Shouldn't be working on the fucking DeathStar, should they.
> 
> And the lovely people of Urban are generally strongly in favour of a good welfare system to help those who become unemployed.


 
sanctimonious crap.


----------



## dylans (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Dylans, I'm sure you're aware that sometime if you want to work, you have to work for companies that you don't totally agree with.
> 
> All the cleaners, tea ladies, maintenance people, clerical workers, etc. that worked for the NOTW are being tarred by you as deserving their fate.
> 
> How sanctimonious of you.



Tell that to the 6000 Fleet street workers sacked by Murdoch to create his Wapping operation. Where are your tears for them?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Hes clearly moving into the firing line - hes admitted paying hush money - meaning he knew about the phone hacking, yet kept up the bullshit about a 'rouge reporter' - he did nothing to investigate what had happened and organsied a cover up. Theres plenty of shit to stick to him. Keeping Brooks only makes sense if shes there as a shit sponge.
> 
> Not that it will work - I really think Murdoch empire will be finshed by this. American media are licking their lips over this as well - its starting to look like a pecking party.
> 
> Cos we can be sure that there is plenty more scandal to come once people start poking into news internationals files and the more toxic NI becomes, the less and less power Murdoch has.


 
Ftr, none of this post makes any sense to me. Imo, you're misunderstanding every dynamic in play.


----------



## belboid (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Also those (ex) employess of NOTW who have appeared on telly have all flatly refused to directly slag off news interantional or Rebecca Brooks. We are told the employees are absolutley furious - but none are  talking to the cameras - so  I guess redundancy payments are linked to keeping schtum. Which means that those employess who are apperaing on the media are shameless careerist hacks who deserve nothing but contempt. "There were tears, there were hugs, we talked about the good times we've had, its sad, we've done a good job, such a shame - crawly crawaly bumlick rupert"


 
If there is a Sunday Sun then many of those same workers will be TUPE'd across anyway, so they have that to look out for too.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Shame Moron cant be dragged into this scandal.


 
Oh, I bet the Digger has some dirt on the Moron's tenure at NI too.  Perhaps that's why Moron is acting like his loyal lapdog at the moment?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Hes clearly moving into the firing line - hes admitted paying hush money - meaning he knew about the phone hacking, yet kept up the bullshit about a 'rouge reporter' - he did nothing to investigate what had happened and organsied a cover up. Theres plenty of shit to stick to him. Keeping Brooks only makes sense if shes there as a shit sponge.
> 
> *Not that it will work - I really think Murdoch empire will be finshed by this. American media are licking their lips over this as well - its starting to look like a pecking party.*
> 
> ...



If only I could be properly confident that the bit of your post that I've bolded was true .... not so far ....


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> Tell that to the 6000 Fleet street workers sacked by Murdoch to create his Wapping operation. Where are your tears for them?


 
Well of course that was shocking and outrageous!  But does that mean it's okay for the current people to be shafted?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 7, 2011)

belboid said:


> If there is *a Sunday Sun * then many of those same workers will be TUPE'd across anyway, so they have that to look out for too.



We were talking about this very prospect in the pub earlier.

Version of something similar bound to emerge pretty soon?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

Shares in Rupert Murdoch's companies tumble as investors take frightFears over deal for BSkyB wipes £600m off its value, while jitters on Wall Street also hit News Corp share price


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/07/shares-rupert-murdoch-companies


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Ftr, none of this post makes any sense to me. Imo, you're misunderstanding every dynamic in play.


 
I disagree with the idea that this is a protect James Murdoch type thing (as mentioned above), but its almost a cliche in history that the lifetimes work of an old and powerful man gets squandered by his less capable descendants, so its not beyond the realm of possibility that this is the beginning of the end for the Murdoch Empire.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Ftr, none of this post makes any sense to me. Imo, you're misunderstanding every dynamic in play.


 
How so?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

Oh yes!  C/o Harpy Marx @Twitter (thankx), proof of Brook's true nature: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-23968124-some-mps-suspected-a-year-ago-but-nobody-wouldve-believed-it.do


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> "I was only obeying orders."
> 
> It's ridiculous to say that you should not search your conscience over what you do within the confines of the choices you have.
> 
> It's not a luxury. It is a responsibility that you either do or do not take upon yourself.


 
The only option I had when I worked in an arms factory was to work there or sign on. I wanted to earn my own living.

Manchester in 1981 wasn't exactly overflowing with choices in these matters.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Jul 7, 2011)

Ooh, that's an interesting thought...

(In response to mellysingsdoom)


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Dylans, I'm sure you're aware that sometime if you want to work, you have to work for companies that you don't totally agree with.
> 
> All the cleaners, tea ladies, maintenance people, clerical workers, etc. that worked for the NOTW are being tarred by you as deserving their fate.
> 
> How sanctimonious of you.


I don't think anyone would disagree with the notion that people losing their jobs because of the actions of others, that they have no influence over, is a bad thing. This thread isn't about workers losing their jobs because a corporation closes down, even though some people may be happy to see an established media institution closed down (168 year old paper, quite impressive if you think about its circulation which remained comparatively healthy).

It is primarily about discussing the bigger picture stuff as to how such behaviour goes unchallenged, why collusion between the met and the media is allowed to occur nationally and regionally (Boris Johnson was awful when pushed on this earlier on this evening) and lots of other issues. Yes, some "innocent" workers lost their jobs at notw, yes some people are pleased, yes lets discuss the issue at hand though which is illegal phone hacking, with police involvement, against a backdrop of media ownership which has serious implications for what people think, allegedly


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 7, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Oh yes!  C/o Harpy Marx @Twitter (thankx), proof of Brook's true nature: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-23968124-some-mps-suspected-a-year-ago-but-nobody-wouldve-believed-it.do


""She came up to me and said, 'Oh, Mr Bryant, it's after dark - shouldn't you be on Clapham Common?"


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> The case of the NOTW is slightly different however. First because Murdochs entire wapping operation was built on the back of union busting. The entire previous staff of several thousand were fired for going on strike and its wapping staff bussed in in an operation of mass scabbing. This is the conditions that the present NOTW were and are quite happy to operate under until now.
> Second, the staff of the NOTW have proven themselves to be my enemies and the enemies of the most vulnerable in society for decades. They have been quite happy to spew the most vicious anti working class, anti union,  racist, homophobic, sexist and pro war propaganda without a word of protest for decades. They happily went along with attacking single parents, the unemployed, strikers, foreigners, gay people, Muslims and quite happily dished out a diet of meaningless pap and hypocritical semi pornographic propaganda worthy of Orwell, all dressed up in the language of self righteousness and moral superiority for decades without complaint. So forgive me if I find it hard to find too much sympathy for them now they are being served up with just a taste of what they have helped to dish out for years. Fuck em frankly I don't really care about the fate of these 200 scabs and inheritors of the working conditions created by scabs. They chose to work for this poisonous rag and now they are tasting a bit of the poison and I really don't care.




You may be right, but I was talking about working for corporations generally.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Well of course that was shocking and outrageous!  But does that mean it's okay for the current people to be shafted?


 
I must have missed your concern on the public sector workers/pensions thread.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 7, 2011)

He could have a heart attack...his empire burning around him.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 7, 2011)

and dylans point about the wapping workers certainly adds some weight to the argument as to why people may be celebrating tbf.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 7, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The only option I had when I worked in an arms factory was to work there or sign on. I wanted to earn my own living.
> 
> Manchester in 1981 wasn't exactly overflowing with choices in these matters.


 
And I'm not judging you for it. Your choices were severely limited. In a situation where you have greater choices - which, for instance, any journalist working for a national tabloid does - perhaps I would judge you more harshly.

I think the people on the marches judging you were wrong, btw. I just don't think the comparison with NOTW journalists is valid. Their cleaners, delivery men, etc, yes. But not their journos. If you do have choices, making the morally correct one isn't some kind of luxury at all. It's a responsibility. A duty, even.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 7, 2011)

dylans said:


> The case of the NOTW is slightly different however. First because Murdochs entire wapping operation was built on the back of union busting. The entire previous staff of several thousand were fired for going on strike and its wapping staff bussed in in an operation of mass scabbing. This is the conditions that the present NOTW were and are quite happy to operate under until now.
> Second, the staff of the NOTW have proven themselves to be my enemies and the enemies of the most vulnerable in society for decades. They have been quite happy to spew the most vicious anti working class, anti union,  racist, homophobic, sexist and pro war propaganda without a word of protest for decades. They happily went along with attacking single parents, the unemployed, strikers, foreigners, gay people, Muslims and quite happily dished out a diet of meaningless pap and hypocritical semi pornographic propaganda worthy of Orwell, all dressed up in the language of self righteousness and moral superiority for decades without complaint. So forgive me if I find it hard to find too much sympathy for them now they are being served up with just a taste of what they have helped to dish out for years. Fuck em frankly I don't really care about the fate of these 200 scabs and inheritors of the working conditions created by scabs. They chose to work for this poisonous rag and now they are tasting a bit of the poison and I really don't care.



I agree.


----------



## agricola (Jul 7, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> He could have a heart attack...his empire burning around him.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 7, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> ""She came up to me and said, 'Oh, Mr Bryant, it's after dark - shouldn't you be on Clapham Common?"


 
Her (then) husband's reply to her was class


----------



## pk (Jul 7, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Why?  What are the rules of being allowed to post here?


 
The only rule is that every other poster gets to point at you and laugh.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

stephj said:


> I must have missed your concern on the public sector workers/pensions thread.


 
Yes, you must have.  Just because I don't agree with the strike doesn't mean I'm not concerned about ordinary workers.  Especially workers who get shafted because of the management's actions.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Dylans, I'm sure you're aware that sometime if you want to work, you have to work for companies that you don't totally agree with.
> All the cleaners, tea ladies, maintenance people, clerical workers, etc. that worked for the NOTW are being tarred by you as deserving their fate.


 
I have walked from a job for ethical reasons. I would never have started it had I known what I discovered later. 
Would you have been happy being Albert Pierrepoint's cleaner??


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 8, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> He could have a heart attack...his empire burning around him.


 
Its not burning just yet. Soon hopefully!


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes, you must have.  Just because I don't agree with the strike doesn't mean I'm not concerned about ordinary workers.  Especially workers who get shafted because of the management's actions.


 
Tell me, did you hear a farting noise in your brain when you finished typing this?


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 8, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Her (then) husband's reply to her was class


 Always liked Ross,sems like a decent bloke,too good for her


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

yardbird said:


> I have walked from a job for ethical reasons. I would never have started it had I known what I discovered later.
> Would you have been happy being Albert Pierrepoint's cleaner??


 00- -

Happy ?  No.  But in those days I guess you either did a job you didn't like or you starved.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 8, 2011)

Be nice if Murdoch took a sailing trip,like the one Bob Maxwell took in Nov 1991


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Always liked Ross,sems like a decent bloke,too good for her


 
True say, innit?


----------



## rorymac (Jul 8, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Shame Moron cant be dragged into this scandal.


 
He defo ought to be !!


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

yardbird said:


> Would you have been happy being Albert Pierrepoint's cleaner??


 
Nah, I heard he was a pretty unfriendly character who had trouble keeping friends. 

Always in the habit of dropping people wherever he went.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

rorymac said:


> He defo ought to be !!


the thing that worries me surely, is whether you're in in this mess rory.

the truth will out. have no doubt.

word.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

The Moron's getting a kicking on Twitter:



> #bbcqt see #PiersMorgan couldn't restrain himself. His hypocrisy is amazing, given his track record in the red tops #viglen #iraqiprisoners.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2011)

stephj said:


> Weltweit, is that you?


 
I am here!! never fear !! 

Fresh from watching a rather good question time, Hugh Grant did well, amusing that Douglas Alexander had just been to a Murdock party in the last week and Jon Gaunt was surprisingly good I thought. 

Then I watched a bit of This Week, in which I was a little surprised to see Max Clifford standing up for Rebeka Brooks, against all criticism his position is that she did not know what was going on. Well we know she knew about the bribes being paid to members of the police, because she admitted such in public, but Max stuck to his guns that she did not know of the hacking, about which she had settled with him and paid him compensation. 

Quite an interesting bit of TV viewing for the time being.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

From the Torygraph (sorry) - Scottish Plod to open a file on Coulson for suspected perjury? - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8623090/Phone-hacking-Andy-Coulson-facing-perjury-investigation-over-Tommy-Sheridan-evidence.html


----------



## little_legs (Jul 8, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Always liked Ross,sems like a decent bloke,too good for her


 
Think the _Ultimate Force_ was an allegory for his domestic life?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I am here!! never fear !!
> 
> Fresh from watching a rather good question time, Hugh Grant did well, amusing that Douglas Alexander had just been to a Murdock party in the last week and Jon Gaunt was surprisingly good I thought.
> 
> ...


maybe, just maybe, rebeka is offering some kind of incentive to max to do that?! 

it does take place you know? your second paragraph was what alistair campbell tweeted mostly


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

George Michael on Twitter related a tale of Brooks coming round to his house for a party (she was uninvited by him) and telling him that much of the dirt the Digger Corp printed on him came from bought-off Plod.  She didn't leave afterwards.  Needless to say George sees recent events as "a great day".  Fair play on the feller


----------



## yardbird (Jul 8, 2011)

^^Did she share one of George's spliffs I wonder


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I am here!! never fear !!
> 
> Fresh from watching a rather good question time, Hugh Grant did well, amusing that Douglas Alexander had just been to a Murdock party in the last week and Jon Gaunt was surprisingly good I thought.


Gaunt  seemed to think you make a great point by shouting,he was his usual odious self tonight.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 8, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> the thing that worries me surely, is whether you're in in this mess rory.
> 
> the truth will out. have no doubt.
> 
> word.



No chance paulie .. but just imagine you were in contact with someone whose phone was being hacked and you had a huge row with them via text/answer phone whatever. Then that person was murdered .. given that the police are a bit lacking your messages would be so damning the case would be formed around them and you wouldn't stand a chance. 

You'd be destroyed as a character in the tabloids and go inside for something you didn't do.

That's a shocking but impossible thing not to imagine !!

That poor girl that was murdered in Bristol last xmas .. why did the police allow the teacher to be destroyed in the papers when it was the bloke living in the same house as her that admitted it subsequently. 

Disgusting !


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

yardbird said:


> ^^Did she share one of George's spliffs I wonder


 
Ha!  "But Digger, I didn't inhale!  Any anyway, you know he's one of "them", don't you, Rupe?  Shall I run another "exclusive" this week on him?"


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

And here's the happy, smiling and not at all psychotically pissed off and worried about her future Rebekah Brooks herself as she left her workplace:







Last time a woman glared at people like that was in Greek mythology and she had snakes growing out of her hair.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

rorymac said:


> No chance paulie .. but just imagine you were in contact with someone whose phone was being hacked and you had a huge row with them via text/answer phone whatever. Then that person was murdered .. given that the police are a bit lacking your messages would be so damning the case would be formed around them and you wouldn't stand a chance.
> 
> *You'd be destroyed as a character in the tabloids and go inside for something you didn't do.*
> 
> That's a shocking but impossible thing not to imagine !!



Serious point - remember how the Digger Corp (and other tabloids too) turned over Barry George in exactly that way? (Not the phone thing, but all the other crap associated with it).


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> maybe, just maybe, rebeka is offering some kind of incentive to max to do that?!
> 
> it does take place you know? your second paragraph was what alistair campbell tweeted mostly


 
Yes, that is certainly possible, it is "his line of work" after all. And he was pointed not to mention BskyB at all which I thought was quite strange as I think most people believe the closing of The News of the World and Murdocks attempt to be a fit and proper person for that takeover are closely linked. 

The money is increasingly in TV and online, not in print.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Gaunt  seemed to think you make a great point by shouting,he was his usual odious self tonight.


 
Yes, he was loud. 

But I noticed that he was the only one on the panel that thought Trains for British Railways should be built in Britain. 

While I don't agree with his I think anti European beliefs, I do think our trains should be made here.


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2011)

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...page=1&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&tx=59&ty=80


Re: Brooks picture, looks familiar


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> And here's the happy, smiling and not at all psychotically pissed off and worried about her future Rebekah Brooks herself as she left her workplace:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I don't know who i detest the most .......shoesmith or Brooke!!!  Dunk them both in the river and i swear they would both float!!!


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2011)

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/07/07/we-killed-the-news-of-the-world/


Apparently, 'it was The Sunny wot won it'

Sunny Hundal, that is... he killed the NOTW
what hubris...


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2011)

This has done Chris Bryant a lot of good, but he is still a Blairite and not to be trusted...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-a-year-ago-but-nobody-wouldve-believed-it.do


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 8, 2011)

Hundal is a scab Labour cunt. Calls himself "left-wing" without knowing what it means, publicly cheers on tabloid witch-hunts against actual left-wing activists because of personal grudges and has publicly called on readers to vote Tory, then Lib Dem and now Labour. Like many who think of themselves as "liberal-slash-left" he has no discernable politics nor any principles.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

From Guardian blog -  "Former home secretary Alan Johnson has suggested that James Murdoch could face jail over the phone hacking scandal."

Def get the feeling that the heat is turning on James Murdoch. 

Intersting - and going mostly uncommentated on beacsue of the bigger story - that labour have cut the rope as far as murdoch is concerned. Leaves the tories looking far too close to him as well.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 8, 2011)

treelover said:


> This has done Chris Bryant a lot of good, but he is still a Blairite and not to be trusted...
> 
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-a-year-ago-but-nobody-wouldve-believed-it.do



Agreed and I wouldn't trust Hugh Grant far as I can throw him but fair play for now all the same


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> ...
> Intersting - and going mostly uncommentated on beacsue of the bigger story - that labour have cut the rope as far as murdoch is concerned. Leaves the tories looking far too close to him as well.


 
Yes I think Labour have cut the cord, but they were not being supported at the moment anyhow so perhaps it is no loss to them. 

A couple of people have suggested today that the reason that politicians in general do not go for News International, is that NI has the dirt on all of them as individuals. Indeed a labour MP (forget name) was apparently outed as being gay after he decided to have a go at NI. 

Perhaps that may not be news to you all, but it was an angle I had not been aware of, till now.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

Labour has been courting Murdoch since 1994 - so a major (and sudden) turnaround. Again indicates that his power is fading. 

As for having dirt on people - maybe Millimetre hasn't got any dirty laundry - hes a nerd, an earnest poicy wonk whose been groomed for poltics since he was a kid - would have been reading books on the mechanics of the health provision whilst his student contemporaries were off doing all the coke, shaggin each other and pissng in people's flower beds (a la Disco Dave - probably).


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Yes I think Labour have cut the cord, but they were not being supported at the moment anyhow so perhaps it is no loss to them.
> 
> A couple of people have suggested today that the reason that politicians in general do not go for News International, is that NI has the dirt on all of them as individuals. Indeed a labour MP (forget name) was apparently outed as being gay after he decided to have a go at NI.
> 
> Perhaps that may not be news to you all, but it was an angle I had not been aware of, till now.


 
I doubt they have cut the cord, TBH.  Tom Baldwin still oversees their spin, very senior Labour figures still go to the NI Summer Party, and they were (prior to this exploding) deliberately toning the rhetoric down to avoid antagonising NI.


----------



## pk (Jul 8, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> I thought of Charles Saatchi.


 
KLF


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 8, 2011)

pk said:


> I'd like to see Brooks get lynched, or thrown under a bus. Vile woman deserves it. Doubt she'd last long in jail.


 
For god's sake, pk, are you ever going to grow up a little?


----------



## pk (Jul 8, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> George Michael on Twitter related a tale of Brooks coming round to his house for a party (she was uninvited by him) and telling him that much of the dirt the Digger Corp printed on him came from bought-off Plod.  She didn't leave afterwards.  Needless to say George sees recent events as "a great day".  Fair play on the feller


 
I actually sang that in my head to the tune of Careless Whisper. It works up until "bought-off Plod", then it becomes a haiku. 
Fair play indeed. That Snappy Snaps collision was an example of phone hack, they knew the details before Yog did. 
The best bit about that story is that someone walked up to the actual impact point of the wall and wrote "WHAM!" in tiny letters, right in the middle of the dent. I chuckled.


----------



## pk (Jul 8, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> For god's sake, pk, are you ever going to grow up a little?


 
Did I actually type that?  In answer to your question probably not. Are you??

I would have been talking figuratively. This is a comedy, not a tragedy.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> I doubt they have cut the cord, TBH.  Tom Baldwin still oversees their spin, very senior Labour figures still go to the NI Summer Party, and they were (prior to this exploding) deliberately toning the rhetoric down to avoid antagonising NI.


 
Well yes - but that has all changed in the past 48 hours. Milliband was pretty much saying that between the lines on newsnight.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> From Guardian blog -  "Former home secretary Alan Johnson has suggested that James Murdoch could face jail over the phone hacking scandal."
> 
> Def get the feeling that the heat is turning on James Murdoch.
> 
> Intersting - and going mostly uncommentated on beacsue of the bigger story - that labour have cut the rope as far as murdoch is concerned. Leaves the tories looking far too close to him as well.


the fact that alan johnson had the same evidence and failed to do anything at all, tells you enough about what won't happen next.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

But its different now - I think there a lot of people in influential positions who are now out to get murdoch - long held grudges and long term opponents and those who reluctantly kow towed in the past are pileing in. A Pecking party. And poetic justice.


----------



## 8den (Jul 8, 2011)

Elizabeth of York said:
			
		

> You seem to be saying that anyone who works for a corporation should take the blame for anything that corporation does.



Y'know fuck off. 

I freelanced for Murdoch. In Sky News on and off for about 5 years. I never once was interested becoming staff. And I'll tell you why. 

When Ripper turned up to "Open" the new Sky News building, I saw the internal memo that staff working that day got, about dress codes, and not speaking or looking at Rupert when he toured the facility. How staff weren't allowed use the front door the day he walked in. 

When Sky News decided to fire rake of staff in the wake of James Rubin's abortion of a news show, they were walked into another part of the building, told they were sacked and weren't even allowed back to their desks. 

I sympathise with workers who have lost their jobs, as it is fucking awful, and they're a sack of dead dogs lying at the feet of Rebekkah's Brooks funeral longship but working for Rupert Murdoch and expecting to be treated like a human being makes you a fucking moron. He will discard you like the dead skin of a corn husk, and he probably was more attached to the corn husk.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

8den said:


> Y'know fuck off.
> 
> I freelanced for Murdoch. In Sky News on and off for about 5 years. I never once was interested becoming staff. And I'll tell you why.
> 
> ...


 
Reminds me of a university lecture I attended where the speaker (who came from Presswatch IIRC) informed us that if staff at Wapping want to meet with their union rep they have to do it off company premises, such is Murdoch's hatred of unions in general. He also told us that if you work for Murdoch then you automatically have to sign over full rights to your stories, photographs and film footage so you never get to freelance your product even if you part company with Murdoch and his empire.


----------



## pk (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> Reminds me of a university lecture I attended where the speaker (who came from Presswatch IIRC) informed us that if staff at Wapping want to meet with their union rep they have to do it off company premises, such is Murdoch's hatred of unions in general. He also told us that if you work for Murdoch then you automatically have to sign over full rights to your stories, photographs and film footage so you never get to freelance your product even if you part company with Murdoch and his empire.


 
The latter bit is completely untrue, the bit about unions I can believe.

Here's the Hansard from yesterday for posterity:

http://www.publications.parliament....110706/debtext/110706-0002.htm#11070680000004


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


>



They've put this photo in prime position on todays frontpage fo the Guaridan - she looks fucking terrifying


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2011)

Evil, wriggling scum:



> Here’s some News of the World news to spin the heads of American lawyers. According to British media law star Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (whom The Times of London has dubbed “Mr Media”), Rupert Murdoch’s soon-to-be shuttered tabloid may not be obliged to retain documents that could be relevant to civil and criminal claims against the newspaper—even in cases that are already underway. That could mean that dozens of sports, media, and political celebrities who claim News of the World hacked into their telephone accounts won’t be able to find out exactly what the tabloid knew and how it got the information.
> 
> If News of the World is to be liquidated, Stephens told Reuters, it “is a stroke of genius—perhaps evil genius.”
> 
> ...


----------



## ernestolynch (Jul 8, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> Hundal is a scab Labour cunt. Calls himself "left-wing" without knowing what it means, publicly cheers on tabloid witch-hunts against actual left-wing activists because of personal grudges and has publicly called on readers to vote Tory, then Lib Dem and now Labour. Like many who think of themselves as "liberal-slash-left" he has no discernable politics nor any principles.


 
Sunny Hundal the scab is exactly that.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

> Staff had no idea what was coming - they were told the previous day that the paper would be rebuilding its reputation. *Rebekah Brooks was inside the building when the staff were informed that the paper was closing.
> 
> She was apparently in tears*, as were many of the journalists. There was said to be a huge amount of anger that Rebekah Brooks has kept her job whilst theirs had been lost.



Bless


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

From Twitter...  



> *billybragg*
> 
> Don't worry about NotW journalists. Everyone knows the unemployed get 5 room houses from council and £50k a year in benefits


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

If anyone fancies it, have a look at the Torygraph's front page today - I think they may have the headline of the day on this day...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 8, 2011)

I think it's further up the page. I saw it on this thread yesterday. Brilliant headline.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

editor said:


> Evil, wriggling scum:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This makes no sense whatsoever, the NOTW is only a newspaper title/brand, it's the publishing company that matters and that is News Group Newspapers, part of News International & then part of News Corp.

News Group Newspapers also publishes The Sun, the company is going nowhere anytime soon, so I don't understand talk of calling in liquidators.

Also, if Murdoch tried anything like that it would be the final nail in the coffin over any deal to take-over Sky, if the lid hasn't already been nailed down anyway, which I suspect it has now.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 8, 2011)

editor said:


> Evil, wriggling scum:


 
Again, what could possibly exist now, that is any use to a prosecution, that hasn't seen a shredder already?


----------



## Ae589 (Jul 8, 2011)

editor said:


> Evil, wriggling scum:


 
If that's true, I hope the sacked staff do the intelligent thing and remove some of that documentation themselves.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> Isnt the NOTW on the same presses as the Sun?  I would have thought they would have long since rationalized their other support roles as well.


 
They are indeed printed on the same presses at various sites across the UK, two of those sites are owned and operated by regional publisher Johnson Press, one is The News in Portsmouth and the other up north somewhere.

Someone at JP has told me News Int' signed long-term contracts with JP, which have many years to run and it was these contracts that allowed JP to invest in these two 'super-presses' at a cost just short of £200m. 

He reckons there's no get-out clause in the contracts under these circumstances, which is understandable as when they were signed no one would ever had suspected something like this happening.

So, News Int' will have to continue to pay for the NOTW printing slots for many years to come, which is another reason why we can expect a 'Sun on Sunday' to appear very soon, I still suspect on Sunday week.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> And here's the happy, smiling and not at all psychotically pissed off and worried about her future Rebekah Brooks herself as she left her workplace:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She looks scared to me.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Kanda said:


> She looks scared to me.



It's beautiful, isn't it?

* her looking scared.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Again, what could possibly exist now, that is any use to a prosecution, that hasn't seen a shredder already?


 
surely the building should be seized by the Police as part of their investigation.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 8, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> It's beautiful, isn't it?
> 
> * her looking scared.


 
Like Hitler looked scared in his bunker. Pick up the revolver, Rebekah. The lefties are coming.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

oh and closing the paper down, wouldn't it have made more financial sense to sell it - it was a profitable concern. Is a company that simply closes a profitable concern, fit and proper to run a larger one?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> oh and closing the paper down, wouldn't it have made more financial sense to sell it - it was a profitable concern. Is a company that simply closes a profitable concern, fit and proper to run a larger one?


 
Sell it to who though and at what price? Buyer would get a tarnished brand, a big payroll, disillusioned advertisers, decreasing readership, contractual supplier obligations, office rent/costs and a fuckload of shredded paper to dispose of.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Sell it to who though and at what price? Buyer would get a tarnished brand, a big payroll, disillusioned advertisers, decreasing readership, contractual supplier obligations, office rent/costs and a fuckload of shredded paper to dispose of.


 
they'd get it fairly cheap though, the relaunch - The New News of the World


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 8, 2011)

editor said:


> Evil, wriggling scum:


 
Thought something like this must be the reason for shutting it down.


----------



## pk (Jul 8, 2011)

Ae589 said:


> If that's true, I hope the sacked staff do the intelligent thing and remove some of that documentation themselves.


 
I'd have thought at least one has kept records as diligently as Mulcaire did.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

editor said:


> Evil, wriggling scum:


 
This reading of the legal situation was challenged very forcefully by a whole range of other legal experts last night and this morning.


----------



## pk (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This reading of the legal situation was challenged very forcefully by a whole range of other legal experts last night and this morning.


 
Still wouldn't put it past him. Easier to have shredders working overtime with no staff in the building.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 8, 2011)

A woman interviewed on the BBC said that this is a massive story in the US

It's easy to read the closing down of the NofW as a cynical ploy but it's still a massive defeat for Murdoch in the UK


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 8, 2011)

On a new zealand blog I look at, it says that the Sun and Times were being given away free on the tube yesterday and people were refusing them. Is that true?


----------



## pk (Jul 8, 2011)

gavman said:


> this is brilliant fun




This bears re-posting...


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> On a new zealand blog I look at, it says that the Sun and Times were being given away free on the tube yesterday and people were refusing them. Is that true?


 
Dunno but if they were I would guess that _some_ people were refusing them. Those people with open fires were taking them


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

Was unfortunate enough to see a copy of the Scum on the bus this morning (kicked it to the floor), and saw the front page - a full-page cryfest over the demise of the News Of The Screws.   Wonder if the editorial said something like, "If it's wasn't for the Reds kicking up a fuss, the NOTW would still be alive and kicking. Are you happy now, you Red scum?"

e2a:  I didn't "keep" a copy, I saw it.  Get a typing grip, Melly!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

In terms of what was behind the decision to shut the thing down, Paul Mason reckons that people are concentrating on the wrong thing right now -the important thing is not that the Sun may well go to 7 days a week, but that Murdoch has effectively _just done wapping part#2_ - as he puts it, this "fits entirely with business logic of NWS longterm - this is digital first on brutal timescale".


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

yeah, i don't buy that it's being done to protect anyone - it doesn't make any sense, as it doesn't protect anyone to any serious degree.

i was wondering if he's just done the maths - worked out how much of a loss a protracted advertiser boycott would result in, and decided it wasn't worth it for a title which will no longer bring him any influence? then just brought forward something that was on the cards anyway...


----------



## pk (Jul 8, 2011)

Sun and Times next to go, the BSkyB deal is all but finished, with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks hopefully facing arrest the future doesn't look rosy for the UK arm of NI, and if The Scum are up in arms about the closure of NOTW they know who to blame and it isn't "the reds". I smell dissent in the ranks, allowing a chance to divide & conquer.

My only real concern is what he might do to sabotage the football industry out of spite.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> How many workers hack the phones of murdered children and terrorist victims for their own ends?
> 
> Jesus, do I have to draw you a diagram on this one?


 
Yes please.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Yes please.



Damn, I knew someone would ask that.

Can I get back to you over the w/end, when my, er, "skills" on MS Paint will be put to the fore?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 8, 2011)

So the fight needs to be continued to the Sun.

I entirely assume it's been discussed somewhere that the NotW could one day be re-launched when all former misgivings have been forgotten in the public memory, amogst a fanfare of 'clean slate', ' World's oldest/greatset/most popular paper' etc - if you ignore the Hacking, it's an easy sell to the public!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

pk said:


> My only real concern is what he might do to sabotage the football industry out of spite.


 
What would be a worst case scenario here? I kinda of get this too but football is becoming a debt bubble waiting to happen anyway.


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

Met to close on Sunday



> This Sunday will be the last working day of the Metropolitan Police.
> 
> Colon Miler will walk the final beat of the farce.
> 
> ...



http://ox4.org/~graham/met.now.htm


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

that's pretty laboured tbf.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> oh and closing the paper down, wouldn't it have made more financial sense to sell it - it was a profitable concern. Is a company that simply closes a profitable concern, fit and proper to run a larger one?



Selling it would have made no financial sense whatsoever, it would have been major competition to the new 'Sun on Sunday'.

Murdoch has just used this as an excuse to move forward the plans to combine the operation of the two titles fully, getting shot of staff that would have gone anyway. The only different is going to be the title of the Sunday edition, everything else was already planned.,


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 8, 2011)

pk said:


> My only real concern is what he might do to sabotage the football industry out of spite.



And send it back to the 'dark ages' of salarys below 20k? Grounds cleared of prawn sandwich brigade as it become less attractive? Foreign investors fucking off? Yes please!


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Sell it to who though and at what price? Buyer would get a tarnished brand, a big payroll, disillusioned advertisers, decreasing readership, contractual supplier obligations, office rent/costs and a fuckload of shredded paper to dispose of.


 
Meh. Selling it would be a piece of piss.

Rebrand it as the UK version of the National Enquirer.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In terms of what was behind the decision to shut the thing down, Paul Mason reckons that people are concentrating on the wrong thing right now -the important thing is not that the Sun may well go to 7 days a week, but that Murdoch has effectively _just done wapping part#2_ - as he puts it, this "fits entirely with business logic of NWS longterm - this is digital first on brutal timescale".



Wapping was a carefully planned operation by Murdoch - this isn't

Big stories like this have a habit of developing a momentum of their own and Murdoch has a lot of enemies in a lot of different countries and lot of skeletons in the cupboard to come out


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> And send it back to the 'dark ages' of salarys below 20k? Grounds cleared of prawn sandwich brigade as it become less attractive? Foreign investors fucking off? Yes please!


 
Jumpers for goalposts, eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Wapping was a carefully planned operation by Murdoch - this isn't


 
What difference does it make if it was carefully planned beforehand or not? What difference does it make if it was an opportunistic leap? I can't see how that's relevant frankly. And there _has_ been plenty of evidence that the 'digital-first' move has been carefully planned for some time anyway - in fact he's been at it for the last few years, here and overseas.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 8, 2011)

It makes all the difference - at Wapping Murdoch was on the attack, now he is on the defensive and despite making a tactical retreat matters are spiralling out of control for him


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

Dunno - there's obviously some a lot a cynical calcualtions going on  but it still looks like desperation and panic to me. 
The best thing to do would have been to sack Brooks immediately and don sack cloth and ashes and beg for forgiveness - they would still have been damaged but this looks like panic and will not serve to take the heat off NI. Some people are going - wow, ruthless, cynical, bold, dark genuis, typical rupert - but this was a panic decisiosn forced on him by events.

Losing the NOTW is a severe blow to Murdochs prestige, image, ego and consequnetly his power. Its not about the money it generates - which is small beer compared to the TV stuff - but the power the weekly scandal sheet gave him over public figures and politicians. The new sunday paper will be hobbled - it will be will have to win trust and have to be on its best behaviour, as will the Sun.  

Enquries and court cases will stretch into the  coming months and years with who knows what further dirt to be uncovered, the BSkyB bid will probably be put on ice, his close links and malign hold over polticians is centrestage in the public minds  and murdochs many enemies are scenting blood. People who were too scared to say boo to him are now having a pop (Milliband and the labour party are enjoying major catharisis over this). Long ignored, longtime critics are having their day in the sun. Cameron is under intense pressure to put distance between himself and Suddenly Toxic Rupe. 

I think he is fucked. Im sticking my neck out, it may be wishful thinking but thats how i read it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

Do you have a link to the mason article BA?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> It makes all the difference - at Wapping Murdoch was on the attack, now he is on the defensive and despite making a tactical retreat matters are spiralling out of control for him


 
_How_ does that make a difference to what appear to be long planned moves to 'digital first' though?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

oh never mind, i found it


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Do you have a link to the mason article BA?


 
Wasn't an article, was a series of thoughts on this - i'll post them up here:

 1) nobody getting scale of consumer tsunami that hit corporates, which forced advertiser exodus= peoplepower

2)twitter/facebook nexus took down #notw and is threat to bskyb deal

3) closing #notw fits entirely with business logic of NWS longterm - this is digital first on brutal timescale

4) too much sentiment over #notw - like mubarak its 2.9m subjects tolerated it but cd not remember why. Even c2de classes read it with irony

5) can't find 

6) Corp governance issues in USA for Newscorp 

7) The public and consumer reax to other NI titles and media products...


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 8, 2011)

Where is the evidence that this is "long planned" - there's just speculation.

Your argument is that he is fully in control and will emerge stronger on a new broadcasting medium as if that is _fait accompli_. 

Of course, that is one outcome, but it is not the only one


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Dunno - there's obviously some a lot a cynical calcualtions going on  but it still looks like desperation and panic to me.
> The best thing to do would have been to sack Brooks immediately and don sack cloth and ashes and beg for forgiveness - they would still have been damaged but this looks like panic and will not serve to take the heat off NI. Some people are going - wow, ruthless, cynical, bold, dark genuis, typical rupert - but this was a panic decisiosn forced on him by events.
> 
> Losing the NOTW is a severe blow to Murdochs prestige, image, ego and consequnetly his power. Its not about the money it generates - which is small beer compared to the TV stuff - but the power the weekly scandal sheet gave him over public figures and politicians. The new sunday paper will be hobbled - it will be will have to win trust and have to be on its best behaviour, as will the Sun.
> ...


 
Excellent summation, I reckon. However, how he handles this will define how fucked he is. No matter what certain people might be saying publicly you can bet your apron that they are saying completely different things in secured phonecalls to each other.

The material difference is not that Murdoch is just going to move to phase 2 of his plan early... but that he can no longer be a voice for governmental influence. His usefulness has waned.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

dave the rave is really struggling badly in the press conference this morning, he looks as uncomfortable as i've ever seen him look


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 8, 2011)

Murdoch isn t fucked Im afraid, he too wily an old bastard for that

Brooks and Coulson will take the rap, but will never have to work again because of their sacrifice for NI 

He will dump his UK printed media - I can see the DMG taking the Sunday Times as the first step. He will clear the decks to ensure his delayed BSB takeover will go through

He done well out of Paper, but there no mileage in it any longer - revenues are thin, advertising is not what it used to be. Printed media ( for NI in the UK anyway ) has had its day. Its peaked.

He still controls enough of the other global media to have an impact on the UK anyway. 

Disco Dave will be let off the hook as MUrdoch graciously leaves the UK newspaper scene and everyone thinks the British sense of fair play truimphed in the end. Except it hasnt


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

ah ok, didn't see all of those. cheers ...

the bit about people reading it with irony is certianly true. At work (i worked in a warehouse till recently) people used to bring the sun/notw in and laugh at the "bizarre" stories etc. I dont think many people, if any, took it at all seriously


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Where is the evidence that this is "long planned" - there's just speculation.
> 
> Your argument is that he is fully in control and will emerge stronger on a new broadcasting medium as if that is _fait accompli_.
> 
> Of course, that is one outcome, but it is not the only one


 
He is absolutely not in control. But has the means to turn this round. We'll get to see how good/bad he really is.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Where is the evidence that this is "long planned" - there's just speculation.
> 
> Your argument is that he is fully in control and will emerge stronger on a new broadcasting medium as if that is _fait accompli_.
> 
> Of course, that is one outcome, but it is not the only one



That's not my argument at all!! Where the hell did you get that from? I've said nothing like that at all. My argument is that within the shitstorm he's attempted to use the situation to further his own ends? Is that really such a far fetched thing for someone like him to do? Or entirely in character?

As for long term planning to move to digital-first, he set up a digital paper earlier this year, he's moved the times onto a different digital subscription model and he's been tinkering around with this for ages.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> ah ok, didn't see all of those. cheers ...
> 
> the bit about people reading it with irony is certianly true. At work (i worked in a warehouse till recently) people used to bring the sun/notw in and laugh at the "bizarre" stories etc.* I dont think many people, if any, took it at all seriously*


 
I've never bought that line. People don't read newspapers as if they were fiction - they believe the stories they read. I've yet to meet someone who reads the Sun every day and is not ignorant about politics in general.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

not-bono-ever said:


> Murdoch isn t fucked Im afraid, he too wily an old bastard for that
> 
> Brooks and Coulson will take the rap, but will never have to work again because of their sacrifice for NI
> 
> ...


 
But that leaves his power over british politics _severely_ diminsihed and leaves him vunerble to having his whole media operations cloesley looked at in terms of competition law (and quite possibly other things like tax evasion and and who knows what other dirt) and wether he is a 'fit and proper person'. 

Other media orgs will be looking to fuck him as well.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Where is the evidence that this is "long planned" - there's just speculation.



They announced over a week ago they planned to move towards '7-day publishing', both for The Sun/NOTW and The Times/Sunday Times, they wouldn't make such an announcement if they hadn't been planning it for some time.  

ETA: As I posted yesterday with The Sun/NOTW they had two strong brands that were not in direct competition, one went bad, the logical thing to do is axed that brand and expand the other to fill the void.



Kizmet said:


> The material difference is not that Murdoch is just going to move to phase 2 of his plan early... but that he can no longer be a voice for governmental influence. His usefulness has waned.



Indeed.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Most people read papers to have their (existing) views validated. It's the entire MO of the Mail and most other publications - most really don't buy them to be *informed* because they believe they already are.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> dave the rave is really struggling badly in the press conference this morning, he looks as uncomfortable as i've ever seen him look


 
He is going to get let off the hook though isn't he? 
There will be a shitstorm all over but it would take a LOT to get him even to apologise I think. 



> A judge will lead a public inquiry into the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World, the prime minister said.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've never bought that line. People don't read newspapers as if they were fiction - they believe the stories they read. I've yet to meet someone who reads the Sun every day and is not ignorant about politics in general.


 
I'm just going by what i saw when i was at work, we all used to sit around laughing at Dear Didrie, the bizarre stories etc ...


----------



## AverageJoe (Jul 8, 2011)

And....they're back in the room.....www.SunDay.co.uk


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Most people read papers to have their (existing) views validated.


 
They do, but it's a dialectical relationship - their (our - I'll include myself in this) existing views are validated but also shaped by what they read. How could they not be?


----------



## Belushi (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I'm just going by what i saw when i was at work, we all used to sit around laughing at Dear Didrie, the bizarre stories etc ...


 
Believe it or not I used to know Deirdre. All those stories are actually true, she gets hundreds of letters each week.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

Cameron still not calling for Brooks to go! 

Hes struggling with this - and clearly running to catch up with Milliband in terms of polticians sucking up to media barons.


----------



## past caring (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've never bought that line. People don't read newspapers as if they were fiction - they believe the stories they read. I've yet to meet someone who reads the Sun every day and is not ignorant about politics in general.



_I've_ yet to meet someone who reads the Guardian every day who is not one supercilious snobbish cunt.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

From Guardian blog -

 "BSkyB shares went into freefall as Cameron was speaking... down 15.5p at 796.5p, or 1.9%, my colleague Julia Kollewe tells me."


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

Badgers said:


> He is going to get let off the hook though isn't he?
> There will be a shitstorm all over but it would take a LOT to get him even to apologise I think.


he kept repeating that he'd tried to give coulson a "second chance" but external circumstances meant that this wasn't a success - when someone asked him surely he'd asked coulson as to the possibility of any veracity to the accusations, he simply resorted back to this defence, which was feeble quite frankly.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

past caring said:


> _I've_ yet to meet someone who reads the Guardian every day who is not one supercilious snobbish cunt.


i read the guardian everyday


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

AverageJoe said:


> And....they're back in the room.....www.SunDay.co.uk



Good find!



> Domain name:
> sunday.co.uk
> 
> Registrant:
> ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

past caring said:


> _I've_ yet to meet someone who reads the Guardian every day who is not one supercilious snobbish cunt.


 
I assume you think it is snobbish to make a judgement about reading the Sun but not about reading the Guardian?

I think it's ridiculous to wish to condemn a paper and everything it stands for - which I would when it comes to the Sun - to despise the view of the world that it promotes, but then not to say anything about the people who lap it all up. People who read the Sun are not innocent lambs. They are complicit in the process by which that nasty shit is published.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I assume you think it is snobbish to make a judgement about reading the Sun but not about reading the Guardian?


 
I thought he was having a laugh at your catch all anecdata.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've never bought that line. People don't read newspapers as if they were fiction - they believe the stories they read. I've yet to meet someone who reads the Sun every day and is not ignorant about politics in general.


 
Comedy gold.


----------



## past caring (Jul 8, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i read the guardian everyday



You mean that the kind of generalisation lbj came out with might be a bit inaccurate?  (as well as being patronising guff)


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Believe it or not I used to know Deirdre. All those stories are actually true, she gets hundreds of letters each week.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.   Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

What if you read both?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

past caring said:


> _I've_ yet to meet someone who reads the Guardian every day who is not one supercilious snobbish cunt.


 
hang about, a bloke at work used to bring in a copy of it every day and he was lovely


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

Not mentioned much yet - Press Complaints Commission fucked as well. Made a laughing stock by events.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.   Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.




Shouldn't that be in quotes, with attribution?


----------



## dennisr (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.   Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.


 
Lizzie tries new humorous angle in an effort to attract attantion...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.   Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.


you forgot the daily star.......


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.   Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.


 
Old as the hills and severely miss-quoted. Well done.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 8, 2011)

...and it works


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Not mentioned much yet - Press Complaints Commission fucked as well. Made a laughing stock by events.


 
Yup, and a good thing too.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I assume you think it is snobbish to make a judgement about reading the Sun but not about reading the Guardian?
> 
> I think it's ridiculous to wish to condemn a paper and everything it stands for - which I would when it comes to the Sun - to despise the view of the world that it promotes, but then not to say anything about the people who lap it all up. People who read the Sun are not innocent lambs. They are complicit in the process by which that nasty shit is published.


 
you can say that about any product though 



> people who drink coca-cola are not innocent lambs. They are complicit in the process by which that nasty shit is produced.


----------



## Geri (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've never bought that line. People don't read newspapers as if they were fiction - they believe the stories they read. I've yet to meet someone who reads the Sun every day and is not ignorant about politics in general.


 
Maybe you should meet my ex husband then - he is an anarchist who was in Class War. He buys (bought - don't know if he still does) it for the football coverage.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

Not that much of a football fan, then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> you can say that about any product though


 
That's not really comparable. I'm not talking about the way its workers are treated. I'm talking about the stories it publishes, how it gets them and what they say.

There is nothing morally wrong about the taste of coca-cola.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Shouldn't that be in quotes, with attribution?


 
Well it's so obviously a quote from Yes Minister.  I didn't think it would be necessary!


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> you can say that about any product though


 
You can say that about almost anything.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Well it's so obviously a quote from Yes Minister.  I didn't think it would be necessary!


 Of course you didn't.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Old as the hills and severely miss-quoted. Well done.


 
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yes,_Minister


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

It's more a case of ElizabethofBork.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you forgot the daily star.......


 
plus The Independent, the 'i', and the Metro. 

Old crap, is old.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 8, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> When Luke destroyed the DeathStar there were independent contractors on it, it was still being built.
> 
> Shouldn't be working on the fucking DeathStar, should they.



thats what tim mcveigh said about cleaners working in the oklahoma building


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> plus The Independent, the 'i', and the Metro.
> 
> Old crap, is old.


 
It may be old. But it's by no means and no definitions 'crap'. Yes Minister had some brilliantly witty writing.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Well it's so obviously a quote from Yes Minister.  I didn't think it would be necessary!



I'm sure it was even around long before 'Yes Minister', I can remember it when I was at school. It gets tweaked from time to time to suit the current political climate.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> you can say that about any product though



At work, I helped build a promotional stack of Coca-Cola (Buy 2 get 2 Free offer) a while back.  _Obviously_, it was on a par with being a member of a South American death squad, hired on the sly by an anti-union, multi-national corporation. I can't remember exactly, but after it, I might have passed thirty minutes of cramming sandwiches and a coffee on my break, by also flicking through a copy of the Sun (might have been the Star though).  

(((littlebabyjesus)))

(((Mind control waves from News International Ltd)))


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 8, 2011)

BskyB shares starting to plummet! http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BSY.L

Apparently there was a 90% plus chance of the news corp deal getting approval. Now the probability is ment to be no higher than 50%!


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> hang about, a bloke at work used to bring in a copy of it every day and he was lovely


 
Hang on, you used to work with William of Walworth?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Odd how people jump to the defence of the readership of the Sun. It doesn't really happen when you're talking about the readership of the Daily Mail. But they both spout the same kind of hateful shite.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> At work, I helped build a promotional stack of Coca-Cola (Buy 2 get 2 Free offer) a while back.  _Obviously_, it was on a par with being a member of a South American death squad, hired on the sly by an anti-union, multi-national corporation. I can't remember exactly, but after it, I might have passed thirty minutes of cramming sandwiches and a coffee on my break, by also flicking through a copy of the Sun (might have been the Star though).
> 
> (((littlebabyjesus)))
> 
> (((Mind control waves from News International Ltd)))


 
that's terrible


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Hang on, you used to work with William of Walworth?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 8, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Where is the evidence that this is "long planned" - there's just speculation.


 


> The company had already announced plans to introduce more seven-day integration at its four titles, the News of the World, the Sun, Times and Sunday Times


From here


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Odd how people jump to the defence of the readership of the Sun. It doesn't really happen when you're talking about the readership of the Daily Mail. But they both spout the same kind of hateful shite.



I don't think it's quite the Sun itself that they're defending.


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Odd how people jump to the defence of the readership of the Sun. It doesn't really happen when you're talking about the readership of the Daily Mail. But they both spout the same kind of hateful shite.


 
i wouldn't slag off 'the readership' of either.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Odd how people jump to the defence of the readership of the Sun. It doesn't really happen when you're talking about the readership of the Daily Mail. But they both spout the same kind of hateful shite.


 
i'm not jumping to the defence of anything, i'm simply saying what my experiences have been, and fwiw people also used to bring the daily express and daily mail into work as well (the guy who used to buy it was actually a bit of a leftie! )


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

WWWeed said:


> BskyB shares starting to plummet! http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BSY.L
> 
> Apparently there was a 90% plus chance of the news corp deal getting approval. Now the probability is ment to be no higher than 50%!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Odd how people jump to the defence of the readership of the Sun. It doesn't really happen when you're talking about the readership of the Daily Mail. But they both spout the same kind of hateful shite.


 
Plenty of people laugh at the obsession some posters have with the scary mind control effects of the media - including both the Mail and the Sun.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

And i could be wrong butch but in this case isn't the trouble with the news of the world actually being driven, partially, by its own readers (ie not necessarily people who'd of boycotted it anyway, are now refusing to buy the paper)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> And i could be wrong butch but in this case isn't the trouble with the news of the world actually being driven, partially, by its own readers (ie not necessarily people who'd of boycotted it anyway, are now refusing to buy the paper)


 
I honestly don't know. And it'll be hard to tell now as the figures for the final one probably can't be taken as representative.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

"plummet!", as in under 2%?. Do calm down.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It may be old. But it's by no means and no definitions 'crap'. Yes Minister had some brilliantly witty writing.



I agree, but that wasn't original Yes Minister stuff.



Andrew Hertford said:


> I'm sure it was even around long before 'Yes Minister', I can remember it when I was at school. It gets tweaked from time to time to suit the current political climate.



It was, my old man told me that in the 70s, when I was still at school.


----------



## Geri (Jul 8, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Not that much of a football fan, then.


 
He's a Watford fan 

I think he may also have quite liked the topless ladies, judging by the stash of Jo Guest pictures I found on my computer once.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> "plummet!", as in under 2%?. Do calm down.


 
BskyB shares _starting_ to plummet

Give it time


----------



## Kanda (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> "plummet!", as in under 2%?. Do calm down.


 
4% in a couple of hours...  Overpriced anyway due to the takeover plans... 

Look at the YR chart.


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> "plummet!", as in under 2%?. Do calm down.



 

Fair enough maybe it was a bit over the top! 

However I did say _starting to_! 

I just want it to happen so bad!


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

I wouldn't mind, but they've just gone up again!

Lets see what it looks like on Monday...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Plenty of people laugh at the obsession some posters have with the scary mind control effects of the media - including both the Mail and the Sun.


 
Well if you read what I've written, I've said nothing about scary mind control effects. That's all come from others reading stuff into my posts that simply isn't there.


----------



## revlon (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Odd how people jump to the defence of the readership of the Sun. It doesn't really happen when you're talking about the readership of the Guardian. But they both spout the same kind of hateful shite.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 8, 2011)

Anybody started pressure on the advertisers of the Sun?


----------



## Kanda (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I wouldn't mind, but they've just gone up again!
> 
> Lets see what it looks like on Monday...



Better news linked charts at Google: http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=BSY.L&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=we


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Anyway, Coulson has finally been arrested.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> Anybody started pressure on the advertisers of the Sun?


 
Can't see that working TBH, sadly.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 8, 2011)

Boycott News International Facebook group


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Better news linked charts at Google: http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=BSY.L&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=we


 Well... Monday. In context, this is, of course, a company in which NI has  just a minority holding.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

LOL. From the sublime ...



DrRingDing said:


> Boycott News International Facebook group


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Did anyone just hear Cameron's news conference?  He was proper shifty, really on the rack, it was cringing to listen to.  The journo's kept asking him time and time again about his judgment on hiring Coulson and all he could say was 'we gave him another chance and he did a good job for us'.

One of the best things about Cameron is he's a terrible liar and everyone can spot it, pure car crash of a conference.  Fortunatly we have a strong opposition who will be all over this and not a useless berk who has also employed an ex NI hack who's hands are no doubt covered in the same shit.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Dunno - there's obviously some a lot a cynical calcualtions going on  but it still looks like desperation and panic to me.
> 
> Losing the NOTW is a severe blow to Murdochs prestige, image, ego and consequnetly his power. Its not about the money it generates - which is small beer compared to the TV stuff - but the power the weekly scandal sheet gave him over public figures and politicians. The new sunday paper will be hobbled - it will be will have to win trust and have to be on its best behaviour, as will the Sun.



this must have been discussed as an option many times, whatever most people may think they can now hold up the sacrifice over and over again - we closed the country's biggest newspaper, what more do you want?

which makes me think this is power play, look what i can do - anyone else want some

its a gamble for sure, but not sure panic's the right word


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

revlon said:


>


 
That's pretty much the equivalent of sasafferato when he would have a go at anyone attacking the Tories by saying that Labour were no good, as if attacking the Tories automatically meant you were supporting Labour's position.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 8, 2011)

Coulson has just been arrested. Any news on Brooks yet?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Well, unlike Coulson, Brooks didn't lie under oath. It'll take time... years.


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> "I was only obeying orders."
> 
> It's ridiculous to say that you should not search your conscience over what you do within the confines of the choices you have.
> 
> It's not a luxury. It is a responsibility that you either do or do not take upon yourself.


 
What? No. Did you miss the 'middle-class luxury' bit. Address it directly if you want to make such stupid claims. What sorts of workers have these choices, lbj?

I agree with you, if there are plenty of vacancies that suit your skills and plenty of work that pays well enough to live. But, that's not everyone is it? That's a very fucking small proportion of the population, isn't it? 

Middle-class lefties polishing their halos for doing what is easy and condemning less fortunate others for not doing what is impossible, as per fucking usual. Open your fucking eyes. Jesus.


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

sweaty dave said:
			
		

> He became a friend and he is a friend.


this seems an odd thing for cameron to say, considering he was saying it as coulson was being arrested. does he think people will be impressed by his loyalty?


----------



## Kanda (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Middle-class lefties polishing their halos for doing what is easy and condemning less fortunate others for not doing what is impossible, as per fucking usual. Open your fucking eyes. Jesus.


 
Well, this is Urban... what you expect??


----------



## trashpony (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Well, unlike Coulson, Brooks didn't lie under oath. It'll take time... years.


 
Yes, you're right. She has bloody lied through her teeth though, pity that it wasn't under oath


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> What? No. Did you miss the 'middle-class luxury' bit. Address it directly if you want to make such stupid claims. What sorts of workers have these choices, lbj?
> 
> I agree with you, if there are plenty of vacancies that suit your skills and plenty of work that pays well enough to live. But, that's not everyone is it? That's a very fucking small proportion of the population, isn't it?
> 
> Middle-class lefties polishing their halos for doing what is easy and condemning less fortunate others for not doing what is impossible, as per fucking usual. Open your fucking eyes. Jesus.


 
*applause*


----------



## Santino (Jul 8, 2011)

She is on record as knowing that they were paying police for information. She can't claim ignorance, at least.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

killer b said:


> this seems an odd thing for cameron to say, considering he was saying it as coulson was being arrested. does he think people will be impressed by his loyalty?


 
Would it be better if he lied about his friendship?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

As a casual student of drama, what I love about this  is it's so much better than (even) the denouement in, say, State of Play - the final sequences of political dramas when handcuffs come out and  the corrupt are caught in the flash of photo-journalists, being driven away in the back seat of police cars, looking doomed.


Real life is just so much better when it kicks off.....


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> She is on record as knowing that they were paying police for information. She can't claim ignorance, at least.


... and nothing was done!

"Yes, we broke the law by bribing officers of the Met". And nothing....


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

Oh, and it's blindingly obvious that Elizabeth of York is not a troll, s/he's an astro-turfer - paid or unpaid, s/he's not here to chat shit or provoke people, s/he's here to push a party line. It's very, very obvious from the inconsistencies in views between threads.

I think s/he's useful to bring out arguments and evidence that would normally be taken as read, but there's really no point to mindless abuse, it just makes the counter-argument look as weak and pathetic as the propaganda line. IMO, obv.

S/he's a very useful idiot, so make best possible use of her/him, yeah?


----------



## Santino (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> ... and nothing was done!
> 
> "Yes, we broke the law by bribing offiers of the Met". And nothing....


 
It's happening now. 

This is plot development on a scale and pace unseen since The Wire.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Those end-of-season montage's... We need a bit of Steve Earle at this point...


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.   Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.


 
Yes Minister

(and very naughty of you not to attribute it to its source. Plagiarism isn't big or clever)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> What? No. Did you miss the 'middle-class luxury' bit. Address it directly if you want to make such stupid claims. What sorts of workers have these choices, lbj?
> 
> I agree with you, if there are plenty of vacancies that suit your skills and plenty of work that pays well enough to live. But, that's not everyone is it? That's a very fucking small proportion of the population, isn't it?
> 
> Middle-class lefties polishing their halos for doing what is easy and condemning less fortunate others for not doing what is impossible, as per fucking usual. Open your fucking eyes. Jesus.


 
Perhaps you'd like to read my subsequent posts before jumping in. I'll tell you what sort of workers have choices - journalists who work for national tabloids. They haven't fallen into those positions as a result of a referral from the job centre. They have worked to get there. They have chosen getting there as their career choice. 

Someone else not reading my posts properly.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> What? No. Did you miss the 'middle-class luxury' bit. Address it directly if you want to make such stupid claims. What sorts of workers have these choices, lbj?
> 
> I agree with you, if there are plenty of vacancies that suit your skills and plenty of work that pays well enough to live. But, that's not everyone is it? That's a very fucking small proportion of the population, isn't it?
> 
> Middle-class lefties polishing their halos for doing what is easy and condemning less fortunate others for not doing what is impossible, as per fucking usual. Open your fucking eyes. Jesus.


 
Woah, ymu!

I never knew you had it in you!


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

how much do the NOTW subeditors get paid? anyone know?


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Would it be better if he lied about his friendship?


 
It would be better if he admitted a gross error of judgement and resigned before going home to a waiting bottle of whiskey and a revolver. That, I would respect.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> how much do the NOTW subeditors get paid? anyone know?


 
Senior ones, a lot - 50 grand plus. More junior ones, perhaps 30–40 grand.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> how much do the NOTW subeditors get paid? anyone know?


 
Varies depending on experience and length of service. 50k plus, though.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

i thought it'd be a lot, and i wasn't convinced by the "middle class lefties" bit of ymu's post in this context, i do have to say ... they must employ a lot more staff tho than just sub-editors etc tho ... and they'll also have freelancers, contractors etc i guess ... still sucks for the people losing their jobs though if they haven't done anything wrong - but i'm just not convinced that all of them are low paid and have no choices other than work there ... 

obviously though, it's still completely out of order (and looks a bit mental!) that he's closed the paper in this manner ... and i do agree that the people who've lost their jobs will prob have some difficulty finding work in the forseeable future...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> i thought it'd be a lot, and i wasn't convinced by the "middle class lefties" bit of ymu's post in this context, i do have to say ... they must employ a lot more staff tho than just sub-editors etc tho ... and they'll also have freelancers, contractors etc i guess ...



....and coppers.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Of course they do, they'd have fuck all to edit otherwise... 

Web teams, IT, HR, most companies have the same support depts.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Oh, and it's blindingly obvious that Elizabeth of York is not a troll, s/he's an astro-turfer - paid or unpaid, s/he's not here to chat shit or provoke people, s/he's here to push a party line. It's very, very obvious from the inconsistencies in views between threads.
> 
> I think s/he's useful to bring out arguments and evidence that would normally be taken as read, but there's really no point to mindless abuse, it just makes the counter-argument look as weak and pathetic as the propaganda line. IMO, obv.
> 
> S/he's a very useful idiot, so make best possible use of her/him, yeah?


 
Oh piss off.  What inconsistencies?  What "party line"?  Just because I don't have black & white views about the world doesn't mean I'm an astro-turfer, whatever the hell that means.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

fake grass.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yes Minister
> 
> (and very naughty of you not to attribute it to its source. Plagiarism isn't big or clever)



It's actually older than that (and sorry I can't attribute a source, except that I'm very old and can remember it.)


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yes Minister
> 
> (and very naughty of you not to attribute it to its source. Plagiarism isn't big or clever)


 
I've already said it was from Yes Minister.  Not reading properly isn't big or clever.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

I'd agreee with the "S/he" bit.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Oh, and it's blindingly obvious that Elizabeth of York is not a troll, s/he's an astro-turfer - paid or unpaid, s/he's not here to chat shit or provoke people, s/he's here to push a party line. It's very, very obvious from the inconsistencies in views between threads.
> 
> I think s/he's useful to bring out arguments and evidence that would normally be taken as read, but there's really no point to mindless abuse, it just makes the counter-argument look as weak and pathetic as the propaganda line. IMO, obv.
> 
> S/he's a very useful idiot, so make best possible use of her/him, yeah?


 
The alternative - and rather more charitable! - explanation is that she hasn't thought any of this through and genuinely doesn't see the inconsistencies in what she's posting.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> i thought it'd be a lot, and i wasn't convinced by the "middle class lefties" bit of ymu's post in this context, i do have to say ... they must employ a lot more staff tho than just sub-editors etc tho ... and they'll also have freelancers, contractors etc i guess ... still sucks for the people losing their jobs though if they haven't done anything wrong - but i'm just not convinced that all of them are low paid and have no choices other than work there ...
> 
> obviously though, it's still completely out of order (and looks a bit mental!) that he's closed the paper in this manner ...


 
if you want to work in newspapers there aren't that many options and Murdoch was a big employer for people trying to break into the industry.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> The alternative - and rather more charitable! - explanation is that she hasn't thought any of this through and genuinely doesn't see the inconsistencies in what she's posting.


 
You're just too nice for your own good.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 8, 2011)

Just seen this on the guardian's website and thought it was of interest

"A group of Times journalists are planning to try to get recognition for the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) at their workplace in the wake of the sudden axing of the News of the World, the Guardian has learned. The NUJ has long been denied recognition at News International titles where journalists are instead directed to join the News International Staff Association (Nisa)."


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> if you want to work in newspapers there aren't that many options and Murdoch was a big employer for people trying to break into the industry.


 
ahhh ok, i wasn't trying to justify it or argue that they were all right etc ... and yep it is pretty hard to get into newspapers ... and i don't blame them for trying to fight it, at all ...


----------



## Santino (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I don't have black & white views about the world


 
Ok so


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Just seen this on the guardian's website and thought it was of interest
> 
> "A group of Times journalists are planning to try to get recognition for the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) at their workplace in the wake of the sudden axing of the News of the World, the Guardian has learned. The NUJ has long been denied recognition at News International titles where journalists are instead directed to join the News International Staff Association (Nisa)."


 
Good luck to them.


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 8, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> ....and coppers.


 
Which reminds me that what the big time drug dealers say is true.

Everyone has their price. You cant bribe a British copper with hundreds or even thousands of pounds. But when you start talking hundreds of thousands or even millions its a different story.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> ahhh ok, i wasn't trying to justify it or argue that they were all right etc ... and yep it is pretty hard to get into newspapers ... and i don't blame them for trying to fight it, at all ...


 
I used to work as a freelance sub - for magazines mostly - but it's a pretty small world and I know freelancers who've taken the Murdoch pound. News Int pay comparatively well and a lot of journos and subs see getting a job there as a big deal - a success in their careers. But to say that such people have no choice but to take Murdoch's money and do his bidding is, imo, insulting to those who genuinely don't have a choice about where they work, such as lletsa in the early 80s.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Good luck to them.


 
Absolutely!


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> if you want to work in newspapers there aren't that many options and Murdoch was a big employer for people trying to break into the industry.


 
oh diddums. I had no choice but to work for a hateful propaganda sheet spewing out racist and anti working class bile for decades and now the cunt I happily worked for when he was fucking everyone else has fucked me too boo hoo. Should we have cried for the employees of Der Sturmer when they were closed down in 1945 too? FUCK EM.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I'd agreee with the "S/he" bit.


 
Boring.

Why don't you believe I'm female?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> What? No. Did you miss the 'middle-class luxury' bit. Address it directly if you want to make such stupid claims. What sorts of workers have these choices, lbj?
> 
> I agree with you, if there are plenty of vacancies that suit your skills and plenty of work that pays well enough to live. But, that's not everyone is it? That's a very fucking small proportion of the population, isn't it?
> 
> Middle-class lefties polishing their halos for doing what is easy and condemning less fortunate others for not doing what is impossible, as per fucking usual. Open your fucking eyes. Jesus.



Hurrah.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Would it be better if he lied about his friendship?


It would be better if he resigned immediately. A man capable of making such woeful judgements is clearly not fit to run the country.


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Just seen this on the guardian's website and thought it was of interest
> 
> "A group of Times journalists are planning to try to get recognition for the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) at their workplace in the wake of the sudden axing of the News of the World, the Guardian has learned. The NUJ has long been denied recognition at News International titles where journalists are instead directed to join the News International Staff Association (Nisa)."



Good luck to them but they are 25 years too late. They didn't care about trade unions when they stabbed 6000 of their fellow workers in the back in the move to Wapping


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I used to work as a freelance sub - for magazines mostly - but it's a pretty small world and I know freelancers who've taken the Murdoch pound. News Int pay comparatively well and a lot of journos and subs see getting a job there as a big deal - a success in their careers. But to say that such people have no choice but to take Murdoch's money and do his bidding is, imo, insulting to those who genuinely don't have a choice about where they work, such as lletsa in the early 80s.


 
yep, its absolutely not the same, but to be fair tho ,it is *really* hard to get into unless you know the right people and have the right contacts etc so some people would probably jump at the chance ... same with the publishing industry / harpercollins etc 

it's really hard to get into the newspaper industry these days unless (in many cases) you're prepared to work for free, or alternatively to do work like that at the news of the world etc 

and im sure they employ other people, just not necessarily on the journalistic side of things, too (like their complaints dept lol) 

besides, rupert murdoch owns LOADS of companies, not just the media


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Boring.
> 
> Why don't you believe I'm female?


 
Lots of other female posters have had this when they were new, this place is weird for it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> yep, but to be fair tho ,it is *really* hard to get into unless you know the right people and have the right contacts etc so some people would probably jump at the chance ... same with the publishing industry / harpercollins etc
> 
> besides, rupert murdoch owns LOADS of companies, not just the media


 
Yes. I don't have a problem at all with people working for a company owned by Murdoch. It's not their fault that the cunt has taken over so much of the media. Where I do have a problem is if they are actively involved in the production of hateful newspaper articles. At that point, they really have to take responsibility for what they are doing.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> Good luck to them but they are 25 years too late. They didn't care about trade unions when they stabbed 6000 of their fellow workers in the back in the move to Wapping


'scuse the ignorance, but what is this Wapping thing that keeps getting referenced? Link will do


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Lots of other female posters have had this when they were new, this place is weird for it.


 
It's bloody bizarre.  I've had four or five people now disbelieving that I'm a woman.  It would be really interesting to know how they come to this "conclusion".


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But to say that such people have no choice but to take Murdoch's money and do his bidding is, imo, insulting to those who genuinely don't have a choice about where they work, such as lletsa in the early 80s.


 
And that's genuinely insulting to people who couldn't find work at all....

We could play this bullshit game forever. People are people whether they're your mates or you agree with them or not.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> 'scuse the ignorance, but what is this Wapping thing that keeps getting referenced? Link will do


you are joking aren't you? you are aware of the invention called google?

just to be on the safe side though, wapping dispute


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Boring.
> 
> Why don't you believe I'm female?


 Women troll less - at least *women* who are women troll less. The presumption towards a female is, therefore, more generous. Plus, most on here don't have gender specific usernames. You might if you were a troll though.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It's bloody bizarre.  I've had four or five people now disbelieving that I'm a woman.  It would be really interesting to know how they come to this "conclusion".


 
Just post pics of your tits and get it over with.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> 'scuse the ignorance, but what is this Wapping thing that keeps getting referenced? Link will do


 
Or you could just Google it..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wapping_dispute


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Women troll less.


REALLY?



> The presumption towards a female is, therefore, more generous. Plus, most on here don't have gender specific usernames.


 Quite a few do tho.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> And that's genuinely insulting to people who couldn't find work at all....


 
That's bullshit, though. If you are a journalist at the News of the World, you've planned a career to get there, and you can, imo, be held responsible for the bile you produce.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you are joking aren't you? you are aware of the invention called google?
> 
> just to be on the safe side though, wapping dispute


Sorry, thought "wapping news international" would just bring up links to their HQ. Apparently not 

As you were.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Just post pics of your tits and get it over with.




posting on teh nekkid thread should be a requirement of signing-up imo


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 8, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Just post pics of your tits and get it over with.



^^^this^^^

...and make them proper 'Elizabethan '


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Women troll less - at least *women* who are women troll less. The presumption towards a female is, therefore, more generous. Plus, most on here don't have gender specific usernames. You might if you were a troll though.


 
I'm not trolling.  This is getting really tedious.  Just because I don't go along with the mainstream views here, it doesn't make me a troll.


----------



## belboid (Jul 8, 2011)

the 'they're all scum who print the sub' argument was used against printworkers in 85, and it was bullshit then. And it wasn't the NUJ who scabbed on the strike (the some members did) it was the EETPU.  Saying 'fuck them' now is no better than cheering when the Notts pits were shut after 91. That kinda bollocks is all part of a vicious circle of a failure of solidarity that only leads every worker into worse shit.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Or you could just Google it..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wapping_dispute


Yes, yes, Lord Cam is lazy, I just thought it was something I'd need to know more specific terms than "Wapping" and "News International".


----------



## Santino (Jul 8, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Lots of other female posters have had this when they were new, this place is weird for it.


 
Fool me twenty-four times, shame on you. Fool me twenty-five times...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 8, 2011)

The inevitable untergang spoof.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. I don't have a problem at all with people working for a company owned by Murdoch. It's not their fault that the cunt has taken over so much of the media. Where I do have a problem is if they are actively involved in the production of hateful newspaper articles. At that point, they really have to take responsibility for what they are doing.


 
What defines being "actively involved" tho? at my last job i worked for a very very well known and prestigious univeristy which is derided on here (rightly) for reproducing class privilege, among other things. it is one of the largest, if not the largest, employer in the area i was working in. my job was a completely menial job, but it was obviously assisting one of the objectives of the university and helping it to continue ,otherwise they wouldn't have employed me.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm not trolling.  This is getting really tedious.  Just because I don't go along with the mainstream views here, it doesn't make me a troll.


 Understood, Brian.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

belboid said:


> the 'they're all scum who print the sub' argument was used against printworkers in 85, and it was bullshit then. And it wasn't the NUJ who scabbed on the strike (the some members did) it was the EETPU.  Saying 'fuck them' now is no better than cheering when the Notts pits were shut after 91. That kinda bollocks is all part of a vicious circle of a failure of solidarity that only leads every worker into worse shit.


 
good post


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> 'scuse the ignorance, but what is this Wapping thing that keeps getting referenced? Link will do


 
When Murdoch moved from Fleet street to Wapping in 1986 he provoked a strike and sacked his entire workforce of 6000 (mainly SOGAT and NGA members)  and staffed his Wapping operation with secretly trained scab labour. His papers never missed a single day of publication. The working conditions of NI workers in Wapping today are a direct result of his union busting.
http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2011/03/03/wapping-dispute-1986/


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> REALLY?


 In politics? For sho.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> oh diddums. I had no choice but to work for a hateful propaganda sheet spewing out racist and anti working class bile for decades and now the cunt I happily worked for when he was fucking everyone else has fucked me too boo hoo. Should we have cried for the employees of Der Sturmer when they were closed down in 1945 too? FUCK EM.



Yeah. I'm sure the cleaning staff were very anti-working class...

... your attitude would have gone down a storm with the that publication.


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Yeah. I'm sure the cleaning staff were very anti-working class...
> 
> ... your attitude would have gone down a storm with the that publication.


 
Yeah i feel sorry for the cleaners at Der Sturmer too


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> What defines being "actively involved" tho?


 
In this particular case, if you are on the editorial/journalist staff and you are involved in producing the hateful articles. It's ridiculous to say that journalists should not be held responsible for what they write because they have no choice but to comply with their paper's wishes. Of all people, journalists have to be accountable for what they do. If you work for a national tabloid like the NOTW, you know exactly what you're signing up for - and more than that, you've probably worked hard to get there.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yeah i feel sorry for the cleaners at Der Sturmer too


 
I think it's fairly clear you are pretty selective over who you feel sorry for.

I'm sure you think that's a quality.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yeah i feel sorry for the cleaners at Der Sturmer too



Come off it!


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 8, 2011)

belboid said:


> the 'they're all scum who print the sub' argument was used against printworkers in 85, and it was bullshit then. And it wasn't the NUJ who scabbed on the strike (the some members did) it was the EETPU.  Saying 'fuck them' now is no better than cheering when the Notts pits were shut after 91. That kinda bollocks is all part of a vicious circle of a failure of solidarity that only leads every worker into worse shit.


I don't think they're all scum or that they deserve it but I do have to say my sympathy is somewhat limited.  If you want solidarity you have to give solidarity too.




			
				NotW about the strikes last week said:
			
		

> And the reality is that strikes will drain the work that is our lifeblood, not to mention the iniquity of targeting innocent children to make a political point.


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

belboid said:


> the 'they're all scum who print the sub' argument was used against printworkers in 85, and it was bullshit then. And it wasn't the NUJ who scabbed on the strike (the some members did) it was the EETPU.  Saying 'fuck them' now is no better than cheering when the Notts pits were shut after 91. That kinda bollocks is all part of a vicious circle of a failure of solidarity that only leads every worker into worse shit.


 
I think there is some poetic justice in the Notts pits getting shut down yeah, Nottingham scabbing was one of the key reasons for the failure of the strike and they soon learned the price of their loyalty to Thatcher. The failure of solidarity isn't in not caring about the Nottingham pit closures, it is in the mass scabbing that betrayed the strike and ultimately themselves, Tough shit, I don't cry for scabs


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yeah i feel sorry for the cleaners at Der Sturmer too


 
LOL. *Godwin's law alert*


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> When Murdoch moved from Fleet street to Wapping in 1986 he provoked a strike and sacked his entire workforce of 6000 (mainly SOGAT and NGA members)  and staffed his Wapping operation with secretly trained scab labour. His papers never missed a single day of publication. The working conditions of NI workers in Wapping today are a direct result of his union busting.
> http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2011/03/03/wapping-dispute-1986/


Cheers


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> LOL. *Godwin's law alert*


----------



## cantsin (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It's bloody bizarre.  I've had four or five people now disbelieving that I'm a woman.  It would be really interesting to know how they come to this "conclusion".



who cares who / what you are, just another not-very-bright/dull troll;, regardless of gender.


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I think it's fairly clear you are pretty selective over who you feel sorry for.
> 
> I'm sure you think that's a quality.


 
There are lots of causes that elicit my sympathy. The fate of the hacks who have built their careers attacking the poorest most vulnerable people in our country in the most hateful terms for decades isn't one of them, sorry. I will save my tears for those who deserve them. I'm glad that filthy propaganda sheet has been brought down and if the jobs of a couple of hundred of their staff is the price then so be it. I hope they will soon be joined on the dole by their colleagues in the Sun


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't think they're all scum or that they deserve it but I do have to say my sympathy is somewhat limited.  If you want solidarity you have to give solidarity too.


 
that's also true and why i have sort of mixed feelings on this! i don't think they're all scum though


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yeah i feel sorry for the cleaners at Der Sturmer too


 
oh come on , i dont think its at all the same tbh


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> There are lots of causes that elicit my sympathy. The fate of the hacks who have built their careers attacking the poorest most vulnerable people in our country in the most hateful terms for decades isn't one of them, sorry. I will save my tears for those who deserve them


 
Like the people who weren't involved, but still lost their jobs?

Oh yeah, not them... they ain't on your 'side'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

It is good that horrible newspapers should close down. It is good that arms factories should close down. It is good that cigarette factories should close down. As a society, I would want those who lose their jobs in such circumstances to be given every help in getting another job where they are actually doing good, but it would be wrong of me to say that I wasn't pleased that they were no longer doing the jobs they were doing if my judgement is that those jobs were making the world a worse place. 

But my sympathy is limited towards those who were actively promoting the bad things that the particular workplace was doing, and had actively worked to get there as a career goal. I'll feel sorry for the worker on the factory floor assembling the bombs, but not for the people who go out and about selling them, or even for the engineers who innovate and invent new, more deadly bombs. These are people who have had choices in their lives, and who can be held to account for the particular choices they have made.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> that's also true and why i have sort of mixed feelings on this! i don't think they're all scum though


It's a bit like when non-union colleagues come  to me moaning about how they've been treated badly, I sympathise with them of course I do, but part of me does think - well where were you when we we taking industrial action to get a better deal for all staff.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is good that horrible newspapers should close down. It is good that arms factories should close down. It is good that cigarette factories should close down. As a society, I would want those who lose their jobs in such circumstances to be given every help in getting another job where they are actually doing good, but it would be wrong of me to say that I wasn't pleased that they were no longer doing the jobs they were doing if my judgement is that those jobs were making the world a worse place.


 
YOUR judgement?    Because you personally don't approve of a particular company or product, you'd throw people out of work.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> YOUR judgement?    Because you personally don't approve of a particular company or product, you'd throw people out of work.


 
I can't use anybody else's judgement.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> if you want to work in newspapers there aren't that many options and Murdoch was a big employer for people trying to break into the industry.


 
Which is rather like saying a pimp does wonders for female employment opportunities, IMHO.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> Which is rather like saying a pimp does wonders for female employment opportunities, IMHO.


 
Then your HO is BS.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is good that horrible newspapers should close down. It is good that arms factories should close down. It is good that cigarette factories should close down. As a society, I would want those who lose their jobs in such circumstances to be given every help in getting another job where they are actually doing good, but it would be wrong of me to say that I wasn't pleased that they were no longer doing the jobs they were doing if my judgement is that those jobs were making the world a worse place.



what do you do for a living jesus?


----------



## Santino (Jul 8, 2011)

Clive Goodman has been arrested again.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 8, 2011)

No one (apart from the occasional low-level scapegoat) is going to do time for this, because the extent of rot and corruption is so great it has taken the British establishment into 'appalling vista' territory. And we know what they do when faced with a choice of allowing injustice to continue, or combat the injustice and thereby expose themselves to the embarassment that will arise from acknowledging the existence of the appalling vista and their own place in it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

smokedout said:


> what do you do for a living jesus?


 
This isn't about me. If you think it is, you've not understood what I've been saying.

But arguing that NOTW journos were just honest workers trying to earn a crust is ridiculous, imo. And I'll leave the matter there.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Look, lets be clear. A lot of what the Murdoch press does is important work - in terms of the role of the fourth estate as a watchdog on executive excess. It is important work and there needs to be competition between who does that role on behalf of the democracy.

What isn't acceptable is corruption, intimidation, and propagating a culture of fear. They went way, way to far in the simple sense we all understand of 'power corrupts...'.

Seemingly that ended at NotW 4-5 years ago. That doesn't mean those repsonsible then shouldn't be held to account now, but there is a vital constitutional issue here and it serves no one to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I don't mind Murdoch owning a Rottweiler, or even two - I'd even support it. But that's enough...


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> YOUR judgement?    Because you personally don't approve of a particular company or product, you'd throw people out of work.



I can see what you're getting at here, but remember the Dirty Digger threw 6,000 people out of a job because he didn't "approve" of them.

Swings and roundabouts, innit?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> you'd throw people out of work.


 
They will be fine, all they need to do is sign on and get loads of free money: 

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/notw/news/907438/Work-Not-on-45K-benefits.html


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Oh, and it's blindingly obvious that Elizabeth of York is not a troll, s/he's an astro-turfer - paid or unpaid, s/he's not here to chat shit or provoke people, s/he's here to push a party line.


 
My money is on the Tax Avoiders' Alliance.


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Seemingly that ended at NotW 4-5 years ago.


 
whatever makes you think that?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

The convictions.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 8, 2011)

The Age in Australia is going quite big on this story (it's not owned by Murdoch)

it's reporting the Greens in the Aus Govt are using this to try and block a Murdoch bid for some TV news. 

http://www.theage.com.au/business/m...-scandal-could-hit-tv-bid-20110707-1h4x3.html

I haven't checked The Herald Sun yet (Murdoch owned hybrid of the Sun/Mail, but i am guessing they won't say much..)


----------



## Santino (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> The convictions.


 
I thought there were some references in the last couple of days to likely hacking about six months ago. Can't find them for the moment though.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

I did say 'seemingly' because that's the indication I have. It may have continued - in residual form it's probably even likely - but the leadership of that culture reigned way back with the appointment of the current Editor. As Best I Understand.

Of course, atm, all that's happening is based on Mulcaire's papers from 2006.


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 8, 2011)

Interesting side note from this side of the pond...

This story is fucking massive over here, full on cross media...

*Except for Fox News*. They're not touching it. Go figure


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> I thought there were some references in the last couple of days to likely hacking about six months ago. Can't find them for the moment though.



That's right, it was Michael Mansfield QC who's been told by the Met that his phone may well have been hacked around 6 months ago  - link to report is here


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 8, 2011)

Dan U said:


> The Age in Australia is going quite big on this story (it's not owned by Murdoch)
> 
> it's reporting the Greens in the Aus Govt are using this to try and block a Murdoch bid for some TV news.
> 
> ...


It's a pretty big story here in Aus, probably partly due to the relatively large number of ex-pats, but mostly because Murdoch's enemies are taking any chance they're given to attack him.

There's been quite a big scrap between Fairfax and NI over a number of years and it's especially warm at the moment


----------



## belboid (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> I think there is some poetic justice in the Notts pits getting shut down yeah, Nottingham scabbing was one of the key reasons for the failure of the strike and they soon learned the price of their loyalty to Thatcher. The failure of solidarity isn't in not caring about the Nottingham pit closures, it is in the mass scabbing that betrayed the strike and ultimately themselves, Tough shit, I don't cry for scabs


 
No need to cry, but nor is there any reason to celebrate.  Yeah, my sympathy is limited and I'll certainly be campaigning harder for any one person made redundant by my local council than for this wapping lot, but it's still a shitter for them - the large majority of whom haven't written anything more bigotted or reactionary than you'd get on any other newspaper.

'They fucked us first, so fuck them' is understandable, but its not really helpful.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2011)

belboid said:


> the 'they're all scum who print the sub' argument was used against printworkers in 85, and it was bullshit then. And it wasn't the NUJ who scabbed on the strike (the some members did) it was the EETPU.


 
Or Unite as they are currently known as.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> That's right, it was Michael Mansfield QC who's been told by the Met that his phone may well have been hacked around 6 months ago  - link to report is here


He was told about it 6 months ago or he was hacked 6 months ago - how long has he been retired?

Actually that article is bollocks isn't it. It says nothing about timescale, intentionally.


----------



## belboid (Jul 8, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Or Unite as they are currently known as.


 
well, the EETPU section of the AEU section of the Amicus section, of Unite.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

Roy Greenslade's piece from yesterday is worth reading.

_Soon after Rupert Murdoch acquired the News of the World in 1969 he sacked its editor, Stafford Somerfield, and joked afterwards: "He was too nasty even for me." Now he has sacked the newspaper because, though this time he isn't joking, it had become too nasty – even for him.

Closing a newspaper that is still profitable and still the market leader, selling more than 2.6m copies every Sunday, is a breathtaking and unprecedented act.

Murdoch's loyalty to her [Brooke] is entirely misplaced. While she remains as News International's chief executive, the stench of phone hacking will remain hanging over his organisation. Indeed, in closing the News of the World, he may attract yet greater odium.

When he and his executives talked about taking the axe to the title, it must have sounded like a great ploy. They must have imagined it to be a surefire wheeze to ensure that the insipid culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, would deliver BSkyB into News Corp's hands. It may still do that, but it has not salvaged the tarnished reputations of Rupert and James Murdoch and their company

Perhaps the old News of the World, and its reputation as the amusing, unsleazy bad boy of British journalism, is best summed up by an anecdote about one of its veteran reporters, Peter Earle, a man who always wore a bowler hat and looked as if he had stepped from a stockbrokers' office. He once arrived on a woman's doorstep, tipped his hat and said: "I'm from the News of the World."

She asked: "Can you prove it?"

Spreading his hands in mock despair, Earle replied: "But madam, I've already admitted it."_


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 8, 2011)

Shreddy said:


> Interesting side note from this side of the pond...
> 
> This story is fucking massive over here, full on cross media...
> 
> *Except for Fox News*. They're not touching it. Go figure


Again Murdoch's US opponents aren't going to miss this oppurtunity to make hay.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Dan U said:


> The Age in Australia is going quite big on this story (it's not owned by Murdoch)
> 
> it's reporting the Greens in the Aus Govt are using this to try and block a Murdoch bid for some TV news.
> 
> ...



And the poll question is...

Should Rupert Murdoch's Sky News be allowed to run Australia's overseas television service?

Yes - 10%
No - 90%


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2011)

What does it mean when a politician says: 

"I take complete responsibility for that ... "


----------



## Dan U (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> What does it mean when a politician says:
> 
> "I take complete responsibility for that ... "



square root of fuck all


----------



## Dan U (Jul 8, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> It's a pretty big story here in Aus, probably partly due to the relatively large number of ex-pats, but mostly because Murdoch's enemies are taking any chance they're given to attack him.
> 
> There's been quite a big scrap between Fairfax and NI over a number of years and it's especially warm at the moment



yeah i figured that was in play. There has always been a certain snobbishness towards Murdoch too iirc 

i'll be asking my Mother in Law at the weekend what she thinks of it all (avid Herald Sun reader)


----------



## Kanda (Jul 8, 2011)

From Twitter:



> Have confirmed staff at NotW can't access external websites on work computers. One said to me:"We're being treated like criminals".


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> What does it mean when a politician says:
> 
> "I take complete responsibility for that ... "


if his lips are moving, he's probably lying.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> He was told about it 6 months ago or he was hacked 6 months ago - how long has he been retired?
> 
> Actually that article is bollocks isn't it. It says nothing about timescale, intentionally.




Yeah, sorry about that - should've read it fully first.

These links may be a bit more useful: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live-coverage?INTCMP=SRCH#block-64 and http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live-coverage?INTCMP=SRCH#block-62 (sorry, couldn't copy direct from the site page for some reason).


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> The convictions.


 
why does that make you think they stopped?


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> YOUR judgement?    Because you personally don't approve of a particular company or product, you'd throw people out of work.


 
Yeah. Why not? It's OK for an employer, it's OK for the rest of us. Especially as in our case it's just having an opinion and not actually sacking somebody.

What's your point? That individuals who don't have vast amounts of money or serious power over others don't have any right to an opinion, whereas people in a position to really screw up other people's lives can have an opinion and act on it?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Yeah, sorry about that - should've read it fully first.
> 
> These links may be a bit more useful:


Your point is, contrary to what I suggested,  there is evidence of hacking since 2006 - I'm happy to accept it if you can cite it.

Fwiw, it might be - although I'm told the culture changed with the editorship and convictions. But, atm, we only have Mulcaire's papers from 2006, as best I understand.

In the meantime The Guardian, among others, are happy to be unclear as to when people were told they were hacked, and the actual hacking.


----------



## 8den (Jul 8, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/vid...hone-hacking-nick-davies-rupert-murdoch-video

A 10 minute video by Nick Davis of the Guardian explaining the significance of the story. 

It's a really good recap, and explores the ramifications of what has happened.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> I thought there were some references in the last couple of days to likely hacking about six months ago. Can't find them for the moment though.


 
Similarly, I read *somewhere* that some of the soldier hackings were as recent as last year/within the last year.


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

belboid said:


> No need to cry, but nor is there any reason to celebrate.  Yeah, my sympathy is limited and I'll certainly be campaigning harder for any one person made redundant by my local council than for this wapping lot, but it's still a shitter for them - the large majority of whom haven't written anything more bigotted or reactionary than you'd get on any other newspaper.
> 
> 'They fucked us first, so fuck them' is understandable, but its not really helpful.



In regards your point about Notts pit closures.  There is no reason to celebrate the closure of a pit. I agree. Even if my sympathy is limited. There is nothing positive in the aftermath of a closed mine. However is there reason to celebrate the end of the News of the World?  Is the country a better place for it closing? Absolutely. It was a vile and hateful propaganda sheet for my enemies and as such the world is better for its demise. It's closure is revenge for every person attacked or vilified or hounded or demonised by that stinking rag and for that there is every reason to celebrate.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> Similarly, I read *somewhere* that some of the soldier hackings were as recent as last year/within the last year.


 Well, the UK has obv. been in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade. Again, it suits some to blur the distinction between when people were told they'd been hacked, and when it actually happened.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Your point is, contrary to what I suggested,  there is evidence of hacking since 2006 - I'm happy to accept it if you can cite it.
> 
> Fwiw, it might be - although I'm told the culture changed with the editship and convictions. But, atm, we only have Mulcaire's papers from 2006, as best I understand.



I think in my original posting on this I mentioned that the Met said Mansfield _may well have been hacked_ i.e. not 100% proven.  I take your point that it would be very odd for someone to hack his phone in such recent times.  If (and indeed, if) he has been hacked by someone on behalf of journos, that's terrible enough, but if that hypothetical if also turns out to include a pretty solid link to NI (a rather long shot, to be sure), then...well....we shall see though if this turns into nowt or this there's any proper meat on the bones.


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 8, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Again Murdoch's US opponents aren't going to miss this oppurtunity to make hay.





I think it has more to do with the big boss, denial, and the fact that Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck think 'phone hacking' is part of that country called Africa


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's bullshit, though. If you are a journalist at the News of the World, you've planned a career to get there, and you can, imo, be held responsible for the bile you produce.


 
When I left college there were a number of career options open to me. That included going into journalism. I took a careful look at what it would entail and decided that in moral terms it was pretty much on a par with the other option I completely discarded, working in the nuclear industry.

Yes it would be lovely to be a campaigning John Pilger, Duncan Campbell, type of journalist. By 1979 it was already clear that there were going to be pretty much no opportunities to become one whilst getting paid for it. You have the choice whether or not to get your hands dirty when you are young and relatively uncommitted. Once you've made the choice then that's it.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

Kanda said:


> From Twitter:



seems very amateurish of the management there to block the internet, it's almost as if they aren't aware that you can access it from most mobile phones these days - are they going to get the staff to lock their phones away?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> seems very amateurish of the management there to block the internet, it's almost as if they aren't aware that you can access it from most mobile phones these days - are they going to get the staff to lock their phones away?



Dunno about everyone else, but it used to be a rule here that using a mobile here during work time for any reason at all got you a disciplinary, so I'm not too surprised to hear about this.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 8, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Yeah. Why not? It's OK for an employer, it's OK for the rest of us. Especially as in our case it's just having an opinion and not actually sacking somebody.
> 
> What's your point? That individuals who don't have vast amounts of money or serious power over others don't have any right to an opinion, whereas people in a position to really screw up other people's lives can have an opinion and act on it?



Elizabeth doesn't have a point anymore than she has a birth certificate.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

bizarre. it turns out brooks is a governer at the wife's old school. they're standing by her.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Well, the UK has obv. been in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade. Again, it suits some to blur the distinction between when people were told they'd been hacked, and when it actually happened.


 
Yeah, I understand the point. That wasn't the case in the particular report I'm referring too though, afair, but of course I can't find it now   just lots of references to relatives of soldiers/crime victims etc killed more recently _asking_ whether they have been victims, which is obviously not the same thing.


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not really comparable. I'm not talking about the way its workers are treated. I'm talking about the stories it publishes, how it gets them and what they say.
> 
> There is nothing morally wrong about the taste of coca-cola.


 
You unwittingly reveal your true priorities a lot lbj, and this is one of those times.

For shame.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> and they will announce the launch with a brand new Sunday newspaper with exactly the same staff and editor and exactly the same content


 
That, or the closure is an attempt to draw a line under the entire issue. Gesture politics of the worst sort because we know that the other NI titles are also in this up to their necks.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

@ lbj - someone might say that by working for coca-cola, however low-paid and mundane your job is, you're indirectly helping to take part in the destruction of rainforests, chemical poisoning, etc etc that company takes part in ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> You unwittingly reveal your true priorities a lot lbj, and this is one of those times.
> 
> For shame.


 
Bullshit. I'm just not a liberal handwringer who patronises people they consider more stupid than them and thinks people shouldn't be held accountable for the choices they make in the context of the choices available to them.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

*coughs*


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

haven't been checking the news today - but I'm guessing Cameron was weak at his news conference this morning - not totally backing the sack Brooks movement, and not entirely  distancing himself from Coulson?  Did he admit to bad judement? 

this is seriously damaging Cameron, and he was warned before he took Coulson on, I think even the Guardian editor warned him off him, telling him there were more revelations to come.


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

i've been drinking barr cola lately, despite being a lifelong coke drinker. it's actually quite nice.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> @ lbj - someone might say that by working for coca-cola, however low-paid and mundane your job is, you're indirectly helping to take part in the destruction of rainforests, chemical poisoning, etc etc that company takes part in ...


 
I've addressed this, many times. People can only be held accountable for the choices they make in the face of the choices available to them. And only by their peers, at that - only someone in lletsa's position: left school at 16 with few or no qualifications and with the choice of the dole or an arms factory, could comment on his choice. But by fuck, we can judge upwards, we can judge those more fortunate than ourselves and the choices they make.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 8, 2011)

belboid said:


> No need to cry, but nor is there any reason to celebrate.  Yeah, my sympathy is limited and I'll certainly be campaigning harder for any one person made redundant by my local council than for this wapping lot, but it's still a shitter for them - the large majority of whom haven't written anything more bigotted or reactionary than you'd get on any other newspaper.
> 
> 'They fucked us first, so fuck them' is understandable, but its not really helpful.


 
I regret the individuals that now have to look for alternative work, though if you look at the demise against the paper as a step in the right direction away from the awful excuse of celeb gossip, bare faced lies, subtle hounding of minority groups, and everything else the paper (really) stood for, then if you decide to take the coin of such a publication that has such a culture, then, whilst you are not asking to be held accountable for every editorial move or decision that paper does, nor approce individually of the people running the paper, your tenancy in that role will be at risk from events like yesterday.

As it stands, I have not seen ONE person pipe up with any level or remorse or even a hint that they think outside their individual universe where the arsehole culture seems to be endemic. It enrages me. If they get caught or get brought up on any of their nonsense they act dumb and have no defence other than "free press/speech" line. It's pathetic, and if the break in the chain that the NotW signifies a damage to this exact culture, then I will welcome it with such open arms that the collateral damage of innocent employees may get lost, in the safe knowledge that if this change does occur, then the trade will be better for it in the long run.

As I said earlier, a few frinds of my GF's worked for the Fabulous magazine, and it's difficult not to feel sympathy for them (though apparently this will be kept on elsewhere in NI)


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> haven't been checking the news today - but I'm guessing Cameron was weak at his news conference this morning - not totally backing the sack Brooks movement, and not entirely  distancing himself from Coulson?  Did he admit to bad judement?
> 
> this is seriously damaging Cameron, and he was warned before he took Coulson on, I think even the Guardian editor warned him off him, telling him there were more revelations to come.


he sounded genuinely rattled, he repeated over and over that he'd given coulson a "second chance" but that it hadn't worked out, he dodged questions relating to his own judgement and whether he spoke to coulson as to the possibility that there was any truth in what was being alleged, i think he's in a very difficult position from his performance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

pk said:


> Bollocks, they nailed Robert Maxwell.


 
Not really, he only *really* got nailed posthumously, and his kids then took most of the flak. The old cunt himself went to his grave unpunished.


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> @ lbj - someone might say that by working for coca-cola, however low-paid and mundane your job is, you're indirectly helping to take part in the destruction of rainforests, chemical poisoning, etc etc that company takes part in ...


 
This is the nature of bureacracy in an industrial age. It breaks down tasks into a myriad of seemingly innocuous elements and in doing so breaks down responsibility. For example on leaving school I used to work in a factory, not an arms factory or anything so clear cut, just a factory making various valves and screwed components etc. One day an order came in for some shiny bits of plate that needed a special tool and specifications. It came wrapped in tissue paper and only their own tool setter was allowed to set the tool. We had to drill 4 screw holes in the corners to very specific requirements and each one had to be individually checked by quality control. It later turned out that the plates were for something to do with  nuclear weapons, no idea what. Now the point is, to the people in that factory that were bits of metal plate. Do I bear some responsibility for nuclear weapons? Well in one sense yes but on the other hands it was just a bit of fancy shiny metal plate to be drilled. Is there a difference between the guy in my factory who drills four holes in a bit of shiny metal and the guy who presses the button. Yes i think there is. One is a guy doing his job and the other is a career choice made in the full knowledge of the consequences of his actions.

Now the same argument could be said for the guy who does the filing at NI, maybe he has no responsibility for the propaganda that rolls off the presses. He has never written a racist story in his life. But there is a difference between the filing clerk and the journo who writes the stories, searches for the benefit cheat story or the Asian taxi driver who won't fly the union jack in his cab or the single mom with the plasma TV or whatever and splashes across the front page. One is just doing his job and the other bears direct responsibility for hurting others.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> went to his grave unpunished.



Assuming it was natural causes, yes.

Maxwell did a lot of business with the East Bloc, so he might well have had connections to the security organs. Though that's a bit OT.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 8, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> As I said earlier, a few frinds of my GF's worked for the Fabulous magazine, and it's difficult not to feel sympathy for them (though apparently this will be kept on elsewhere in NI)


 
My impression is that many people will get rehired in the SOS (at lower wages? who knows) - isnt that where the fab mag is going too? I think i heard that.

The only danger in this ditching of NOTW and retrenching within The Sun is that supposedly phone and email hacking is normal practice across many red tops - and that has to include the World Exclusive Love Rat Sun. if some beans get spilled about it happening at The Sun, and advertisers again pull out...


----------



## Dan U (Jul 8, 2011)

Robert Peston, and others, now reporting that Ofcom is likely to launch a 'fit and proper' persons test.

if NI fail it, apparently they could even be forced to divest from BSKYB, which would be quite an outcome...


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

How many people work at the Sun?


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 8, 2011)

damnhippie said:


> the Sun on Sunday is now confirmed, apparently.


 
 @ self ...dick.

anyway, Huffington Post in the US are now *claiming* the Daily Star offices have been raided...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/07/08/andy-coulson-arrested-as-_n_893013.html#352_source-daily-star-sunday-offices-raided


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 8, 2011)

ska invita said:


> My impression is that many people will get rehired in the SOS (at lower wages? who knows) - isnt that where the fab mag is going too? I think i heard that.
> 
> The only danger in this ditching of NOTW and retrenching within The Sun is that supposedly phone and email hacking is normal practice across many red tops - and that has to include the World Exclusive Love Rat Sun. if some beans get spilled about it happening at The Sun, and advertisers again pull out...


 
Sure.

I still thin the SoS will be temporary and a NotW will come back after all this has died down, if only for a re-branding relaunch (public seduced by the word 'new' and some heavy advertising), so after the dust has settled, all the staff will be on worse contracts, and the 6 months or so it was out of print will be merely seen as a blip on the radar


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> Journos will protect their own. Just listen to all the sentimental crap about honourable, innocent hacks at the NOTW who have lost their job.


 
This ^

The important thing to remember here is that the NotW phone hacking stuff is the tip of the iceberg, a tiny (though particularly purulent) part of the festering heap of corruption that we laughingly call the British press. There's a culture widespread throughout journalism in this country that assumes that a journalist has no responsibility to act ethically if it might interfere in getting "the story", and that "the story" is whatever will sell to the public regardless of whether it has any importance, relevance, or even any vague resemblance to reality.

Journalists with other publications may be happy to see a rival go down, but the very last thing they want to see is public scrutiny of their own methods.

I'll just point out again that there are some very fine journalists in the UK. However they are a tiny fraction who have become increasingly marginalised over the years, partly as a result of the willingness of many of their colleagues to lie, distort, intimidate, harrass, and arselick, to order.


----------



## creak (Jul 8, 2011)

R5 say Daily Star offices have just been raided. Any links?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 8, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> The important thing to remember here is that the NotW phone hacking stuff is the tip of the iceberg, a tiny (though particularly purulent) part of the festering heap of corruption that we laughingly call the British press. There's a culture widespread throughout journalism in this country that assumes that a journalist has no responsibility to act ethically if it might interfere in getting "the story", and that "the story" is whatever will sell to the public regardless of whether it has any importance, relevance, or even any vague resemblance to reality.


 
Quite


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 8, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> No.  State your case, back it up with facts on the ground, and debate.
> 
> Now, why do you disagree with me then on the last point?


 
I think that may actually be the point of disagreement. You, and I, and many urbanistas, operate on the basis that we believe that one should argue logically and on the basis of objective evidence as far as possible. Whereas EoY clearly believes that one should simply spout any old bollocks and never be criticised for it. This, I suppose, is the minority belief she thinks should be protected.

I sort of agree. I think morons should have the right to make complete arseholes of themselves.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

brookes meeting notw staff at 4pm, "will be fireworks" according to twitter


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

creak said:


> R5 say Daily Star offices have just been raided. Any links?


 
Oooh, interesting.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...l#352_source-daily-star-sunday-offices-raided


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

creak said:


> R5 say Daily Star offices have just been raided. Any links?



'Unconfirmed' reports according to the Torygraph's live blog.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...707/News-of-the-World-phone-hacking-live.html



> 14.19 Breaking: Unconfirmed reports that the Daily Star offices have been raided by police. Clive Goodman, who was arrested this morning, currently works for the Daily Star Sunday.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2011)

creak said:


> R5 say Daily Star offices have just been raided. Any links?


 
Clive Goodman currently works for them so will presumably be in relation to his arrest?!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Unless you have the raw figures in front off you I would advise not trusting a single statistic on revenue or readership they give you.


 
Yup, newsland stats are notoriously skewed. Even daily and sunday circs still include institutional drops as sales (pumping circs by thousands, and sometimes tens of thousands of copies).


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You could say that about any commercial company that's in business to make money!  Should their workers have no rights?


 
So basically you are saying that workers who have no right to act according to their consciences must be allowed the right to continue to work in a situation where they have no basic rights. Clever. I sincerely hope you are a deliberate parody, because I really hate the idea of being the same species as any creature able to be that utterly stupid for real.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2011)

> Police are investigating evidence that a News International executive may have deleted millions of emails from an internal archive, in an apparent attempt to obstruct Scotland Yard's inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal.
> 
> The archive is believed to have reached back to January 2005 revealing daily contact between News of the World editors, reporters and outsiders, including private investigators. The messages are potentially highly valuable both for the police and for the numerous public figures who are suing News International.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/08/phone-hacking-emails-news-international


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It would be interesting to see a diagram displaying how many of the redundant workers hacked the phones of murdered children and terrorist victims for their own ends.


 
No. What would be interesting would be to see precisely how many NotW employees made any moral objection to what was happening.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

creak said:


> R5 say Daily Star offices have just been raided. Any links?


 
I so hope so, first they came for the Dirty Digger, then they came for Dirty Desmond.....

Next up, Rothermere?


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> brookes meeting notw staff at 4pm, "will be fireworks" according to twitter



I rather like this version:



> Dear Splatter Movie lovers, Lots of beered up and soon to be redundant #notw journos meeting with Brooks at 4pm in Wapping. You're welcome.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 8, 2011)

Does anyone know about the private cases being made by the hacked? Some have settled out of court, but not all have. Yet by the looks of it, anyone who has had a story about them in NOTW (not to mention other titles) was hacked. According to a NOTW unnamed source, if you filed a story without phone messages you'd get asked 'where are the messages?' The police are sitting on a huge list.

Is it the case that the first private case has yet to go through the courts? If it goes through and wins and a price is set for damages, does that open the door for every other person who's been hacked to sue? That's thousands of people and would cost a fortune - even for Murdoch.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> I rather like this version:


yes


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 8, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> So basically you are saying that workers who have no right to act according to their consciences must be allowed the right to continue to work in a situation where they have no basic rights. Clever. I sincerely hope you are a deliberate parody, because I really hate the idea of being the same species as any creature able to be that utterly stupid for real.


 
I'm not saying anything of the sort.  I'm asking a civil question.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

Intersting- I'd noticed that the Daily Star had been less then comprehensive in its coverage. I'm sure all the tabloids have been doing the same sort of shite, although praps not on the industrial scale that the NOTW was. 

Ofcom to carry out a 'fit and proper persons' test - will take some time cos of court cases but if it finds agasint News International he would have to sell his BSkyB shares. Hes fucked I tell ya - lots of people are out to get him. 

He could well die having watched his empire wither to away to nowt.


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> I rather like this version:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
yeah, but they all want jobs elswhere at NI don't they? i predict some muted grumbling and loads of bumlick.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm not saying anything of the sort.


 
You totally are, tbf.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 8, 2011)

Badgers said:


> They will be fine, all they need to do is sign on and get loads of free money:
> 
> http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/notw/news/907438/Work-Not-on-45K-benefits.html


 
That's relatively liberal for the NOTW, even tho their angle is obvious, it's no worse than that awful piece in the Guardian sneering at Liverpool for having people on the dole eating all day breakfasts.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

killer b said:


> yeah, but they all want jobs elswhere at NI don't they? i predict some muted grumbling and loads of bumlick.


 
You're probably right, unfortunately.  That said, the reports of the NUJ helpdesk being inundated with calls from NI journalists, and a walk-out from the Sun last night, might suggest otherwise...


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> Clive Goodman currently works for them so will presumably be in relation to his arrest?!


 
he got another tabloid job after serving time for what he did in a previous tabloid job?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2011)

The Sun 'walk out' lasted half an hour, Roadie.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm not saying anything of the sort.  I'm asking a civil question.


 
Seriously, do you not see the glaring inconsistency between your attitude to the June 30 strike and the line you've taken here...?


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/08/phone-hacking-emails-news-international


 
This makes massive sense. Murdoch keeps emphasising how they voluntarily handed over documents which criminalise a number of their staff, and no one has contradicted the 'voluntary' bit, so it had to be just the ships they were scuttling whilst the main fleet was hidden.

On other stuff ... the power that Murdoch gets from his print media is not mind control of the reasdership, it is the power to build or destroy reputations. It is not the direct implantation of bogus ideas but the unnoticeable drip drip drip of advertising that allows him to threaten, cajole and bribe his way to hoilding more power over those that run our lives than the Prime Minister has, because every PM since Thatcher has been in thrall to or in fear of him.

That's over now. His power has evaporated with the credibility of his methods. The scumminess, the ever-widening time-frame (we have 1987 to 2010ish now), James Murdoch in the frame for approving hush money (possibly in a criminal way). 

The worms have turned. He is over. It is entirely reasonable to say that News International should be barred from operating on British soil or owning British media. That should be the next aim. Cameron will fall with his crutches, and then we can take out the Met and the Mail.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> The Sun 'walk out' lasted half an hour, Roadie.


 
I know, but the fact it happened at all is interesting.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> he got another tabloid job after serving time for what he did in a previous tabloid job?


 
He probably got a fuckin pay rise with it, too!


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

Couldn't happen to a nicer newspaper editor, AFAIK. I'd heard that darling Rebekah possesses all the tact and charm of Hermann Goering in a dress (well, given his odd personal leanings, just typing ''all the tact and charm of Hermann Goering would still be appropriate) so I feel no regrets at displaying a certain schadenfreude at her imminent downfall.

I do, however, feel immense regret and stomach-churning nausea at sharing with you all the mental image of Hermann Goering mincing about in a ballgown and slingbacks. I therefore apologise most humbly and beg your forgiveness.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> This makes massive sense. Murdoch keeps emphasising how they voluntarily handed over documents which criminalise a number of their staff, and no one has contradicted the 'voluntary' bit, so it had to be just the ships they were scuttling whilst the main fleet was hidden.


 
Yep! 'Millions' of emails! MILLIONS!


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> He probably got a fuckin pay rise with it, too!



and he'll get another new job and pay rise after he serves more time for this one .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Anyway, that's not what this is. Even a month without a Sunday title will hurt NI enormously. Politicians might start to learn to say things without their permission. Their power will start to evaporate very quickly, and it won't be easy to get back.


 
It's the effect that the loss of advertising on the paper (and on the relationship between manufacturer and paper which is part of the basis of the paper's "power") that'll have the most serious effect, not the loss of ad revenue. You can bet that the other tab sundays have already discounted their rates and paid court to the NOTW's withdrawers.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> This makes massive sense. Murdoch keeps emphasising how they voluntarily handed over documents which criminalise a number of their staff, and no one has contradicted the 'voluntary' bit, so it had to be just the ships they were scuttling whilst the main fleet was hidden.
> 
> On other stuff ... the power that Murdoch gets from his print media is not mind control of the reasdership, it is the power to build or destroy reputations. It is not the direct implantation of bogus ideas but the unnoticeable drip drip drip of advertising that allows him to threaten, cajole and bribe his way to hoilding more power over those that run our lives than the Prime Minister has, because every PM since Thatcher has been in thrall to or in fear of him.
> 
> ...


 
this has to impact on the 'fit and proper' test that OFCOM are due to announce - which i posted about earlier.

it's not very 'fit and proper' for executives at an organisation to attempt to subvert investigations in this fashion... plus all the other shit.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> and he'll get another new job and pay rise after he serves more time for this one .


 
Well he does the job they want him to do, eh?!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> Also, it's fucking rich of anyone working for News International to play the victim "look what you have done" card now. A) It's their own fucking management who culled their jobs, not us. B) chances are the majority of current NOTW staff will either get taken on by the successor paper, or at least get a good payout, and C) good staff should hopefully find a new job quickly enough


 
Playing the victim is India Knight's _forte_. She's made a sub-Polly Filla career out of "poor little me" columns. She wouldn't know real journalism if it gave her a rim-job.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 8, 2011)

ska invita said:


> Does anyone know about the private cases being made by the hacked? Some have settled out of court, but not all have. Yet by the looks of it, anyone who has had a story about them in NOTW (not to mention other titles) was hacked. According to a NOTW unnamed source, if you filed a story without phone messages you'd get asked 'where are the messages?' The police are sitting on a huge list.
> 
> Is it the case that the first private case has yet to go through the courts? If it goes through and wins and a price is set for damages, does that open the door for every other person who's been hacked to sue? That's thousands of people and would cost a fortune - even for Murdoch.



Supposedly there are 5 or so test cases which have been selected which represent a variety of the types of cases that exist, and are being used to set legal precedent. Once they have passed through court and awards have been set it will open the floodgates for everyone else to sue. That is potentially hundreds of people looking at a near certain cash in


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

Dan U said:


> this has to impact on the 'fit and proper' test that OFCOM are due to announce - which i posted about earlier.
> 
> it's not very 'fit and proper' for executives at an organisation to attempt to subvert investigations in this fashion... plus all the other shit.


 
Yeah. I posted my contribution to the consultation exercise earlier. Might as well stick it up again, cos that's exactly the argument I made. 



> *Notice of Consultation on the proposed acquisition by News Corporation of up to 60.9% Of BSkyB Group PLC (revised undertakings in lieu) – 30 June 2011*
> 
> News International (NI) have just announced the closure of the largest circulation English language newspaper in the world. NI have only owned this paper for a tiny fraction of its 168 year history. There is no longer even a business case for allowing this incompetent and corrupt organisation to take over any more British media, and surely now a very strong case for barring them from any media ownership in this country at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Intersting- I'd noticed that the Daily Star had been less then comprehensive in its coverage. I'm sure all the tabloids have been doing the same sort of shite, although praps not on the industrial scale that the NOTW was.
> 
> Ofcom to carry out a 'fit and proper persons' test - will take some time cos of court cases but if it finds agasint News International he would have to sell his BSkyB shares. Hes fucked I tell ya - lots of people are out to get him.
> 
> He could well die having watched his empire wither to away to *nowt*.



I read 'nowt' as 'notw', funny how they are becoming interchangeable.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Playing the victim is India Knight's _forte_. She's made a sub-Polly Filla career out of "poor little me" columns. She wouldn't know real journalism if it gave her a rim-job.


 
Thanks for that image, VP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

gavman said:


> portillo has been positioning himself for years


 
He's no longer an MP, though, so he'd need to be found a seat before being in ANY position to take advantage, and too many of the Tory right still dislike him for his foreign surname and youthful experiments with homosexuality.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yeah. I posted my contribution to the consultation exercise earlier. Might as well stick it up again, cos that's exactly the argument I made.


 
Shredding emails (latest allegations) doesn't look too good either


----------



## Dan U (Jul 8, 2011)

Good submission ymu


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Server down.
> 
> YAY if this is true, no Sun tomorrow?


 
Nah, you can still publish without subs (if you dare), but the paper will look like some piece of sixth-form shit as a result, even taking into account the automatic subbing that the NI system is supposed to do (which is apparently shit, with the subbing ability of a ten-year old).


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

Are any of them still out? (the subs i mean)


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

Come on Ofcom, come on Ofcom!!!


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

do we have any reason for having any faith in ofcom btw?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

killer b said:


> do we have any reason for having any faith in ofcom btw?


 
No


----------



## Dan U (Jul 8, 2011)

Not massively but its another step in the right direction


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

Guardian is now saying it can confirm that the Star's offices have been raided.


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

There was a call for submissions to force a delay. It took them three weeks to go through 40,000. They had 100,000 more by yesterday morning, so that's 7-8 weeks work before a declaration, hence the delay to September. If enough submissions came in after that, they could be waiting until next year, which gives even more time for this drama to unfold and influence the outcome.

Like all regulators, Ofcom are as good as they are forced to be by public pressure. This is just a tactic to keep that up. Decisive victories don't come without groundwork, and small victories matter.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Badgers said:


> No


 Evidence?


----------



## Yata (Jul 8, 2011)

> @brianwhelanhack: I was off buying lunch but police have confirmed to Yahoo! they are raiding the Daily Star.


!


----------



## belboid (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Evidence?


 
Evidence of there being no evidence???


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> How many people work at the Sun?


 
About 30% of them?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

killer b said:


> do we have any reason for having any faith in ofcom btw?


 
No, but that's only from my experience concerning OFCOM's dealings in the radio sector, this is a whole new kettle of fish, lots of pressure coming on them, that could result in them growing some fucking balls.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You reckon the journos can produce the paper without the subs? How many subs, do you know? No subeditors = no paper.


 
Unfortunately that's not true. You can, it'll just read like shit.  _The Express_ already use a supposedly sub-free system (although they kept a handful on across Desmond's newspaper titles so that the *really* egregious stuff would get caught), so I could see _The Sun_ risking busking it for a few days.

I miss my blue chinagraph.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 8, 2011)

whats a chinagraph?

also, i do occassionaly think that coming up with some of the headlines must be a bit of a fun job


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

I have to say, I was disappointed that the Guardian didn't go with GOTCHA! as an ironic headline, given Brooks's whinging when she shut down the NotW. Steve Bell used it, but it's not the same.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Dan U said:


> whats a chinagraph?
> 
> also, i do occassionaly think that coming up with some of the headlines must be a bit of a fun job


 
Yeah, absolutely - pressure, though, to come up with something pithy all the time. That's why the subs - particularly the chief subs - at a tabloid are pretty much the most valuable members of staff after the editor. 

I didn't know that about the Express trying to go sub-free. Doesn't surprise me - although you have to remember that large chunks of the Express and Star are already subcontracted out to other agencies - who do still use subs. They don't do their own tv pages, for instance.


I'm guessing that by 'going sub-free' what you really mean is that the jobs of designer and sub have been combined, though.


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

Alistair Campbell really has no sense of shame at all.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Evidence?


 
No


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> whilst I'd agree with you that many traditional tories would like to see disco dave being shown the door, i really can't see them wanting him ousted in these circumstances because of the wider impact it would have on their party. shit sticks and him being booted due to any perceived connection to this shit-storm would cause the tories untold grief at the ballot box i reckon.


 
You're crediting the trad Tories with being forward-thinking motherfuckers, Paulie. These are the same dumb-fucks who chose Iain Duncan Shit, William Vague and Michael Coward to lead their party!


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> About 30% of them?


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jul 8, 2011)

I think the post title should change to Roast in Hell NOTW


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I reckon being the editor of the news of the world she must have a lot of dirt on a hell of a lot of people.


 
She brown-nosed her way up the ranks of News International, so she'll have seen (and kept her mouth shut about) an awful lot of shit that she could spontaneously "remember" at an inconvenient time, and we won't just be talking about stuff within the NI organisation (about which Murdoch is understandably worried), but stories about politicians etc that were squashed. Cameron is probably shitting himself about the mythical "Dave snorts a fat line of charlie" pics turning up, and at least 2 members of the Tory cabinet will be bricking it about their extra-curricular activities being made public by NI execs looking to deflect the shit-storm from themselves and their organisation.


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 8, 2011)

Guardian site says Renault are now pulling advertising from ALL News Int publications... let's hope this is the first of many...


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 8, 2011)

From the guardian - sweet!

"Renault has become the first advertiser to publicly extend its advertising boycott to cover all News International newspapers despite the publisher's decision to close the News of the World, Brand Republic reports. It reports that Renault - which spent £343,829 with the News of the World in the 12 months to the end of April, 2011, according to Nielsen - said in a statement:


_ As a result of the seriousness of the continued allegations of phone hacking by News of the World, Renault is reviewing its media advertising plans.

    Pending the formal investigations, we currently have no advertising planned in any News International press titles in the immediate future._


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

More good news from the Guardian live blog:



> 3.17pm: Renault has become the first advertiser to publicly extend its advertising boycott to cover all News International newspapers despite the publisher's decision to close the News of the World, Brand Republic reports. It reports that Renault - which spent £343,829 with the News of the World in the 12 months to the end of April, 2011, according to Nielsen - said in a statement:
> 
> _As a result of the seriousness of the continued allegations of phone hacking by News of the World, Renault is reviewing its media advertising plans.
> 
> Pending the formal investigations, we currently have no advertising planned in any News International press titles in the immediate future._



*edit* Bugger - cross posts


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 8, 2011)

damnhippie said:


> Guardian site says Renault are now pulling advertising from ALL News Int publications... let's hope this is the first of many...


 
Pax!!


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> I think the post title should change to Roast in Hell NOTW


 
I prefer Popbitch's _They think its all over, it is no(t)w!_

*gets coat*


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

I just saw an interesting twitter tweet, reposted by brian whelan here, from the times crime correspondent 

TimesCrime Sean O'Neill
by brianwhelanhack
Curious that Grauniad says cops angry with Wapping for leaking, when its v clear cops are leaking to Grauniad in advance of every arrest



I seriously doubt NOTW is the only paper at this ... 

btw did anyone see the fucking appalling article by mary "i love putin" dejevsky in the independent??


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 8, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Pax!!


 
wait, is that same as jinx?!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

damnhippie said:


> Guardian site says Renault are now pulling advertising from ALL News Int publications... let's hope this is the first of many...




Wow, that is great news. Let's hope it snowballs. Maybe even Tesco will realise this time that it is better to withdraw than to have the paper withdraw for you. 

The whole empire could unravel very very quickly.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 8, 2011)

damnhippie said:


> wait, is that same as jinx?!


 
I think so


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wow, that is great news. Let's hope it snowballs. Maybe even Tesco will realise this time that it is better to withdraw than to have the paper withdraw for you.
> 
> The whole empire could unravel very very quickly.


 
I met a traveller from an antique land, who said. . .


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wow, that is great news. Let's hope it snowballs. Maybe even Tesco will realise this time that it is better to withdraw than to have the paper withdraw for you.
> 
> The whole empire could unravel very very quickly.



hopefully this is the thin end of a very heavy wedge.

if only we could get them to boycott Fox News too


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I just saw an interesting twitter tweet, reposted by brian whelan here, from the times crime correspondent
> 
> TimesCrime Sean O'Neill
> by brianwhelanhack
> ...


 
NOTW arent the only paper at this; and whilst its possible the Guardian has sources amongst the Weeting team, I fail to see what either police or the Guardian would gain by leaking information that arrests were about to take place.


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 8, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I think so


 
*is silent*


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

BBC confirming that OFCOM is now getting involved over the Sky take-over, as I predicted yesterday.

OFCOM are 'deeply concerned'. 

This is the government off loading things.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Badgers said:


> No


 LOL. Thanks for the opinion then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No, I don't know who they are.  I didn't realise we had to have certain qualifications and knowledge to be allowed to post here.  Perhaps you could let me know the rules?


 
It's always best to be informed about an issue before sounding off about it.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 8, 2011)

damnhippie said:


> Guardian site says Renault are now pulling advertising from ALL News Int publications... let's hope this is the first of many...


 
Co-operative Bank PLC pulled their ads from NoTW a few days ago.
It won't be long before they do the same as Renault


> *Co-operative Group suspends News of the World advertising*
> July 06, 2011
> 
> The Co-operative Group has taken the decision to suspend temporarily any further advertising and promotional activity with the News of the World until the outcome of the investigation is known.
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

IC3D said:


> bollocks.


 
So you don't think that a bit of reflexivity about your own relationship to power is something that people should engage in?

If people didn't do so, we as a nation would be in a much worse state than we are.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

From twitter



> @BBCNews  BBC News
> News of the World sources tell BBC political editor Nick Robinson that Rebecca Brooks will not be resigning at 4pm meeting. #notw



Did anyone really think she would be?


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> From the guardian - sweet!
> 
> "Renault has become the first advertiser to publicly extend its advertising boycott to cover all News International newspapers despite the publisher's decision to close the News of the World, Brand Republic reports. It reports that Renault - which spent £343,829 with the News of the World in the 12 months to the end of April, 2011, according to Nielsen - said in a statement:
> 
> ...


MOAR!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> From twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone really think she would be?



I'm still amazed she hasn't already, tbh. Her position is entirely untenable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What, even the low-paid shitworkers?


 
He *did* say "who works for a corporation and knows what the flying fuck it's doing", which implies people up the food chain from "shitworkers".


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm still amazed she hasn't already, tbh. Her position is entirely untenable.


 She doesn't hold a position - she hasn't spoken in public, and apparently offered to resign the evening before last. Murdoch is the one holding a position.


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 8, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Co-operative Bank PLC pulled their ads a few days ago.


 
ah, cheers


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm still amazed she hasn't already, tbh. Her position is entirely untenable.



it's ironic that papers like the news of the world would harass mps and other public figures to resign, and yet when the same pressure is put on them, they ignore it


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Co-operative Bank PLC pulled their ads a few days ago.


 
what they should be doing is hacking phones of the chief execs of major companies, finding out their naughties and threatening them with exposure if they pull their ads


have they learned nothing from this affair ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> She doesn't hold a position - she hasn't spoken in public, and appraently offered to resign the evening before last. Murdoch is the one holding a position.


 
Well, that makes sense. She could still just announce in public that she had resigned - what would Murdoch do, say she wasn't allowed to? 

Better that she should stay in position for as long as possible anyway, I would have thought. Her still in place can only encourage advertisers to continue to pull their business.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm still amazed she hasn't already, tbh. Her position is entirely untenable.


 
She did try, apparently, but was turned down, and rather than getting rid of her they shut down her former paper instead.  As Rusbridger said on newsnight last night, on the face of it, it looks perverse.  Presumably there's a reason, though.

I forget who it was who suggested yesterday that she's in effect being used as a human shield for James Murdoch.  That doesn't sound implausible.  Either that, or she knows where too many of the bodies are buried.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Or both.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> On other stuff ... the power that Murdoch gets from his print media is not mind control of the reasdership, it is the power to build or destroy reputations. It is not the direct implantation of bogus ideas but the unnoticeable drip drip drip of advertising that allows him to threaten, cajole and bribe his way to hoilding more power over those that run our lives than the Prime Minister has, because every PM since Thatcher has been in thrall to or in fear of him.
> 
> That's over now. His power has evaporated with the credibility of his methods. The scumminess, the ever-widening time-frame (we have 1987 to 2010ish now), James Murdoch in the frame for approving hush money (possibly in a criminal way).
> 
> The worms have turned. He is over. It is entirely reasonable to say that News International should be barred from operating on British soil or owning British media. That should be the next aim. Cameron will fall with his crutches, and then we can take out the Met and the Mail.


 
Exactly this. The Sun and the NOTW were his main weapons for rewarding, threatening and destorying people who who he either wanted to partonise or punish. And that would very much include any politicians, beuracrats or police officers who had the power to reign him in or poke around in how he ran his business. Now the NotW is dead and the sun is having to tread very carefully. 
He is a tyrant. A classic bully. But without his weapons he is suddenly very vuneralbe and surrounded by a long list of grudge bearing people in powerful positions backed by widespeard public anger.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> She did try, apparently, but was turned down, and rather than getting rid of her they shut down her former paper instead.  As Rusbridger said on newsnight last night, on the face of it, it looks perverse.  Presumably there's a reason, though.
> 
> I forget who it was who suggested yesterday that she's in effect being used as a human shield for James Murdoch.  That doesn't sound implausible.  Either that, or she knows where too many of the bodies are buried.


 
I don't get this human shield theory, James Murdoch's job is safe, daddy owns the company.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Or both.


 
Very possibly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No, I'm sodding FURIOUS at what the NOTW has done to its workers.
> 
> Unlike some of the lovely people on Urban, who seem to be enjoying the fact that ordinary workers are being put on the dole


 
Lots of "seems" and "appears" in your posts.

If what you say is true then stop hedging and post some direct quotes of people revelling in ordinary workers being put on the dole.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> "Renault has become the first advertiser to publicly extend its advertising boycott to cover all News International newspapers despite the publisher's decision to close the News of the World, Brand Republic reports. It reports that Renault - which spent £343,829 with the News of the World in the 12 months to the end of April, 2011, according to Nielsen - said in a statement



That is big advertiser to blanket boycott all NI titles and come out and state it publicly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I don't get this human shield theory, James Murdoch's job is safe, daddy owns the company.


 
Ha. Neither little Jimmy nor his dad is safe in this affair. The shareholders could decide to get rid of them both. It wouldn't be the first time the founder of a company was given the boot by the board.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

It's beyond jobs. It's who's life is going to be consumed by this for the next x years (5 years?), and even who's doing time besides Coulson.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

I'm loving how Murdoch with ambitions to be a Global Broadcaster, has completely failed to understand the public, and advertisers and their reaction to what has happened, sacked staff, closed a paper, when in reality, sacking Brooks would probably have appeased a lof of people - too late for that now though.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> LOL. Thanks for the opinion then.


 
No


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It's beyond jobs. It's who's doing time.


 
James behind bars and Rupert kicked out of his own company would do me as a result.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ha. Neither little Jimmy nor his dad is safe in this affair. The shareholders could decide to get rid of them both. It wouldn't be the first time the founder of a company was given the boot by the board.


 
well daddy owns 39% so he's the biggest shareholder, no one else owns more than 39% so it would be difficult to oust him.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

Becasue if she goes then James Murdoch is next in line. They are trying to use her as a shit sponge - but its not working.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I don't get this human shield theory, James Murdoch's job is safe, daddy owns the company.


 
Yes, but what, if anything, did he know about the phone hacking?  Perhaps they think that keeping Brooks in place might draw the fire away from him...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> well daddy owns 39% so he's the biggest shareholder, no one else owns more than 39% so it would be difficult to oust him.


 
If things are going catastrophically badly, that's potentially 61% against.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 8, 2011)

It's very simple: if Brooks goes now, then she won't be available to be fired later on, when things get worse, will she.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I'm loving how Murdoch with ambitions to be a Global Broadcaster, has completely failed to understand the public, and advertisers and their reaction to what has happened, sacked staff, closed a paper, when in reality, sacking Brooks would probably have appeased a lof of people - too late for that now though.


 
Yep - News International are clearly members of the Hosni Mubarak school of crises management.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 8, 2011)

Badgers said:


> That is big advertiser to blanket boycott all NI titles and come out and state it publicly.


 
Jup. I've just written to the Co-op to ask them to go all the way too. Anyone who uses their services and/or is a member, please join me!


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I'm loving how Murdoch with ambitions to be a Global Broadcaster, has completely failed to understand the public, and advertisers and their reaction to what has happened, sacked staff, closed a paper, when in reality, sacking Brooks would probably have appeased a lof of people - too late for that now though.


 
Its stuff that which makes me think its more and more likely that the recent decisions around this were taken by either James Murdoch, or James Murdoch and the News Corp board, rather than by Rupert Murdoch - I mean, he might be called many things, but he is not a fool.


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I don't get this human shield theory, James Murdoch's job is safe, daddy owns the company.


It was me who suggested it, as explanation for keeping Brooks in place, even after she offered to resign and killing NotW instead.

James Murdoch possibly acted criminally in approving the hush money, and he has admitted to that. The Guardian noted a reshuffle a few months ago which removed him from the orbit of UK operations and put Rebekah Brooks in sole charge, and they suggested that they were lining up the fall guys, starting with Coulson.

They have been trying to cut the fuse before it gets to the top for a while now, and I think this NotW closure is no big deal, for the reasons I think butchers stated earlier. But The Sun brand is now very contaminated, and Renault has stated very clearly where it stands on where the criminality lies.

It's not about whether or not James will get sacked, it's about whether their will be an empire left for him to run once Dad pops his clogs.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

They can't sack her. If she turns, they could all do time. They have to be loyal, and be seen to be loyal.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> It's very simple: if Brooks goes now, then she won't be available to be fired later on, when things get worse, will she.


 
Indeed.  At some point she will go, but only when she's served her purpose, whatever that might be.  If she goes now, James Murdoch is next in the firing line.

One wonders what her own motives are atm...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> They can't sack her. If she turns, they could all do time. They have to be loyal, and be seen to be loyal.


 
They can't sack her, yet the only credible thing to do is to sack her. Marvellous.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 8, 2011)

Kinda stifles the launch of Huff Post UK, doesn't it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> One wonders what her own motives are atm...


 
Same as everybody else's - to avoid the invitation to attend the police station.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 8, 2011)

They'll pay her off, when it suits them to do so.
Edit: That's her motive: either she stays and avoids the chop, or if eventually chopped, gets paid off. And/or quite possibly set up with some nice new work elsewhere thanks to uncle Rupe's contacts. 
From her perspective, there's no reason to cut NI loose. She wants them on side.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Yep, she's dragging them down, and they can't cut her loose. Breaks your heart.


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

She offered to resign. This isn't about her revealing where the bodies are buried. It's about keeping the focus on her whilst James shores up his defences and puts some protection down for the rest of the operations.


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> They can't sack her. If she turns, they could all do time. They have to be loyal, and be seen to be loyal.


 
Which makes the decision to all pile on Coulson very hard to fathom - I mean, unless they are being very sly indeed, he is being given no reason at all to stay loyal... there will probably never be a better time for him to rat them out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> They'll pay her off, when it suits them to do so.


 
What's the going rate for taking a five-year prison term?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> Its stuff that which makes me think its more and more likely that the recent decisions around this were taken by either James Murdoch, or James Murdoch and the News Corp board, rather than by Rupert Murdoch - I mean, he might be called many things, but he is not a fool.



Murdoch knows how to bully people into submission. Uppity politicians and journos and over eager cops he knows how to deal with. The mass moral outrage of the entire british people is  something he has ever only ever used agasint others, not something hes ever had to deal with himself - when it came down to Mumsnet vs Murdoch there was only going to be one winner!


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 8, 2011)

going to be keeping an eye on this twitter feed for the 4pm grudge match:

http://twitter.com/#!/ExNOTWJourno


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

By brian whelan: 
'the cleanest hands must be the groaner because we broke the story,' greenslade claims. Observer however identified by 'Operation Motorman'

Anyone know any more??


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Same as everybody else's - to avoid the invitation to attend the police station.


 
Definitely that, but one wonders what else there might be.  Genuine loyalty to the Murdochs?  Fear of what they could do to her as well as vice versa?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 8, 2011)

Shop Direct has already (yesterday) suspended advertising in all News International titles. 

"Shop Direct are wholly owned by the Barclay Brothers". Jesus you *have* to be in trouble if the Barclay Brothers won't touch you for ethical reasons. 

Do we know the major NI advertisers peoples?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> He knows how to bully people into submission. Uppity politicians and journos and over eager cops he knows how to deal with. The mass moral outrage of the entire british people is not something he has ever only ever used agasint others, not something hes ever had to deal with himself - when it came down to Mumsnet vs Murdoch there was only going to be one winner!


 
absolutely. And the comparison with Mubarak is spot-on. pk had it right earlier in this thread, in fact - nobody is bigger than everyone.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> And here's the happy, smiling and not at all psychotically pissed off and worried about her future Rebekah Brooks herself as she left her workplace:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Which goes to show that having a personal hairdresser at work doesn't necessarily make you more presentable.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> Which makes the decision to all pile on Coulson very hard to fathom - I mean, unless they are being very sly indeed, he is being given no reason at all to stay loyal... there will probably never be a better time for him to rat them out.


 Well,  he's now been arrested, doesn't work for the firm, perjured himself, is a weak link for Cameron.... he's in a very different place to Brooks.

You imagine he's having a long think.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Definitely that, but one wonders what else there might be.  Genuine loyalty to the Murdochs?  Fear of what they could do to her as well as vice versa?


 
I'd be amazed if she harboured illusions of genuine loyalty. It all strikes me as very Goodfellas, all this: "That was the moment I realised Rupert was going to send me down."


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What's the going rate for taking a five-year prison term?


 
Coulson's been set up to do the time. They've cut him loose. When he left Downing St it was fairly clear that he was no further use to NI.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Jup. I've just written to the Co-op to ask them to go all the way too. Anyone who uses their services and/or is a member, please join me!


 
PM on way for you


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

damnhippie said:


> going to be keeping an eye on this twitter feed for the 4pm grudge match:
> 
> http://twitter.com/#!/ExNOTWJourno



Nice one!


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> Which makes the decision to all pile on Coulson very hard to fathom - I mean, unless they are being very sly indeed, he is being given no reason at all to stay loyal... there will probably never be a better time for him to rat them out.


 
Coulson was always more of an underling 'spiv'. A bit like Osborne in the Bullingdon. Not a true insider (Etonian). He was all about the news and communications business, Wade/Brooks was all about influence and implied threat. Look at their performance in front of the select committee. That's why Brooks won't go in front of them now - she has no fucking idea of what's legal or ethical. She manipulates people, that's all. 

She's not a journalist, she's a mafia bossling. Coulson is the hired outsider to provide expertise for the job. Murdoch is pulling the strings, and grooming his successor.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which goes to show that having a personal hairdresser at work doesn't necessarily make you more presentable.


 
Who chose for her to wear Dalmation Puppies? That's what I want to know. 





((((((Dalmation Puppies))))))))


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

> Former Met police chief Brian Paddick has told my colleague Vikram Dodd it is now "blindingly obvious" that police would want to arrest and interview Rebekah Brooks, the controversial boss of News International.
> 
> Paddick said: "If Andy Coulson has been arrested, it is inevitable that Rebekah Brooks will get an invitation from the police that she can not refuse."



From the Guardian blog.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> She offered to resign. This isn't about her revealing where the bodies are buried. It's about keeping the focus on her whilst James shores up his defences and puts some protection down for the rest of the operations.


 
I don't see why it can't be a bit of both.

Either way, whatever she is, Brooks isn't stupid and she presumably understands whatever game they're playing...


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

Ah got it: 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/docume...search_and_reports/what_price_privacy_now.pdf 

Page 11


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

damnhippie said:


> going to be keeping an eye on this twitter feed for the 4pm grudge match:
> 
> http://twitter.com/#!/ExNOTWJourno


 
16:02 Sorry, that page does not exist.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> 16:02 Sorry, that page does not exist.


 
It's working for me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

> it is inevitable that Rebekah Brooks will get an invitation from the police that she can not refuse



Good grief, even that goon Paddick is coming out with the goods.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> From the Guardian blog.
> 
> 
> > Former Met police chief Brian Paddick has told my colleague Vikram Dodd it is now "blindingly obvious" that police would want to arrest and interview Rebekah Brooks, the controversial boss of News International.
> ...


 
She's wearing Dalmation Puppies!


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Good grief, even that goon Paddick is coming out with the goods.


 
be lovely if she could be filmed doing the 'perp walk'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> I don't see why it can't be a bit of both.
> 
> Either way, whatever she is, Brooks isn't stupid and she presumably understands whatever game they're playing...


 
That's the bit I would not be sure of at all. I suspect she is completely at sea and doesn't know what the fuck to do. She's facing jail and complete ruin, and I don't see any way for her to prevent it.

Also, I think she is stupid. She's an arrogant prick who is going to go to jail. That's pretty stupid in my book.


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> I don't see why it can't be a bit of both.
> 
> Either way, whatever she is, Brooks isn't stupid and she presumably understands whatever game they're playing...


I'm not at all sure she does. She's serving a purpose. She's certainly caught on the tide and there's not a lot she can do about it.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> 16:02 Sorry, that page does not exist.


 
Working for me too.


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> 16:02 Sorry, that page does not exist.


 
seems to be still working for me... they haven't posted for a while though


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

Ta. Trying again.

And following ... thanks again.


----------



## damnhippie (Jul 8, 2011)

supposedly a riot van outside NOtW as of 3 mins ago


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

Coulson arrested, Brooks could be arrested, Murdoch Jr maybe in the frame - all chummy with Disco Dave - not saying Disco has committed a crime - but his position is threatened - he talks about fresh  starts - maybe the Tory party agree with him


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

Gaurdian main story is now - 




> *Phone hacking: Police probe suspected deletion of emails by NI executive• 'Massive quantities' of archive allegedly deleted
> • Emails believed to be between News of the World editors*
> Police are investigating evidence that a News International executive may have deleted millions of emails from an internal archive, in an apparent attempt to obstruct Scotland Yard's inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/08/phone-hacking-emails-news-international

So which executive? Brooks or Murdoch jnr? The Graun are clearly being fed regular high quality info by the cops. Will we see a police raid on Wapping? 

Oh boy, is this good!


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Kinda stifles the launch of Huff Post UK, doesn't it?


 
True, but I wouldn't have thought even Murdoch would do this to boost circulation.



littlebabyjesus said:


> What's the going rate for taking a five-year prison term?


 
I don't know, but if Uncle Rupert ended up with five years then his cellmate would have reasonable grounds to sue for breach of his human rights. Imagine five years, trapped beside Rupert Murdoch in a room the size of a parking space.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Gaurdian main story is now -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I can see 6000 sacked employees from the 80s being very happy to see the Police raid that place.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's the bit I would not be sure of at all. I suspect she is completely at sea and doesn't know what the fuck to do. She's facing jail and complete ruin, and I don't see any way for her to prevent it.


 


ymu said:


> I'm not at all sure she does. She's serving a purpose. She's certainly caught on the tide and there's not a lot she can do about it.


 
Oh I think she must have a reasonable idea of what the Murdochs are doing.  She's been too senior there for too long not to.  She must know how they operate and how their minds work.  Assuming your human shield theory is right, ymu - and I think it might well be - she presumably understands that that is her role, but that begs the question, what's in it for her?  That's really what i was driving at...


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

James M must be cacking himself right now ... his dad's not gonna be happy!


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

Would a hack know how to delete stuff in such a way that the police couldn't retrieve the information? How good is the average newspaper room IT department? 

This could roll on until well into the 2020s, the volume of stuff to read and piece together here. Bliss.


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Oh I think she must have a reasonable idea of what the Murdochs are doing.  She's been too senior there for too long not to.  She must know how they operate and how their minds work.  Assuming your human shield theory is right, ymu - and I think it might well be - she presumably understands that that is her role, but that begs the question, what's in it for her?  That's really what i was driving at...


 
Oh, I don't disagree that she might well have perfect insight. I just don't think it's a foregone conclusion, nor that relevant. She's on the rollercoaster called 'no fucking choice' right now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Oh I think she must have a reasonable idea of what the Murdochs are doing.  She's been too senior there for too long not to.  She must know how they operate and how their minds work.  Assuming your human shield theory is right, ymu - and I think it might well be - she presumably understands that that is her role, but that begs the question, what's in it for her?  That's really what i was driving at...


 
But what choice does she have? If she spills the beans, she also incriminates herself, so that doesn't save her from jail time. I get the impression that she is effectively doing nothing because she can't think of anything to do. Poor diddums is stuck.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Would a hack know how to delete stuff in such a way that the police couldn't retrieve the information? How good is the average newspaper room IT department?


 
Thats what I was thinking.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

So we now  could be looking at charges for hacking e-mails, bribing cops, perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice  heading the way of Coulson, Brooks and Murdoch jnr. And thats before the fraud squad have a good long look at the accounts and who knows what other little illegal delights might turn up. 

Methinks they might just fail Ofcoms 'fit and proper persons' test. 

Thought jsut crossed my mind - is this a co-ordianted operation by the cops, the graun and others to fuck News international?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Would a hack know how to delete stuff in such a way that the police couldn't retrieve the information? How good is the average newspaper room IT department?



a mysterious fire maybe?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> I don't know, but if Uncle Rupert ended up with five years then his cellmate would have reasonable grounds to sue for breach of his human rights. Imagine five years, trapped beside Rupert Murdoch in a room the size of a parking space.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

this is becoming similar to Watergate - are we going to see Cameron making a Nixon like exit, after being given a Pardon by Clegg? (Temp PM)


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

Follow @ExNOTWJourno

Apparently all phones must be turned off! Fuck off lol


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

Wonder how Rebecca's meeting at the NoftW is going? 

Tea and biscuits?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> this is becoming similar to Watergate - are we going to see Cameron making a Nixon like exit, after being given a Pardon by Clegg? (Temp PM)


 
Remember that Watergate didn't bring down the Republican presidency, though. If the tories manage to replace Cameron and carry on, I don't quite see what has been achieved there. There needs to be a wedge driven between the tories and the libdems over this so that it doesn't just bring down Cameron, it brings down the government. 

That's still a long way off, though, imo. A grovelling apology and admittance of a 'grave error of judgement' may well ensue, but not necessarily any resignation.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 8, 2011)

Did Brooks sack the NoTW staff whilst wearing Dead Dalmation Puppies and does her chosen attire for that dirty, dirty deed meet the definition of 'Ironic Clothing'?


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)




----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Wonder how Rebecca's meeting at the NoftW is going?
> 
> Tea and biscuits?



from the Grauniad:



> 4.17pm: Ignore @ExNOTWJournalist, at least for the moment, because Sky News's political correspondent Sophy Ridge – who used to work at the News of the World – has a source in the Brooks meeting and is tweeting away.
> Live blog: Twitter
> 
> @sophyridge Rebekah Brookes has apologised to staff fir "operational issues" ie email access
> ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Wonder how Rebecca's meeting at the NoftW is going?
> 
> Tea and biscuits?



Silence........DRUM ROLL!!!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

@sophyridge Rebekah Brooks says she is staying on because she is a conductor for it all

wtf lol


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 8, 2011)

Hugh Grant on Question Time: NoW closure 'cynical manoeuvre': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14073260


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

A lightning conductor?


----------



## Smangus (Jul 8, 2011)

watching this unfold this week is better than watching the world cup


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Kinda stifles the launch of Huff Post UK, doesn't it?


 


littlebabyjesus said:


> What's the going rate for taking a five-year prison term?


 


Mr.Bishie said:


> Silence........DRUM ROLL!!!



And then the headsman reached for the lever of Madame Guillotine and the bonce of Rebekah Brooks did tumble into the basket before being held aloft as the headsman did proclaim:

'GOTCHA!'


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

@ExNOTWJourno Brooks staying. thats my info at this moment


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A lightning conductor?


 
Too late, methinks. Two big advertisers have already withdrawn from all NI publications. That's the end for the BSkyB deal, and  Murdoch's influence on British politics.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Remember that Watergate didn't bring down the Republican presidency, though. If the tories manage to replace Cameron and carry on, I don't quite see what has been achieved there. There needs to be a wedge driven between the tories and the libdems over this so that it doesn't just bring down Cameron, it brings down the government.
> 
> That's still a long way off, though, imo. A grovelling apology and admittance of a 'grave error of judgement' may well ensue, but not necessarily any resignation.



it would be a good start though, before this Cameron was having a fairly serene time as PM, despite not actually winning the election, he had tricked the Lib Dems into a coalition that could well fuck them for the future, sidelined Labour who were all over the shop trying to elect a new leader and then not being effective even then as an opposition, he had managed to get others to take the blame rather than him, now he is associated with the biggest political scandal in a generation - this is bigger than MPs lining their pockets -


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 8, 2011)

BBC needs to let us embed video! Watch that link to Question Time!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

Disco Dave is in a very awkward position. He cant cut Murdoch loose (like labour have done) but is under ever growing pressure to do so. The stench is rising - a news corporation that uses blackmail and survileance to get its way, bribes cops, employs criminals and all he can do is wring his hands and talk about 'lessons needs to be learned' whilst refusing to directly crticise them. Hes well behind the game - and the public. You know you've got problems if the Barkley Brothes have publicly out done you in the 'moral compass' stakes.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

@ExNOTWJourno she feels betrayed by the hackers. Betrayed


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> @ExNOTWJourno Brooks staying. thats my info at this moment


 
Know what, I don't think she, nor Murdoch snr and jnr, have a clue what they are doing. They are completely at sea.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.   Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.


 
Thanks for re-treading that 1970s-vintage "joke".


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

@ExNOTWJourno She really defines delusional doesnt she.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Disco Dave is in a very awkward position. *He cant cut Murdoch loose* (like labour have done) but is under ever growing pressure to do so. .


 
Oh, I think he can. I think he will have to. Along with grovelling admissions of an error of judgement, in the hope that that will be enough.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Know what, I don't think she, nor Murdoch snr and jnr, have a clue what they are doing. They are completely at sea.



Up shit creek without their fuckin' paddle. Lets hope their fuckin' boat sinks!


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> You know you've got problems if the Barkley Brothes have publicly out done you in the 'moral compass' stakes.


 
their withdrawal has nothing to do with morality.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

Brooks is toxic now, Murdoch's power was all about influence, getting his soldiers to have cosy chats with the Political elite - who is seriously going to have a cosy chat with toxic brooks now?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> BBC needs to let us embed video! Watch that link to Question Time!


 
I watched the actual show. 

High Grant was good, persuasive and knew a lot more about events than one might have expected. Including that the NL guy (name forgotten) on the panel had been to a NI drinks party just in the last week  that was hilarious.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you forgot the daily star.......


 
The Daily Star didn't exist when that joke was first told.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

I saw the end of that, and Grant was good, yes. Made Gaunt look like a pathetic weasel for bringing up Grant's hooker arrest.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh, I think he can. I think he will have to. Along with grovelling admissions of an error of judgement, in the hope that that will be enough.


 
Yes - he will have to eventually, but it will only highlight how long he waited. His press confernce this morning is already clangingly out of step with events. News International is going down as we watch!


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Oh, I don't disagree that she might well have perfect insight. I just don't think it's a foregone conclusion, nor that relevant. She's on the rollercoaster called 'no fucking choice' right now.


 


littlebabyjesus said:


> But what choice does she have? If she spills the beans, she also incriminates herself, so that doesn't save her from jail time. I get the impression that she is effectively doing nothing because she can't think of anything to do. Poor diddums is stuck.



True, but she wouldn't _have_ to spill the beans if she went, and meanwhile sticking around may well not save her from a little chat with the Old Bill.  She's in a very tight corner either way - as are her bosses - and I'm just intrigued as to why she's made the moves she has - and why they have too, especially in terms of not accepting her resignation when she apparently offered it.  It's probably useless to continue speculating for now though ... and anyway, I'm going to knock off work and go to the pub shortly.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

killer b said:


> their withdrawal has nothing to do with morality.


 
Well clearly - but I was talking about apperacnes not actuality


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> High Grant was good, persuasive and knew a lot more about events than one might have expected. Including that the NL guy (name forgotten) on the panel had been to a NI drinks party just in the last week  that was hilarious.


 
he's not working on his own is he? he's clearly being regularly briefed, presumably by someone at the graun.


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Nooo! Really?!?


 
no-body could possibly think it does though.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 8, 2011)

You do know that 'offering your resignation' and 'having it refused' are just normal parts of any situation like this? It doesn't mean she meant it, and she knew they wouldn't accept it before she gave it, otherwise she wouldn't have done so. They ALWAYS say they offered to resign but it was refused, at this stage in the proceedings.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

Grant was good in a bumbling , charming, foppish Hugh Grant sort of way, he had been well briefed that was clear - Gaunt just SHOUTED A LOT


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh, I think he can. I think he will have to. Along with grovelling admissions of an error of judgement, in the hope that that will be enough.


 
I bet everyone at the Beeb is doing a little dance


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

@ExNOTWJourno not everyone will get jobs. 2 catergories: talented and untalented. Those who get jobs are being gagged. many not @ meeting are the 'untalented'


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

Question: And where will Coulson, Brooks, Goodman and presumably several others go from here on in?

Answer: Well, Dartmoor's lovely this time of year.


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> You do know that 'offering your resignation' and 'having it refused' are just normal parts of any situation like this? It doesn't mean she meant it, and she knew they wouldn't accept it before she gave it, otherwise she wouldn't have done so. They ALWAYS say they offered to resign but it was refused, at this stage in the proceedings.


 
i'm not quite sure why everyone seems to believe she's even offered to resign. the only source is NI rumour, and that's hardly reliable.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

@sophyridge Rebekah Brooks says the decision to close the NotW was taken because there was another two years plus ahead of trouble


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 8, 2011)

killer b said:


> i'm not quite sure why everyone seems to believe she's even offered to resign. the only source is NI rumour, and that's hardly reliable.


 
NI media advisors will have put it about, as part of their attempt to influence the narrative.
Edit: Any staff payouts will include confidentiality agreements, of course. So all the talk of 'sacked staff spilling the dirt' is probably overstated, unless any of them are independently wealthy (unlikely).


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> I bet everyone at the Beeb is doing a little dance



Beeb must be loving this - particularly after the Grant/Ross affair - which pales into insignificance now, and that other thing I've forgotten about which Dyke resigned over


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> @sophyridge Rebekah Brooks says the decision to close the NotW was taken because there was another two years plus ahead of trouble


 
she will now be booking a 2 year holiday


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> What? No. Did you miss the 'middle-class luxury' bit. Address it directly if you want to make such stupid claims. What sorts of workers have these choices, lbj?
> 
> I agree with you, if there are plenty of vacancies that suit your skills and plenty of work that pays well enough to live. But, that's not everyone is it? That's a very fucking small proportion of the population, isn't it?
> 
> Middle-class lefties polishing their halos for doing what is easy and condemning less fortunate others for not doing what is impossible, as per fucking usual. Open your fucking eyes. Jesus.


 
Bollocks.

It's not "impossible". It's *certainly* more difficult to follow your conscience when you don't have saleable skills or a sheaf of offers on the table, but it's nowhere near "impossible". Have a look at how many low-level staff have been involved in whistle-blowing, and you'll see what I mean. Try not to make sweeping generalisations, eh?

BTW, don't you feel a bit hypocritical having a pop at "middle class lefties", you middle-class leftie?


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> she will now be booking a 2 year holiday


 
I didn't know Holloway did requests.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> she will now be booking a 2 year holiday


 
Upgraded to five years by the 'holiday company', with extra charges, of course.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

@sophyridge Rebekah says: you may be angry with me, I understand. But I'm angry at the people who did this and feel bitterly betrayed


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Disco Dave is in a very awkward position. He cant cut Murdoch loose (like labour have done) but is under ever growing pressure to do so. The stench is rising - a news corporation that uses blackmail and survileance to get its way, bribes cops, employs criminals and all he can do is wring his hands and talk about 'lessons needs to be learned' whilst refusing to directly crticise them. Hes well behind the game - and the public. You know you've got problems if the Barkley Brothes have publicly out done you in the 'moral compass' stakes.


 
This raises some interesting points. Namely that now Milliband has moved against Murdoch he can't allow his power to remain or he will wreak revenge as soon as the next election comes around. So they have to take this all the way and cut his wings or labour is toast. We will see whether Milliband has the balls to take Murdoch on all the way. Given the spineless cunt's past form I have my doubts


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> @sophyridge Rebekah says: you may be angry with me, I understand. But I'm angry at the people who did this and feel bitterly betrayed


 
clearly she was on holiday everytime they did something illegal


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

Is the Brooks meeting is being tweeted live? Surely someone will have told her by now?


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> @sophyridge Rebekah says: you may be angry with me, I understand. But I'm angry at the people who did this and feel bitterly betrayed


 
aye, alan rusbridger better watch his back.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

@ExNOTWJourno Murdoch Jr To Make announcement at 5 apparently.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

killer b said:


> aye, alan rusbridger better watch his back.


 
and Cameron

this is going to make it awkward next weekend in Chipping Norton


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> This raises some interesting points. Namely that now Milliband has moved against Murdoch they can't allow his power to remain or he will wreak revenge as soon as the next election comes around. So they have to take this all the way and cut his wings or labour is toast. We will see whether Milliband has the balls to take Murdoch on all the way. Given the spineless cunt's past form I have my doubts


 
I dunno - he seems to have pretty much burnt his bridges. They dont do reckless gambles - which makes me think that they already know there is more serious shit coming Murdochs way.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

@ExNOTWJourno 3 former colleagues to sell stories. Good on them!

@DeborahJaneOrr  Christ. Selling their stories? Not exactly turning over a new leaf is it?


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 8, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> You do know that 'offering your resignation' and 'having it refused' are just normal parts of any situation like this? It doesn't mean she meant it, and she knew they wouldn't accept it before she gave it, otherwise she wouldn't have done so. They ALWAYS say they offered to resign but it was refused, at this stage in the proceedings.


 
Offering your resigination and having it accepted are far from unknown, though, so if it's true she offered to resign (and killer b is right that it might not be) then the question of why it wasn't accepted still stands.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> @ExNOTWJourno Murdoch Jr To Make announcement at 5 apparently.


 
And here's that announcement in full:







'We ran everything. We paid off cops. We paid off lawyers. We paid off judges. Everybody had their hands out. Everything was for the taking. And now it's all over. That's the hardest part. Today everything is different. There's no action. I have to wait around like everyone else. Can't even get decent food. Right after I got here I ordered some spaghetti with marinara sauce and I got egg noodles and ketchup. I'm an average nobody. I get to live the rest of my life like a schnook.'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Murdoch's power has already gone. His only power was the fact that people thought he had power. If I were Cameron right now, I'd be working out how I could fuck Murdoch over good and proper. Milliband no longer has to care what Murdoch says or does - he has broken the spell on him by simply denying that the man has a spell on him.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Murdoch's power has already gone. His only power was the fact that people thought he had power.


 
Ignore the man behind the curtain!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

belboid said:


> the 'they're all scum who print the sub' argument was used against printworkers in 85, and it was bullshit then. And it wasn't the NUJ who scabbed on the strike (the some members did) it was the EETPU./QUOTE]
> 
> Yep, although EETPU didn't technically "scab", they broke a series of demarcation agreements they'd made with the other unions, and printed the papers. That cunt Hammond had a permanent smirk on his face back the, the shit-sack.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> And here's that announcement in full:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## xenon (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Would a hack know how to delete stuff in such a way that the police couldn't retrieve the information? How good is the average newspaper room IT department?
> 
> This could roll on until well into the 2020s, the volume of stuff to read and piece together here. Bliss.


 

Could be outsaursed. I don't know what's typical industry time for holding on to off site backups or how many redundand copies is. So, maybe they're not "deleted." Even if they've scrubbed them beyond recovery from the local storage.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2011)

I'm not sure I understand.

How can a resignation not be accepted? The company can expect you to work a contractually agreed notice period. But beyond that, it isn't prison.

Unless she was offering herself up as the sacrificial lamb but wasn't actually being serious in her resignation offer.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 8, 2011)

*Ironic clothing alert?*








Think about it - the story of the 101 Dalmatians, the hacking of missing people and their families' mobiles by NoTW (tip of the iceberg), and the attire of Brooks upon sacking NoTW staff. 

It's more than Ironic - why hasn't Steve Bell the cartoonist taken this and run with it? She handed it to him on a plate 
When I saw what she was wearing, I thought to myself 'Did she consciously intend to wear her guilt symbolically by choosing a Dalamatian Puppy blouse?'


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Offering your resigination and having it accepted are far from unknown, though, so if it's true she offered to resign (and killer b is right that it might not be) then the question of why it wasn't accepted still stands.


 
There's offering and there's 'offering', iyswim. If it was an actual offer, I'll eat my press card.

Edit: The data is on a server in India, apparently.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

@ExNOTWJourno @nicstevenson @jonsnowC4 Thanks a lot! You try writing grammatically and with perfect spelling on one of the worst days of your life!

@nicstevenson For a journalist, @ExNOTWJourno's grammar is abysmal... Mind you, their tweets do look a lot like some of @jonsnowC4's so it could be


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> And here's that announcement in full:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Then your HO is BS.


 
Why? Murdoch doesn't even own a majority of media in the UK. In fact Trinity Mirror own far more local media, and are certainly more of a "player" in terms of employing people wanting to break into journalism that NI have ever been.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

I wonder if Rupert is checking prices for the Idi Amin Retirement Suite at the Riyadh Hilton?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

smokedout said:


> what do you do for a living jesus?


 
He's the messiah of the Christians, you daft cunt!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> I wonder if Rupert is checking out retirement bungalows in Saudi right now?


 
He could pick up Idi Amin's former residence for a song!


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

This thread is why I love and cherish the internet. Where else could an average nobody like me get to troll the entire News Corporation before a global audience?

Tim Berners Lee, I thank you.

*Doffs cap*


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why? Murdoch doesn't even own a majority of media in the UK. In fact Trinity Mirror own far more local media, and are certainly more of a "player" in terms of employing people wanting to break into journalism that NI have ever been.


 
I would doubt many journos working at NI have started at the bottom there and worked their way up in any case. Their usual mo is to poach experienced staff from elsewhere by offering them a big salary - I've seen that happen quite a bit, especially with senior staff. One magazine editor I worked for accepted a more junior position - assistant editor to a mag - at NI in return for a Wapping big pay rise.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> This thread is why I love and cherish the internet. Where else could an average nobody like me get to troll the entire News Corporation before a global audience?
> 
> Tim Berners Lee, I thank you.
> 
> *Doffs cap*



lol


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> It's not "impossible". It's *certainly* more difficult to follow your conscience when you don't have saleable skills or a sheaf of offers on the table, but it's nowhere near "impossible". Have a look at how many low-level staff have been involved in whistle-blowing, and you'll see what I mean. Try not to make sweeping generalisations, eh?
> 
> BTW, don't you feel a bit hypocritical having a pop at "middle class lefties", you middle-class leftie?


 
I'm a walking middle-class cliche, VP, I don't deny it. Besides, we've earnt less than one minimum wage between us over the last seven years, so I don't_ feel _very middle-class, all right. 

It's down to how much of a compromise and how difficult the situation, really. Bailiff? You'd have to be very desperate, and able to prove it ... but people can get that desperate, there's no denying it. 14,000 more people are set to be excluded entirely from the benefits system with the IDS 'reforms' and plenty are already. We more or less are. Both hidden disabilities which don't prevent us working, just from getting work. We own our rusty old boat with no mooring so no housing benefit but bills, licence and maintenance are relatively massive. We move around, so signing on would be difficult, especially long-term. Lots of people are in a similar position, but without the fortunate choices we have. But we still have to compromise.

I used to be employed by the NHS, which sometimes meant working for Capita. Should I have refused? I dunno, perhaps. Depends on the project. Now I'm self-employed, I just charge them two to three times more, and tax them to subsidise what I charge the NHS. It's the best I can do.

We're all trapped in a shit system. I just think these sentiments need to be expressed carefully. A lot of people hate the left solely because they feel they're being sneered at from a position of moral superiority, and it's not helpful either for broadening support or for reducing the schisms and somewhat strained ideological divisions. That's all.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> He could pick up Idi Amin's former residence for a song!


 
He'd better get someone else to empty the fridge though.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> He'd better get someone else to empty the fridge though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> A lot of people hate the left solely because they feel they're being sneered at from a position of moral superiority, and it's not helpful either for broadening support or for reducing the schisms and somewhat strained ideological divisions. That's all.


 
Where have I sneered at any workers below the level of the editorial staff at the NOTW? I explicitly explained that I wasn't.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

@sophyridge About to go on Sky News with inside track on Rebekah meeting


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> He'd better get someone else to empty the fridge though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Assuming it was natural causes, yes.
> 
> Maxwell did a lot of business with the East Bloc, so he might well have had connections to the security organs. Though that's a bit OT.


 
He had known connections with them, going back to WW2, when he worked for military intelligence and his name wasn't Robert Maxwell. It allowed him to "make himself useful" to SIS and the other alphabetties while also helping himself. It's part  of how he pulled off some excellent academic publishing coups.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

> Now the painful task of cleaning up the Metropolitan police begins



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/08/metropolitan-police-paul-stephenson?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

@sophyridge Rebekah also talked about her rise from a NotW trainee to it's Chief Executive, and says if there's anyone she's loyal to it's NotW


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm not sure I understand.
> *
> How can a resignation not be accepted? *The company can expect you to work a contractually agreed notice period. But beyond that, it isn't prison.
> 
> Unless she was offering herself up as the sacrificial lamb but wasn't actually being serious in her resignation offer.



It's happened to me twice. 

Two different companies talked me into staying, with more money, one I stayed with for another few years until a take-over.

The other I resigned from again about 2 months later and they still tried to talk me into staying.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> He had known connections with them, going back to WW2, when he worked for military intelligence and his name wasn't Robert Maxwell. It allowed him to "make himself useful" to SIS and the other alphabetties while also helping himself. It's part  of how he pulled off some excellent academic publishing coups.



The publishing contacts went right on through 'til the end. For some bizarre reason, my local library in the 1980s had the complete set of Ceaucescu's speeches, published by Maxwell's Pergamon Press. But that's going way OT. . . 

Has Murdoch ever been linked to the spooks, as opposed to their political masters?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Thanks for that image, VP.


 
Sorry, mate!


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

> feel  (fl)
> v. felt (flt), feel·ing, feels
> v.tr.
> 1.
> ...



It's not what you think, it's what you communicate that matters., lbj.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Would a hack know how to delete stuff in such a way that the police couldn't retrieve the information? How good is the average newspaper room IT department?


 
I asked this exact question elsewhere.
Answer was hard drive removal/swapping.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> It's happened to me twice.
> 
> Two different companies talked me into staying, with more money, one I stayed with for another few years until a take-over.
> 
> The other I resigned from again about 2 months later and they still tried to talk me into staying.



I can see that. Maybe they offered her more money for being so toxic, who knows?

But I doubt they've chained her to the radiator. Although that would be funnier.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Sky shares down 7%


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where have I sneered at any workers below the level of the editorial staff at the NOTW? I explicitly explained that I wasn't.


 


ymu said:


> It's not what you think, it's what you communicate that matters., lbj.



Get a room!


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> But I doubt they've chained her to the radiator. Although that would be funnier.



Keep your fantasies to yourself.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

Just did hardcore direct action. Big pile of Sun newspapers so I put a copy of the Mirror on top so nobody will think the Sun is there. Just watching out for the feds now....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's not what you think, it's what you communicate that matters., lbj.


 
Bollocks. You misunderstood what I said. That's all. Why not just admit it.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

It'll be fun hanging round my local newsagents on Sunday. Anyone buying the NOTW will be hiding it inside a copy of Razzle so they feel less embarrassed.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Get a room!



.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Dan U said:


> whats a chinagraph?



A wax-based marker pencil.

Fuck, I'm SO fucking old!!!



> also, i do occassionaly think that coming up with some of the headlines must be a bit of a fun job


 
For the first couple of weeks, then it just becomes an exercise in conforming to the "house style".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm guessing that by 'going sub-free' what you really mean is that the jobs of designer and sub have been combined, though.



That was already happening in the early '80s, on a piecemeal basis throughout the industry. Nowadays "sub-free" generally means trusting the software, and hoping that your over-worked "designer" spots the howlers. Had fun explaining to my mum recently how so many simple errors ("formally" for "formerly", for example) get past. Software isn't context-sensitive enough, and tired eyes skim over the less than egregious errors.


----------



## 8den (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> A wax-based marker pencil.
> 
> Fuck, I'm SO fucking old!!!



I've got a box of chinagraphs in my work box.....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> Alistair Campbell really has no sense of shame at all.


 
This is the bloke who punched someone for telling the "Captain Bob-bob-bobbing along" joke after Maxwell's death. Of course he's got no shame.


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 8, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Sky shares down 7%


 
Also News Corp down by 4% within day, 5.5% week on week, wiping a tasty 2.6 billion dollars of their market capitalization since last Friday. God, Rupes really must love Rebekah to drag his investors down into the shit like that.


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> He had known connections with them, going back to WW2, when he worked for military intelligence and his name wasn't Robert Maxwell. It allowed him to "make himself useful" to SIS and the other alphabetties while also helping himself. It's part  of how he pulled off some excellent academic publishing coups.


 
He was also a close friend of Israel and it is alleged that he used his contacts with Czech military intelligence to help arm Israel during the 48 war of Independance/Nakba by delivering military aid and airplane parts. He was also instrumental in allowing up to a million Jews to emigrate to Israel from the Soviet Union due to his close friendship with Gorbechev. There are also persistant rumours that he spied for Mossad and may have been involved in tipping off Israel about Israeli nuclear scientist Mordachai Vanunu. He was given what amounted to a state funeral in Israel following his death attended by the whole Israeli political and military establishment including 6 serving and past Mossad cheifs. Israel's PM Yitzhak Shamir said "he has done more for Israel than can be told".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> well daddy owns 39% so he's the biggest shareholder, no one else owns more than 39% so it would be difficult to oust him.


 
If the share price continues to fluctuate because of the ongoing issue, then an EGM is entirely possible. The big institutional shareholders who make up most of the other 61% won't sit still for too long if it means losing money, however powerful Murdoch is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would doubt many journos working at NI have started at the bottom there and worked their way up in any case. Their usual mo is to poach experienced staff from elsewhere by offering them a big salary - I've seen that happen quite a bit, especially with senior staff. One magazine editor I worked for accepted a more junior position - assistant editor to a mag - at NI in return for a Wapping big pay rise.


 
Well quite! Kizmet's contention was that NI was somehow an incubator of fresh talent, without which journalism would lose an important source of cub-training.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm a walking middle-class cliche, VP, I don't deny it. Besides, we've earnt less than one minimum wage between us over the last seven years, so I don't_ feel _very middle-class, all right.
> 
> It's down to how much of a compromise and how difficult the situation, really. Bailiff? You'd have to be very desperate, and able to prove it ... but people can get that desperate, there's no denying it. 14,000 more people are set to be excluded entirely from the benefits system with the IDS 'reforms' and plenty are already. We more or less are. Both hidden disabilities which don't prevent us working, just from getting work. We own our rusty old boat with no mooring so no housing benefit but bills, licence and maintenance are relatively massive. We move around, so signing on would be difficult, especially long-term. Lots of people are in a similar position, but without the fortunate choices we have. But we still have to compromise.
> 
> ...


 
You're missing my point, which is that exercising your conscience isn't merely the purview of "middle-class lefties", but of everyone with a conscience, and that people of almost every stratum of society have chosen, sometimes at great personal cost, to exercise them. It's not about whether you can afford to, it's about whether YOU feel that you can afford *not to*.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> He'd better get someone else to empty the fridge though.


 
You never know, he might enjoy finding a head in the fridge. he could act out that scene from "American Psycho" and scare the shit out of his missus!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2011)

Sky reporting Brooks as telling NoTW staff (paraphrase) "In a years time you will understand why we took this course of action (ie closing down NoTW)." Apparently she has "visibility of worse revelations to come"


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You never know, he might enjoy finding a head in the fridge. he could act out that scene from "American Psycho" and scare the shit out of his missus!


 
I'd have thought being married to Rupert was punishment enough for one lifetime.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

8den said:


> I've got a box of chinagraphs in my work box.....


 
They're still used for editing film, aren't they?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

dylans said:


> He was also a close friend of Israel and it is alleged that he used his contacts with Czech military intelligence to help arm Israel during the 48 war of Independance/Nakba by delivering military aid and airplane parts. He was also instrumental in allowing up to a million Jews to emigrate to Israel from the Soviet Union due to his close friendship with Gorbechev. There are also persistant rumours that he spied for Mossad and may have been involved in tipping off Israel about Israeli nuclear scientist Mordachai Vanunu. He was given what amounted to a state funeral in Israel following his death attended by the whole Israeli political and military establishment including 6 serving and past Mossad cheifs. Israel's PM Yitzhak Shamir said "he has done more for Israel than can be told".


 
Most of the stuff about Israel that Bower and his successors dug up has been confirmed over the years, and s you say, you don't get a burial plot on the Mount of Olives, attended by Israel's establishment, if you're just some _schmo_. The bouncing Czech was in it up to his fat neck.


----------



## laptop (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're still used for editing film, aren't they?


 
Retro-clockwork-punk film, these days


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Sky reporting Brooks as telling NoTW staff (paraphrase) "In a years time you will understand why we took this course of action (ie closing down NoTW)." Apparently she has "visibility of worse revelations to come"


 
Apparent "criminal activity".


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 8, 2011)

Rebekah's been relieved of her role to lead the internal investigation at NI. And so it begins...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

Bakunin said:


> I'd have thought being married to Rupert was punishment enough for one lifetime.


 
Yeah, but footage of Ms Deng-Murdoch running screaming from the bungalow as Rupert prances around inside with his cock rammed up the mouth of a disembodied head would be quite funny, so I'm prepared to extend her punishment!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

laptop said:


> Retro-clockwork-punk film, these days


 
That's right, make me feel old again! 


(Remembers days when punk was original, not "retro", and am-pro film cams were indeed clockwork )


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Sky reporting Brooks as telling NoTW staff (paraphrase) "In a years time you will understand why we took this course of action (ie closing down NoTW)." Apparently she has "visibility of worse revelations to come"


 
Oh good. Round two.


----------



## ymu (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're missing my point, which is that exercising your conscience isn't merely the purview of "middle-class lefties", but of everyone with a conscience, and that people of almost every stratum of society have chosen, sometimes at great personal cost, to exercise them. It's not about whether you can afford to, it's about whether YOU feel that you can afford *not to*.


 
Fair enough. Plenty of people outside the 'middle class' (whatever that is) have choices. I just object to an overly simplistic approach. 'Hair-shirt leftism', if you like, where the one lecturing others has a shirt made from angora goatskin and those being lectured have ones made of cat's tongue. Or some better analogy.

I accept that this isn't necessarily the view being pushed by anyone here.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2011)

....



> Statement from the Guardian on the information it gave to the government regarding Andy Coulson:
> 
> Before the general election the Guardian contacted all three party leaders to tell them of certain facts about Andy Coulson which the Guardian could not at that stage report.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 8, 2011)

Radio 4 says that Brooks is being taken off the internal investigation & some American NI bod is doing it instead


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Ian Bone has just announced that he's relaunching the NOTW from sunday 17th. Any NOTW people working your 90 day notice reading this...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 8, 2011)

Haha


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Apparent "criminal activity".


 
Probably more Whittamore-style corruption of civil servants, cops and some others in order to get stories / access to databases, or failing that one or two stories about paedos who have escaped justice as the result of antics of (or worse yet, been facilitated by) hacks at the NOTW.  There is also the exceedingly remote possibility that the NOTW accidentally left proof lying around that it helped the last government take us into Iraq - resulting of course in the deaths of so many of the soldiers it professed to be the champions of - on a knowingly false basis, though I dont for a minute believe that would ever be allowed to come out.

Also in supreme irony, someone has secretly recorded Brooks' meeting with NOTW staff today.  Its on Sky News now!


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

According to brian whelan at least one of the ex notw hacks isn't real.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 8, 2011)

Is it me or are Sky News not toeing the "Murdoch/partyline" at the moment? Tbh I dont watch it that much but they just played an illicit recording of todays meeting between Brooks and the rest of the staff which didnt put Brooks in a good light.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ian Bone has just announced that he's relaunching the NOTW from sunday 17th. Any NOTW people working your 90 day notice reading this...


 
Hahahaha!


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 8, 2011)

sunny jim said:


> Is it me or are Sky News not toeing the "Murdoch/partyline" at the moment? Tbh I dont watch it that much but they just played an illicit recording of todays meeting between Brooks and the rest of the staff which didnt put Brooks in a good light.


 
Aye, that's what I thought. Should they really show some journalistic integrity? Then again, the recording wasn't all that juicy, and Becky B came across relatively unbitchy, so I suppose they reckon they can get away with it.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 8, 2011)

Rupe has always been a bit half-hearted about anointing a successor, hasn't he? The Murdoch siblings have carved up the empire to some degree. Is James the favoured son these days? I thought Elizabeth had been doing better in recent years.
Just wondering how this all affects the internal Murdoch empire politics ...


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

sunny jim said:


> Is it me or are Sky News not toeing the "Murdoch/partyline" at the moment? Tbh I dont watch it that much but they just played an illicit recording of todays meeting between Brooks and the rest of the staff which didnt put Brooks in a good light.


 
Seeing ones potential boss throw 200 potential colleagues under a bus, in order to save herself, might have concentrated minds over there.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2011)

ok, so shoot me... & speculation 

I feel a little bit sorry for Murdock now that he may be concievably forced to sell his complete stake in BskyB because he is not a fit and proper person. After all BskyB was his baby, it beat its competitor easily and established satellite TV as a viable business in the UK. I imagine it will hurt him to be forced to sell this, which is in many ways his biggest baby. 

/speculation & shooting me.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> ok, so shoot me... & speculation
> 
> I feel a little bit sorry for Murdock now that he may be concievably forced to sell his complete stake in BskyB because he is not a fit and proper person. After all BskyB was his baby, it beat its competitor easily and established satellite TV as a viable business in the UK. I imagine it will hurt him to be forced to sell this, which is in many ways his biggest baby.
> 
> /speculation & shooting me.


Consider your self shot


----------



## spitfire (Jul 8, 2011)

w00p w00p:

http://www.businessinsider.com/rebekah-brooks-news-of-the-world-2011-7


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> ok, so shoot me... & speculation
> 
> I feel a little bit sorry for Murdock now that he may be concievably forced to sell his complete stake in BskyB because he is not a fit and proper person. After all BskyB was his baby, it beat its competitor easily and established satellite TV as a viable business in the UK. I imagine it will hurt him to be forced to sell this, which is in many ways his biggest baby.
> 
> /speculation & shooting me.


 
He wont be forced to sell his stake in BSkyB - they might delay and perhaps even block his takeover, but screwing him that much would result in so many skeletons coming out of the closet that it would make the past three days seem like an especially dull year in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> He wont be forced to sell his stake in BSkyB - they might delay and perhaps even block his takeover, but screwing him that much would result in so many skeletons coming out of the closet that it would make the past three days seem like an especially dull year in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.


 
Actually, scratch my sympathy spiel, he has brought all this on himself and it couldn't happen to a nicer person. 

I caught some speculation today that he could be forced to sell his stake. Not a right fit and proper person and all that.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> He wont be forced to sell his stake in BSkyB - they might delay and perhaps even block his takeover, but screwing him that much would result in so many skeletons coming out of the closet that it would make the past three days seem like an especially dull year in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.


 
Ok - virtual tenner he ends up having to sell - or bails before it comes to that.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> He wont be forced to sell his stake in BSkyB - they might delay and perhaps even block his takeover, but screwing him that much would result in so many skeletons coming out of the closet that it would make the past three days seem like an especially dull year in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.


 
My understanding is that if it's determined that he's not a fit and proper person to takeover and own BSkyB outright, then he automatically isn't a fit and proper person to own any of it, so presumably would be forced to sell.


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> ok, so shoot me... & speculation
> 
> I feel a little bit sorry for Murdock now that he may be concievably forced to sell his complete stake in BskyB because he is not a fit and proper person. After all BskyB was his baby, it beat its competitor easily and established satellite TV as a viable business in the UK. I imagine it will hurt him to be forced to sell this, which is in many ways his biggest baby.
> 
> /speculation & shooting me.


 
Meh. Can't say I can bring myself to feel sorry. I don't think any one investor should be able to hold a controlling stake in the UK's largest broadcast conglomerate. Not to mention a 100% stake. Especially not if it's the person who gave the world Fox News. Just don't think just one person should have the say in deciding the line up of channels, and so deciding what people can or can't see. In fact, I'd be very much in favour of a law, limiting the amount of shares any one entity can hold in BSkyB at any one time. 

And if the deal falls through, or if he's forced to sell his current holdings then he's really got noone to blame but himself and the questionable decisions he's made in the past.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> ok, so shoot me... & speculation
> 
> I feel a little bit sorry for Murdock now that he may be concievably forced to sell his complete stake in BskyB because he is not a fit and proper person. After all BskyB was his baby, it beat its competitor easily and established satellite TV as a viable business in the UK. I imagine it will hurt him to be forced to sell this, which is in many ways his biggest baby.
> 
> /speculation & shooting me.


 
arrrrgh !!!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:
			
		

> How many people work at the Sun?





ericjarvis said:


> About 30% of them?


----------



## 8den (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're still used for editing film, aren't they?


 
Rarely does a roll of film enter my cutting room these days. But I still keep them lying around, but yes we used to write on film with them.


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Ok - virtual tenner he ends up having to sell - or bails before it comes to that.


 
Your imaginary money is always good with me.  Personally I think they'll kick the Sky takeover down the kerb a bit, wait for this either to die a death or widen to encompass most of the tabloids, then let him have Sky on the basis that he is largely responsible for its success anyway (or rather, he almost went bankrupt making it a success) and in order to keep him on side for the next election.  The idea that they would wipe him out is surely wide of the mark, he has far too much dirt on everyone and has the means to expose it all.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> ok, so shoot me... & speculation
> 
> I feel a little bit sorry for Murdock



Both barrels - sorry.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> arrrrgh !!!


 
Yes, I can understand that reaction and I have slightly changed my view, if he is forced to sell, it will be his own fault and he deserves no sympathy. 

Nevertheless, I can remember back before satellite tv in the UK when Murdoch's Sky took on the much better funded BsB corporation (iirc) which was promoting the Squariel a small square ariel. No one really knew if either of the technologies would work but sky pushed on towards a launch date. Amstrad produced their decoders in record time, beating a lot of competing electronics firms including the one that I worked for at that time, and the sky channel was launched. As a result the competing BsB corporation folded and then merged with sky creating BskyB. It was said at the time that Murdoch had borrowed so much that he effectively ran the banks rather than the other way round. It was a good bit of business and risk taking but back then he was already hated by the establishment, so in many ways nothing has changed.


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

Anyone seen todays Popbitch email?  Apologies if its a repost, but it deserves a full quote:




			
				PB said:
			
		

> >> Screwed <<
> Noose tightens at News Int
> 
> With all the blagging, cash payments
> ...


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> Your imaginary money is always good with me.  Personally I think they'll kick the Sky takeover down the kerb a bit, wait for this either to die a death or widen to encompass most of the tabloids, then let him have Sky on the basis that he is largely responsible for its success anyway (or rather, he almost went bankrupt making it a success) and in order to keep him on side for the next election.  The idea that they would wipe him out is surely wide of the mark, he has far too much dirt on everyone and has the means to expose it all.


 
This is what bothers me. 

It seems many politicians are terrified, BECAUSE they have something to hide and it is possible Murdoch knows their secrets. 

And it has been said (whose quote is this?) never pick an argument with someone who buys their ink by the barrel. 

Surely people going into politics should be clean - to the greatest extent?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2011)

ThirtyFootSmurf said:


> ...
> And if the deal falls through, or if he's forced to sell his current holdings then he's really got noone to blame but himself and the questionable decisions he's made in the past.


 
Yes that is certainly true.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> ok, so shoot me... & speculation
> 
> I feel a little bit sorry for Murdock now that he may be concievably forced to sell his complete stake in BskyB because he is not a fit and proper person. After all BskyB was his baby, it beat its competitor easily and established satellite TV as a viable business in the UK. I imagine it will hurt him to be forced to sell this, which is in many ways his biggest baby.
> 
> /speculation & shooting me.


 
*throws weltweit's post into the fire*

I want it all to burn. All of it .

 Murdoch's ambition was for all culture and information to be delivered by magnates like him. It is the ultimate capitalist's wet dream to see the media in entirely private hands. But private hands of a particular kind, naturally. Murdoch is the cheerleader for a world in which magnates own everything and we thank them for it  

"oh thankyou sir for saving our paper/football club/tv channel/theatre. You're putting sooo much of your own money into it and it doesn't even make you a profit! " *hands over money, takes ticket*


And Alan Rusbridger is a fucking cunting disgrace. I'd like to jam cigarettes down his throat on behalf of Dennis Potter for his approach to all of this. The world is being stolen from us and all he can do is tut-tut as one of the thieves is taken down - 'but he did so love his papers, old Rupe.' 

I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the bbc. Grow some balls, now, bbc. This shit belongs to fucking US.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Co-operative Bank PLC pulled their ads from NoTW a few days ago.
> It won't be long before they do the same as Renault


 

The co-op were lagging far, FAR behind other advertisers! In fact, iirc (it'll be there somewhere back in the thread) I *think* they had actually made a specific statement about NOT withdrawing (until the point that they changed their mind)!


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 8, 2011)

Worth a read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/08/news-of-the-world-payments-to-police


----------



## Badgers (Jul 8, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Both barrels - sorry.


 
2ndATWCTR ?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Yes, I can understand that reaction and I have slightly changed my view, if he is forced to sell, it will be his own fault and he deserves no sympathy.
> 
> Nevertheless, I can remember back before satellite tv in the UK when Murdoch's Sky took on the much better funded BsB corporation (iirc) which was promoting the Squariel a small square ariel. No one really knew if either of the technologies would work but sky pushed on towards a launch date. Amstrad produced their decoders in record time, beating a lot of competing electronics firms including the one that I worked for at that time, and the sky channel was launched. As a result the competing BsB corporation folded and then merged with sky creating BskyB. It was said at the time that Murdoch had borrowed so much that he effectively ran the banks rather than the other way round. It was a good bit of business and risk taking but back then *he was already hated by the establishment*, so in many ways nothing has changed.


 
He certainly wasn't hated by Thatcher, her government could have stopped Sky TV from launching, or least marketing itself & selling advertising in the UK, if they had wanted too.

British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB) was the official UK licenced satellite broadcaster - using frequencies allocated to the UK by the ITC (International Telecommunications Commission) for TV transmissions.

Sky launched on the Luxembourg-based Astra satellite system, using frequencies allocated by the ITC for telecommunications purposes, Astra had no regulatory permission to broadcast TV.

Basically Sky was a pirate at launch, it and anyone working for it, promoting it or advertising on it could have been subjected to action under the Marine, etc. Broadcasting Act 1967 (the 'etc.' included transmissions from the sky), which had been introduced to deal with offshore pirate radio.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Worth a read:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/08/news-of-the-world-payments-to-police


 


> For some years, the agency and its associates had played a part in setting up newspaper stings, providing information and bodyguards to the likes of the News of the World's *"fake sheikh"*, Maz Mahmood.



Oh yeah, what is to become of the "fake sheikh"?

A question of sheikh, rattle & dole?


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> ....
> 
> 
> > Statement from the Guardian on the information it gave to the government regarding Andy Coulson:
> ...



surprised not to see more comment on this tbh. surely that fucks cameron good & proper?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Fucks the guardian good an proper.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

_"Hey guys - it's alan here"_


----------



## stavros (Jul 8, 2011)

He's doing a pretty good job of fucking himself, to be frank, but I agree.


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 8, 2011)

killer b said:


> surprised not to see more comment on this tbh. surely that fucks cameron good & proper?


 
Well, according to Dave's car crash press conference this morning he never heard about any specifics like that, so there. As far as plausible denial goes, not sure how that will stand up, but if we take him by his word, none of those allegations have ever reached him.


----------



## spring-peeper (Jul 8, 2011)

sixty nine pages....and counting


Morale of the story is don't use mobile phones!!!!


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

no, it really isn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

There is no 'morale' of the story. What do you think happened here?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> sixty nine pages....and counting
> 
> 
> Morale of the story is don't use mobile phones!!!!


----------



## Belushi (Jul 8, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> sixty nine pages....and counting
> 
> 
> Morale of the story is don't use mobile phones!!!!


 
You dolt.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 8, 2011)

frogwoman said:


>


 
^^^  x

£dit: Interesting post on the Dave Courtney thread about south London villainy and its connections with the Met & NOTW, btw, if anyone's interested. Mad Frankie Fraser apparently had a view...


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> She offered to resign.


 
Once again I've got no links to it etc  but jftr that seemed to be disputed later on, too (and I've not seen it confirmed since, either).


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2011)

Fair play to the Guardian. For an essentially Labour paper that jumped ship and supported Clegg whilst being wishy washy liberal over lots of other stuff and having an array of shite columnists, it has dug up and kept pushing some proper news stories which without their tenacity would have quite possibly vanished and been forgotten about.


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> Once again I've got no links to it etc  but jftr that seemed to be disputed later on, too (and I've not seen it confirmed since, either).


 
yeah, there's an awful lot of bullshit flying around. the other day, cameron had to beg rupe not to sack her, yesterday he sacrifices the NotW to save her and refuses her resignation?

i don't reckon either approach the truth...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Fair play to the Guardian. For an essentially Labour paper that jumped ship and supported Clegg whilst being wishy washy liberal over lots of other stuff and having an array of shite columnists, it has dug up and kept pushing some proper news stories which without their tenacity would have quite possibly vanished and been forgotten about.


 
POI: not essentially labour and never has been. Who would turn down these police leaked exposes? Who did the expenses scandal?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Expenses story was offered around and bought as a job lot on a CD. Investigation came later, that was the easy part.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Expenses story was offered around and bought as a job lot on a CD.


 
Who bought it and who ran it?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

You mean who offered the highest price? The paper it was worth the most to. Or even the paper that most wanted to control the story.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> You mean who offered the highest price? The paper it was worth the most to.


 
Yes, that's what i mean. I'd like to see your evidence on this btw.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

On what?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> POI: not essentially labour and never has been. Who would turn down these police leaked exposes? Who did the expenses scandal?


 
Didn't it 'switch' from Labour to Lib Dem in the last election? Didn't it support Blair? Anyhow, it's record on proper news stories has been pretty good for a MSM paper.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> On what?


 
That the expenses evidence was hawked around as a job lot to all the papers, that they all bid and the Telegraph got them because their bid was the highest.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Didn't it 'switch' from Labour to Lib Dem in the last election? Didn't it support Blair? Anyhow, it's record on proper news stories has been pretty good for a MSM paper.


 
You'd think so, but no - the Sun has supported labour more times than the guardian ever has.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 8, 2011)

This just appeared on Arsebook.  May have already been posted. Too tired to check. 

Rebekah Brooks addressing staff courtesy of sky news...3- parts.

http://audioboo.fm/boos/407840-rebekah-brooks-addressing-staff-courtesy-of-sky-news

http://audioboo.fm/boos/407935-rebekah-brooks-extract-2-courtesy-of-sky-news

http://audioboo.fm/boos/407938-rebekah-brooks-extract-3-courtesy-of-sky-news


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That the expenses evidence was hawked around as a job lot to all the papers, that they all bid and the Telegraph got them because their bid was the highest.


 
Couple of quick quotes from google:


> The Telegraph has refused to disclose whether, and, if anything, how much it had paid for the information, which originated from the parliamentary fees office. The information had been offered to other newspaper organisations, for more than £150,000.[44][45] Shortly after the publication of the information, the House of Commons authorities asked the Metropolitan Police to investigate, a request that the Metropolitan Police declined, on the grounds that a prosecution would not be in the public interest.[43][46]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_expenses_scandal




> Telegraph Media Group has neither confirmed nor denied whether it paid for the information on MPs' expenses. Estimates on a price tag have stretched from £70,000 to £300,000, although the payment is believed to be at the lower end of this range.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/20/telegraph-mps-expenses-circulation


The info is out there if you want to search - Mrs Brooks of the NotW offered only £30,000 because there wasn't any sex in it. So they say....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Didn't it 'switch' from Labour to Lib Dem in the last election? Didn't it support Blair? Anyhow, it's record on proper news stories has been pretty good for a MSM paper.


 
What, the Guardian? Its record is fucking awful. It couldn't even oppose the Iraq war properly. Fucking shower of a paper. The Mirror has more campaigning backbone than the Guardian.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What, the Guardian? Its record is fucking awful. It couldn't even oppose the Iraq war properly. Fucking shower of a paper. The Mirror has more campaigning backbone than the Guardian.


 
It's recent record is what i was referring to. The Mirror used to be a proper paper....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Couple of quick quotes from google:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_expenses_scandal
> 
> ...



Can you tell me the difference between being _hawked around_ and a _bidding war_? Your own articles suggest that no such thing happened. So they say...


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

What a bizarre thing to get hooked up on. It was very obviously both. And who cares. Really.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

You think everyone bid? Everyone _obviously_ bid? I bet those that didn't don't. You're, for once, right, it's just another pointless thing. I'm not sure why you brought it up.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

I was correcting your misapprehension, in that generous way I have about me.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 8, 2011)

Just so I know:

Have the recordings I posted on the last page been posted already?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 8, 2011)

Clearly the News Shopper wasn't given a chance to bid


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I was correcting your misapprehension, in that generous way I have about me.


 
By saying something irrelevant and then having to row back on it. Thanks santa.

Enough


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

You're a final word merchant now?


----------



## DRINK? (Jul 8, 2011)

I can't understand why everyone feels so sorry for the News of the World employees who've been sacked, they can go and claim those hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in benefits that they've been telling everyone about for the last 10 years.


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That the expenses evidence was hawked around as a job lot to all the papers, that they all bid and the Telegraph got them because their bid was the highest.


 
FWIW there did definately appear to be at least some kind of bidding going on - I recall Guido trying to buy it, and there was this blogpost as well.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 8, 2011)

DRINK? said:


> I can't understand why everyone feels so sorry for the News of the World employees who've been sacked, they can go and claim those hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in benefits that they've been telling everyone about for the last 10 years.


 
In the recording I have posted RW is suggesting that they will find other positions for them, happily.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> FWIW there did definately appear to be at least some kind of bidding going on - I recall Guido trying to buy it, and there was this blogpost as well.


More hawking than bidding.


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> More hawking than bidding.


 
Well someone paid for it, with at least one other person wanting to buy the CD.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> Well someone paid for it, with at least one other person wanting to buy the CD.


 
Sure. Doesn't mean the other papers were bidding and outbid as per the unevidenced above.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 8, 2011)

killer b said:


> yeah, there's an awful lot of bullshit flying around. the other day, cameron had to beg rupe not to sack her, yesterday he sacrifices the NotW to save her and refuses her resignation?
> 
> i don't reckon either approach the truth...


 
Since the story involves the News of the World, the Metropolitan Police, and a Tory Prime Minister, I suspect that anything approaching the truth is completely inappropriate.


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Sure. Doesn't mean the other papers were bidding and outbid as per the unevidenced above.


 
True, but then the only person who has mentioned that they all bid is you.  LC only mentioned the NOTW and the Telegraph.  In fact given what LCs initial post on this was, I really dont see the relevance of your argument.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Another litre of your finest White Lightening, Garçon!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> True, but then the only person who has mentioned that they all bid is you.  LC only mentioned the NOTW and the Telegraph.  In fact given what LCs initial post on this was, I really dont see the relevance of your argument.







			
				london_calling said:
			
		

> The info is out there if you want to search - Mrs Brooks of the NotW offered only £30,000 because there wasn't any sex in it. So they say....



Nope, no bidding here...just cold hard evidence.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

I don't know why you care but I really don't. There is bigger, more apropos  stuff at hand.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> True, but then the only person who has mentioned that they all bid is you.  LC only mentioned the NOTW and the Telegraph.  In fact given what LCs initial post on this was, I really dont see the relevance of your argument.




I'm still waiting to see what relevance L-Cs post that the expenses CD was offered around has to do with my post that paper's don't always act exactly in line with your expectations has. The one that set this off.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> He could pick up Idi Amin's former residence for a song!


 
Hopefully the song being "Hit The Road Jack".


----------



## gavman (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The closure of the News of the World which you all wanted has simply put innocent people out of work.  Will the guilty ever be brought to justice?


 
not if you have anything to do with it. in fact you think we're 'the guilty'


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm still waiting to see what relevance L-Cs post that the expenses CD was offered around has to do with my post that paper's don't always act exactly in line with your expectations has. The one that set this off.


Your point was The Guardian didn't break the expenses story and that says something negative about that paper. I pointed out how that particular game worked -  because you obv. didn't understand it was not, at the outset, the product of investigative journalism. That's it.

You can't infer anything of The Guardian for not breaking that story. Fwiw, it may have been, but I've never seen anything to suggest it was even offered to that paper.


----------



## gavman (Jul 8, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> No, I don't know who they are.  I didn't realise we had to have certain qualifications and knowledge to be allowed to post here.  Perhaps you could let me know the rules?


 
try not to look stupid in front of everyone, same as life. you've failed


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Your point was The Guardian didn't break the expenses story and that says something negative about that paper. I pointed out how that particular game worked -  because you obv. didn't understand it was not, at the outset, the product of investigative journalism. That's it.
> 
> You can't infer anything of The Guardian for not breaking that story. Fwiw, it may have been, but I've never seen anything to suggest it was even offered to that paper.


 
That's what you misread. I didn't mean or say any of this stuff you post. I wasn't linking the guardian to a failure to do fucking anything - to either buy or do the investigative journalism required to expose the expenses scandal. I was making an entirely different point altogether - one about posters expectations of papers and how that intersected and interacted with both journalists and publishers. 

Always next time eh? And you've made clear there'll always be a next time.


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's what you misread. I didn't mean or say any of this stuff you post. I wasn't linking the guardian to a failure to do fucking anything - to either buy or do the investigative journalism required to expose the expenses scandal. I was making an entirely different point altogether - one about posters expectations of papers and how that intersected and interacted with both journalists and publishers.
> 
> Always next time eh? And you've made clear there'll always be a next time.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 8, 2011)

As anyone else noticed that the majority of the newspaper stories have no provison for comments,or is just me being cynical


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


>






			
				him said:
			
		

> Your point was The Guardian didn't break the expenses story and that says something negative about that paper






			
				me said:
			
		

> That's what you misread. I didn't mean or say any of this stuff you post. I wasn't linking the guardian to a failure to do fucking anything - to either buy or do the investigative journalism required to expose the expenses scandal..



OK?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

*hark! Is that the sound of goalposts being picked up and dropped?*


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Yes. I think it is. Watch your back now old 'un.


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> OK?


 
butchers you spent at least three posts demanding LC provide evidence for the CD being hawked / offered / subject to bidding.  To now claim this was about posters expectation of papers makes zero sense, or at least zero sense to me.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Taxi for the Trot!


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

Oh, and the Guardian are reporting a 63 year old man has been arrested on suspicion of corruption (edit) in connection with all this NOTW stuff.  Any guesses who it is?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

On a serious point, I can't recall a big political story moving this fast. It's breathtaking.


----------



## Santino (Jul 8, 2011)

Can't we all just enjoy Murdoch's troubles in the spirit of brotherhood?


----------



## gavman (Jul 8, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> fake grass.


 
fake grassroots


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> butchers you spent at least three posts demanding LC provide evidence for the CD being hawked / offered / subject to bidding.  To now claim this was about posters expectation of papers makes zero sense, or at least zero sense to me.



It's quite simple. I made a post about people expectations of papers being confounded and used the Telegraph's expose of the expenses as an example.

London_calling misread this as an attack on the guardian as "The Guardian didn't break the expenses story and that says something negative about that paper" and linked that to buying the CDs or not. He pretty openly linked this to the guardian being able to buy the expenses CD if they wanted to. He totally misreads what i was arguing and why i arguing it.

Of course, asking him for evidence that the guardian had been involved in some bid war (as he apparently has the evidence that the NOTW was involved in) was a normal thing to do. No answer came, until the last few minutes admission that he has no evidence at all.

None of this crap need be here if he hadn't misread my first post then insist that his misreading was what i really meant. Pretty simple. Or if you took some time yourself.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

I'd forgotten what hard work you are. Should I contact Carter Ruck?

Ftr, I'm bored with this. Back to todays meat and beer.


----------



## agricola (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's quite simple. I made a post about people expectations of papers being confounded and used the Telegraph's expose of the expenses as an example.
> 
> London_calling misread this as an attack on the guardian as "The Guardian didn't break the expenses story and that says something negative about that paper" and linked that to buying the CDs or not. He pretty openly linked this to the guardian being able to buy the expenses CD if they wanted to. He totally misreads what i was arguing and why i arguing it.
> 
> ...


 
He didnt.  He corrected your post, pointing out that the "expenses scandal" was basically handed over to the relevant paper on a plate after it paid the mole some money.  That is, after all, what happened.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

It's ok. You misread something off me, won't back down. Finished.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> He didnt.  He corrected your post, pointing out that the "expenses scandal" was basically handed over to the relevant paper on a plate after it paid the mole some money.  That is, after all, what happened.


 
Hang on, nothing of mine needed correcting. Nothing.




			
				me said:
			
		

> POI: not essentially labour and never has been. Who would turn down these police leaked exposes? Who did the expenses scandal?



What need correcting? How is that not me pointing out that peoples expectations of what papers will do can be wrong? And how is the next reply not a misreading of me doing that? You're an honest chap, answer me that.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2011)

So, it is OFCOM who have to determine whether News Corp / News International is a fit and proper part or full owner of BskyB. 

Does anyone know anything about OFCOM? 

Who runs it? what its record is like? 
Has it ever found someone to be NOT fit and proper in the past?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

I don't think it's had to. I've asked about OFCOM, we're all... on a learning curve, I believe. So is OFCOM. I hope they can handle the politics about to come their way.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 8, 2011)

Some NofW journalists are threatening to put up a blog tomorrow with tell all articles: https://twitter.com/#!/ExNOTWJourno

apparently it is a group of 16 of them


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 8, 2011)

Key thing about Ofcom is that they only investigate the question of fitness and propriety _after_ someone buys a media asset. They have no business commenting on the issue before an acquisition. Directors of News Corp would need to be convicted of a serious offence (perverting the course of justice would count, though) before the question of whether they were fit and proper applied.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> So, it is OFCOM who have to determine whether News Corp / News International is a fit and proper part or full owner of BskyB.



Yes.


> Does anyone know anything about OFCOM?
> 
> Who runs it? what its record is like?



Sadly yes, they have been a fairly useless, but as a government appointed regulator that should come as no surprise to anyone.  


> Has it ever found someone to be NOT fit and proper in the past?



TBF, I don't think it has ever come up in the fairly short history of OFCOM, this is something totally new for them, well out of their comfort zone. I hope as this is such a major issue and there's so much pressure & media attention on them, they may grow some balls.

But, I am not holding my breath.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Key thing about Ofcom is that they only investigate the question of fitness and propriety _after_ someone buys a media asset. They have no business commenting on the issue before an acquisition. Directors of News Corp would need to be convicted of a serious offence (perverting the course of justice would count, though) before the question of whether they were fit and proper applied.


Q: You're sure on 'convicted', and Directors?


----------



## ska invita (Jul 8, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Some NofW journalists are threatening to put up a blog tomorrow with tell all articles: https://twitter.com/#!/ExNOTWJourno
> 
> apparently it is a group of 16 of them


----------



## two sheds (Jul 8, 2011)

You'd imagine they'd risk a long and expensive libel case if they said NI *wasn't* a fit and proper owner.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Q: You're sure on 'convicted', and Directors?


 
Convicted, or admit to. 

Directors, or major shareholders.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Key thing about Ofcom is that they only investigate the question of fitness and propriety _after_ someone buys a media asset. They have no business commenting on the issue before an acquisition. Directors of News Corp would need to be convicted of a serious offence (perverting the course of justice would count, though) before the question of whether they were fit and proper applied.


 
Not sure about, because thinking about it they did prevent a certain company taking over a small group of radio stations just over a year ago, which IIRC was in fact on the basis of that company's directors not being fit for purpose.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 8, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Not sure about, because thinking about it they did prevent a certain company taking over a small group of radio stations just over a year ago, which IIRC was in fact on the basis of that company's directors not being fit for purpose.


 
That goes against some quite clear advice I've had from professionals in this space. Have you got a link? Perhaps the transaction had got far enough for Ofcom to be notified and was then cancelled.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Sayeth The Guardian two days ago:


> Ofcom's position in law is a little different in reality. It has to ensure, every day, that anybody *owning *a television or radio station is "a fit and proper person to hold it". It is a test that applies to senior company directors – and so in order to bite in the case of the News Corp/Sky merger,* it would have to apply to board members of News Corporation* – in particular Rupert Murdoch, but also to James in his capacity as the man in charge of the company's European and Asian operations.
> 
> It is understood that Ofcom is only prepared to pronounce that somebody fails the "fit and proper" test if they are *charged* with a criminal offence – and the regulator can ultimately enforce its will by *revoking* the owner's right to broadcast. But if Rebekah Brooks, say, were ever to be charged with hacking-related offences, that would *not* be enough to unwind the Sky takeover, or force Sky channels off air, because she could step down – if that is, she was appointed as a director of a relevant Sky subsidiary of the enlarged News Corporation in the first place.
> 
> Once again, the "fit and proper" test would only have an impact if charges were ever brought against one of the Murdochs. The family are too senior within the company to be able to resign.


'Charged' will do, but it'll have to be James Murdoch - they'll ditch Brooks overboard if need be.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/06/bskyb-bid-jeremy-hunt-newscorp


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> 'Charged' will do



I think I'm right and the Guardian is wrong. Just because Rusbridger's mob are squeamish about hacking doesn't mean they are trustworthy on matters of fact.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Possibly. It is, though, a shambles that NI could still go ahead with this hugely significant takeover in the current circs.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

> It is understood that Ofcom is only prepared to pronounce that somebody fails the "fit and proper" test if they are charged with a criminal offence



There's the obvious point for people to attack then. Is this understanding customary or is is statutory? If the first, who decided this? Who, how and when? Who appointed these people? What access do we have to their decisions? etc


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 8, 2011)

It's legal interpretation, to be fair, rather than fact, but clearly the principle here is one of innocence until proof of guilt is established. Merely charging someone with an offence shouldn't allow any judgements to be made about their character.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There's the obvious point for people to attack then. Is this understanding customary or is is statutory? If the first, who decided this? Who, how and when? Who appointed these people? What access do we have to their decisions? etc



Her Majesty's Government. You know the process by which the legislature is constituted perfectly well. Presumably you are making some sort of point. In which case, make it clearly.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's legal interpretation, to be fair, rather than fact, but clearly the principle here is one of innocence until proof of guilt is established. Merely charging someone with an offence shouldn't allow any judgements to be made about their character.


 
It's an interpretation of a situation -  it's not a 'legal interpretation'. Is it?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's an interpretation of a situation -  it's not a 'legal interpretation'. Is it?



It's an interpretation of statute, so if it was ever tested it would be tested by lawyers.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

It makes it easier to take over BSkyB than a Premiership football club, and _that_ is saying something.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 8, 2011)

Paul Mcmullan again on Newsnight! surely there must be other hacks about


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

They're all in the pub this time of night.

Edit: Presently company excluded...


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 8, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Paul Mcmullan again on Newsnight! surely there must be other hacks about


 
Steve Coogan about to punch him out!!!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It makes it easier to take over BSkyB than a Premiership football club, and _that_ is saying something.



It's not surprising, as plurality of ownership is even more important to football than it is to media.


----------



## Liveist (Jul 8, 2011)

I'm expecting a full blown fight on Newsnight at the moment


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Her Majesty's Government. You know the process by which the legislature is constituted perfectly well. Presumably you are making some sort of point. In which case, make it clearly.



What's wrong with you?



> Is this understanding customary or is is statutory? If the first, who decided this? Who, how and when? Who appointed these people? What access do we have to their decisions? etc



There is a whole range of regulatory stuff that is based on custom rather than law. A regulatory body may act more in accordance with custom as a priority guided by the chair or the body responsible rather than relying on the law. I ask which this (unevidenced) 'understanding' is based on. 



> It is understood that Ofcom is only prepared to pronounce that somebody fails the "fit and proper" test if they are charged with a criminal offence



Is this the law, or is this custom? Get it Morris?


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 8, 2011)

Liveist said:


> I'm expecting a full blown fight on Newsnight at the moment


 
Top notch entertainment!


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's not surprising, as plurality of ownership is even more important to football than it is to media.



I should have been clearer, I meant from the pov of a 'fit and proper person' test - it's not retro in the PL.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That goes against some quite clear advice I've had from professionals in this space. Have you got a link? Perhaps the transaction had got far enough for Ofcom to be notified and was then cancelled.


 
I would need to go digging around, too knackered to do that now - the ironic thing was the stations concerned ended-up in the hands of another company (TotalStar) that over the last year proved themselves not fit for purpose anyway, for example and amongst a long list of OFCOM complaints, getting caught out illegally increasing the output from the Minehead transmitter from 4kw to a whacking 30Kw!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It's an interpretation of statute, so if it was ever tested it would be tested by lawyers.


Mine and yours are legal interpretations then - so they mean nothing. So not applicable to my question. Tangles morris, tangles.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is this the law, or is this custom?



They are one and the same, my dear chap. "Precedent", they call it in the trade.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 8, 2011)

Paul Mcmullan - what a total prick!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

spartacus mills said:


> Steve Coogan about to punch him out!!!


"hitler was nice to dogs sometimes"


----------



## spitfire (Jul 8, 2011)

Coogan was borderline about to smack him. If that was in a pub I would have been keeping an eye on the exits.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 8, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> getting caught out illegally increasing the output from the Minehead transmitter from 4kw to a whacking 30Kw!



That doesn't sound like a serious enough offence to count under "fit and proper" rules. It really has to be a criminal offence. As I understand it. I'm no more a lawyer than the drunken Spartist is, of course.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jul 8, 2011)

Was hoping Coogan would smack him one just then


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> They are one and the same, my dear chap. "Precedent", they call it in the trade.


 
Not in terms of statutory obligations they're not.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 8, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Paul Mcmullan again on Newsnight! surely there must be other hacks about


 
Few have his dashingly photogenic looks, though - or his guilty-as-sin compulsive pen-clicking.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> sixty nine pages....and counting
> 
> 
> Morale of the story is don't use mobile phones!!!!


 
One of the morals (note correct spelling, please) of the story is that payback is a bitch, something the Murdoch family is just now finding out. Your claim that the moral is "don't use mobile phones" is asinine. Even if mobile phones didn't exist, the hackers could have/may well have fond ways into e-mail and into land-line voice-mail.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

What happened with coogan please someone?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 8, 2011)

Will Self: "what goes around comes around". Buffoon.

Justine Roberts: "we all go online and look at people's waistbands". Do we?


----------



## dylans (Jul 8, 2011)

yardbird said:


> Paul Mcmullan - what a total prick!


 
I like him. He's the living breathing example of the stereotype of the amoral tabloid pig.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 8, 2011)

top newnight ........ will self made the most blatantly obvious point ...its all our fault ,,,


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2011)

DRINK? said:


> I can't understand why everyone feels so sorry for the News of the World employees who've been sacked, they can go and claim those hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in benefits that they've been telling everyone about for the last 10 years.


 
As usual, you're a day late and a dollar short.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Tankus said:


> top newnight ........ will self made the most blatantly obvious point ...its all our fault ,,,


 
It's not my fault. Is it yours tankus? Can you tell me how? What is the mechanism of our responsibility.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 8, 2011)

I'm confused. In: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/08/david-cameron-decision-andy-coulson

it says: 



> "At a Downing Street press conference, Cameron's judgment came under repeated challenge as he was asked to explain why he had taken Coulson into Downing Street after the general election despite strong reports suggesting Coulson had overseen, or tolerated, a culture of hacking while editor of the News of the World.
> 
> In the most difficult press conference of his premiership, Cameron said he had been given no "actionable information", and said he accepted Coulson's assurances that he knew nothing of phone hacking during his editorship between 2003 and 2007.
> 
> ...



So Coulson denied doing anything wrong and Cameron accepted this as being true but at the same time was 'giving him a second chance'? Giving him a second chance suggests that Cameron did indeed know Coulson was aware of the hacking but hired him anyway doesn't it?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 8, 2011)

When will this be on the iPlayer?


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What happened with coogan please someone?


 
he was just yelling at mcmullan on newsnight. nothing too exciting.

self was a wanker shortly after.


----------



## Hollis (Jul 8, 2011)

spitfire said:


> Coogan was borderline about to smack him. If that was in a pub I would have been keeping an eye on the exits.



Yeah - well Saxondale did have his anger management issues..


----------



## Santino (Jul 8, 2011)

I imagine McMullan in the Green Room saying 'Sorry, mate, that's what the producers are paying me to say.'


----------



## Tankus (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's not my fault. Is it yours tankus? Can you tell me how? What is the mechanism of our responsibility.



buying /reading the papers.... creating the market ...... NoTW 7 million readers ......advertising revenue


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I'm confused. In:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/08/david-cameron-decision-andy-coulson
> 
> ...


 

He left in 2007 from the NOTW, his appointment to the tories was his one and only. They didn't catch him up to stuff than cover it up and give him another go. It was just badly explained.


----------



## embree (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What happened with coogan please someone?


 
Didn't see it but Guardian live blog has this:



> 10.47pm: Steve Coogan is discussing hacking on Newsnight and has said that he is glad that the News of the World - "an asylum seeker-hating newspaper" - has "gone to the wall".
> 
> Coogan, one of the alleged victims of phone-hacking affair at the News of the World, said that he had been warned in 2002 that his phone had been hacked.
> 
> ...


----------



## IC3D (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's not my fault. Is it yours tankus? Can you tell me how? What is the mechanism of our responsibility.


 
Well I think it is a reflection on our society and I liked Selfs point that because we all think we can be a celeb we feel at liberty to tear any down. Coogan shut up a bit when the hack said he was a coke sniffing adulterer lol his face. Personally I think it is particular to this country to be obsessed with sexual infidelity.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

killer b said:


> he was just yelling at mcmullan on newsnight. nothing too exciting.
> 
> self was a wanker shortly after.


 
Ta. 

Will self on this? OK, bye.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That doesn't sound like a serious enough offence to count under "fit and proper" rules. It really has to be a criminal offence. As I understand it. I'm no more a lawyer than the drunken Spartist is, of course.



That doesn't relate to the company that was refused permission to take over those stations, IIRC that company, or it's directors, had been involved in dodgy financial dealings, but no one had been charged or convicted of any criminal offence, yet OFCOM still stopped the take-over.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

IC3D said:


> Well I think it is a reflection on our society and I liked Selfs point that because we all think we can be a celeb we feel at liberty to tear any down. Coogan shut up a bit when the hack said he was a coke sniffing adulterer lol his face. Personally I think it is particular to this country to be obsessed with sexual infidelity.



The BNP are a reflection on our society - it means and says nothing to repeat it. And no, we don't all feel that - do you? That's more a reflection of selfs last 20 years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> Fair enough. Plenty of people outside the 'middle class' (whatever that is) have choices. I just object to an overly simplistic approach. 'Hair-shirt leftism', if you like, where the one lecturing others has a shirt made from angora goatskin and those being lectured have ones made of cat's tongue. Or some better analogy.
> 
> I accept that this isn't necessarily the view being pushed by anyone here.


 
Got this one wrong, didn't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

Tankus said:


> buying /reading the papers.... creating the market ...... NoTW 7 million readers ......advertising revenue


 
It's not my fault. Is it yours tankus? Can you tell me how? What is the mechanism of our responsibility.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 8, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> They are one and the same, my dear chap. "Precedent", they call it in the trade.


 
No.  We have common law and statute law in this country.
http://www.contactlaw.co.uk/statute-law.html
Employment law, for example, is largely common law.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 8, 2011)

And law governing broadcasting, a relatively new phenomenon, is governed by statute. But interpreted through precedent.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Got this one wrong, didn't you?


 
She might have done but you're patently unaware what you give away when you post.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's not my fault. Is it yours tankus? Can you tell me how? What is the mechanism of our responsibility.


pedant ......give yourself a slap on the back ....! me ... I watch sky news ... I read papers online 
it was a generalisation on the whole setup


----------



## IC3D (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The BNP are a reflection on our society - it means and says nothing to repeat it. And no, we don't all feel that - do you? That's more a reflection of selfs last 20 years.


 If you go down that route then we have no meaning full left here does that mean nothing to assert that where other European countries it is far more alive, do you care?. So I stand by the statement as a whole the British are right-wing individualists that have a fairly vindictive streak that red tops captor for I would like that culture to change


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> She might have done but you're patently unaware what you give away when you post.


 
Nah. That's just you and ymu reading in things that are not there based on what you think you know about me.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 8, 2011)

Fascinating stuff about OFCOM folks, thanks for that. 


I just watched the NewsNight with Paul McMullen on. 

It is amazing, he just does not seem to get it, completely unapologetic, I want someone to ask him specifically if hacking Milly Dowler's phone was acceptable to him? 

And I ask that because in truth I don't care nearly so much if they hacked Steve Coogan's phone. It may not be fair but I care a lot less about celebrities.  In a way they put themselves in the public eye and so somehow forgo some rights to privacy. That may be wrong but it is a feeling.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah. That's just you and ymu reading in things that are not there based on what you think you know about me.


it's not, they've been listening into your voicemails as well i'm afraid, you're busted


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

IC3D said:


> If you go down that route then we have no meaning full left here does that mean nothing to assert that where other European countries it is far more alive, do you care?. So I stand by the statement as a whole the British are right-wing individualists that have a fairly vindictive streak that red tops captor for I would like that culture to change


 
You've got a circle of pre-existing things that exist for ever then, just because they are now. That is not the spirit!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah. That's just you and ymu reading in things that are not there based on what you think you know about me.


 
No, it's based on my long experience of unconscious prejudice married to the most liberal of values. And the most vigorous of denials.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 8, 2011)

Not playing that game. How about you just stick to responding to the actual content of posts. you don't know me in real life. Analysing people via the internet is a precarious occupation.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> a precarious occupation.


 
That's your thanatos instinct showing itself again.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 9, 2011)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-tells-News-World-journalists-worst-come.html
<rubs hands in glee>


----------



## IC3D (Jul 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not playing that game. How about you just stick to responding to the actual content of posts. you don't know me in real life. Analysing people via the internet is a precarious occupation.


 
so typical of you.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 9, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-tells-News-World-journalists-worst-come.html
> <rubs hands in glee>


 
Why bother? ...I posted links to audio files of this exact discussion 2 pages or so ago and nobody noticed AFAICS.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Why bother? ...I posted links to audio files of this exact discussion 2 pages or so ago and nobody noticed AFAICS.


 The thread is quite long though,some people dont want to scroll back loads of pages.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> This just appeared on Arsebook.  May have already been posted. Too tired to check.
> 
> Rebekah Brooks addressing staff courtesy of sky news...3- parts.
> 
> ...


 


Rutita1 said:


> Just so I know:
> 
> Have the recordings I posted on the last page been posted already?


 


Gingerman said:


> The thread is quite long though,some people dont want to scroll back loads of pages.


 

HTH!


----------



## little_legs (Jul 9, 2011)




----------



## ddraig (Jul 9, 2011)

nice one 
thanks


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 9, 2011)

Fucking hell. Steve Coogan kicks ass. Always loved the guy. Thanks for the vid 

*e2a McMullan just doesn't get it does he? Love the Coogan inference (paraphrase): 'Just fuck off. You're the worst PR imaginable...'


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 9, 2011)

What a democrate that man he wouldn't let anyone make their point and then answer it ,he is complete waste of space


----------



## cantsin (Jul 9, 2011)

Shreddy said:


> Fucking hell. Steve Coogan kicks ass. Always loved the guy. Thanks for the vid
> 
> *e2a McMullan just doesn't get it does he? Love the Coogan inference (paraphrase): 'Just fuck off. You're the worst PR imaginable...'



I'm starting to secretly like Mcullan tbh....


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 9, 2011)

cantsin said:


> I'm starting to secretly like Mcullan tbh....


 
Kirsty: "Paul, you keep coming on here and you're good to do so but you're like a tortured soul"


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 9, 2011)

Partridge come across not much better than Sting the other month.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 9, 2011)

> A manageable level of cynicism about the media actually serves the capitalist realist media system well. Since the media stands in for the public sphere, if journalists and politicians are perceived to be "all liars", as they widely are, then there is no hope to be had in public life at all. Hack expulpations appeal to a market Hobbesianism: they are giving people what they want but what they won't admit to liking. When, pickled in the jouissance of self-loathing and their other stimulants of choice, the hacks style themselves as "princes of darkness", they see themselves as reflecting the public's own disavowed cynicism back to it. Nobody likes working in the sewers, but don't you all love the pretty little globules of sensation that we dredge up for you?. Similarly, Glenn Mulcaire whines that the NOTW put him under pressure for results, this isn't only an excuse - what we're seeing here is in part the consequence of the intense competitive pressures at work in print media as its market share declines. Negative solidarity again: a race to depths so infernally pressurised that only alcohol-breathing subhuman crustaceans can survive there. (You only have to look at ex-NOTW hack Paul McMullan to see that.) As one by one those who played their part are dragged into the light, the old bullying sneers become familiar plaints: that's reality, we couldn't help it, that's how things are now ... But we must hear their excuses as indictments of a system: behold what a wretched state overwork and pitiless competition can reduce human beings to.



http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/011851.html


----------



## little_legs (Jul 9, 2011)

Source: Channel 4


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 9, 2011)

little_legs said:


>




Thanks. I needed that. I and everyone I know is APPALLED by what News International have done. It was _the_ number one topic of conversation in the pub tonight. 

It's not journalism. It's vindictive, soul-destroying tittle-tattle.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 9, 2011)

.
Rupert is flying in to give Cameron new orders. Classy.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 9, 2011)

.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2011)

Is it me or does The Mirror appear to be rather quiet on all this?


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 9, 2011)

editor said:


> Is it me or does The Mirror appear to be rather quiet on all this?


 
Why do you think they have a few skeletons in the cupboard,don't they all


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 9, 2011)

Later interview on ABC australia mcmullan said coulsen and brookes were fully aware of what was happening

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/08/3265296.htm


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 9, 2011)

editor said:


> Is it me or does The Mirror appear to be rather quiet on all this?


 
I was wondering this myself


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, it's based on my long experience of unconscious prejudice married to the most liberal of values. And the most vigorous of denials.


 
Actually, just fuck off with this. How about you show some clear thinking for a change. To my very first point about how reading the Sun and being politically aware are not two things that readily go hand in hand. Do you disagree? Do you disagree that everyone who buys this shit is a part of the problem? Do you disagree that they are complicit in the nasty tactics used to bring them their latest celebrity scoops, because everyone knew a lot of nasty shit went on?

"It's all just comics" doesn't wash, because the stories may be made-up but the people featured aren't. What other excuse is there for buying this? What fucking politics does _buying the Sun_ every day represent aside from the politics of who gives a fuck? 

Anything other than condemnation of this narrow-minded, mean-spirited culture is just pathetic reverse snobbery, claiming the tabloids as some kind of expression of working class culture, which is presumptuous, wrong and insulting - in fact, just the kind of drivel the Sun itself would come out with. 'Dedicated to the people of Britain' my fucking arse.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 9, 2011)

editor said:


> Is it me or does The Mirror appear to be rather quiet on all this?


Not exactly sticking the boot in are they?


----------



## Weller (Jul 9, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> Later interview on ABC australia mcmullan said coulsen and brookes were fully aware of what was happening
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/08/3265296.htm



He looks a bit worse for wear in that , maybe Steve Coogan punched him in the Green Room after newsnight


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 9, 2011)

little_legs said:


> Source: Channel 4



That's a silly graphic. Rebekah is a dedicated networker: she has more than four friends - even ones of whom one would have heard.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 9, 2011)

editor said:


> Is it me or does The Mirror appear to be rather quiet on all this?


 
What, the _Mirror_, whose journalists (along with those of sister paper the _Sunday Mirror_) were paying corrupt private detective/murder suspect Jonathan Rees for access to information supplied by bent cops? Surely not!


----------



## Hollis (Jul 9, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> Later interview on ABC australia mcmullan said coulsen and brookes were fully aware of what was happening
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/08/3265296.htm





I dunno, someone buy the guy a drink.


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2011)

he's pure gold. interested to hear the guardian are paying for him - i reckon they've got value for money these last few days.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 9, 2011)

Hopefully he can buy himself a new tie!


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Futher to the issue of whether OFCOM has any bollocks... *takes a deep breath, holds nose and*.... Polly Toynbee had a couple of things to say:



> *Ofcom is the one regulator that might stop him*: two years ago it did weaken Sky's grip on Premier League football and movies, forcing them to sell on the rights at a more reasonable price to others. Murdoch turned the pens of his papers against Ofcom and 10 days later Cameron made an unscheduled speech attacking "the quango state" – in which, oddly, of all the quangos ripe for attack or ridicule, only one was singled out for the axe: Ofcom. Inside the industry, rightly or wrongly it was assumed Coulson was the conduit for this message from the News Corp puppet-master. So now Ofcom may get another chance to declare Murdoch not "fit and proper" to take over all of Sky. But if so, surely that must mean he is not "fit and proper" to own any of it?
> 
> *Meanwhile, US law may enter the fray. A former Labour cabinet minister has alerted attention to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act*, which makes an American company (News Corp) liable for colossal fines if any employee bribes a foreign official (the Met police) even if no one at head office knew. What's more, any whistleblower inside the company (sacked News of the World reporters), stands to win a percentage of that fine if they report acts of bribery.


Hmmmm.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/08/ed-miliband-broken-omerta-old-monster


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 9, 2011)

Hollis said:


> I dunno, someone buy the guy a drink.


----------



## co-op (Jul 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Actually, just fuck off with this. How about you show some clear thinking for a change. To my very first point about how reading the Sun and being politically aware are not two things that readily go hand in hand. Do you disagree? Do you disagree that everyone who buys this shit is a part of the problem? Do you disagree that they are complicit in the nasty tactics used to bring them their latest celebrity scoops, because everyone knew a lot of nasty shit went on?
> 
> "It's all just comics" doesn't wash, because the stories may be made-up but the people featured aren't. What other excuse is there for buying this? What fucking politics does _buying the Sun_ every day represent aside from the politics of who gives a fuck?
> 
> Anything other than condemnation of this narrow-minded, mean-spirited culture is just pathetic reverse snobbery, claiming the tabloids as some kind of expression of working class culture, which is presumptuous, wrong and insulting - in fact, just the kind of drivel the Sun itself would come out with. 'Dedicated to the people of Britain' my fucking arse.



I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, I've just read the last 6-7 pages and until butchersapron showed up it was a far more interesting thread. Ignore until he posts something interesting.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Actually, just fuck off with this. How about you show some clear thinking for a change. To my very first point about how reading the Sun and being politically aware are not two things that readily go hand in hand. Do you disagree? Do you disagree that everyone who buys this shit is a part of the problem? Do you disagree that they are complicit in the nasty tactics used to bring them their latest celebrity scoops, because everyone knew a lot of nasty shit went on?
> 
> "It's all just comics" doesn't wash, because the stories may be made-up but the people featured aren't. What other excuse is there for buying this? What fucking politics does _buying the Sun_ every day represent aside from the politics of who gives a fuck?



everything you've just been accused of succinctly expressed in one post


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 9, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> Later interview on ABC australia mcmullan said coulsen and brookes were fully aware of what was happening
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/08/3265296.htm


 
Ouch, Somewhat of a canary impression! If only he goes into the Inquiry like that!


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

weltweit said:


> It is amazing, he just does not seem to get it, completely unapologetic, I want someone to ask him specifically if hacking Milly Dowler's phone was acceptable to him?



someone did the other day, he said it was out of order, but that at the time he was working then he could have imagined he might have listened to it if it was available 



> And I ask that because in truth I don't care nearly so much if they hacked Steve Coogan's phone. It may not be fair but I care a lot less about celebrities.



fuck him, and hugh grant, theyre jumping up and down all over this for an agenda which has nothing to do with millies phone being hacked - they want the millions that comes with fame but not the downside

the type of regulation/legislation they want would neuter the press, which is what they want, and people are falling for it, ironically, because they are celebrities and critical thinking has gone out of the window


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> someone did the other day, he said it was out of order, but that at the time he was working then he could have imagined he might have listened to it if it was available
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Or maybe the general public think that hacking celebrities phones is a bit off too? I certainly do. (though not as bile inducing as Milly etc)


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Or maybe the general public think that hacking celebrities phones is a bit off too? I certainly do. (though not as bile inducing as Milly etc)


 
its not just about hacking phones, thats already illegal, they want more regulation of the press


----------



## Tankus (Jul 9, 2011)

> Originally Posted by editor
> Is it me or does The Mirror appear to be rather quiet on all this?





Gingerman said:


> Not exactly sticking the boot in are they?



The mail too are not using their front page ......cant think why

PCC top 10 complaints list 



> Daily Mail 406 complaints
> The Sun 279 complaints
> Daily Mirror 155 complaints
> The Mail on Sunday 148 complaints
> ...


http://complaints.pccwatch.co.uk/


----------



## little_legs (Jul 9, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That's a silly graphic. Rebekah is a dedicated networker: she has more than four friends - even ones of whom one would have heard.


 
these 4 live in Chipping Norton


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> its not just about hacking phones, thats already illegal, they want more regulation of the press


 
Spot on, people have to be very careful here - there's all sorts of agendas being passed off as part of one big united _i hate murdoch too_ happy cloud here.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Actually, just fuck off with this. How about you show some clear thinking for a change. To my very first point about how reading the Sun and being politically aware are not two things that readily go hand in hand. Do you disagree? Do you disagree that everyone who buys this shit is a part of the problem? Do you disagree that they are complicit in the nasty tactics used to bring them their latest celebrity scoops, because everyone knew a lot of nasty shit went on?
> 
> "It's all just comics" doesn't wash, because the stories may be made-up but the people featured aren't. What other excuse is there for buying this? What fucking politics does _buying the Sun_ every day represent aside from the politics of who gives a fuck?
> 
> Anything other than condemnation of this narrow-minded, mean-spirited culture is just pathetic reverse snobbery, claiming the tabloids as some kind of expression of working class culture, which is presumptuous, wrong and insulting - in fact, just the kind of drivel the Sun itself would come out with. 'Dedicated to the people of Britain' my fucking arse.



Clear thinking? Is this clear thinking?



> I've yet to meet someone who reads the Sun every day and is not ignorant about politics in general.



Or is it an example of those unconscious social prejudices i mentioned and that you're denying exist in the above post? When people laughed at this idiot post, you complained that people were defending sun readers in a way they wouldn't defend mail readers - past caring and louis had to point out to you that they weren't in the business of defending anyone but debunking and laughing at such generalisations when applied across the board.

An as if, it's a matter of 'defending' readers rather than having a socially useful approach, one that doesn't write off millions of people due to your misunderstanding of what their cultural habits mean. What sort of useless politics starts from that position. To Maynooth with you!


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> fuck him, and hugh grant, theyre jumping up and down all over this for an agenda which has nothing to do with millies phone being hacked - they want the millions that comes with fame but not the downside
> 
> the type of regulation/legislation they want would neuter the press, which is what they want, and people are falling for it, ironically, because they are celebrities and critical thinking has gone out of the window



I watched both interviews and that's not what either of them have been arguing at all. I like this patronising swipe: "critical thinking has gone out of the window"


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I watched both interviews and that's not what either of them have been arguing at all. I like this patronising swipe: "critical thinking has gone out of the window"


 
there were arguing for ofcom style regulation of the press, they both supported nazi mosley's recent attempts to gag the press in the european courts - they want rich men to be able to do as they please with no comeback, because, in grant's words, rich men are 'naturally naughty'


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 9, 2011)

So you don't want more regulation of the press?


----------



## ymu (Jul 9, 2011)

Fuckin' hell, Toynbee has fallen hard for Miliband. She might as well have gone the whole hog and cast him as Harry Potter to Murdoch's Voldemort in this piece.


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 9, 2011)

Weller said:


> He looks a bit worse for wear in that , maybe Steve Coogan punched him in the Green Room after newsnight


 
I think pub landlord and ex-hack, McMullen, probably always looks the worse for wear...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> Fuckin' hell, Toynbee has fallen hard for Miliband. She might as well have gone the whole hog and cast him as Harry Potter to Murdoch's Voldemort in this piece.


 
Cameron out, Miliband in. Journos are sensing that Cameron is on the way out. Whatever Ed's faults, he's surely a million times better than a Murdoch-whipped Cameron.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 9, 2011)

Cameron is not on his way out! You've seriously underestimated him of you think that is the case


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Cameron is not on his way out! You've seriously underestimated him of you think that is the case


 
All political lives end in failure. The clock is ticking on Disco Dave.


----------



## ymu (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> So you don't want more regulation of the press?


Is there a need for it? What they did was illegal, the PCC was incompetent. Why do we need more regulation and privacy laws? What we have hasn't been allowed to work properly. We should fix that first.


----------



## ymu (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Cameron is not on his way out! You've seriously underestimated him of you think that is the case


 
He is, you know.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> Is there a need for it? What they did was illegal, the PCC was incompetent. Why do we need more regulation and privacy laws? What we have hasn't been allowed to work properly. We should fix that first.



The strict regulations on broadcast media seem to work well... there's some great investigatory work on TV and radio without all the bullshit of much of the print media

The newspapers always seem to throw up these titanic arseholes such as Murdoch, Maxwell, Black and Richard Desmond who act as boils on the body politic, whereas the broadcast media doesn't. Why?


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 9, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Ouch, Somewhat of a canary impression! If only he goes into the Inquiry like that!


 
Hee hee, wonderful stuff and mentioning Piers Morgan too


----------



## ymu (Jul 9, 2011)

Piers Morgan was the NotW editor that promoted Rebekah Wade rapidly through the ranks... He was there when this shit started.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 9, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> Later interview on ABC australia mcmullan said coulsen and brookes were fully aware of what was happening
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/08/3265296.htm



Fantastic! He hasn't been home for three days and is a wanted man 

I think Paul McMullan is rapidly becoming the man of the hour


----------



## revlon (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> So you don't want more regulation of the press?


 
aye, the other thread suggests everyone wants to regulate hari's _"press freedoms"_


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 9, 2011)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> fuck him, and hugh grant, theyre jumping up and down all over this for an agenda which has nothing to do with millies phone being hacked - they want the millions that comes with fame but not the downside
> 
> the type of regulation/legislation they want would neuter the press, which is what they want, and people are falling for it, ironically, because they are celebrities and critical thinking has gone out of the window


 
Yet your critical thinking would allow for protection of the poor but not the rich? You would like a category of undeserving rich for whom all tactics are fair game? How sensible a piece of critical thinking is that?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Fantastic! He hasn't been home for three days and is a wanted man
> 
> I think Paul McMullan is rapidly becoming the man of the hour


He has the haunted persona of a man going through a very sticky divorce with a  vindictive ex. Times ten. Brilliant!

With performances like this it's no wonder the Guardian are happy to pay his legal fees


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> He has the persona of a man going through a very sticky divorce with a  vindictive ex. Times ten. Brilliant
> 
> With performances like this no wonder the Guardian are happy to pay his legal fees



That clip was great. I haven't seen him saying the same stuff on UK TV. Has he? Coulson and Brooks should defininely be prosecuted and James Murdoch and his old man should get their time in porridge, too.


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 9, 2011)

I think we can honestly say this is a shit storm of epic proportions! and if Brooks is to be believed what people know about is just the tip of the iceberg.

*grabs popcorn*


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> fuck him, and hugh grant, theyre jumping up and down all over this for an agenda which has nothing to do with millies phone being hacked - they want the millions that comes with fame but not the downside


Having your phone hacked is not a 'downside' of success. It's a criminal act.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Specifically, it's a criminal act under RIPA 2000:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000

Quite separate are the _literally thousands_ of potential civil suits (for damages), for which the burden of proof is lower than it is for RIPA.

Combined with the public inquiries - two or even three - which may reveal the extent of culpability among managers, this will run in the public domain for 3-4 years at least. Caveat: we don't know the terms or personel on the PIs yet.

In terms of the NI/Murdoch power complex, this is an epic blow.


----------



## Riklet (Jul 9, 2011)

Only just got back to the UK and started reading about it all really (getting a text about NOTW demise was pretty nice!), but surely lots of the info dredged up must have been acquired through the police? Phone numbers etc? So are the police are investigating possible corruption in their own ranks now, and their own link to the various sordid behaviour of journalists...?

This shit storm is going to grow and grow, hope Brooks' head rolls soon.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> its not just about hacking phones, thats already illegal, they want more regulation of the press


 
spot on. the thought did cross my mind yesterday and i thought i was just being too cynical ...


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Who is "they"?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 9, 2011)

Good column in the Graun by Marina Hyde today.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Good column in the Graun by Marina Hyde today.


This one:



> Murdoch and politicians: a special relationship that has only ever worked one way
> 
> British public life is now so corrupt that historians assessing this period will find cabinet papers infinitely less revealing than guest lists



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/08/relationship-only-ever-worked-one-way


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2011)

Here's a good video piece by Guardian journo Nick Davies giving the background to how the phone hacking was uncovered and how the story developed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/vid...hone-hacking-nick-davies-rupert-murdoch-video


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> Piers Morgan was the NotW editor that promoted Rebekah Wade rapidly through the ranks... He was there when this shit started.


 
Smashing! Hopefully that fucker will get dragged into this mess too. No wonder he was going apeshit on Twitter about Hugh Grant on Question Time...


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> He has the haunted persona of a man going through a very sticky divorce with a  vindictive ex. Times ten. Brilliant!


 
He's like a cheap drink poured into a secondhand suit...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Actually, just fuck off with this. How about you show some clear thinking for a change. To my very first point about how reading the Sun and being politically aware are not two things that readily go hand in hand. Do you disagree? Do you disagree that everyone who buys this shit is a part of the problem? Do you disagree that they are complicit in the nasty tactics used to bring them their latest celebrity scoops, because everyone knew a lot of nasty shit went on?



Learn some history, for fuck's sake.

That people buy a tabloid that indulges in disreputable and shoddy behaviour doesn't signify that they have no politics, or are complicit with or informed about those tactics in any way except paying the cover price. Have a look at the _John Bull_/Horatio Bottomley saga, for example. 



> "It's all just comics" doesn't wash, because the stories may be made-up but the people featured aren't. What other excuse is there for buying this? What fucking politics does _buying the Sun_ every day represent aside from the politics of who gives a fuck?



Generally, the politics of reaction. Papers like _The Sun_ and the _NOTW_ act as a foundation for so-called "traditional politics". Assuming that they speak only to individualism and selfishness is buffoonery.



> Anything other than condemnation of this narrow-minded, mean-spirited culture is just pathetic reverse snobbery, claiming the tabloids as some kind of expression of working class culture, which is presumptuous, wrong and insulting - in fact, just the kind of drivel the Sun itself would come out with. 'Dedicated to the people of Britain' my fucking arse.



The above is snobbery pure and simple - The stating of a position where non-condemnation becomes an act of complicity for which you, on your moral high ground, can castigate people who don't conform to your own prejudices.
Papers like _The Sun_ *are* expressions of "working class culture", just as they're expressions of middle-class culture and ruling class culture. If your thinking was more analytical and less emotional, you'd realise that, just like many of the readership of the red-tops do. That the papers themselves claim to be rooted in and expressive of working class culture may be only true in the limited sense of promoting/reporting certain parts of "working class culture", but to assume that much of the readership doesn't realise that is as insulting of "the working classes" as the assumptions by the publishers that they represent anything but a snapshot of working class culture.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> So you don't want more regulation of the press?


 
I don't wish to see "more regulation of the press".

What I want to see is *effective* regulation of the press, if there has to be regulation at all, not this half-arsed old boy's club effort we currently have.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 9, 2011)

The Sun, like Eastenders, is produced by middle-class people through the warped lens of what they think working-class culture is all about. Shit made by ponces fed to the masses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Cameron is not on his way out! You've seriously underestimated him of you think that is the case


 
I agree that he's not "on his way out". 

However, he *has* lost credibility, both with his party and with the voting public, and there's not much he can do to repair that damage. If things go no worse for him he may be able to transcend that damage in time. If things continue to be revealed, and he gets well and truly tarred with the Coulson brush, entropy might be given a helping hand.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't wish to see "more regulation of the press".
> 
> What I want to see is *effective* regulation of the press, if there has to be regulation at all, not this half-arsed old boy's club effort we currently have.



So you want to the PPC replaced by a government sponsored body like Offcom with similar rules such as not being allowed to declare who can vote for what?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> The Sun, like Eastenders, is produced by middle-class people through the warped lens of what they think working-class culture is all about. Shit made by ponces fed to the masses.


 
The fact that "the masses" consume it doesn't mean that "the masses" don't realise that it's "...produced by middle-class people through the warped lens of what they think working-class culture is all about", though, which is the point I'm making. LBJ was sounding off as though the entire readership of _The Sun_ were political _naifs_ without the intellect to realise the paper they read is a vehicle for a certain set of "values", and that they'd absorb and reflect those values wholesale.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> LBJ was sounding off as though the entire readership of _The Sun_ were political _naifs_ without the intellect to realise the paper they read is a vehicle for a certain set of "values", and that they'd absorb and reflect those values wholesale.


 
I didn't say that.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The fact that "the masses" consume it doesn't mean that "the masses" don't realise that it's "...produced by middle-class people through the warped lens of what they think working-class culture is all about", though, which is the point I'm making. LBJ was sounding off as though the entire readership of _The Sun_ were political _naifs_ without the intellect to realise the paper they read is a vehicle for a certain set of "values", and that they'd absorb and reflect those values wholesale.


 
I'm just sounding off, no idea what you and lbj are discussing. I can't stand either of them. Caught some Eastenders yesterday. Rancid bile.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> So you want to the PPC replaced by a government sponsored body like Offcom with similar rules such as not being allowed to declare who can vote for what?


 
No, I want an independent body blind-funded by a levy on the media, some hard and fast rules about press behaviour _per se_, and an independent adjudication, on a case by case basis, of what constitutes the "public interest" in a story, so that a paper might still publish a story that is adjudicated to have no public interest, but would have to declare that adjudication alongside the story.

perhaps I'm too idealistic.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 9, 2011)

Cameron is  damaged but a long way from being turfed out. However the relatively easy ride he has been getting is very much over. 

There are clearly tories who dont like him and want to replace him and they have got more vocal in the past week, but I dont think that is coming from within the cabinet. If the tory polls dip below 30% that may change. 

On  another note, in a sign of the Murdoch guns being trained on Labour - there was a small article in the Sun today about coke snorting allegations and Millibands press bod Tom Baldwin. A shot accross the boughs?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I didn't say that.


 
You said "To my very first point about how reading the Sun and being politically aware are not two things that readily go hand in hand. Do you disagree?". Taken with the rest of the screed that was contained in (your post, #2912), I believe my paraphrase is fair.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

lbj:  The Paul McMullan of Urban*


*the pack turns


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> The strict regulations on broadcast media seem to work well... there's some great investigatory work on TV and radio without all the bullshit of much of the print media
> 
> The newspapers always seem to throw up these titanic arseholes such as Murdoch, Maxwell, Black and Richard Desmond who act as boils on the body politic, whereas the broadcast media doesn't. Why?



The stock answer is "because print media is MUCH more readily and immediately manipulable than broadcast media", but I don't think that tells the whole story.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> lbj:  The Paul McMullan of Urban*
> 
> 
> *the pack turns


 
What "pack"?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You said "To my very first point about how reading the Sun and being politically aware are not two things that readily go hand in hand. Do you disagree?". Taken with the rest of the screed that was contained in (your post, #2912), I believe my paraphrase is fair.


 
'Everyone who buys this shit is part of the problem.' 

I also said that. And I stand by that. There are some fair old mental gymnastics going on by you and others in the attempt to sidestep it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Everyone who buys this shit is part of the problem.'
> 
> I also said that. And I stand by that. There are some fair old mental gymnastics going on by you and others in the attempt to sidestep it.


 
I've not "sidestepped" it as much as ignored it, because as a point it's...well, pointless unless "everyone who buys this shit" is an ideologue with views identical to those the paper projects, which they mostly aren't. There really *are* people who buy _The Sun_ purely for the sports coverage (have a look inside the next bookie you pass. Odds on the most prevalent paper in the fists of the desperate-eyed customers is _The Sun_). You might just as well say that everyone who pays income tax is part of the problem of coalition spending cuts. 

As for my "mental gymnastics", please feel free to elucidate on them.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

you can say that about anything though ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> you can say that about anything though ...


 
I've covered that point. There is nothing morally wrong about the taste of coca-cola. Did you understand what I meant by that?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

i did yes, but lots of people don't buy the sun for its views - they buy it for the sports, the crosswords, etc etc

or they buy it so that they can look at stories of two headed dogs and what have you ...


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yet your critical thinking would allow for protection of the poor but not the rich?



how?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Everyone who buys this shit is part of the problem.'



phone hacking aside, which is already covered by legislation, what is the 'shit' and what is the 'problem'


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> The strict regulations on broadcast media seem to work well... there's some great investigatory work on TV and radio without all the bullshit of much of the print media



when you say bullshit, you mean stuff that doesnt interest you i suppose

it wasnt the broadcast media who continually exposed the tory sleaze in the 90s, it wasnt the broadcast media who exposed the phone hacking scandal or MPs expenses, in fact its been a long time since the broadcast media broke a major story at all, unless you count rogue traders


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> when you say bullshit, you mean stuff that doesnt interest you i suppose
> 
> it wasnt the broadcast media who continually exposed the tory sleaze in the 90s, it wasnt the broadcast media who exposed the phone hacking scandal or MPs expenses, in fact its been a long time since the broadcast media broke a major story at all, unless you count rogue traders



not at all, by bullshit I mean all the nasty xenophobic, bigoted shit that they pour out every day.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> not at all, by bullshit I mean all the nasty xenophobic, bigoted shit that they pour out every day.


 
so you think they should be censored for their opinions?

can you not see a problem with that


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 9, 2011)

no I think that journalist should face readdress when they tell blatant lies, it's as simple as that. That's clearly not happening at the moment


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> phone hacking aside, which is already covered by legislation, what is the 'shit' and what is the 'problem'


 
My take. Which may be slightly different.

The shit is crap masquerading as journalism. A mix of celebrity fantasy and misrepresented reality designed to make the reader see a world in which most people are greedy, dishonest, violent, and obsessed by casual sex. Except for the reader and the reader's immediate family of course, who are merely showing an aesthetic interest in the breasts of the teenage girl on page three, and read with approval the editorial comments on the need to castrate anyone accused of paedophilia or the advisibility of hanging anyone claiming disability benefits, solely due to there concern about the welfare of their nearest and dearest and in no way because they enjoy getting violently angry about people they feel safe despising.

The problem is that whilst most readers of the tabloids don't actually believe their newspaper tells them the truth and nothing but the truth, they don't actually have much else in terms of information on politics. They may think they aren't being influenced, but the simple fact is that the constant drip of sensationalised garbage is nonetheless distorting their view of the world. It means that a very small number of newspaper editors and proprietors have a massive and covert influence over British politics.

That's the shit and that's the problem. The responsibility lies in accepting the shit and thus being part of the problem.

I'm not getting at Sun readers here. My view is that the entirety of the British press has gone downhill since the days of Harold Evans and co. There is no national newspaper that over the past decade hasn't had journalists faking stories, that hasn't had journalists acting beyond the law and well beyone morality to get the story they want, that doesn't routinely misrepresent people's views in order to create controversy that isn't really there, that doesn't routinely invade the privacy of perfectly ordinary people who just happen to be on the verges of a big news story. Even the Guardian, the Independent, and the Telegraph are part of this.

We shouldn't accept it. If journalists won't operate ethically and at least vaguely honestly then we shouldn't buy the garbage they produce. Any of it.

What happened was that the Mail and the Express headed towards the gutter in the seventies. Their circulation didn't drop. The Sun and the Mirror then dived below the gutter. Their circulation didn't drop. So when Murdoch bought the Times he lowered standards their, without a disastrous drop in circulation. So now none of the papers believes their readers give a toss about old fashioned obsolete ideas such as fact checking or right of reply.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I want an independent body blind-funded by a levy on the media, some hard and fast rules about press behaviour _per se_, and an independent adjudication, on a case by case basis, of what constitutes the "public interest" in a story, so that a paper might still publish a story that is adjudicated to have no public interest, but would have to declare that adjudication alongside the story.
> 
> perhaps I'm too idealistic.


 
I don't really think it's a good idea to go rubber stamping everything as being in the public interest or not tbh. That's too much power for anybody to have, independant or not. And nothing's really independant anyway. Everyone has their pressure points. I'd just like to see someone making sure that what gets printed has some basis in objective reality, upholding the right of reply and that sort of thing.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 9, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> The Sun, like Eastenders, is produced by middle-class people through the warped lens of what they think working-class culture is all about. Shit made by ponces fed to the masses.


 
This ^


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2011)

i don't think anyone is defending the sun here, chaps.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 9, 2011)

look at this twat:


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 9, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> The problem is that whilst most readers of the tabloids don't actually believe their newspaper tells them the truth and nothing but the truth, they don't actually have much else in terms of information on politics. They may think they aren't being influenced, but the simple fact is that the constant drip of sensationalised garbage is nonetheless distorting their view of the world.


Good thing it only applies to the tabloids or where would we be, eh.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> So you want to the PPC replaced by a government sponsored body like Offcom with similar rules such as not being allowed to declare who can vote for what?


 
I want to see a body that I can go to if I'm traduced in the press and get some sort of response even if I'm not a celebrity or a billionaire. Currently journalists get to completely screw ordinary people's lives up with absolutely no possibility of recompense. The simple fact is that a newspaper can print anything it bloody well likes about you and unless you can afford to fund an expensive libel action there is nothing at all you can do about it. If you are lucky with an extreme incident you might get the PCC to force a newspaper to print a tiny apology at the bottom of an inside page that almost nobody reads.

I'll give you an example of how toothless the regulations have been over the last thirty years.

In the late 80s one of the Lambeth Tory councillors sent out a press release to all the national newspapers stating that two Labour councillors were claiming more than twice the expenses of any other councillor. He gave their names, addresses and phone numbers. Within a few hours both were pretty much under siege at home with reporters and photographers camped outside their flats demanding interviews and photographs. We (the local Labour Party) had to smuggle them both out to "safe houses" when one journalist starting poking chocolate bars through the letter box of one flat and asking the councillors children to say something for some sweets. For two days there was a shitstorm of stories about these two "freeloading" councillors. At no point was it mentioned that in fact the reason they claimed more in expenses was that one was blind and the other was a disabled divorcee with three kids, and that both attended pretty much every meeting they were able to get to.

We tried to get some balance in the press coverage. No newspaper was even vaguely prepared to discuss it. Two hard working disabled councillors is not a story. No action was taken by the the PCC despite some heavy duty representations to them. No apologies were ever recieved and no correction ever printed. No action for libel was possible as what the papers had printed as fact was genuinely true, but misleading without all the facts.

That shouldn't be the case. Journalists shouldn't be able to deliberately distort the truth in order to make a more interesting story without at least having to fear some sort of sanction. Journalists should not be allowed to behave like bullying thugs without facing the same sort of action from the police that the rest of us would get if we bahaved that way.

I want a free press, but only to the extent that the rest of us are free. I don't believe that a free press necessarily involves having journalists who show no responsibility at all and who allow no moral scruples to prevent them messing up other people's lives in order to sell a few more papers.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 9, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Good thing it only applies to the tabloids or where would we be, eh.


 
We would probably have some sort of nightmare Tory and Lib Dem coalition government screwing up our lives in order to fill their own pockets and those of their financial backers... 

Oh fuck!


----------



## Santino (Jul 9, 2011)

A significant proportion of NOTW readers were the ABC1s so beloved of advertisers.  Why do you think M&S spent so much money in it?


----------



## revlon (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> so you think they should be censored for their opinions?
> 
> can you not see a problem with that


 
hang on, don't get too hung up on the idea of a free press. Just like the free market - the free bit only applies to those who benefit most from it ie the very rich and the very privileged. 

If you see newspapers simply as big business products owned by bigger corporate interests the opinions of their leader writer (or indeed the opinion columnist) means absolute shit.  As does the threat of being censored. 

As with those who defend the concept of a free market, those who defend the concept of free press ususally have the most to profit from it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

Lol, I don't have much trouble believing that actually.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 9, 2011)

revlon said:


> hang on, don't get too hung up on the idea of a free press. Just like the free market - the free bit only applies to those who benefit most from it ie the very rich and the very privileged.
> 
> If you see newspapers simply as big business products owned by bigger corporate interests the opinions of their leader writer (or indeed the opinion columnist) means absolute shit.  As does the threat of being censored.
> 
> As with those who defend the concept of a free market, those who defend the concept of free press ususally have the most to profit from it.



And the concept doesn't carry over to what happens on here in any way shape or form then?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

revlon said:


> hang on, don't get too hung up on the idea of a free press. Just like the free market - the free bit only applies to those who benefit most from it ie the very rich and the very privileged.
> 
> If you see newspapers simply as big business products owned by bigger corporate interests the opinions of their leader writer (or indeed the opinion columnist) means absolute shit.  As does the threat of being censored.
> 
> As with those who defend the concept of a free market, those who defend the concept of free press ususally have the most to profit from it.


 Like smokedout you mean?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

revlon said:


> hang on, don't get too hung up on the idea of a free press. Just like the free market - the free bit only applies to those who benefit most from it ie the very rich and the very privileged.
> 
> If you see newspapers simply as big business products owned by bigger corporate interests the opinions of their leader writer (or indeed the opinion columnist) means absolute shit.  As does the threat of being censored.
> 
> As with those who defend the concept of a free market, those who defend the concept of free press ususally have the most to profit from it.


 
erm .......


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

revlon said:


> hang on, don't get too hung up on the idea of a free press. Just like the free market - the free bit only applies to those who benefit most from it ie the very rich and the very privileged.
> 
> If you see newspapers simply as big business products owned by bigger corporate interests the opinions of their leader writer (or indeed the opinion columnist) means absolute shit.  As does the threat of being censored.
> 
> As with those who defend the concept of a free market, those who defend the concept of free press ususally have the most to profit from it.


 
I agree with you to some extent, but you don't see a problem with tighter press regulation under the guise of "preventing" incidents like this (actually they always would happen, possibly even more so?) When they talk about greater regulation of the press they don't just mean greater regulation of Murdoch's newspapers ... "the press" could mean anything, even what people write on here


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 9, 2011)

Exactly. He's arguing for a regulated internet.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I want to see a body that I can go to if I'm traduced in the press and get some sort of response even if I'm not a celebrity or a billionaire. Currently journalists get to completely screw ordinary people's lives up with absolutely no possibility of recompense. The simple fact is that a newspaper can print anything it bloody well likes about you and unless you can afford to fund an expensive libel action there is nothing at all you can do about it. If you are lucky with an extreme incident you might get the PCC to force a newspaper to print a tiny apology at the bottom of an inside page that almost nobody reads.
> 
> I'll give you an example of how toothless the regulations have been over the last thirty years.
> 
> ...


 

I'm not disagreeing with you but is there not a contradiction here in the fact that britain has one of the harshest libel laws in the world, to the point where rich and powerful people explicitly can decide to sue in britain, and where the law to be tightened up even further under the current set-up then the rich and powerful would be able to basically have even fewer restrictions on what they can and can't do with impunity ... 

have we all forgotten the superinjunction scandal where the problem was people NOT being allowed to report certain facts? IMO you can't be against premiership footballers being able to cover up affairs by paying people millions of pounds, and at the same time, argue for a draconian restriction of the press, which will actually prevent scandals like the phone-hacking scandal coming to light in the first place ...


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I agree with you to some extent, but you don't see a problem with tighter press regulation under the guise of "preventing" incidents like this (actually they always would happen, possibly even more so?) When they talk about greater regulation of the press they don't just mean greater regulation of Murdoch's newspapers ... "the press" could mean anything, even what people write on here



oh come on there's massive jump between regulating a national newspaper and an internet discussion board

it's easy to qualify what a daily national newspaper is


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2011)

_first they came for the gutter press
but i did not speak out, as i read the guardian..._


----------



## revlon (Jul 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I agree with you to some extent, but you don't see a problem with tighter press regulation under the guise of "preventing" incidents like this (actually they always would happen, possibly even more so?) When they talk about greater regulation of the press they don't just mean greater regulation of Murdoch's newspapers ... "the press" could mean anything, even what people write on here


 
Of course, regulation and censorship are two different beasts. And the thin end of the edge argument is a powerful one. I'm not advocating a need from greater regulation btw, just the idea of a free press (like the idea of a free market) is a little erroneous. 

Should for example Johann hari's opinions be regulated? And does this come under censorship:


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

What does "the press" mean anyway? 

does it mean something like - the news of the world? 
The guardian? 
The BBC? 
Sky News? 
A trot paper? 
Trev's fanzine? 
Someone's blog? 
A leaflet about car park charges someone knocked up in their garden shed? 
Posts on a messageboard? 
A private email? 
Someone saying something to someone else in a pub? 

of course i'm not arguing that people shouldn't have the right of reply etc, and that blatant lies and plagiarism (like in hari's case) shouldn't be prevented and a mechanism put in place to punish such people, but what the news of the world did and the phone-hacking etc shouldn't be confused with the overall right of freedom of speech should it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

revlon said:


> Of course, regulation and censorship are two different beasts. And the thin end of the edge argument is a powerful one. I'm not advocating a need from greater regulation btw, just the idea of a free press (like the idea of a free market) is a little erroneous.
> 
> Should for example Johann hari's opinions be regulated? And does this come under censorship:


 
Whose arguing for Hari's _opinion_ to be censored? Why confuse proper attribution of quotes with censorship in such an OTT way? And why do it in the name of regulation?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> oh come on there's massive jump between regulating a national newspaper and an internet discussion board
> 
> it's easy to qualify what a daily national newspaper is


 
How would you regulate it? And do you not think that a certain amount of "regulation" could prevent scandals like this coming to light in the first place?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 9, 2011)

Why has this shifted onto regulation any way? What the NOTW were doing was already regulated by criminal law. All that needs to happen is for that law to be applied.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 9, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Why has this shifted onto regulation any way? What the NOTW were doing was already regulated by criminal law. *All that needs to happen is for that law to be applied.*


 
In short, yes.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

revlon said:


> Of course, regulation and censorship are two different beasts. And the thin end of the edge argument is a powerful one. I'm not advocating a need from greater regulation btw, just the idea of a free press (like the idea of a free market) is a little erroneous.
> 
> Should for example Johann hari's opinions be regulated? And does this come under censorship:


 
It doesn't come under censorship no 

i know what you're saying, it's just that (at the risk of being called a liberal or whatever) i feel pretty uncomfortable with the idea of censorship itself (and that doesn't mean kicking hari out for plagiarism and the phone hacking etc)



But should the news of the world be closed down for being "scurrilous" and reporting rumours about some celebrity's divorce or whatever? IMO no


----------



## revlon (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Whose arguing for Hari's _opinion_ to be censored? Why confuse proper attribution of quotes with censorship in such an OTT way? And why do it in the name of regulation?


 
so what's to be done with hari? He lied, he made stuff up, he misled the reader about the people he was interviewing and he benefited greatly from that - freedom of the press. 

No-ones stopping anyone having an opinion. I'm not for greater regulation, but if you don't see newspapers as an expression of 'free speech' rather as a business to make money then the idea of a free press makes little sense.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

revlon said:


> so what's to be done with hari? He lied, he made stuff up, he misled the reader about the people he was interviewing and he benefited greatly from that - freedom of the press.
> 
> No-ones stopping anyone having an opinion. I'm not for greater regulation, but if you don't see newspapers as an expression of 'free speech' rather as a business to make money then the idea of a free press makes little sense.



What's to be done about hari? He should be made a laughing stock. Why have you tried to confuse this with censorship? And censorship with regulation? And why are you saying that no one is stopping someone having an opinion and simultaneously asking what 'we' would do about someone's opinion? Why are you arguing for and against regulation whilst saying that you're not? You're all over the shop here.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

see ya point, but I don't think that's quite the same thing ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 9, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Why has this shifted onto regulation any way? What the NOTW were doing was already regulated by criminal law. All that needs to happen is for that law to be applied.


 
With the corollary that the reasons for the law not being applied effectively are the matter most urgently in need of public scrutiny and corrective action. 

That the police have a dodgy relationship with certain sections of the media was always evident every time the cops fucked up and killed people and the gutter press came running to tell cynical lies on their behalf (Hillsborough, JC Menezes 'suspicious behaviour', Ian Tomlinson and the 'hail of bottles' etc. ) 

This whole story has provided almost daily insights into just how corrupt that relationship had become and I see nothing to convince me that this corruption will be effectively addressed and rooted out. 

I think we need to see some cops going to jail along with all the dodgy private investigators and the likes of Rebekah Wade and Andy Coulson.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 9, 2011)

revlon said:


> so what's to be done with hari? He lied, he made stuff up, he misled the reader about the people he was interviewing and he benefited greatly from that - freedom of the press.



Plagiarism is covered by intellectual property rights. It's a civil matter. Do you think it ought to be a criminal one?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> it's just that (at the risk of being called a liberal or whatever) i feel pretty uncomfortable with the idea of censorship itself


 
 

I'd not thought of it that way - great to see all these fucking liberals on urban arguing against censorship (and racism and sexism and the rest).


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

wow.. this thread has grown epic... 
havent been following for a wee while as busy with various groups, chasing all murdochs advertisers ets...
this could be mighty interesting:
#Church Of #England #Ethical #Investment Advisory Group has written to News Corporation: regarding shares worth $6m bit.ly/p0TQa9

CCLA Investment Management Limited
80 Cheapside 
London 
EC2V 6DZ

We have a dedicated Client Service Team to help with your enquiries.

Freephone

0800 022 3505

Fax

0844 561 5126

Email

clientservices@ccla.co.uk


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 9, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Why has this shifted onto regulation any way? What the NOTW were doing was already regulated by criminal law. All that needs to happen is for that law to be applied.



Because the debate has clearly shifted from being about just one rogue reporter to one rogue newspaper to what it is now: one rogue industry. It's more than about breaking the law but about a long-term culture of lies, misinformation and shady activity typified by Eric's previous experiences as he described in a previous post


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

It's just the old i despise what you say but i'd defend to the death the right to say it thing i guess, and if I want to read about a paedo with fifty legs or someone's dog earning 100,000,000 in benefits, or about which celebrities are shagging each other, why shouldn't i? and why does it make me a bad person? 

the papers' views are often fucking despicable obviously, but i've never met anyone who believed exactly what was said in the sun, and if they did they'd be pretty confused because they often say different things on different days etc ... and i'd also think that a few of the people in liverpool etc who boycott the sun probably have views similar to the stereotype of it's readers ... as do many people who read the guardian etc ! 

I agree that the phone hacking thing is fucking despicable, im also not sorry to see the news of the world shut down, and its great that murdoch is being so irreperably damaged by it all, it's great that they are so fucked, and some of the developments are fucking beautiful ...... but the way that some people are using this (or beginning to use it) as an excuse to call for greater restrictions on the press as a whole ... it might be me but there's something a bit off about the whole thing ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> if I want to read about a paedo with fifty legs or someone's dog earning 100,000,000 in benefits, or about which celebrities are shagging each other, why shouldn't i?


 
Because the process by which those stories are brought to you hurts people. That's why you shouldn't.


----------



## love detective (Jul 9, 2011)

which tabloid was it you used to write for again lbj?


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you but is there not a contradiction here in the fact that britain has one of the harshest libel laws in the world, to the point where rich and powerful people explicitly can decide to sue in britain, and where the law to be tightened up even further under the current set-up then the rich and powerful would be able to basically have even fewer restrictions on what they can and can't do with impunity ...
> 
> have we all forgotten the superinjunction scandal where the problem was people NOT being allowed to report certain facts? IMO you can't be against premiership footballers being able to cover up affairs by paying people millions of pounds, and at the same time, argue for a draconian restriction of the press, which will actually prevent scandals like the phone-hacking scandal coming to light in the first place ...


 
Exactly.  The problem of a lack of access to dealing with a libel on a member of the public could be solved easily by setting an upper limit that could be charged in fees by the lawyers (personally a low set amount combined with a % of any award would be ideal), by not requiring proof of sufficient assets (to pay the winners' lawyers) prior to any action taking place, and by having a decent interpretation of the human rights act around the issues of privacy and libel.  It isnt a problem that needs censorship to solve.


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2011)

how about newspapers paying half of any libel payout into a 'libel aid' fund, which can be used in a similar way to legal aid was by people who can't afford to sue themselves?


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

killer b said:


> how about newspapers paying half of any libel payout into a 'libel aid' fund, which can be used in a similar way to legal aid was by people who can't afford to sue themselves?


 
A nice idea, but it would just encourage lawyers to keep fees high.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

Btw, I'm not a regular reader of the sun, I've bought the sun maybe once or twice over the last five years, but i've often read it at work or on buses D) etc ... i agree, and have made the point repeatedly, that what the phone hackers and the people telling deliberate lies (about Hillsborough etc) are fucking scum, that they need to be punished by the full extent of the law, or at least deprived of the opportunity to have a journalistic career ever again, and that my sympathy is limited for the journalists and others involved in the production of such bile, but to compare it to something (as others - tho not you - have done on the thread) like Der Sturmer or something? (and bear in mind that Der Sturmer etc emerged - and floursihed - in an environment where the very press freedom that people are saying should be limited due to scandals like this, or that isn't important cos its just another business etc, was even more restricted than it is now, or non-existent) 

We've just had another fucking scandal because of the papers' INABILITY to report the facts (about a footballers divorce ffs) have people on here forgotten so readily about that??


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Because the process by which those stories are brought to you hurts people. That's why you shouldn't.


 
under capitalism the process of buying EVERY product is hurting somebody. 

that's entirely different to saying (as ymu came close to arguing) that the poor little journalists and phone-hackers at the NOTW didn't have any choices or whatever ...


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

killer b said:


> how about newspapers paying half of any libel payout into a 'libel aid' fund, which can be used in a similar way to legal aid was by people who can't afford to sue themselves?


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> We've just had another fucking scandal because of the papers' INABILITY to report the facts (about a footballers divorce ffs) have people on here forgotten so readily about that??


 
Whilst it is wrong that superinjunctions were brought in over that, it is also deeply wrong that papers should be able to make money out of a situation of that kind.  After all, if Giggs had been going around making money out of being a clean-cut and loyal family man, then you could at least make the argument that exposing his hypocrisy was justified and necessary (as it would be, IMHO).  However when someone - even a celeb - has something bad happen to them, then the papers should really have to present evidence / compelling reasons as to why they should be justified in making money out of that.

As for _Der Sturmer_, of course there is a much different scale involved but there are parallels with modern media - after all, as both Peter Oborne and Nick Davies have said in their books, the worst examples of mendacity from the press in the UK over recent years did not come from stories they had made up, but rather came from stories the _Government_ had made up, which the press then repeated*.

*(edit) - which of course leads on to all the scandals that they have failed to report down the years.  As an example, I dont know if anyone has read the latest _Eye_, but the fact that what happened to (as an example, there are at least five or six equally bad stories in the NHS Whistleblower section alone) Dr Raj Mattu is not a national scandal that led to senior people at that Trust being sacked, is an utter disgrace.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 9, 2011)

Guardian report today that Camden Council is looking to divest £100ms of pension funds from NI on the basis of ethics

Chase the money, that's what's going to hurt Murdoch and his empire globally

I'm going to write to my local councils pension fund on Monday, albeit I am not a member so they might tell me to get fucked


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Btw, I'm not a regular reader of the sun, I've bought the sun maybe once or twice over the last five years, but i've often read it at work or on buses D)


 
I read two copies yesterday ! Ha!
(Btw bit strange that the barbers saw fit to go out and buy two identical copies of the same paper for their customers but anyway).


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> Whilst it is wrong that superinjunctions were brought in over that, it is also deeply wrong that papers should be able to make money out of a situation of that kind.  After all, if Giggs had been going around making money out of being a clean-cut and loyal family man, then you could at least make the argument that exposing his hypocrisy was justified and necessary (as it would be, IMHO).  However when someone - even a celeb - has something bad happen to them, then the papers should really have to present evidence / compelling reasons as to why they should be justified in making money out of that.
> 
> As for _Der Sturmer_, of course there is a much different scale involved but there are parallels with modern media - after all, as both Peter Oborne and Nick Davies have said in their books, the worst examples of mendacity from the press in the UK over recent years did not come from stories they had made up, but rather came from stories the _Government_ had made up, which the press then repeated.


 
But the press (and even the broadsheet press) has been making money out of stuff like this - royal/celebrity gossip etc, sometimes of a pretty sordid nature - since time immemorial. I'm not saying it's right mind you, but how would you stop it happening? And the superinjunctions just served to make everyone more curious - although interestingly the reaction from the legal establishment was to blame the media and call for the laws to be *tightened*? 

as for the point about the government feeding the media stories - absolutely, and i completely agree with you on that.

again im not trying to defend the media here, or anything, but some aspects of this just make me feel slightly uncomfortable


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

I remember exactly the last copy of a Murdoch paper I bought; 1992/93: The Sun and the Camillagate transcript - I just couldn't believe Charles had said that stuff... hey, I was young.

Arguably, the beginning of a trail that led to this week.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

Jaysus the wicked witch of wapping is on the board of directors of the Press association..
http://www.pressassociation.com/about-us/board-of-directors.html


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

It's ok, she was probably on holiday at the time.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I read two copies yesterday ! Ha!
> (Btw bit strange that the barbers saw fit to go out and buy two identical copies of the same paper for their customers but anyway).



I popped into my barbers on the way back from work about half an hour ago, they normally have both The Sun & The Mirror in there, but The Sun has been replaced by the 'i' since Tuesday. 

I then popped into the village Co-op to pick-up a copy of the 'i' myself, they had between about 1 & 12 copies of every national paper left, except The Sun - there must have been at least 50-60 copies left.

Has anyone else noticed piles of unsold copies of The Sun, this late in the day, in their local newsagent/shop?


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 9, 2011)

someone told me there is an extra 2 million copies going out of the NOTW tomorrow.....


----------



## strung out (Jul 9, 2011)

i suspect one of the reasons for the sun possibly not selling so well this week, is because they haven't been covering the big story that everyone wants to read about.


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Has anyone else noticed piles of unsold copies of The Sun, this late in the day, in their local newsagent/shop?


 
all week, but i've never thought to check before so it could be normal for all i know.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> under capitalism the process of buying EVERY product is hurting somebody.


 
Not really. We participate in processes of exploitation, certainly. That's not quite the same thing.

But this is a bit different where you're talking about titillating stories. It's not the delivery of the product, but the product itself that is the problem - there is no non-capitalist way to produce titillating stories without hurting anyone.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 9, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> someone told me there is an extra 2 million copies going out of the NOTW tomorrow.....


 
There is a view/spin going round that print run is increased as it might be viewed as a collectors item.

Also an increased circ will look good to advertisers when they relaunch


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2011)

Dan U said:


> Also an increased circ will look good to advertisers when they relaunch


 
no it won't. advertisers aren't thick.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2011)

killer b said:


> no it won't. advertisers aren't thick.


 
This ^^^

The ad agencies look at average weekly circulation not single issues and they certainly will not be looking at the NOTW figures when SOS is launched, News Int' will have to knock out bloody good deals to get advertisers on board for the new title, which will have no audited circulation figures, esp. after this shit storm.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 9, 2011)

Yep, cos once the dust settles, as it surely will, they will care about any.of this.


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2011)

what?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> someone told me there is an extra 2 million copies going out of the NOTW tomorrow.....



yup.. and allegedly all profits are going to charidee... there is also some free charity ads.. will be interesting to see which poverty pimps lower themselves even more


----------



## Dan U (Jul 9, 2011)

Look, if circulation is near the notw, the game is back on

Hopefully pressure will continue to be applied and it won't be

For now, as I posted earlier, follow the institutional investors. That is the next obvious target


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

ebay


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2011)

I wonder how soon News International will launch their new Sunday paper. 

If they try too soon advertisers and readers may think it too cynical and not join up / buy it, but if they leave it too late, readers may get used to what else is out there and become comfortable with the alternative. 

I also wonder just what Rebekah Brook meant by "you will see in a years time" .. what could be going on that will take a year to come out? And will that impact on a new Sunday paper?


----------



## Dan U (Jul 9, 2011)

There is now way Murdoch wants to lose the chance to cross.polinate his business to millions every Sunday.

It, and the advertisers, will be back eventually


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

given that by 2002 the news of the world was hacking dead girls' phones, has anyone looked into whether in 2001 they were hacking phones belonging to 9/11 victims or their families?

if they were, that would really set the cat among the pigeons.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

Dan U said:


> For now, as I posted earlier, follow the institutional investors. That is the next obvious target


 yes, because we should of course ignore the police contribution to this clusterfuck.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 9, 2011)

Worth A Listen



> Jonathan Maitland profiles Nick Davies, the investigative journalist behind the story of the News of the World phone-hacking allegations that are dominating the headlines.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012f6fz


----------



## Dan U (Jul 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, because we should of course ignore the police contribution to this clusterfuck.


 
No, obviously we shouldnt. 

The two aren't exclusive, I was just offering an idea to one side of it. 

Go read the global media, in oz and America and see what corporate pressure Murdoch and his investors are under. There is a layer above the UK, let's attack it


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

Dan U said:


> No, obviously we shouldnt.
> 
> The two aren't exclusive, I was just offering an idea to one side of it.
> 
> Go read the global media, in oz and America and see what corporate pressure Murdoch and his investors are under. There is a layer above the UK, let's attack it


see my post 3052


----------



## Dan U (Jul 9, 2011)

I'm in a pub on my mobile, will do it later if that's ok.


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

co-op said:


> I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, I've just read the last 6-7 pages and until butchersapron showed up it was a far more interesting thread. Ignore until he posts something interesting.


 
true


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)




----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yet your critical thinking would allow for protection of the poor but not the rich? You would like a category of undeserving rich for whom all tactics are fair game? How sensible a piece of critical thinking is that?


 
save your breath. here is one threshold never crossed by critical thinking


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2011)

Interesting not to hear significant accusations being raised about any ANY other media company. I don't think anyone can believe that it was only the News Of The World that was doing this hacking. 

IIRC back when mobile phones were analogue, it was relatively easy to listen in on phone conversations as they were taking place. I am sure the media were active doing that and then when digital came along they were restricted into hacking voicemail, on which probably at the start no one had anything more than their default pin. 

Not to excuse any of it but just to suggest where it came from.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 9, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> ebay



Now this is enterprising:





http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/News-World-Mu...llectables_Kitchenalia_RL&hash=item588ed3a864


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

Pretty Graph of last 5 days effect on NEWS CORP share price...


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I want an independent body blind-funded by a levy on the media, some hard and fast rules about press behaviour _per se_, and an independent adjudication, on a case by case basis, of what constitutes the "public interest" in a story, so that a paper might still publish a story that is adjudicated to have no public interest, but would have to declare that adjudication alongside the story.
> 
> perhaps I'm too idealistic.


 
and what about media ownership?
do we guarantee plurality under the current arrangements? i think we need to change the way media outlets are influenced and controlled, which means limiting the influence of any individual or organisation. i go back to my suggestion that newspapers should become worker's collectives, free from any outside control


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Actually, just fuck off with this. How about you show some clear thinking for a change. To my very first point about how reading the Sun and being politically aware are not two things that readily go hand in hand. Do you disagree? Do you disagree that everyone who buys this shit is a part of the problem? Do you disagree that they are complicit in the nasty tactics used to bring them their latest celebrity scoops, because everyone knew a lot of nasty shit went on?
> 
> "It's all just comics" doesn't wash, because the stories may be made-up but the people featured aren't. What other excuse is there for buying this? What fucking politics does _buying the Sun_ every day represent aside from the politics of who gives a fuck?
> 
> Anything other than condemnation of this narrow-minded, mean-spirited culture is just pathetic reverse snobbery, claiming the tabloids as some kind of expression of working class culture, which is presumptuous, wrong and insulting - in fact, just the kind of drivel the Sun itself would come out with. 'Dedicated to the people of Britain' my fucking arse.


what makes you think people who read the sun aren't politically aware? what you in fact mean is that they aren't politically aware the way you'd like them to be, which is really rather patronising.

i've read and indeed bought the sun on and off for many years now, partly because they've had some bloody good riot coverage in the past, partly for the crossword (the only one i know where the simple and cryptic clues provide the same answers) and, frankly, partly for a laugh. this doesn't mean that in 1992 i was persuaded to vote tory by the famous anti-kinnock front cover or that i have been brain-washed by them. i don't see how people reading (or indeed buying) a paper necessarily leads to them being influenced as that paper's editors and journalists intended. and i definitely don't think my occasional reading of the sun makes me in any way, shape or form complicit in the nasty tactics used to garner their celebrity scoops. you're talking out your arse.

while the sun may not be an expression of working class culture, it is a reflection of aspects of that culture. that is, after all, why it is more widely read by working class people than papers like the times, telegraph or guardian.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> save your breath. here is one threshold never crossed by critical thinking


 
how would my critical thinking allow protection for the poor but not the rich?


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Everyone who buys this shit is part of the problem.'
> 
> I also said that. And I stand by that.


 
seconded. i think that's what will self was getting at on newsnight, implying we get the press we deserve


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> and what about media ownership?
> do we guarantee plurality under the current arrangements? i think we need to change the way media outlets are influenced and controlled, which means limiting the influence of any individual or organisation. i go back to my suggestion that newspapers should become worker's collectives, free from any outside control


 
That's nothing to do with the question that VP was asked and that he was answering. He wasn't asked about ownership.



> i think we need to change the way media outlets are influenced and controlled, which means limiting the influence of any individual or organisation



Does it? What's the logical link between the first point and the conclusion?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Pretty Graph of last 5 days effect on NEWS CORP share price...


 
look on it over the past year and the shares are still a couple of pounds higher than this time last year. it's by no means the collapse you'd have us think.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> save your breath. here is one threshold never crossed by critical thinking


 
What the hell does this mean?


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> how?


 
you've clearly said you don't think anyone famous is entitled to any privacy, just as mcmullen said to coogan. coogan's response was that he worked hard to get where he is, and at no point has he courted the tabloids


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What the hell does this mean?


in mathematical terms, 0


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> seconded. i think that's what will self was getting at on newsnight, implying we get the press we deserve


 
Bollocks don't go along with the "it's all the publics fault".


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> seconded. i think that's what will self was getting at on newsnight, implying we get the press we deserve


 
Unbelievable. The Sun's readership is a few million - and the total press readership deserves to have shit journalism because of that? Make some sense.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> look on it over the past year and the shares are still a couple of pounds higher than this time last year. it's by no means the collapse you'd have us think.



its only the start.. pressure is being put an ALL Murdochs advertisers and investors....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> seconded. i think that's what will self was getting at on newsnight, implying we get the press we deserve


what toss


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> seconded. i think that's what will self was getting at on newsnight, implying we get the press we deserve


 
yes. he's a sneering cunt too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> you've clearly said you don't think anyone famous is entitled to any privacy, just as mcmullen said to coogan. coogan's response was that he worked hard to get where he is, and at no point has he courted the tabloids


 
Ah, you _disagree_ with him - therefore he is incapable of 'critical thinking'. Well done gav.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

Where's Blair in this btw? And Campbell?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> its only the start.. pressure is being put an ALL Murdochs advertisers and investors....


meanwhile back in the real world...


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> when you say bullshit, you mean stuff that doesnt interest you i suppose


 
'material that interests the public but isn't in the public interest'. gossip, scandal, tittle tattle, none of it news, none of it journalism


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

btw: Im hearing lots of anecdotal evidence that the sun appears to be not selling so well today... Has anybody else noticed or heard?


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> not at all, by bullshit I mean all the nasty xenophobic, bigoted shit that they pour out every day.


 
and this


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> meanwhile back in the real world...



and thats what people said at the start of this week ffs... feck negativism.. post inane drivel or do something.. peoples choice really...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> 'material that interests the public but isn't in the public interest'. gossip, scandal, tittle tattle, none of it news, none of it journalism


 
So ban it. So exactly as smokedout said. 

You may only publish what the state decides is in the public interest. In the name of freedom.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> and thats what people said at the start of this week ffs... feck negativism.. post inane drivel or do something.. peoples choice really...


 
the news corp share price has not collapsed, it shows no signs of collapse, it is trading at the same level as it was a month ago. have you looked at the fucking share price graph over the past year or are you making this up as you go along?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Where's Blair in this btw? And Campbell?


 
Most of it happenned on their watch. 

And the police hashed the first investigation at that time too, despite having a shed load of information on who was being hacked. (2006)


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> My take. Which may be slightly different.
> 
> The shit is crap masquerading as journalism. A mix of celebrity fantasy and misrepresented reality designed to make the reader see a world in which most people are greedy, dishonest, violent, and obsessed by casual sex. Except for the reader and the reader's immediate family of course, who are merely showing an aesthetic interest in the breasts of the teenage girl on page three, and read with approval the editorial comments on the need to castrate anyone accused of paedophilia or the advisibility of hanging anyone claiming disability benefits, solely due to there concern about the welfare of their nearest and dearest and in no way because they enjoy getting violently angry about people they feel safe despising.
> 
> ...


 
top post. my mum reads the daily fail, but claims not to be even vaguely influenced by it's hateful politics. so what are her political beliefs?
too many immigrants, asylum seekers playing the system, the country rife with sex attackers and paedos...none of which she has any first hand experience of. or even second hand, for that matter


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Unbelievable. The Sun's readership is a few million - and the total press readership deserves to have shit journalism because of that? Make some sense.


 
4 in 10 papers sold on a Sunday were NotW. What were people buying?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


>


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> 4 in 10 papers sold on a Sunday were NotW. What were people buying when they paid money for the NotW?


 
We were talking about the Sun. That's why i mentioned it. Are you agreeing with gav and will self?


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> look at this twat:




i just love this guy. he was the one spouting all that 'the country will end if people take a day off because of snow', with the subtext 'i managed to get to work in my range rover, why can't everyone else?'
utter shitbag


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> We were talking about the Sun. That's why i mentioned it. Are you agreeing with gav and will self?


Does the point only apply to one paper, or can we stretch to include the entire basis of the thread?

4 in 10 papers sold on a Sunday were NotW. What were people buying ?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2011)

Did anyone else catch this from Hugh Grant on Question Time last Thursday? 

Danny Alexander and many other New Labour ministers had been at a Murdoch garden party last week!!!  Last week - well after the shit had hit the fan. I have no idea how Hugh Grant knew that but Danny Alexander was taken aback that he knew (what a worm that man is!) Just what were they thinking going to such a party at such a time?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> 4 in 10 papers sold on a Sunday were NotW. What were people buying?


 
why don't you look up the circulation figures and find out? google is your friend. and if you don't like google you can try one of the other search engines.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> My take. Which may be slightly different.
> 
> The shit is crap masquerading as journalism. A mix of celebrity fantasy and misrepresented reality designed to make the reader see a world in which most people are greedy, dishonest, violent, and obsessed by casual sex.



now we could talk all day about alienation, misogyny, violence within culture and why it has developed and the press' role in that (which i dont think is as great as you suggest), but thats where we're at - you can't socially engineer us away from that by legislating the press

basically your talking about aesthetics, tabloids may not suit everyones sense of taste, but lots of people read them

i agree their should be greater, or in fact equal right to redress for people without the money to hire lawyers, in fact its kind of my point, but that can be achieved without any need to further legislate against the media, although it doesn't seem to be particularly high on hugh grant's agenda

grant gave the game away when he talked of privacy being a commodity, my privacy is worth feck all - his is worth something, so i suppose it could be described as a commodity, but only because of the shit he claims to be so opposed to - he wants it both ways


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Did anyone else catch this from Hugh Grant on Question Time last Thursday?
> 
> Danny Alexander and many other New Labour ministers had been at a Murdoch garden party last week!!!  Last week - well after the shit had hit the fan. I have no idea how Hugh Grant knew that but Danny Alexander was taken aback that he knew (what a worm that man is!) Just what were they thinking going to such a party at such a time?


danny alexander is a lib dem. 

you do know the difference between the lib dems and labour?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> why don't you look up the circulation figures and find out? google is your friend. and if you don't like google you can try one of the other search engines.


 Like most things, the point is about 3,000 feet over your head. Go back to the corner and put the hat on again.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Does the point only apply to one paper, or can we stretch to include the entire basis of the thread?
> 
> 4 in 10 papers sold on a Sunday were NotW. What were people buying ?


 
I think you can stretch it as far as your polemical purposes require. Thusly.

They were buying the NOTW. How does that effect my point at all? And that's the bit that you need to give an answer to. Given that you decided to duck the last direct question.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> top post. my mum reads the daily fail, but claims not to be even vaguely influenced by it's hateful politics. so what are her political beliefs?
> too many immigrants, asylum seekers playing the system, the country rife with sex attackers and paedos...none of which she has any first hand experience of. or even second hand, for that matter


 You can get people who read the Mirror for example having similar attitudes.
Not everyone agrees 100% with the paper they read's editorial  policy. Not everyone is even arsed enough about newspapers to buy the same one as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> you can't socially engineer us away from that by legislating the press


 why not? is it beyond the competence of parliament?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> The problem is that whilst most readers of the tabloids don't actually believe their newspaper tells them the truth and nothing but the truth, they don't actually have much else in terms of information on politics.



they have their lives and their experiences which teaches people far more about politics than the fucking guardian ever will


----------



## weltweit (Jul 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> danny alexander is a lib dem.
> 
> you do know the difference between the lib dems and labour?


 
Oh, a mistake .. 

Who is the shadow foreign secretary? 

Douglas Alexander - is who I meant


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Bollocks don't go along with the "it's all the publics fault".


 
the journalists, proprietors and editors are responding to public demand. whose fault is it that we have scandal sheets? someone must be buying them


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 9, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> btw: Im hearing lots of anecdotal evidence that the sun appears to be not selling so well today... Has anybody else noticed or heard?



Yep, as I posted earlier, in my local co-op around 5pm there were 1-12 copies left of most national papers and something like 50-60 copies of The Sun left, which is most unusual.

Of course it could have been a cock-up over the numbers delivered today, but I suspect not.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I think you can stretch it as far as your polemical purposes require. Thusly.
> 
> They were buying the NOTW. How does that effect my point at all? And that's the bit that you need to give an answer to. Given that you decided to duck the last direct question.


 
As agricola explained (albeit in different terms), your 'point' moves more frequently than Gadaffi being targeted by NATO.

Will Self was arguing the British public effectively incited NOtW to act in the way they did by buying it in vast quantities - 4 in 10 papers sold on a Sunday. They wanted it, they got it. Was his view. What's yours?


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> the journalists, proprietors and editors are responding to public demand. whose fault is it that we have scandal sheets? someone must be buying them


 
They didn't demand that terror victims have their phones hacked though did they?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Does the point only apply to one paper, or can we stretch to include the entire basis of the thread?
> 
> 4 in 10 papers sold on a Sunday were NotW. What were people buying ?



Is this right anyway is it? Doesn't seem to be to me.


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Unbelievable. The Sun's readership is a few million - and the total press readership deserves to have shit journalism because of that? Make some sense.


 
there's many millions who regularly pay for shit 'journalism'. a few hundred thousand paying for 'quality'. so market forces dictate shit 'journalism' thrives
qed we get what we deserve


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Like most things, the point is about 3,000 feet over your head. Go back to the corner and put the hat on again.


 
as usual you don't even have a fucking point. the sunday papers, by their very nature, come out once a week. newsflash: most people who read newspapers (and that's not the entire population) will read a paper during the rest of the week. so what's bought on sundays is largely irrelevant - and in part because a lot of people who buy a paper the rest of the week don't on a sunday, with sunday papers' circulations being at least a couple of million down on the rest of the week. your 40% by the way is a lie. according to figures on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation) it's nearer 30%


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> there's many millions who regularly pay for shit 'journalism'. a few hundred thousand paying for 'quality'. so market forces dictate shit 'journalism' thrives
> qed we get what we deserve


 thick lumpens


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Oh, a mistake ..
> 
> Who is the shadow foreign secretary?
> 
> Douglas Alexander - is who I meant


you stupid boy


----------



## strung out (Jul 9, 2011)

.


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> what toss


 
obviously uk media are overlooking the massive demand for quality reporting and only catering for the ignorant few who actually buy the newspapers currently on sale


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

strung out said:


> eh? danny alexander is a lib dem and wasn't on QT


 
we've already been through this


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> As agricola explained (albeit in different terms), your 'point' moves more frequently than Gadaffi being targeted by NATO.
> 
> Will Self was arguing the British public effectively incited NOtW to act in the way they did by buying it in vast quantities - 4 in 10 papers sold on a Sunday. They wanted it, they got it. Was his view. What's yours?



My point is exactly the same as it was when you first responded (inaccurately) to it.



> The Sun's readership is a few million - and the total press readership deserves to have shit journalism because of that? Make some sense.



Your posts haven't addressed this point at all. Please, do address it, even link your posts above to it if you can. It's odd this, i suggest that Will Self is wrong and why i think that, you make some irrelevant posts then demand i tell you what i think of what Will Self said.


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ah, you _disagree_ with him - therefore he is incapable of 'critical thinking'. Well done gav.


 
go patronise someone else. again


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> why not? is it beyond the competence of parliament?



probably not if max mosley's political demands were ever realised


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> obviously uk media are overlooking the massive demand for quality reporting and only catering for the ignorant few who actually buy the newspapers currently on sale


 
and how does this show that we 'deserve' the press we have? i assume you mean we get the press we deserve as glenn hoddle thinks disabled people deserve being disabled: because of something we've done in the past.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

point taken: Will Self exaggered; it's three in ten


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> the journalists, proprietors and editors are responding to public demand. whose fault is it that we have scandal sheets? someone must be buying them



apart from the owners who benefits most from scandal sheets, the people who read them or the people who feature in them


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Your posts haven't addressed this point at all. Please, do address it, even link your posts above to it if you can. It's odd this, i suggest that Will Self is wrong and why i think that, you make some irrelevant posts then demand i tell you what i think of what Will Self said.


 I'm not addressing any fucking point, I'm asking a question: 



> Will Self was arguing the British public effectively incited NOtW to act in the way they did by buying it in vast quantities - 4 in 10 papers sold on a Sunday. They wanted it, they got it. Was his view. What's yours?


Make that three in ten. Over to you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> point taken: Will Self exaggered; it's three in ten


 
some sort of apology would be in order.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> you've clearly said you don't think anyone famous is entitled to any privacy, just as mcmullen said to coogan. coogan's response was that he worked hard to get where he is, and at no point has he courted the tabloids



yet here he is discussing drugs, lap dancers and shagging courtney love with piers morgan

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2011-05/27/gq-comment-steve-coogan-interview-piers-morgan/tristram-shandy-a-cock-and-bull-story


----------



## Geri (Jul 9, 2011)

Copies of tomorrow's NOTW are already selling on eBay for £5.50.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> there's many millions who regularly pay for shit 'journalism'. a few hundred thousand paying for 'quality'. so market forces dictate shit 'journalism' thrives
> qed we get what we deserve


 
Do you know what begging the question is gav?

People pay for a paper that has shit journalism in it. They didn't pay for shit journalism. They didn't pay for a paper that advertised it hacked milly dowlers phone. And even if they did, it doesn't follow that as a result all journalism should be shit and all the newspaper should be shit. Does it? Aside from the specious logic that what exists we deserve (do you deserve to have all your benefits cut? Does my dad? Did a million iraqis deserve to be killed - because that's what happened) i'd like you to actually try an defend your argument, not just more circular moralism and purism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

Geri said:


> Copies of tomorrow's NOTW are already selling on eBay for £5.50.


there's one born every minute.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I'm not addressing any fucking point, I'm asking a question:
> 
> 
> Make that three in ten. Over to you?



You're not kidding on that first bit are you? Aside from me having answered the question already. what you're offering is pretty clear - you agree with gav and will self but won't say so.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> there's one born every minute.


 
And, as usual, it's you:
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/i.html?_from...w=News+of+the+world&_sacat=See-All-Categories


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're not kidding on that first bit are you? Aside from me having answered the question already. what you're offering is pretty clear - you agree with gav and will self but won't say so.


 Do I? 

And you, just to refresh our memory? What part in all this does the NotW buying public play?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> obviously uk media are overlooking the massive demand for quality reporting and only catering for the ignorant few who actually buy the newspapers currently on sale


 
I salute your total and utter capitulation to the _truth_ of the market gav. It never lies.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> And, as usual, it's you:
> http://shop.ebay.co.uk/i.html?_from...w=News+of+the+world&_sacat=See-All-Categories


 
let me get this straight. i am a mug because i'm not buying a copy of the news of the world to sell on ebay? i suppose you're going down the stations this evening to get a bundle to flog.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> let me get this straight.


 Classic Pickman! 

You accepted people were paying £5.50 on ebay for tomorrow's NotW, and said "one was born every minute" - tbf, you had that covered for several minutes.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

Geri said:


> Copies of tomorrow's NOTW are already selling on eBay for £5.50.



not for long.... under T&Cs they have to have stock in hand....  people are a bit bored at the various groups with the advertisers/investors offices closed....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Classic Pickman!
> 
> You accepted people were paying £5.50 on ebay for tomorrow's NotW, and said "one was born every minute" - tbf, you had that covered for several minutes.


geri has a history of honesty. you don't. i am therefore more inclined to trust what she says without checking every claim in her posts.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

let me get this straight....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Classic Pickman!
> 
> You accepted people were paying £5.50 on ebay for tomorrow's NotW, and said "one was born every minute" - tbf, you had that covered for several minutes.


 according to this website http://collectibles.shop.ebay.com/P...+world&_catref=1&_fln=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m282 people are charging (atm) up to about £6 for the paper. which somewhat exceeds the £5.50 geri quoted and undermines you again, you thick fuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> let me get this straight....


 
let me make this clear for you in words of one syllable: you're a liar and a shit one at that, you dull twat.

ok?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

She said "they are selling", you took that  as sold, now you link to 'buy it now' as if people are paying that. 

let me get this straight...


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you thick fuck.


.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> She said "they are selling", you took that  as sold, now you link to 'buy it now' as if people are paying that.
> 
> let me get this straight...


pedant point for london_calling


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

Murdoch welcomed to UK, killed, body dumped in sea


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Only if pedantry is pointing out the difference between nonsense and accuracy.


----------



## Geri (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> She said "they are selling", you took that  as sold, now you link to 'buy it now' as if people are paying that.
> 
> let me get this straight...



http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEWS-WORLD-pr...itu=UCC&otn=6&ps=63&clkid=1218905732663364311

Three have been sold.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Only if pedantry is pointing out the difference between nonsense and accuracy.


 
you wouldn't know it. you didn't know what proportion of sunday papers sold were notw. you simply produced some nonsense you'd picked up somewhere and ran with it, like the gullible twat you are.

you accurate? 

what a fucking joke


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

This must be up there with the most breathtakingly cynical political strategies of modern times:



> Rupert Murdoch's ambition to expand his media empire still further could be killed off by MPs this week after Labour announced plans for a Commons vote to thwart his bid for BSkyB.
> 
> The move comes amid a mood of continuing public uproar over the phone-hacking scandal, which is now threatening to destabilise David Cameron's government.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/09/ed-miliband-phone-hacking-bskyb-takeover


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Geri said:


> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEWS-WORLD-pr...itu=UCC&otn=6&ps=63&clkid=1218905732663364311
> 
> Three have been sold.


 
 That offer - unlike the others -  includes postage. The others are charging £1.50 - £1.99.

But I'd agree it's above retail.


----------



## Santino (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> This must be up there with the most breathtakingly cynical political strategies of modern times:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/09/ed-miliband-phone-hacking-bskyb-takeover



And yet, I can't help but hope it works. Miliband's given the Lib Dems a little sniff of a cause on which to base a 'principled' exit from government.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

There's a lot of line crossing here  - Santino is right, Miliband has just offered the lib-dems another one.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Vince the Mince already said - albeit secretly taped - he wouldn't have allowed it.

It has to be a good move by Labour.


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

Santino said:


> And yet, I can't help but hope it works. Miliband's given the Lib Dems a little sniff of a cause on which to base a 'principled' exit from government.


 
Maybe, that depends if Cameron is idiot enough to put a three line whip on it.  If he has a brain he will give a free vote on his side, watch Labour win this motion, and then watch the tabloids crucify Miliband and Labour - for instance, there are already rumours that tomorrows _Mail_ is going to go for Tom Baldwin.... and you would think that, given how close NI were between 1997 and 2009, they will have a lot more stuff than that to use.


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> they have their lives and their experiences which teaches people far more about politics than the fucking guardian ever will


 
quite narrow though, just to rely on your own personal experience?


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> danny alexander is a lib dem.
> 
> you do know the difference between the lib dems and labour?


 
they got douglas alexander mixed with danny alexander, hardly calling for your innuendo


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> Maybe, that depends if Cameron is idiot enough to put a three line whip on it.  If he has a brain he will give a free vote on his side, watch Labour win this motion, and then watch the tabloids crucify Miliband and Labour - for instance, there are already rumours that tomorrows _Mail_ is going to go for Tom Baldwin.... and you would think that, given how close NI were between 1997 and 2009, they will have a lot more stuff than that to use.


Most likely has to be Cameron calling the Dirty Digger round for tea and telling him it's either my Gov or your takeover - so you're on your bike.

Imo, this move by Labour looks the most likely way the takeover will fall.


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

smokedout said:


> they have their lives and their experiences which teaches people far more about politics than the fucking guardian ever will


 
see post #3008


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> They didn't demand that terror victims have their phones hacked though did they?


 
that's because the line between hacking celebrities and hacking everyone else, is none existent. you don't get one without the other. no point in bleating how it's ok to hack celebs, but beyond the pale if you do it to humans; this is what you get


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

What about the line being hacking and not hacking? Does that exist? Your whole post is based on it, so you have to say yes. And in doing so you thereby clear all the people you now claim are guilty. Well done gav. Star.


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Most likely has to be Cameron calling the Dirty Digger round for tea and telling him it's either my Gov or your takeover - so you're on your bike.
> 
> Imo, this move by Labour looks the most likely way the takeover will fall.


 
Maybe, though IMHO all this does is make Murdoch only have one choice (in the short term, anyway) when it comes to doleing out the political support, and it looked like the takeover was being delayed anyway.  This might work for Labour long-term, though its at least as likely that it will turn out badly for them (as well as result in Murdoch paying less for BSkyB, eventually - the share price is £2 higher now than it was before they announced takeover plans).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

Looks like Rusbriger warned Ashdown too - wtf was he playing at (if him or from info that came from him) ? Is this the media's job now? Saving the parties from potential embarrassment? It's getting a  bit close to home for them too now maybe...


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola: I suppose it's not a coalition agreement issue either, leaving room to manoeuvre.

Those public inquiries won't be completed for years. Murdoch has next to no chance, imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

Feel Clegg's power:



> It has also emerged that Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, received similar briefings to those given to Ashdown before the election, which he raised with Cameron only to be rebuffed by the prime minister who insisted it was right to give Coulson a "second chance". Senior Whitehall sources say that Clegg was stunned by what he was told but concluded, after the coalition deal was struck, that he was powerless to change Cameron's mind. "Clegg said: 'It is not up to me to tell the prime minister who to appoint as his director of communications'," said a source


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

What time do the Sunday Front pages start appearing.... theres 3 ex-NOTW hacks allegedly sold their stories....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

edit: cheers to Mr Whelan


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Looks a bit thin


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

yawn. the 'line' is journalism v gossip, butch. 
i used to walk, with my grandad, to the corner shop in wembley to buy the notw on sunday mornings butch. my gran used to moan about the 'coloureds' moving into her road butch. she got the paper she deserved, because she paid for it every week and agreed with it's editorial line butch. she helped perpetuate it by supporting it financially butch. how is she not partly responsible for the content, style and approach of that title? butch


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Those public inquiries won't be completed for years. Murdoch has next to no chance, imo.


 
It depends what terms the inquiries operate under, the judge-led one especially.  You would think though that whoever sets it up would go for the simplest option available, if for no other reason than it could potentially drag on for eternity, involve thousands of witnesses, forests of paper, and would cost an absolute fortune if they tried to do anything remotely wide-ranging and comprehensive.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Yep, that's the one!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> yawn. the 'line' is journalism v gossip, butch.
> i used to walk, with my grandad, to the corner shop in wembley to buy the notw on sunday mornings butch. my gran was used to moan about the 'coloureds' moving into her road butch. she got the paper she deserved, because she paid for it every week and agreed with it's editorial line butch. she helped perpetuate it by supporting it financially butch. how is she not partly responsible for the content, style and approach of that title? butch


 
You can't even follow your own logic gav. Your reply to you dismantling your own 'argument' is 'yawn'. Sleep well then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> It depends what terms the inquiries operate under, the judge-led one especially.  You would think though that whoever sets it up would go for the simplest option available, if for no other reason than it could potentially drag on for eternity, involve thousands of witnesses, forests of paper, and would cost an absolute fortune.


 
Split them into three as well.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You can't even follow your own logic gav. Your reply to you dismantling your own 'argument' is 'yawn'. Sleep well then.


You'll notice the question mark at the end of his post.

Like me, he is asking you your view?


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Split them into three as well.


 
Three interconnected public inquiries would probably cost five times as much as one.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> Three interconnected public inquiries would probably cost five times as much as one.


 
Not about the money as i think you must agree.


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

i'm amazed you have such high self esteem butch. your posts give no evidence for this thinking. what exactly is your point?


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not about the money as i think you must agree.


 
Actually it is about the money - especially when the lawyers will be hauling money away by the barrow-load, and we will be no nearer the truth of what has gone on.


----------



## embree (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Looks a bit thin


 
that's not the paper itself though, just a print copy of the front page


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> You'll notice the question mark at the end of his post.
> 
> Like me, he is asking you your view?



You mean the post that doesn't end with a question mark? You're on fire today.

My view? My view on what? My views about what i've been posting about have been explained and defended. Yours?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Public money will come a poor second to re-election strategies.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

embree said:


> that's not the paper itself though, just a print copy of the front page


 The person second across has it open. I thought...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> Actually it is about the money - especially when the lawyers will be hauling money away by the barrow-load, and we will be no nearer the truth of what has gone on.


 
No, it's about saving people. PR triage. Money doesn't matter right now. Do you really think Cameron cares how much of your money he's prepared to spend to dig defensive trenches around him and his? He really really doesn't.


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You mean the post that doesn't end with a question mark? You're on fire today.
> 
> My view? My view on what? My views about what i've been posting about have been explained and defended. Yours?


 
you come across as someone who just wishes to sneer at everyone else without advancing the debate in any way


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)




----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> you come across as someone who just wishes to sneer at everyone else without advancing the debate in any way


 
That's allright gav, you don't need to look at or defend your own words.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You mean the post that doesn't end with a question mark? You're on fire today.
> 
> My view? My view on what? My views about what i've been posting about have been explained and defended. Yours?


Who do you think this impresses? Really? Do you walk away thinking 'that was convincing'.


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, it's about saving people. PR triage. Money doesn't matter right now. Do you really think Cameron cares how much of your money he's prepared to spend to dig defensive trenches around him and his? He really really doesn't.


 
er - you were the person who suggested splitting one (of the two) enquiries into three, not Cameron.

edit:  or two enquries into three, sorry


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

not in response to you, no

e2a @ butch


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> er - you were the person who suggested splitting one (of the two) enquiries into three, not Cameron.


 
No, this is what is going to happening.


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

dp


----------



## co-op (Jul 9, 2011)

Can anyone explain what butchers is on about?


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

i'm all ears...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

Oh jeez it's the pack.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

It's those crazy not pissed on cheap cider people!!1!


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

how dare we try to communicate with each other in a clear and consistent fashion


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, this is what is going to happening.



I have my doubts - this will probably be just your typical agreeable judge, limited scope, "_lessons must be learned_" thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> I have my doubts - this will probably be just your typical agreeable judge, limited scope, "_lessons must be learned_" thing.


 
There's two on the go, at least one more is being kept  in reserve - given  the trifling shit the first two announced are concerned with. IMO.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> how dare we try to communicate with each other in a clear and consistent fashion


 
You can always try gav.


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There's two on the go, at least is being kept one in reserve -give  the trifling shit the foist two announced are concerned with. IMO.


 
One is judge-led, one is a panel of "experts" discussing media ethics.  (edit) What need does he have for another one?


----------



## co-op (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Oh jeez it's the pack.



*bays the moon*

Um it's not. You spend a lot of time on here so you doubtless have all sorts of previous with posters that I am unaware of but the standard of the thread has really dropped on your couple of visits. Not really sure what you think about anything and wondering what you're posting for.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> One is judge-led, one is a panel of "experts" discussing media ethics.  (edit) What need does he have for another one?


 
Yep, they're the light two. The real serious_ i'm being proper hard now_ inquiry, _just look at my face_ one from cameron will come in due course.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

co-op said:


> *bays the moon*
> 
> Um it's not. You spend a lot of time on here so you doubtless have all sorts of previous with posters that I am unaware of but the standard of the thread has really dropped on your couple of visits. Not really sure what you think about anything and wondering what you're posting for.


 
As you're too lazy to read the thread, or if you have you can't remember what was posted a few hours ago, here's a little help


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, they're the light two. The real serious_ i'm being proper hard now_ inquiry, _just look at my face_ one from cameron will come in due course.


 
You will forgive me if I dont hold my breath whilst waiting for this prediction of yours to come true.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> You will forgive me if I dont hold my breath whilst waiting for this prediction of yours to come true.


 
Don't have to. It's ok. British PMs rarely kick things to inquiries to turn the heat off them. To suggest they might is crazy.


----------



## co-op (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> As you're too lazy to read the thread, or if you have you can't remember what was posted a few hours ago, here's a little help



Thanks, I read that and so I got the reference. But I still haven't really worked out what _you_ think about anything, I wasn't really asking you to explain because you don't seem up to that (or I'd know already IYSWIM) - just wondering if anyone else was making sense of your interventions.

Toodlepip.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

co-op said:


> Thanks, I read that and so I got the reference. But I still haven't really worked out what _you_ think about anything, I wasn't really asking you to explain because you don't seem up to that (or I'd know already IYSWIM) - just wondering if anyone else was making sense of your interventions.
> 
> Toodlepip.


 What are the issues that you need clarification on co-op? Beyond not being able to get it from my posts i mean?

edit: Maybe i'm a secret murdoch agent? Wtf is there to talk about her beyond reporting what's going an and talking about posters reactions to that?


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Don't have to. It's ok. British PMs rarely kick things to inquiries to turn the heat off them. To suggest they might is crazy.


 
That makes no sense.  If you are being sarcastic, he has already opened two inquiries over this issue, one of which looks like it will be your standard agreeable inquiry that blames the system.  If you arent being sarcastic, what was Hutton again?  

Sorry if the above sounds as if I am taking the piss, its just you have been incomprehensible lately and I genuinely do not understand half of the points you are trying to make.


----------



## co-op (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> Sorry if the above sounds as if I am taking the piss, its just you have been incomprehensible lately and I genuinely do not understand half of the points you are trying to make.



+1


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> That makes no sense.  If you are being sarcastic, he has already opened two inquiries over this issue, one of which looks like it will be your standard agreeable inquiry that blames the system.  If you arent being sarcastic, what was Hutton again?
> 
> Sorry if the above sounds as if I am taking the piss, its just you have been incomprehensible lately and I genuinely do not understand half of the points you are trying to make.



From the start, why no single inquiry?
Answer? He wants to split them up so they produced diff results at diff times, without linking the context

Why would he not have third one hidden away in in his armoury that is supposed to overcome the shortcomings that he knows these two expose - esp given that there is supposed to be a lot more serious stuff coming.

This is a simple point - it's not mental, it's not incomprehensible. You an agree or disagree with it, it's not zany or left-field though.  It's defenisble and there's evidence to support it. Don't go down this road roman.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

A senior Miliband aide received a "very hostile" threat, not veiled at all, from a News International journalist warning: "You have made it personal about Rebekah, so we'll make it personal about you."
sweet....


----------



## Badgers (Jul 9, 2011)

Link not working here 



> Sorry - we haven't been able to serve the page you asked for
> 
> You may have followed a broken link, an outdated search result, or there may be an error on our site. If you typed in a URL, please make sure you have typed it in correctly. In particular, make sure that the URL you typed is all in lower case.


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> A senior Miliband aide received a "very hostile" threat, not veiled at all, from a News International journalist warning: "You have made it personal about Rebekah, so we'll make it personal about you."
> sweet....


 
It seems they want Judge Dredd to take charge of this inquiry, given this latest call for action!.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> yawn. the 'line' is journalism v gossip, butch.
> i used to walk, with my grandad, to the corner shop in wembley to buy the notw on sunday mornings butch. my gran used to moan about the 'coloureds' moving into her road butch. she got the paper she deserved, because she paid for it every week and agreed with it's editorial line butch. she helped perpetuate it by supporting it financially butch. how is she not partly responsible for the content, style and approach of that title? butch



what does your granny's racism have to do with journalism vs gossip?


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> Maybe, that depends if Cameron is idiot enough to put a three line whip on it.  If he has a brain he will give a free vote on his side, watch Labour win this motion, and then watch the tabloids crucify Miliband and Labour - for instance, there are already rumours that tomorrows _Mail_ is going to go for Tom Baldwin.... and you would think that, given how close NI were between 1997 and 2009, they will have a lot more stuff than that to use.


 
This?


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> From the start, why no single inquiry?
> Answer? He wants to split them up so they produced diff results at diff times, without linking the context
> 
> Why would he not have third one hidden away in in his armoury that is supposed to overcome the shortcomings that he knows these two expose - esp given that there is supposed to be a lot more serious stuff coming.
> ...


 
No, it is zany.  Two inquiries are for two separate (ish) issues, and one of them will be more serious than the other one will.  Having a third inquiry to follow on from the first two makes no sense, given what inquiries are usually carried out for (ie: to kick things into the long grass and to avoid blame at the relevant time), and it would inevitably rehash much of what the first two did.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 9, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Link not working here


 
There's some weird characters in AKA's URL.

Working link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/08/ed-miliband-broken-omerta-old-monster




			
				Polly Toynbee said:
			
		

> Don't imagine this act of defiance will be painless or without consequence. Already a senior Miliband aide tells me they received a "very hostile" threat, not veiled at all, from a News International journalist warning: "You have made it personal about Rebekah, so we'll make it personal about you." Braggadocio maybe, but as the recipient of the threat said: "That's how they operate." And it can be terrifying. Bugging, blagging and Benji the Binman send shudders down many a spine. The spell is broken, but the terror may not be over.


----------



## agricola (Jul 9, 2011)

cybertect said:


> Working link
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/08/ed-miliband-broken-omerta-old-monster


 
That is concievable (indeed it will probably happen), but it being an un-attributed source in a Polly Toynbee article doesnt do much for its credibility.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 9, 2011)

Tempted to stand in the newsagents all day tomorrow and call anyone who picks it up a prick, but if it's sunny i will have a BBQ instead.


----------



## dylans (Jul 9, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Tempted to stand in the newsagents all day tomorrow and call anyone who picks it up a prick, but if it's sunny i will have a BBQ instead.


 
So there is an extended print run tomorrow because everyone is expected to buy it as a collectors item. Not much of a collectors item if there are 5 million of the things is it? 5 million copies? It's hardly going to become a rare and valuable item anytime soon is it?


----------



## Santino (Jul 9, 2011)

I'll give you eight Diana stamps for it.


----------



## strung out (Jul 9, 2011)

someone's been tweeting from the sun politics twitter account when they shouldn't have been! tweet now deleted...



> @sun_politics: NotW - RIP. A loss to 1st class jrnalism. Miliband, Gdn & BBC; how proud u must be of yr work


----------



## Flanflinger (Jul 9, 2011)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Tempted to stand in the newsagents all day tomorrow and call anyone who picks it up a prick, but if it's sunny i will have a BBQ instead.


 
twat.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 9, 2011)

Coogan


----------



## Badgers (Jul 9, 2011)

Flanflinger said:


> twat.


 
?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

strung out said:


> someone's been tweeting from the sun politics twitter account when they shouldn't have been! tweet now deleted...



http://yfrog.com/klypnrj oops....


----------



## strung out (Jul 9, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> http://yfrog.com/klypnrj oops....


 
and the retraction 

@Sun_Politics Please ignore last tweet from this account re NotW - not authorised, and not the paper or its political team's opinion.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 9, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Coogan




I'm surprised he didn't just punch that grubby little cunt in the face. Christ, these people are vermin.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

strung out said:


> and the retraction
> 
> @Sun_Politics Please ignore last tweet from this account re NotW - not authorised, and not the paper or its political team's opinion.



 oh so now they know whats authorised and whats not *facepalm* bit late hey!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2011)

Credit: brianwhelan


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 9, 2011)

Surprised more of the PCs didn't walk out in sympathy.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Messy night ahead in the Wapping pubs.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2011)

> now we could talk all day about alienation, misogyny, violence within culture and why it has developed and the press' role in that (which i dont think is as great as you suggest), but thats where we're at - you can't socially engineer us away from that by legislating the press
> 
> basically your talking about aesthetics, tabloids may not suit everyones sense of taste, but lots of people read them
> 
> ...



top post


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Credit: brianwhelan



I love their patriotism... San Miguel,and Heineken.. and they left the lights on...


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)




----------



## laptop (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Looks like Rusbriger warned Ashdown too - wtf was he playing at (if him or from info that came from him) ? Is this the media's job now? Saving the parties from potential embarrassment? It's getting a  bit close to home for them too now maybe...


 
I've been puzzling over that.

What would have happened if Cameron had listened? Off the top of my head, Rusbridger would have waited until Coulson's trial to go public with the fact that Cameron had been _about_ to appoint Coulson. A weaker effect on the Tories than this, but an effect nonetheless.

As it is, it's perfect: Cameron went ahead, and is now in deep doo-doo.

Well - *nearly* perfect. It's possible the coalition will fall apart before recess on (IIRC) 27 July. Impossible to say what may happen over the summer if it doesn't. But the Tories - much more than the LibDems (who Rusbridger was supporting, expecting a Lab/Lib coalition, wasn't he?) are wounded. 

But it's far from clear that Labour *wants* to be in government in the next twelve months, or the next 24. (Still less in coalition with a LibDem rump!) They'd end up implementing the cuts, the privatisation of the NHS, etc, claiming an IMF gun at their heads...


----------



## laptop (Jul 9, 2011)

Ah - Ashdown's warning was after the election and before the coalition. Was Rusbridger trying to broker that Lab/Lib government?


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2011)

laptop said:


> Ah - Ashdown's warning was after the election and before the coalition. Was Rusbridger trying to broker that Lab/Lib government?


 
sounds like the most likely scenario.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2011)

Or at least engineer a minority Gov.


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's allright gav, you don't need to look at or defend your own words.


 
no i don't. having posted on this 128 page thread, where i've posted since the beginning mainly on the media reporting of the story, and having linked to media reports, i don't think that one personal anecdote post # three thousand and something can be said to outweigh my view of the story as perceived through other media


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 9, 2011)

looks like NI have registered the scum on sunday..
http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whoi...nday.co.uk&WHOIS+Submit.x=20&WHOIS+Submit.y=7


----------



## gavman (Jul 9, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What are the issues that you need clarification on co-op? Beyond not being able to get it from my posts i mean?
> 
> edit: Maybe i'm a secret murdoch agent? Wtf is there to talk about her beyond reporting what's going an and talking about posters reactions to that?


 
there seemed a fair bit of direct action at one point. you know, 'bout the time the news of the world got shut down?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> 'material that interests the public but isn't in the public interest'. gossip, scandal, tittle tattle, none of it news, none of it journalism


 
Actually, it's one of the oldest forms of _reportage_, even back in the days of mass illiteracy. That's why minstrels sang scandalous songs about the wealthy. It's also why people like Hearst were able to make millions out of low and yellow journalism even a hundred years ago. You take a grain of truth, and you wrap it in an easily digestible package that people are willing to consume.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> As agricola explained (albeit in different terms), your 'point' moves more frequently than Gadaffi being targeted by NATO.
> 
> Will Self was arguing the British public effectively incited NOtW to act in the way they did by buying it in vast quantities - 4 in 10 papers sold on a Sunday. They wanted it, they got it. Was his view. What's yours?


 
I think Self's answer was pat, and on the surface it appears accurate, but it isn't, because the purchase of a paper doesn't equate to an endorsement of either the politics of that paper, or the practices of its' owner.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2011)

smokedout said:


> yet here he is discussing drugs, lap dancers and shagging courtney love with piers morgan



The last person I'd want to double-team Courtney Love with would be Piers Morgan.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 10, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> looks like NI have registered the scum on sunday..
> http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whoi...nday.co.uk&WHOIS+Submit.x=20&WHOIS+Submit.y=7



on the 5th, same day ford pulled out, before 'it was sunny what won it's campaign started, before mums net

wade said you'll understand in a year why we've had to close, does that sound like a spur of the moment decision?

ever get the feeling you've been cheated


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

.....


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

Theres a PDf coming soon of the NOTW.....


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 10, 2011)

Should we leave a voice mail?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

smokedout said:


> on the 5th, same day ford pulled out, before 'it was sunny what won it's campaign started, before mums net
> 
> wade said you'll understand in a year why we've had to close, does that sound like a spur of the moment decision?
> 
> ever get the feeling you've been cheated


lulz.. we have a few other sites reg'd too


----------



## gavman (Jul 10, 2011)

schaudenfruede for the masses. it caters for a base human characteristic, and shouldn't be allowed monopoly or political influence.
however, the point has been well argued elsewhere that wapping took credit for what it hadn't won, namely major and blair's election victories, and that political leaders bought into a myth. try telling that to michael foot or neil kinnock...

e2a
crap, i keep doing this, that was in response to vp above. should've quoted


----------



## gavman (Jul 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think Self's answer was pat, and on the surface it appears accurate, but it isn't, because the purchase of a paper doesn't equate to an endorsement of either the politics of that paper, or the practices of its' owner.


 
 i just think it does equate to their prejudices and baser instincts however


----------



## two sheds (Jul 10, 2011)

So Cameron admits to being another of Murdoch's 'yes-men' 



> He [Cameron] also admitted that his desire to win support from the company's newspapers had led him to turn "a blind eye" as evidence grew of widespread illegality at the News of the World.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hacking-scandal-is-this-britains-watergate-2309487.html


----------



## gavman (Jul 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Actually, it's one of the oldest forms of _reportage_, even back in the days of mass illiteracy. That's why minstrels sang scandalous songs about the wealthy. It's also why people like Hearst were able to make millions out of low and yellow journalism even a hundred years ago. You take a grain of truth, and you wrap it in an easily digestible package that people are willing to consume.


 
just reminded me i bought some eccles cakes earlier. this thread has been useful, you see butch?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> no i don't. having posted on this 128 page thread, where i've posted since the beginning mainly on the media reporting of the story, and having linked to media reports, i don't think that one personal anecdote post # three thousand and something can be said to outweigh my view of the story as perceived through other media



but it was a crap anecdote, were the tabloids responsible for granny's racism or did grannys racism make the tabloids racist - or was it just one particular viewpoint at the time reflected in a number of ways throughout society

in any event its irrelevant to your previous tittle tattle arguments, the two things are entirely seperate, as shown by the fact the most nakedly right wing mainstream paper in the uk is a broadsheet and the furthest to the left is a red top


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 10, 2011)

Deleted while still drunk.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> That numbers a trap, called it myself within seconds of it being released on twitter, it rang twice then i got some sort of written warning that i have been reported to my operator!  Won't be sleeping tonight .



huh? was going ironically to voicemail earlier.. will remove if so.. came from @exNOTW geezer


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 10, 2011)

Deleted, too drunk to make sense of stuff, potential aggro with lounge rug.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> Hey, i'm half cut, i didn't mean to suggest it is a planned trap.'i got the same number from the same source, soz if it came across wrong, happy to delete posts if desired.  Regardless, i've never received that sort of message before, the elite have their own specification ime.



deleted it just in case.. its widely available now... btw that twitter a/c has vanished too???


----------



## gavman (Jul 10, 2011)

smokedout said:


> what does your granny's racism have to do with journalism vs gossip?


 
we get the press we deserve, and an awful lot of people deserve the notw.
 it reflected their world view back at them, as do all papers. 

 the shit in papers is a direct reflection of the shit in people, and at some point this general outrage needs to be tempered by that knowledge. even killing off the murdochs won't change that, someone will replace them to cater to the same market. the digger is just someone who operates a daily, mass opinion poll.
he knows better than anyone what people are interested in, he gets the results every day. certain types of story sell, so those are the ones that get printed. certain names sell papers, as do certain things. so long as the scandal sheets have no political power, they can continue to trade in embarrassing gossip. 
but that sort of salacious detail is used to influence politics, so something has to change.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

Mystic Meg shocked to lose her horoscope job at NOTW. Why didn't she see it coming?


----------



## gavman (Jul 10, 2011)

smokedout said:


> but it was a crap anecdote, were the tabloids responsible for granny's racism or did grannys racism make the tabloids racist - or was it just one particular viewpoint at the time reflected in a number of ways throughout society
> 
> in any event its irrelevant to your previous tittle tattle arguments, the two things are entirely seperate, as shown by the fact the most nakedly right wing mainstream paper in the uk is a broadsheet and the furthest to the left is a red top



see above, and
the torygraph more right wing than the fail?
have to disagree old chap. the torygrapy is the conservative in-house paper, but the fail is further to the right. on social policy especially


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2011)

society deserves the sport because some people like a cheap wank rag.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2011)

furthest to the left is the mirror surely?


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Looks like Rusbriger warned Ashdown too - wtf was he playing at (if him or from info that came from him) ? Is this the media's job now? Saving the parties from potential embarrassment? It's getting a  bit close to home for them too now maybe...


 
A perfect example of one of the issues being quietly ignored. I don't think journalists and politicians have any concept of responsibility. Rusbridger isn't thinking about a duty to keep his readers informed, he's trying to be a political mover and shaker. Ashdown isn't interested in his constituents, he's trying to play the media to make his party look good. Because basically what the media and politicians are doing is playing stupid fucking games with their mates completely oblivious to anyone and anything else. Including the things they are supposedly paid to do.

I have to admit I'm bloody glad I never tried to get into journalism as a career and that I dropped out of politics in the early 90s. In either career I'd be puking at the mere thought of meeting any of my colleagues.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> furthest to the left is the mirror surely?


 
Really? Can't say I've been sure of that for the last 20 years. It's supposed to be, but it has hardly been significantly left of centre for as long as I can remember.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> furthest to the left is the mirror surely?


 

a redtop ennit, and a paper so blind to Labour they ran a 'we *heart* mandy' front page once lol.

i'd say the leftiest tabloid we have, unless we are counting the morning star


----------



## gavman (Jul 10, 2011)

interrupted a perfectly good walk to come back to this thread. at least vp reminded me about the eccles cake. 
there's a beautiful half moon tonight so i'm off again. it's been...something or other


----------



## laptop (Jul 10, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Rusbridger isn't thinking about a duty to keep his readers informed, he's trying to be a political mover and shaker..


 
It's my guess that's what he was doing.

But had he gone public with the stuff he had on Coulson then, he'd have been appealing to be let out of jail right now. Loads of stuff - what's likely to turn out to be the most important stuff legally, about corrupt cops - wasn't reportable because to do so would be in contempt of the court trying Jonathan Rees.


----------



## laptop (Jul 10, 2011)

Somehow the Telegraph manages to get an interview with Met Assistant Commissioner John Yates - he who decided not to re-open the investigation.

Summed up in his own words - how the hack must have enjoyed putting in this self-destructive sentence:



> I do want to get across a tone of humility.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 10, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Really? Can't say I've been sure of that for the last 20 years. It's supposed to be, but it has hardly been significantly left of centre for as long as I can remember.


 
i said furthest to the left, not left


----------



## smokedout (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> we get the press we deserve, and an awful lot of people deserve the notw.
> it reflected their world view back at them, as do all papers.
> 
> the shit in papers is a direct reflection of the shit in people, and at some point this general outrage needs to be tempered by that knowledge. even killing off the murdochs won't change that, someone will replace them to cater to the same market. the digger is just someone who operates a daily, mass opinion poll.
> ...



so what, what are you saying, what do you want


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 10, 2011)

smokedout said:


> they have their lives and their experiences which teaches people far more about politics than the fucking guardian ever will


 
That teaches them about REAL politics. So fair enough to that extent. However there's also all the crap that goes on in Parliament, in Brussels, and in Council chambers around the country. For that aspect of politics the vast majority of people (and I don't mean just working class Sun readers, I'm including middle class Guardian readers and upper class Telegraph readers too) only get a load of misrepresented dishonest crap instead of any actual information.

The problem is that reality and "political/media politics" interact. People vote on the basis of both.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 10, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i said furthest to the left, not left


 
Yeah. I'm just hoping against hope that somebody can come up with an example that actually qualifies as something verging on left wing.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> there's many millions who regularly pay for shit 'journalism'. a few hundred thousand paying for 'quality'. so market forces dictate shit 'journalism' thrives
> qed we get what we deserve


 
Wrong. The main difference between the journalism in the Sun or the NotW and the journalism in the Torygraph or the Grauniad, is that the tabloids don't pretend to have higher standards. There's bugger all fact checking of news done anywhere. There's precious little investigative journalism other than opportunist exploitation of whistle blowing exclusives. There's no form of sanction against misrepresentation or even outright lying, so both are rife.

Anyone paying for quality journalism and buying the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Times, the Independent, is basically getting ripped off and fed much the same shit in a classier wrapper along with the odd tit bit of real journalism just to keep them suckered.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> how dare we try to communicate with each other in a clear and consistent fashion


 
one day i'd like to see you actually communicating in a clear and consistent fashion. but i suppose we'll have to put up with you trying - and failing - for some time yet.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 10, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i agree their should be greater, or in fact equal right to redress for people without the money to hire lawyers, in fact its kind of my point, but that can be achieved without any need to further legislate against the media, although it doesn't seem to be particularly high on hugh grant's agenda


 
I'm not in the slightest bit interested in Hugh Grant or anyone else's agenda. Trying to decide how things should work on the basis of who supports what and why is ridiculous (if sadly too common). What I'm saying is that currently there is no available redress for people badly treated by the press other than hugely expensive libel cases that the vast majority of people can't afford. Changing that requires legislation.

You can't make it illegal for a newspaper to report certain things without it being basically totalitarian censorship of the press. However you can make it possible for newspapers to be held responsible for what they print and journalists held responsible for what they write. That would be quite enough. However the media won't be interested in that because it's the very last thing most of them want. So it's going to play out as a call to rein in an out of control gutter press versus a call to keep the media free from censorship. Which completely ignores the real issues. And thus avoids anyone in the media having to worry about taking responsibility for what they do.


----------



## laptop (Jul 10, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Anyone paying for quality journalism and buying the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Times, the Independent, is basically getting ripped off and fed much the same shit in a classier wrapper along with the odd tit bit of real journalism just to keep them suckered.


 
Errm... saving myself typing I'll quote Henry Porter:



> It was galling last week to listen to the likes of Lord Falconer, Tessa Jowell and Alastair Campbell pronounce on the shortcomings of the press without for one moment acknowledging New Labour's part in the creation of the incubus that was Murdoch's power. We do indeed need a new body to regulate the press, as they argue, and new laws concerning the concentration of ownership, but *let's not forget that a journalist*, not Lord Falconer or Alastair Campbell, *was responsible for exposing the scandal*.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> there's many millions who regularly pay for shit 'journalism'. a few hundred thousand paying for 'quality'. so market forces dictate shit 'journalism' thrives
> qed we get what we deserve


 
a few hundred thousand paying for 'quality' journalism? the sales of the daily telegraph alone are in the region of a million / issue. if we can judge what you read from the quality of your posts, then you're somewhere sub-daily sport.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

From Billy Bragg, Here's the new song I wrote yesterday and debuted tonight: Never Buy The Sun


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you but is there not a contradiction here in the fact that britain has one of the harshest libel laws in the world, to the point where rich and powerful people explicitly can decide to sue in britain, and where the law to be tightened up even further under the current set-up then the rich and powerful would be able to basically have even fewer restrictions on what they can and can't do with impunity ...
> 
> have we all forgotten the superinjunction scandal where the problem was people NOT being allowed to report certain facts? IMO you can't be against premiership footballers being able to cover up affairs by paying people millions of pounds, and at the same time, argue for a draconian restriction of the press, which will actually prevent scandals like the phone-hacking scandal coming to light in the first place ...


 
I'm not asking for existing libel laws to be tightened. That would be stupid. The problem isn't what the libel laws are. The problem is that there is NO other way for somebody lied about in the press to get any form of redress, and that libel prosecutions are only currently available to the extremely wealthy.

What I want is a Press Complaints AUTHORITY. Something that has the teeth to force newspapers to print proper retractions of falsehoods. That can hold a journalist to account if they do things that would normally be beyond the law in order to get a story.

I want to see it become more expensive for a newspaper to print lies and distortions than to employ somebody to fact check before they go to print. I want to see it become risky for a journalist to harrass somebody simply because they are related to somebody in the news. I want newspapers to be able to print anything they like, but I want them to be held to account if what they print is demonstrably false or if they screw up other people's live in order to get a story.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What's to be done about hari? He should be made a laughing stock. Why have you tried to confuse this with censorship?


 
As Johann Hari said to me yesterday, eyes shadowed from lack of sleep and fingernails bitten to the quick. "Why? Why would this happen? It's hard to tell, since we're not allowed to see their workings. There seem to be conflicts of interest here."


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

has anybody got a link to the NOTW PDF?.. was meant to be sent to me earlier but i haven't got it yet.....


----------



## laptop (Jul 10, 2011)

Oh, and I've not seen a reference to the piece that says the writing really is on the wall for the Murdoch clan - from Friday's _Financial Times_:
The Murdoch empire at bay: Digger in a hole

Great headline. Read it all - sorry if already referenced.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> It's just the old i despise what you say but i'd defend to the death the right to say it thing i guess, and if I want to read about a paedo with fifty legs or someone's dog earning 100,000,000 in benefits, or about which celebrities are shagging each other, why shouldn't i? and why does it make me a bad person?


 
The point is that the story may be something you know is false and "a bit of a larf". However there are often real people involved. If you haven't been close to the scrimmage that happens when the gutter press and paparazzi arrive en masse then no amount of description will explain quite how horrifying it is. Somewhere in the midst of that is a human being.

Fair enough if that human being is somebody actively courting fame. However that is far from always the case. Furthermore, if a paper runs a story about somebody illegally claiming benefits then that person's claim will be pretty much immediately shut down. What if the story is distorted or made up? Should the newspaper get away without some recompense to the person whose life they have completely fucked over? Because at present they don't.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)




----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

Supposed phone number of News International’s Chief Executive leaked on Twitter


----------



## strung out (Jul 10, 2011)

there's a whole online version of the paper here if you don't want to buy it http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/downloads/finalissue/pageflip.html


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 10, 2011)

No there isn't.


----------



## strung out (Jul 10, 2011)

works for me


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 10, 2011)

I clearly have an ethical computer!


----------



## strung out (Jul 10, 2011)

or go to this page and click on it from here, if that doesn't work http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/notw/exclusive/e_news/1011377/ePaper-article.html


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jul 10, 2011)

I particularly like the full-page advert for LGBT adoption services. And the readership have nowhere to vent their moral outrage any more...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 10, 2011)

Buddy Bradley said:


> I particularly like the full-page advert for LGBT adoption services. And the readership have nowhere to vent their moral outrage any more...



That is funny,


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 10, 2011)

Oh the irony!


----------



## dylans (Jul 10, 2011)

My cornflakes taste better this morning. Good riddance. The world is a better place today


----------



## revlon (Jul 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What's to be done about hari? He should be made a laughing stock. Why have you tried to confuse this with censorship? And censorship with regulation? And why are you saying that no one is stopping someone having an opinion and simultaneously asking what 'we' would do about someone's opinion? Why are you arguing for and against regulation whilst saying that you're not? You're all over the shop here.


 
clearly i said censorship and regulation are two different beasts. Should hari's articles be monitored for accuracy, for reflecting in a truthful way the events he recollected, for not misrepresenting those he is quoting and for not deliberately misleading his readership in the words he uses? Who does the monitoring? The court of public opinion relies of him being found out.  Should he have been stopped from publishing stuff about Negri the was clearly untrue?

of course hari saying 'negri is a bit shit' is his opinion and he is welcome to it.

I'm not arguing for or against regulating the press. I am saying using the 'freedom of the press' as an excuse against regulation is an erroneous one.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jul 10, 2011)

The BBC are beebing on about NOTW editor being on t.v. ... snore...


----------



## dylans (Jul 10, 2011)

Good article here on Murdoch as a military strategist



> So while everyone was asking where was the line in the sand in the hacking scandal, Murdoch threw sand in all our faces. The closure of the News of the World proved a distraction to the ongoing police investigation and dramatic new arrests. It also changed the mood. Despite protests from News International that this was a few rotten apples, all journalists had became reviled. The paper's closure restored these loathed creatures to human beings again, men and women with children and mortgages, thrown out of work because of wrongdoing in a previous regime......
> 
> Military historians will recognise Murdoch's tactics from every successful conflict through history: he might have planted the horse at Troy, ridden with Hannibal over the Alps, shelped mastermind D-Day. It is impossible to keep the military analogies out of modern-day business, and the crop-haired James Murdoch's air of contained violence owes something to the Marines. We talked of the Wapping bunker, but the Murdoch gang might have named it the Situation Room, planning the daring rescue of hostage Brooks. As the American confederate commander Thomas J Jackson taught: "Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy."
> 
> ...



http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...mander-is-the-master-of-surprise-2309784.html


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 10, 2011)

Transpontine blog is now running with an article connecting the dots between Operation Nigeria and other Daniel Morgan murder investigations and the Operation Weeting/Elveden #NOTW phonehacking inquiries - lots of South London links!

http://transpont.blogspot.com/2011/07/power-corruptions-and-lies.html

(Cross-posted from the Dave Courtney thread.)

I suspect the Transpontine post may kick up some as-yet unreported dust, as its readership often chips in with interesting stories and anecdotes.


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 10, 2011)

strung out said:


> or go to this page and click on it from here, if that doesn't work http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/notw/exclusive/e_news/1011377/ePaper-article.html



I see they have gone for a 'look at how much good we have done' angle, obviously failing to mention all of the shit storms they have caused and families they have ripped apart.

The only adverts in the final edition are for charities (to make NI look sympathetic) and other NI companies!


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 10, 2011)

revlon said:


> I'm not arguing for or against regulating the press. I am saying using the 'freedom of the press' as an excuse against regulation is an erroneous one.



There is a fine line. As someone suggested an unregulated press is required to regulate the government, but at the same time we cant have journalists obtaining stories at any cost.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2011)

I'm not sure about the regulation issue. What went wrong here was the law was not enforced - there is a law, specifically RIPA. 

The Met turned a blind eye and took bribes, and  newspaper features culture propagated on the back of that.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 10, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> From Billy Bragg, Here's the new song I wrote yesterday and debuted tonight: Never Buy The Sun




What did the poor people of Garforth ever do to deserve this?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2011)

leave him alone, its not as bad as 'sexuality'


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> we get the press we deserve, and an awful lot of people deserve the notw.



How does this actually work as an argument? Some people like A so a lot of other people, who don't, have to suffer because of it. This is the same argument about goverments.... so about 1/4 to 1/3 of people actually vote conservative, the other 3/4 "deserve" the tories. Where does this argument actually end?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2011)

It's also bogus when the law isn't being enforced; it's more accurate to say 'we' get the press bribery of the Met allows.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 10, 2011)

I would be interested to hear from any cop posters here regarding the claims by the NOTW that they were responsible for exposing many evil criminals. 

For example, they claim to have exposed a Bulgarian network of pimps and people traffickers here http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/notw/exclusive/e_news/1011377/ePaper-article.html

I am curious as to how many of these exposes have resulted in criminal convictions and how many have hindered investigations.  I understand that newspapers investigating and reporting serious crimes often put an embargo on stories, and first submit their intelligence to the cops for them to investigate prior to publication.  I also understand that  the NOTW is one newspaper that cops (apart from the corrupt ones obviously) do not have a cooperative relationship with.  I was once told be a cop, long time ago mind, that the NOTW cared less about securing convictions and more about selling newspapers and that I should never, ever trust them.  Not a big surprise to anyone, however I am still genuinely interested to check out whether the NOTW claims to have foiled the activities of child abusers, people traffickers and other serious criminals are completely untrue, partially untrue or whatever. 

I imagine that their claims are bullshit but I would really like to know the truth.

edited to add

in the above story about people traffickers the following text appears 



> He agreed to sell our man four girls for 9,000 (£8,100) and warned him to ship them individually to avoid suspicion.
> 
> Nasko shook hands with our man and said excitedly: "Our empires can prosper."
> 
> Not if we can help it. Our evidence is available to the authorities



So it seems that the NOTW published this story first (presumably because it was their final edition) and then announced that "Our evidence is available to the authorities" rather than to pass the evidence on and then wait before publishing the story would not impede a police investigation.

Just thinking aloud.


----------



## Geri (Jul 10, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> leave him alone, its not as bad as 'sexuality'


 
_Your laws do not apply to me_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> schaudenfruede for the masses.



Not really, not unless you're using a novel definition of _schadenfreude_, anyway.



> it caters for a base human characteristic...



...And?

Sexual activity "caters for a base human characteristic", but I presume you're not saying that people should stop fucking?

You're getting the baby and the bath-water mixed up. Legislate against the media being able to commit criminal actions under the guise of "public interest" by all means, but don't try to stop people being people. You'll be on a hiding to nothing.



> and shouldn't be allowed monopoly or political influence.



That much is quite obvious, from history as well as from current events.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 10, 2011)

WWWeed said:


> I see they have gone for a 'look at how much good we have done' angle, obviously failing to mention all of the shit storms they have caused and families they have ripped apart.
> 
> The only adverts in the final edition are for charities (to make NI look sympathetic) and other NI companies!



lots of ads in the magazine though


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> i just think it does equate to their prejudices and baser instincts however


 
No, it equates to *your perception* of "their prejudices and baser instincts", which is a different thing altogether. 

You're offering a representation of _NOTW_ readers as a somewhat homogeneous mass with broadly similar views, when _News International's_ own research doesn't bear that out.


----------



## Voley (Jul 10, 2011)

Fucking hell, Billy Bragg's got even shitter.


----------



## ymu (Jul 10, 2011)

laptop said:


> Somehow the Telegraph manages to get an interview with Met Assistant Commissioner John Yates - he who decided not to re-open the investigation.
> 
> Summed up in his own words - how the hack must have enjoyed putting in this self-destructive sentence:


Fuckin' hell. He's basically saying "I was too important to look at actual evidence". 



> “To have given the go ahead for a full review of a case of that nature would have involved four or five people and five or six months work and a lot of resources and in July 2009 why would I do that?” With assurances from the CPS and investigating officers, Yates concluded rapidly there was nothing to be gained from opening the case up again.
> 
> “In terms of proper use of our resources I am not going to re-investigate, for the same offence.”
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> we get the press we deserve, and an awful lot of people deserve the notw.
> it reflected their world view back at them, as do all papers.



Inaccurate. 

Newspapers aren't a reflection of their consumers, their representations of the interests of power dressed in whatever clothes it's convenient to wrap them in, in order to "sell" them.

That the media (and bear in mind that the word "media" connotes "mediation") is able to do so is more to do with how individuals interpollate with the ideas and identities represented by that media than with the media reflecting their own prejudices back at them.

For example, _The Daily Mail's_ support of Oswald Mosley didn't reflect the support of the _Mail's_ readership for Mosley, far from it. The BUF never had membership numbers or donation figures representing more than an insignificant fraction of consumers of the right-wing media of the time. It reflected the publisher's support for both Mosley's programme and for Mosley as a fellow member of the ruling classes.



> the shit in papers is a direct reflection of the shit in people, and at some point this general outrage needs to be tempered by that knowledge. even killing off the murdochs won't change that, someone will replace them to cater to the same market. the digger is just someone who operates a daily, mass opinion poll.
> he knows better than anyone what people are interested in, he gets the results every day. certain types of story sell, so those are the ones that get printed. certain names sell papers, as do certain things. so long as the scandal sheets have no political power, they can continue to trade in embarrassing gossip.
> but that sort of salacious detail is used to influence politics, so something has to change.


 
It's nice to know you're so optimistic about humankind. 

You're projecting your own perceptions and experiences onto an entire nation. That's not particularly sensible.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 10, 2011)

*http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11921519*



smokedout said:


> lots of ads in the magazine though



The magazine would have gone to press well in advance and inserted as the rag came off the press.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2011)

revlon said:


> clearly i said censorship and regulation are two different beasts. Should hari's articles be monitored for accuracy, for reflecting in a truthful way the events he recollected, for not misrepresenting those he is quoting and for not deliberately misleading his readership in the words he uses? Who does the monitoring? The court of public opinion relies of him being found out.  Should he have been stopped from publishing stuff about Negri the was clearly untrue?
> 
> of course hari saying 'negri is a bit shit' is his opinion and he is welcome to it.
> 
> I'm not arguing for or against regulating the press. I am saying using the 'freedom of the press' as an excuse against regulation is an erroneous one.


 
Thing is, a decent editor who cared about accuracy would have spiked Hari's flights of fancy soon after he first indulged in one. His editor's failure to do so was as good as an endorsement to carry on. Back in the days of steam-driven presses and manual typewriters (okay, I'm exaggerating a bit!) most newsrooms of publications that liked to consider themselves reputable had people who did fact-checking, making sure that a reporter *had* spoken to interviewees, as well as checking the "back-story" for accuracy. Hari would have been somewhat less likely to get away with his fantasies pre-Wapping than post-Wapping.


----------



## laptop (Jul 10, 2011)

> Deleuze told us that for something to constitute an event, it must go _all the way down_...







> We can draw a line from Thatcher to the Murdoch press and from Thatcher to the ‘Big Bang’, in which Britain’s old-boy merchant banks began their 25 year journey to becoming the Americanised investment banks that had to be rescued in 2008...


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 10, 2011)

Yates & the other copper were under threat of being done over for extra-marital affairs by the NOTW. I'm sure that played no part whatsoever in their decision to back off on the investigation.
Sorry if that's been mentioned already.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 10, 2011)

I just realised that the Dowler family were informed about the hacking in April so clearly Nick Davies was sitting on the info for months waiting for the trial to finish. What great timing.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

> From Guardian Live : 1.18pm: Have staff who put together the News of the World's last ever crossword included some subtle hints for News International's chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, the former editor who told them that the newspaper was to be shut down today?
> 
> The Independent's Whitehall Editor, Oliver Wright, has pointed out a few interesting elements of the quickie crossword on page 47. Its clues include:
> 
> ...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 10, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> From Billy Bragg, Here's the new song I wrote yesterday and debuted tonight: Never Buy The Sun







> * Benjamin Zephaniah *
> 
> 'The Blinding Sun'
> 
> ...




Billy Bragg is  bit late.


----------



## revlon (Jul 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Billy Bragg is  bit late.


 
but he probably got there first


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Billy Bragg is  bit shit.


 *corrected for you*


----------



## laptop (Jul 10, 2011)

Paul Mason takes a theoretically anarchist line:



> The Murdoch empire fractured, a Conservative prime minister attracting bets on his resignation, the Metropolitan Police on the edge of yet another existential crisis and the political establishment in disarray.
> 
> A network of subversives would have counted that a spectacular result to achieve in a decade, let alone in a single week. But it was not subversives that achieved it - the wounds are self-inflicted.
> 
> ...


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2011)

It's an interesting piece - possibly optimistic. As a (somewhat mature  ) student of drama, I rather liked this:



> Once it was only at places like National Theatre, with plays by David Hare and Howard Brenton, where you could see such stories aired (Hare's Pravda, about Murdoch's takeover of the Times, is worth re-reading; the script was sent by the playwright to the Culture Secretary as a submission in the BSkyB case.) Now it is everywhere, from the Batman movies, to The Matrix, to the Bond movies - leave aside series like State of Play.
> 
> It has been remarked (by Richard Bacon, I think) that these scandals are like *The Wire*, working series by series through every institution. But the last series of the Wire is five years old. We know the whole story already


----------



## agricola (Jul 10, 2011)

ymu said:


> Fuckin' hell. He's basically saying "I was too important to look at actual evidence".


 
He is not wrong about that - (its a shame D_B isnt still around as he would be especially useful on this) one would assume that all the actual detective work is done by people (much) further down the food chain, all he will get are summaries of what has been discovered, presented at briefings which he would have had to fit in around other stuff, nearly all of which would be of considerable significance (as an example, the Cash for Honours inquiry was going on at much the same time as this* was).  

He probably did either make, or sign off on, the decision to complete the investigation before all the data had been inputted and its significance realised, though.

* edit - that is, the first investigation, which resulted in Goodman and Mulcaire being jailed.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2011)

^ In this context, I think it's  also worth noting temper_tantrum's post at #3318

Yates, subsequent to the original investigation into hacking, got divorced after 25 years in 2008-ish. He was having a relationship with a police press sec, probably among others.


----------



## laptop (Jul 10, 2011)

Meanwhile, the Guardian's Acting Legal Correspondent is about to publish a piece saying, as I understand the teaser, that the NotW employee who wasn't involved in illegal acts can sue News International for:



> the "stigma" of being associated with the ex-employer that put them at a "serious disadvantage" of finding new work.



Relevant case is from the BCCI fallout: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970612/malik01.htm - it was held that employees of the thoroughly corrupt bank could sue it for something akin to defamation:



> Employers must take care not to damage their employees' future employment prospects, by harsh and oppressive behaviour or by any other form of conduct which is unacceptable today...



Much fun for m'learned friends


----------



## agricola (Jul 10, 2011)

laptop said:


> Much fun for m'learned friends


 
They have fucked that bit up royally - dont they also have to pay 180 days wages rather than the 90 they initially offered, because there was no actual consultation prior to them closing the paper?


----------



## laptop (Jul 10, 2011)

agricola said:


> dont they also have to pay 180 days wages rather than the 90 they initially offered



I'm not sure what's due in law under these circumstances. I do know that in other cases companies have found it worthwhile to offer twice the amount the redundant person first thought of, to avoid the grief and expense of finding out


----------



## Zabo (Jul 10, 2011)

> The family of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler are to press for "stronger, clearer and faster action" from the Government over phone hacking in meetings this week with senior politicians.
> 
> Milly's parents Bob and Sally Dowler are suing the News of the World over claims their daughter's phone was targeted by the newspaper when she went missing in 2002.
> 
> ...



I'm intrigued as to why Cameron has re-scheduled the meeting date?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/2011/07/10/dowlers-urge-hacking-crackdown-91466-29028160/


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

reading the obituaries.....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

laptop said:


> Paul Mason takes a theoretically anarchist line:


 no he doesn't.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2011)

Holy shit!

 John Yates and Rebekah Brooks were having an affair? At the time of the original hacking inquiry - the one that was wound up so very quickly by Yates and Haymen ....?

Holy mother of cluster fucks....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Holy shit!
> 
> John Yates and Rebekah Brooks were having an affair? At the time of the original hacking inquiry that was wound up so very quickly....?


link or stfu


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2011)

No one's saying nuffin. If it's correct, it'll come.....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jul 10, 2011)

If you read Yates's interview in the papers today, he mentions it (and says it's rubbish). To be honest it does sound like a stupid fruitloop theory.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2011)

Perhaps coincidentally, they did both get divorced thereafter....

But wouldn't that be something. Brooks was, of course, arrested for attacking Ross Kemp...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> No one's saying nuffin. If it's correct, it'll come.....


 
you've been taking lessons from jazzz i see.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> If you read Yates's interview in the papers today, he mentions it (and says it's rubbish). To be honest it does sound like a stupid fruitloop theory.



+1


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2011)

Sure, like the police not investigating the hacking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's phone would  be  a "stupid fruitloop theory". Or the PM appointing a man known to have been party to intimidation of politicians and police. Etc, etc.

Remind me, factually speaking and given all the outstanding evidence (now coming to light), why was the original hacking inquiry closed down?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Sure, like the police not investigating the hacking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's phone would  be  a "stupid fruitloop theory". Or the PM appointing a man known to have been party to intimidation of politicians and police. Etc, etc.


 
only you can link to sources to support those claims. now, link to sources supporting your yates affair claims or shut the fuck up.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2011)

PM - you're a partic strange and fucked up person. I wish you well but I'm not going to engage with you unless I have the time and/or want to poke you with a shitty stick through the bars.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 10, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Perhaps coincidentally, they did both get divorced thereafter....
> 
> But wouldn't that be something. Brooks was, of course, arrested for attacking Ross Kemp...


Aye,the week her paper ran a feature on domestic violence


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> PM - you're a partic strange and fucked up person. I wish you well but I'm not going to engage with you unless I have the time and want to poke you.


 
if there's anyone here who's 'fucked up' it's you, with your peculiar conspiraloon wank. i don't wish you well, and i don't give a fuck if you engage with me or not. you've decided to go down the nutcase conspiracy theory road, you've made your bed and you'll find it rather more uncomfortable than you expected.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

US preacher: ‘What I meant was the end of the News of the World’


> American evangelist Harold Camping has confirmed that his earlier prophecy of the end of the world, which was due to fall on 21 May this year, was in fact intended to refer to the end of the News of the World.
> 
> ‘By the Lord’s grace, I am proved right,’ a jubilant Reverend Camping told a rally of his followers today. ‘If people had only listened closely they’d have realised that I was actually saying ‘The end of the News of the World is nigh’. I was never talking about the end of the world – that would have been crazy tabloid talk.’


----------



## laptop (Jul 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> no he doesn't.


 
Well, it's certainly more focused on power than on control of the means of production... or on The Market, from another end.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> US preacher: ‘What I meant was the end of the News of the World’


 
Haha


----------



## Mitre10 (Jul 10, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> US preacher: ‘What I meant was the end of the News of the World’


 

Fucking hell


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

Mitre10 said:


> Fucking hell





> Members of Reverend Camping’s congregation said they were ‘uplifted and inspired’ by the fulfilment of the prophecy. ‘I always knew this day would come,’ said 42-year-old Randall Philbert from Nebraska. ‘Mainly because I’ve been monitoring Reverend Camping’s phone messages for the past ten years.’


----------



## scalyboy (Jul 10, 2011)

"News of the World final crossword has a message for 'catastrophe' Rebekah Brooks

 Departing staff at the News of the World appear to have sent a parting message of disgust to former editor Rebekah Brooks in the crossword of the paper's final edition."

Ho ho!


----------



## teqniq (Jul 10, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> US preacher: ‘What I meant was the end of the News of the World’


 
That is a massive exercise in cynical opportunism. I suppose only to be expected really.


----------



## gavman (Jul 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> one day i'd like to see you actually communicating in a clear and consistent fashion. but i suppose we'll have to put up with you trying - and failing - for some time yet.


 
as we must suffer you in your self-appointed role as marker of other people's posts, hiding your own inability to think creatively or demonstrate charm


----------



## killer b (Jul 10, 2011)

teqniq said:


> That is a massive exercise in cynical opportunism. I suppose only to be expected really.


 
yeah, shocking.


----------



## gavman (Jul 10, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> How does this actually work as an argument? Some people like A so a lot of other people, who don't, have to suffer because of it. This is the same argument about goverments.... so about 1/4 to 1/3 of people actually vote conservative, the other 3/4 "deserve" the tories. Where does this argument actually end?


 
there's no point in expecting the end of the gutter press with the end of murdoch, that he's catering to a base human desire and someone else will pop up to take his place. therefore the correct regulatory framework needs to be in place to prevent concentration of power, and the trade of journalism needs to rediscover it's ethics
i disagree with your political analogy; you don't buy a paper because you have to, or because everyone else has bought it, but because it appeal to you personally. i'm not sure the tories are a true reflection of any one person's position on all matters, the appeal of political parties must necessarilly be broad. but newspapers can be more focused, a truer reflection of the views of their readers

and my ultimate point is there's no point shovelling all the blame for hacking milly dowler's phone on any journalist or organisation. say the notw had been the first to listen to a message from the missing teenager, saying she was alive and well, and managed to scoop that story.
the edition carrying it would have sold out, proving that there is a massive public appetite for the contents of hacked messages on a missing girl's phone.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 10, 2011)

You have a pretty negative view on humanity if you think that most people wanted this stuff to happen. This edition sold out because the news of the world has had non stop publicity for days and days on end now.


----------



## gavman (Jul 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> if there's anyone here who's 'fucked up' it's you, with your peculiar conspiraloon wank. i don't wish you well, and i don't give a fuck if you engage with me or not. you've decided to go down the nutcase conspiracy theory road, you've made your bed and you'll find it rather more uncomfortable than you expected.


 
pompous self impressed charmless lackwit. you bring even less to the thread than butch. and that's saying something


----------



## gavman (Jul 10, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> You have a pretty negative view on humanity if you think that most people wanted this stuff to happen. This edition sold out because the news of the world has had non stop publicity for days and days on end now.


 
you've misread my post. i was saying that the edition that would've sold out, and the paper's probable reason for hacking her phone, would be under the circumstances that she was ok and left a message to say so. perhaps i'm being overly generous to the notw in thinking they wanted to be the first to break good news, but that would have given them an incredible sales boost for that day's paper. seen in this (charitable) light what transpired could be put down to unintended consequences
but
the market was there for her hacked phone messages


----------



## smokedout (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> therefore the correct regulatory framework needs to be in place to prevent concentration of power, and the trade of journalism needs to rediscover it's ethics



I don't really see how preventing concentration of power (which might not be a bad thing) would have any effect on newspapers printing what you call tittle tattle

So say something, what do you want to happen?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 10, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> US preacher: ‘What I meant was the end of the News of the World’



That's a fucking classic - lol 

ETA: Bit confused by some other replies to AKA's link, does everyone realise it's a satirical news website?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 10, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> That's a fucking classic - lol
> 
> ETA: Bit confused by some other replies to AKA's link, does everyone realise it's a satirical news website?



Hehehe nope not until I revisited it, if I had a middle name it would probably be 'gullible'. Oh well I'll leave the other post up for the laughs.


----------



## gavman (Jul 10, 2011)

smokedout said:


> I don't really see how preventing concentration of power (which might not be a bad thing) would have any effect on newspapers printing what you call tittle tattle
> 
> So say something, what do you want to happen?


 
funnily enough, i'm still in the process of forming my own opinion on the 'tittle tattle'.

i have strong views about plurality, but i'm a lot more fuzzy about content.
 i recognise that i'm not a popularist. i don't pretend to understand why people buy such hate sheets if they disagree with the perspective they are offered, so i'm more inclined, on this occasion, to trust my own personal experience that ignorant papers are read by ignorant people because it's a reflection of their world view.
if you have an enlightened perspective then it grates constantly to be fed a clearly biased account that doesn't tally with your own experience, or info gained from other media, and just indulges the prejudices of it's readers. to such people it's a delight to be challenged and have opinions changed.
 'a wise man changes his mind often'
 within my household growing up, the stupid parent read the stupid paper and the intelligent one read two intelligent papers. the stupid parent ran on outrage from accepting one view of the world, while the smart one was more sanguine and recognised that there were other viewpoints beyond those they were informed of, and things usually happened for a reason rather than at random, out of the blue or because of race

 but the problem was the intelligent papers got left at work. so all i had growing up was the daily fail. now i get the impression not many fail readers post here, so i'm not sure how many can relate to growing up with such a poisonous perspective on the world, nor how hard it was as an adolescent, first developing critical thinking, to divest myself of that baggage.
 so i want legal protection for the kid i was, in a household with only one tinted window to look through. i know it's traditional for papers to be biased in favour of one political party or other, but that this spreads to taint all the reporting, even (especially) apparently unrelated lifestyle features.
 i think it's a form of mental abuse for society, and if successful it fosters miserable little consumers with no insight or wisdom, fearful of the outside world and seeing the threat of crime everywhere. people who then support restrictive criminal codes that attack the ones who did manage to escape the net of ignorance

so...a legal requirement to prevent bias would be my suggestion. 

to go with the previous one about individual media outlets not being owned by any outside parties, especially other media outlets

i think a privacy law as well, one that differentiates between gossip and investigative journalism. a privacy law that couldn't apply to companies, corporations, government or ngo's.

and no unattributed quotes would be a good thing, but that's a bit 'micro'


----------



## gavman (Jul 10, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> How does this actually work as an argument? Some people like A so a lot of other people, who don't, have to suffer because of it. This is the same argument about goverments.... so about 1/4 to 1/3 of people actually vote conservative, the other 3/4 "deserve" the tories. Where does this argument actually end?


 
i think it ends with control of free markets, and an acceptance that unfettered, the tabloids will compete in a race for the bottom


----------



## gavman (Jul 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not really, not unless you're using a novel definition of _schadenfreude_, anyway.


 
i use it in the context of people wanting to read that it really is rather miserable being a celebrity after all, and that the aspirational lifestyle brings less happiness than the life being led by the reader


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 10, 2011)

teqniq said:


> Hehehe nope not until I revisited it, if I had a middle name it would probably be 'gullible'. Oh well I'll leave the other post up for the laughs.


 


From the site..



> We have also covered all the major social and human interest stories of the last four years, beating the mainstream media to such landmark scoops as Muslim veils to feature wearer’s picture, RyanAir to charge for emotional baggage, and Grandparent commends offspring’s superior parenting skills.



Particular lol at 'RyanAir to charge for emotional baggage'.


----------



## revlon (Jul 10, 2011)

sneak preview of the new sun on sunday
http://thesundaysun.net/


----------



## co-op (Jul 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> only you can link to sources to support those claims. now, link to sources supporting your yates affair claims or shut the fuck up.



You silly prick, the allegation has been widely reported today (and denied - for what's that worth in the current climate). The fact that you seem to be the only person unaware of this means you should really be the one shutting up. Except that pretty much your entire raison d'etre seems to be wasting space and time.


----------



## Santino (Jul 10, 2011)

The focus is shifting to James Murdoch for authorising payments to victims of phone hacking of which he was officially unaware. Megalulz.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> if you have an enlightened perspective then it grates constantly to be fed a clearly biased account that doesn't tally with your own experience, or info gained from other media, and just indulges the prejudices of it's readers. to such people it's a delight to be challenged and have opinions changed.
> 'a wise man changes his mind often'



have a think about what you just said

and then when youve spotted the glaring contradiction have a think about what a twat it makes you sound like



> so...a legal requirement to prevent bias would be my suggestion.



applied to what, all media, blogs, here?  what you're saying is that no-one can establish a publication which has a point of view, because thats too dangerous - would you support then the guardian being forced to hire richard littlejohn types to comment on any story with a progressive bias




> to go with the previous one about individual media outlets not being owned by any outside parties, especially other media outlets



that doesnt make sense



> i think a privacy law as well, one that differentiates between gossip and investigative journalism. a privacy law that couldn't apply to companies, corporations, government or ngo's.



how would that differation occur, would you be happy to see the MPs expenses story ditched, john major shagging edwina, jeffery archer's fun and games, - where do lines get drawn, who decides, who would this benefit the most?

what youre actually demonstrating is classic tabloid thinking, i think this and this and this because of this and this and this and so this should happen, you might as well ask for a fucking spaceship, you dont appear to have any understanding of how law, society and politics work, you may be coming from a different place but to me you sound like angry man who writes letters to the daily mail


----------



## cantsin (Jul 10, 2011)

killer b said:


> he's pure gold. interested to hear the guardian are paying for him - i reckon they've got value for money these last few days.



mcullan watch sunday:  Beeb this morning : , Peter Hitchens and Degsy Hatton both staring glazey eyed into the camera as Mcullan recounts with a smirk on his face totally random story about young girl confessing to him to fucking her own brother...


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 10, 2011)

According to tomorrows Mirror  they tried to hack the 9/11 families,do Uncle Rupey a power of good in the US if true.


----------



## paolo (Jul 10, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> According to tomorrows Mirror  they tried to hack the 9/11 families,do Uncle Rupey a power of good in the US if true.



Yep... will go mental over there if that story gets legs.


----------



## embree (Jul 10, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> According to tomorrows Mirror  they tried to hack the 9/11 families,do Uncle Rupey a power of good in the US if true.


 
Of course they did. It's becoming increasingly clear that it was standard procedure


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 10, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> According to tomorrows Mirror  they tried to hack the 9/11 families,do Uncle Rupey a power of good in the US if true.



yup a whole shitstorm starting in the US.......


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 10, 2011)

http://twitpic.com/5o9wj1

So has Murdoch flown to the UK to take 'control' of the crisis or is he fleeing the 9/11 fallout?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 10, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> According to tomorrows Mirror  they tried to hack the 9/11 families,do Uncle Rupey a power of good in the US if true.


 
My word, that will put the cat among the pigeons. The people in the US seem to react with more vigor to such things than your humble Brit may. I can see an interesting Monday coming up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> given that by 2002 the news of the world was hacking dead girls' phones, has anyone looked into whether in 2001 they were hacking phones belonging to 9/11 victims or their families?
> 
> if they were, that would really set the cat among the pigeons.


 


Badgers said:


> My word, that will put the cat among the pigeons. The people in the US seem to react with more vigor to such things than your humble Brit may. I can see an interesting Monday coming up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> funnily enough, i'm still in the process of forming my own opinion on the 'tittle tattle'.
> 
> i have strong views about plurality, but i'm a lot more fuzzy about content.
> i recognise that i'm not a popularist. i don't pretend to understand why people buy such hate sheets if they disagree with the perspective they are offered...



Here's just a few reasons:

1) Because the red-tops are cheap.
2) Because they carry tv listings/the racing schedule and form.
3) Because they feature a particular columnist. Do you think that the people who bought the _NOTW_ to read Martin Lewis's money-saving column are fans of "hate sheets"?



> so i'm more inclined, on this occasion, to trust my own personal experience that ignorant papers are read by ignorant people because it's a reflection of their world view.



That's not basing it on your experiences, that's basing it on your prejudices.



> if you have an enlightened perspective then it grates constantly to be fed a clearly biased account that doesn't tally with your own experience, or info gained from other media, and just indulges the prejudices of it's readers. to such people it's a delight to be challenged and have opinions changed.
> 'a wise man changes his mind often'



If you have the lack of self-awareness to write the above paragraph, the *last* thing you are is "enlightened".



> within my household growing up, the stupid parent read the stupid paper and the intelligent one read two intelligent papers. the stupid parent ran on outrage from accepting one view of the world, while the smart one was more sanguine and recognised that there were other viewpoints beyond those they were informed of, and things usually happened for a reason rather than at random, out of the blue or because of race
> 
> but the problem was the intelligent papers got left at work. so all i had growing up was the daily fail. now i get the impression not many fail readers post here, so i'm not sure how many can relate to growing up with such a poisonous perspective on the world, nor how hard it was as an adolescent, first developing critical thinking, to divest myself of that baggage.



I grew up in a household where _The Daily Mail_ was the only newspaper purchased, but it didn't have the effect on me that it appears to have had on you - it merely made me aware, as I grew up, that stories can be told in different ways to different constituencies. If a paper is telling a story about "the poor" that doesn't gel with what's happening to your parents and your friends' parents as poor members of the working class, then you become aware that the paper has an agenda.



> so i want legal protection for the kid i was, in a household with only one tinted window to look through. i know it's traditional for papers to be biased in favour of one political party or other, but that this spreads to taint all the reporting, even (especially) apparently unrelated lifestyle features.
> i think it's a form of mental abuse for society, and if successful it fosters miserable little consumers with no insight or wisdom, fearful of the outside world and seeing the threat of crime everywhere. people who then support restrictive criminal codes that attack the ones who did manage to escape the net of ignorance



What you're talking about would be as generative of ignorance as your own experiences, though. However you legislate it, you'd be removing a source of information, and I don't just mean the information known as "news" that is represented to us via the media, I mean also the information that you become aware of through your own experiences of the media - that political, economic and social biases and prejudices exist; that the media isn't an impartial purveyor, it's a biased mediator; that as above, so below.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> if you have an enlightened perspective then it grates constantly to be fed a clearly biased account that doesn't tally with your own experience, or info gained from other media, and just indulges the prejudices of it's readers. to such people it's a delight to be challenged and have opinions changed.


 you're right, it grates. so please shut the fuck up.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


>


 
Blimey, had not read your post


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Blimey, had not read your post


 
i'm not sure if it's a case of 'great minds think alike' or 'fools run in the same vein'


----------



## Badgers (Jul 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not sure if it's a case of 'great minds think alike' or 'fools run in the same vein'


 
It is all cheese and beans to me these days


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> i use it in the context of people wanting to read that it really is rather miserable being a celebrity after all, and that the aspirational lifestyle brings less happiness than the life being led by the reader


 
Schadenfreude is the taking of pleasure in the misfortune of others, or at least that's the best I can render it in English. It's not about a desire to read stories that confirm your prejudices.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

Badgers said:


> It is all cheese and beans to me these days


 
you're ignoring the pythagorean code


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Schadenfreude is the taking of pleasure in the misfortune of others, or at least that's the best I can render it in English. It's not about a desire to read stories that confirm your prejudices.


every time gavman posts he confirms my prejudices


----------



## Badgers (Jul 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you're ignoring the pythagorean code


 
I was not ignoring it, more ignorant of it's essence. Times likes these make me wish I tried harder at things.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2011)

Badgers said:


> It is all cheese and beans to me these days


 
Cheese on top of the beans, or beans on top of the cheese?  (readies pitchfork and burning brand)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cheese on top of the beans, or beans on top of the cheese?  (readies pitchfork and burning brand)


 
i mix the beans into the grated cheese, and toast.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 10, 2011)

Anyway, back on topic.... 

The US is a pretty grumpy place at the moment, I wonder how (if 9/11 hacking claims are valid) their reaction will compare to Dave 'man of action' Cameron over this.


----------



## strung out (Jul 11, 2011)

tweets from andrew neill... 

"Stop press: sources tell me Rebekah Wade will be interviewed by police this week. Either arrested or under caution."
"Those close to Ms Wade tell me she really fears she will end up in jail."


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

Pottergate: we publish the secret tapes
 12:00AM BST 06 Sep 2002

weirder n weirder.....


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 11, 2011)

deleted


----------



## ddraig (Jul 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Pottergate: we publish the secret tapes
> 12:00AM BST 06 Sep 2002
> 
> weirder n weirder.....


 
that is waaaay bizare


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

strung out said:


> tweets from andrew neill...
> 
> "Stop press: sources tell me Rebekah Wade will be interviewed by police this week. Either arrested or under caution."
> "Those close to Ms Wade tell me she really fears she will end up in jail."



Happy Days.  I bet she still wont resign and be trying to run News International from holloway cell block, issuing memos sewn into her laundry or something.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 11, 2011)

Zabo said:


> "The family of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler are to press for "stronger, clearer and faster action" from the Government over phone hacking in meetings this week with senior politicians.
> 
> Milly's parents Bob and Sally Dowler are suing the News of the World over claims their daughter's phone was targeted by the newspaper when she went missing in 2002.
> 
> ...


 
The poor sods. First they lose their daughter. Then the News of the World target them. Now they have to meet Nick Clegg. Will their torture never end?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

@jonsnowC4
Murdochs need Rebekka as never before: she is their human firewall: remove her and James is the next to get his collar felt


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

The story keeps on giving: 


> Phone hacking: 9/11 victims 'may have had mobiles tapped by News of the World reporters'
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/2011/07/11/...-news-of-the-world-reporters-115875-23262694/


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 11, 2011)

Surely when you give someone a second chance you must believe they have remorse,coulson never admitted doing any wrong


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> The story keeps on giving:



worst to come.. they iz proecting with 'alleged,' there will be more clear damning stories appearing later....

the whole house of cards is close to collapse......


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> worst to come.. they iz proecting with 'alleged,' there will be more clear damning stories appearing later....
> 
> the whole house of cards is close to collapse......


Adding 9/11 victims to mix is going to seriously put the heat on Murdoch and make this a truly international PR disaster. This really could see the wheels falling off Murdoch's wagon.


----------



## Weller (Jul 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> there will be more clear damning stories appearing later....
> 
> the whole house of cards is close to collapse......



I think this too , there has to be some more damaging stuff coming , many MPs that have squirmed before dont seem to be squirming now , if they have grown backbones they must be pretty sure that hes not going to have such  influence in the future.

She did say (Wade)  that "you will all know in a year why we had to do  this" , these days it doesnt quite take a year though , they always underestimate the speed of change these days from public reaction , any 9/11 messing is going to be a game changer imo , things could move very fast if thats true .

No wonder hes come here if it is , they really would want to lynch him


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> Adding 9/11 victims to mix is going to seriously put the heat on Murdoch and make this a truly international PR disaster. This really could see the wheels falling off Murdoch's wagon.


yup.. we having passing on info to the anti=faux groups, usa etc..... they have got such a lift with UK actions....... gonna be an interesting week for sure and beyond...


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 11, 2011)

I wouldn't be suprised if the tories call a halt to the sale of BSKYB before wednesday's debate


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

@j_freedland If 9/11 hacking story is true, Murdoch empire is staring into the abyss: wrath of US public and politicians will be mighty to behold



> Bio Jonathan Freedland has been a columnist for the Guardian since 1997. He served for four years as the Guardian's Washington correspondent



sweet.....


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> Surely when you give someone a second chance you must believe they have remorse,coulson never admitted doing any wrong


 
It's not just that he has a history of wrongdoing though is it, as though he had a previous conviction for shoplifting in his youth. That could be something that we could understand forgiving and perhaps giving someone a second chance.  Hacking phones is spying. It's effectively industrial espionage (which is defined as spying for commercial purposes.) That is exactly what this was, they spied on people to gain information for commercial reasons, in this case, to gain information to use to sell newspapers. Cameron brought a man with a shady history of spying into the heart of the Government and gave him access to classified information. That is about as serious as it gets.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Pottergate: we publish the secret tapes
> 12:00AM BST 06 Sep 2002
> 
> weirder n weirder.....



Nice quote at the end from Greg Miskiw, the assistant editor (news) on the bloke not wanting to prance around in Harry Potter garb just after 9/11: 

 "Why not? Charles, that is what we do - we go out and destroy other people's lives."

which is exactly what they specialise in. 



shagnasty said:


> Surely when you give someone a second chance you must believe they have remorse,coulson never admitted doing any wrong


 
Yes well also I still feel that giving someone a second chance also recognises that you know they did something wrong in the first place. We now know that Cameron knew he'd hacked phones and just didn't care because he was Murdoch's man.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

That Harry Potter piece was so odd; presumably Brooks wanted a kind of village idiot for her Court.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> That Harry Potter piece was so odd; presumably Brooks wanted a kind of village idiot for her Court.


 
Yes, particularly straight after 9/11 when - as they said - they thought that 50,000 people had died. It's the sort of thing that I presume would seem like a good idea if you were pissed or coked up or something. Oh, wait ...


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2011)

Nearly a week since this thread started. 
A lot has happened in that week, this one might be better? 

Rebekah Brooks talking to the police? Rupert M just using her to protect James M do we think? I doubt that even baby Beckham can distract the public today


----------



## co-op (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> That Harry Potter piece was so odd; presumably Brooks wanted a kind of village idiot for her Court.



I think people like her can't conceive of "having power" if they aren't able to humiliate someone.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Pottergate: we publish the secret tapes
> 12:00AM BST 06 Sep 2002
> 
> weirder n weirder.....





> Andy told me I should always have my Harry Potter gear around, in case of a Harry Potter emergency,


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

The Harry Potter stuff is just ... bizzarre. 

Its like something from an absurdist farce. 

And what a horrible way to treat your staff.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jul 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> yup.. we having passing on info to the anti=faux groups, usa etc..... they have got such a lift with UK actions....... gonna be an interesting week for sure and beyond...


 
I be surprise if they manage to block him...  they are Eton mob after all.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 11, 2011)

Is the obvious conversation (or implied notion) is from Brooks to Murdoch Snr "Protect me or I'm taking (and sending) James, and the rest of you, down"...She's apparently got some form and ability to create these semi-blackmail deeds and pacts, and theoretically can't see why, if she can gain traction with our PM with similar means, then why shouldn't see use her 'skills' on her employer?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 11, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> The Harry Potter stuff is just ... bizzarre.
> 
> Its like something from an absurdist farce.
> 
> And what a horrible way to treat your staff.



its long been a staple of tabloids to make journalists dress in up daft costumes, him refusing is a bit like daniel radcliffe refusing to wear a harry potter outfit - its showbiz

having said that it was possibly a bit tasteless straight after 911


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

smokedout said:


> having said that it was possibly a bit tasteless straight after 911


I think that's something of an understatement.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

But you never know when a Harry Potter emergency will arise....


----------



## smokedout (Jul 11, 2011)

exactly


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Is the obvious conversation (or implied notion) is from Brooks to Murdoch Snr "Protect me or I'm taking (and sending) James, and the rest of you, down"...She's apparently got some form and ability to create these semi-blackmail deeds and pacts, and theoretically can't see why, if she can gain traction with our PM with similar means, then why shouldn't see use her 'skills' on her employer?


 
But what is in it for Brooks? Why would she want to stay on now? She must know she is finished - no more A list parties for her, no more schmoosing with the political elite. She could negotiate a genorous pay off in return for keeping schtum. 

Murdoch is keeping her in place for his own reasons - it looks like an attmept to keep the heat off his son. Its pretty unfathomalbe unless they are just so arrognat and deluded they think they just ride this out.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

I suspect the reason for it is hidden in her comment about waiting a year to see why they acted as they have done during the last week. That's a fairly clear hint there's something else to come that involved her and the other execs that even resigning will not get her and them out of - and to fight it they need to be on the NI inside.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

Saving her resignation for a later date? 

That would seem to make more sense.  

Ha! She must feel like fucking shit. Carreer finished, her whole modus operandi trashed, publicly villified and facing a possible prison sentance. Eat it up baby.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 11, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jun/08/newsoftheworld.pressandpublishing
Remember the Beckham kidnap story? That turned out to be a complete load of bollox,the CPS dropped all charges when it found out that the main witness was paid £10,000 by the Screws.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 11, 2011)

She'll be a panelist on Loose Women before the year is out. 3 years till she's a judge on a reality show and 7 years before she's a contestant.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Saving her resignation for a later date?
> 
> That would seem to make more sense.
> 
> Ha! She must feel like fucking shit. Carreer finished, her whole modus operandi trashed, publicly villified and facing a possible prison sentance. Eat it up baby.



Definite tactical possibility - i've no doubt that there's been trenches and barricades built already - but i think it's more on the level right now at least of _we must hang together or we shall hang separately_.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I suspect the reason for it is hidden in her comment about waiting a year to see why they acted as they have done during the last week. That's a fairly clear hint there's something else to come that involved her and the other execs that even resigning will not get her and them out of - and to fight it they need to be on the NI inside.


 
I think the waiting a year thing was a non-specific platitude or smokescreen.

She has an eventual generous payout and honourable (and amicable) discharge to negotiaite with the Murdochs.

They all need a united front on this too.

She is far from finished. Look at Piers Moron's rise from the ashes.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 11, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> I think the waiting a year thing was a non-specific platitude or smokescreen.


 
I rather doubt that. We have yet to see how deep the rabbit hole is...


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> I think the waiting a year thing was a non-specific platitude or smokescreen.


 
I wouldn't be so sure of that.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> She is far from finished. Look at Piers Moron's rise from the ashes.


He's a total arse but he wasn't tarred with involvement of  hacking the phones of child murder victims - or, as it seems, 9/11 victims. That might hamper any hopes for a trans-Atlantic TV career.


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> I wouldn't be suprised if the tories call a halt to the sale of BSKYB before wednesday's debate


 


> Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, has also given an interview to the BBC about his decision this morning to ask Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading for advice on whether there are new grounds for blocking the News Corporation bid for BSkyB. Here are the key points.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/jul/11/news-world-hacking-scandal-live







> • Hunt said Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading did not have to reply quickly. He was not giving them a time limit, he said. "I do not want them to make a rushed decision. I want them to take as long as they need."



In other words, "please reply slowly".


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Is this new?

BREAKING: @Peston on BBC R2 news just now... #NOTW paid Royal Protection Officer for details of UK Royals' phones. #RoyalHack


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

I was about to post it myself. This is the story that just keeps on giving!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

More from peston:



> Am told was clear evidence that security of royal family could have been at risk - shocking development; why were emails buried for 4 years?


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2011)

Didn't this whole thing start with Prince William or Harry being hacked?


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2011)

Chris Bryant on Twitter: It's all very well Clegg joining in now, but last month he was cracking jokes about my phone being hacked. Not so funny now.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2011)

I was looking at some stuff about the Hillsborough disaster last night and the Sun's (among other papers) role in demonising the victims of the disaster. my sympathy for the sun's journalists is somewhat diminished now to say the least. (although of course not everyone there now is responsible etc).


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 11, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> According to tomorrows Mirror  they tried to hack the 9/11 families,do Uncle Rupey a power of good in the US if true.



It's over, Soup Nazi - you're going down.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is this new?
> 
> BREAKING: @Peston on BBC R2 news just now... #NOTW paid Royal Protection Officer for details of UK Royals' phones. #RoyalHack


 
Making more and more enemies by the day/hour!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> Didn't this whole thing start with Prince William or Harry being hacked?


 
I can't really remember but google suggests it was one of their slaves phones that were hacked in the original convictions, the suggestion now seems to be it was royals themselves - and with the help of their security team. More


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 11, 2011)

Be terrible if the whole saga had a detrimental effect on poor Rupey's health,not getting any younger you know,looked a bit peaky the last time I saw him on the Telly.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Be terrible if the whole saga had a detrimental effect on poor Rupey's health,not getting any younger you know,looked a bit peaky the last time I saw him on the Telly.


 
His blood pressure must be mental right now


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 11, 2011)

Badgers said:


> His blood pressure must be mental right now


 Not the only thing that's mental with him right now


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

Some cops are _up to their necks_ in this.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2011)

The investigators and scandal mongers become the investigated and the scandal. Beautiful.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 11, 2011)

Badgers said:


> His blood pressure must be mental right now


 
It was amusing to see him being trailed by reporters the other day


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

Best. Scandal. Ever.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 11, 2011)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...h-Grant-Steve-Coogan-pose-moral-arbiters.html
Mad Mel completely misses the point


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Be terrible if the whole saga had a detrimental effect on poor Rupey's health,not getting any younger you know,looked a bit peaky the last time I saw him on the Telly.


 
You're assuming that he isn't being "looked after" by a demonic entity.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 11, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...h-Grant-Steve-Coogan-pose-moral-arbiters.html
> Mad Mel completely misses the point


 
And even the DM readers school her. Class. Then again she can't tell shit from shinola.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

I always feel a bit dirty after reading anything on the Daily Mail. Like I've been rummaging through someone's dustbin.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 11, 2011)

I'm still waiting for them to give it a name. A little slow of the block methinks.

Press Gate. Hackgate, Diggergate, Gingergate or anything equally banal. No doubt in the fullness of time they'll concoct something or other.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 11, 2011)

TruXta said:


> And even the DM readers school her. Class. Then again she can't tell shit from shinola.


 They are also doing a hatchet job on Steve Coogan in today's Wail,the vast majority of comments underneath the article pulled them up for it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...h-Grant-Steve-Coogan-pose-moral-arbiters.html
> Mad Mel completely misses the point


 
Good to see that the comments aren't exactly in her favour, either.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're assuming that he isn't being "looked after" by a demonic entity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> They are also doing a hatchet job on Steve Coogan in today's Wail,the vast majority of comments underneath the article pulled them up for it


 
TBF, the _Wail's_ readership know that their paper is in it up to their own necks, and are trying to deflect attention, and they're letting the paper know it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


>


 
I said "a demonic entity", not the Queen of Hell herself!!


----------



## two sheds (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> I always feel a bit dirty after reading anything on the Daily Mail. Like I've been rummaging through someone's dustbin.


 
Yes I appreciate it when people quote the relevant bit so I don't have to click on the link and push up their readership count (not to mention catching something nasty from them).


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2011)

Interesting the line mad mels' taking on this given her constant moralising about sex, zionism, etc


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

Zabo said:


> I'm still waiting for them to give it a name. A little slow of the block methinks.
> 
> Press Gate. Hackgate, Diggergate, Gingergate or anything equally banal. No doubt in the fullness of time they'll concoct something or other.


'MurdochGate: the Catastrophic Collapse of a Media Empire' has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Zabo (Jul 11, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> They are also doing a hatchet job on Steve Coogan in today's Wail,the vast majority of comments underneath the article pulled them up for it





> The sound of scores being settled here is as shrill as the hypocrisy. For heaven’s sake, these preening luvvies ruthlessly manipulate the media in order to burnish their profiles and their fortunes. Melamine Phillips



I don't suppose that includes you then Melamine? You know, tarting yourself around the BBC such as venting off on 'The Moral Maze' and scribbling for that tawdry rag. You should check out the word 'hypocrisy' you dumb fuck.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 11, 2011)

http://www.clashmusic.com/news/jarvis-cocker-in-news-of-the-world-rant


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 11, 2011)

Zabo said:


> I don't suppose that includes you then Melamine? You know, tarting yourself around the BBC such as venting off on 'The Moral Maze' and scribbling for that tawdry rag. You should check out the word 'hypocrisy' you dumb fuck.


 
She hasn't got a fucking clue about why the likes of Grant and Coogan are involved and it's fuck all to do with burnishing their profiles and fortunes,fucking moron.


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2011)

Labour are muttering about the government making sure it retains emails to and from Coulson while he was in Downing Street, in case they need to be investigated. Do they know something, or are they just fishing, or just slinging mud in every direction they can think of?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

It can't hurt. Well, it can but obv. not Labour.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> I was about to post it myself. This is the story that just keeps on giving!


It's kind of giving.

You could argue that, at this rate of regular disclosure, the drip feed of revelations is orchestrated. It's maintaining the pressure on NI.

Today, it was the BBCs turn to get a nugget, yesterday it was the Telegraph, etc.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> Some cops are _up to their necks_ in this.


 
Not been arrested or names disclosed you'll notice..


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

I think Mad Mel may be in trouble:



> Max Mosley, who was caught by the News of the World in a sadomasochistic orgy with prostitutes, has been quietly funding a number of individual phone-hacking court cases against that newspaper.



That's an accusation of champerty and it's actionable


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2011)

Zabo said:


> I don't suppose that includes you then Melamine? You know, tarting yourself around the BBC such as venting off on 'The Moral Maze' and scribbling for that tawdry rag. You should check out the word 'hypocrisy' you dumb fuck.


 
Tell her on Twitter, here : @MelanieLatest


----------



## 8den (Jul 11, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Not been arrested or names disclosed you'll notice..


 
The state can wait. Best let Coulson, and Brooks start naming names.....


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2011)

@BBCMichaelCrick said:
			
		

> I hear that Gordon Brown going to make statement re activities of Sunday Times this afternoon.



Shit just got serious.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2011)

The Tories are desperately searching for something to attack Ed Milliband with, as he is having a good scandal - their latest ruse is that a member of Milliband's staff, Tom Baldwin, used to work for the Times, and Lord Ashcroft is claiming that Baldwin hired a private investigator to hack the Ashcroft  bank account. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/jul/11/news-world-hacking-scandal-live?INTCMP=SRCH

seems a risky strategy for the Tories to take, as they don't really want all that Ashcroft stuff back on the front pages


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

marty21 said:


> The Tories are desperately searching for something to attack Ed Milliband with, as he is having a good scandal - their latest ruse is that a member of Milliband's staff, Tom Baldwin, used to work for the Times, and Lord Ashcroft is claiming that Baldwin hired a private investigator to hack the Ashcroft  bank account.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog..., but they can't sweep this under the carpet.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> ]There's been media muttering about Baldwin for a while - Oborne had a bit about him in his spectator article the other day. And rightly so. Labour are up to their necks in this. They can gain some advantage by being first out of the blocks, much as Cameron was on MP's expenses, but they can't sweep this under the carpet.


 
I'm sure more will come out - but hacking a millionaire's bank account who was bankrolling the Tory party for years - can never be as bad as the phone hacking


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

marty21 said:


> they don't really want all that Ashcroft stuff back on the front pages


 
As Coulson would probably have informed them.

If they've any sense, they'll try to put Ashcroft back in the bottle and focus on Baldwin. But it may not go back in the bottle...


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Not been arrested or names disclosed you'll notice..


Oh, it's early days yet, but the evidence is stacking up very nicely.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I'm sure more will come out - but hacking a millionaire's bank account who was bankrolling the Tory party for years - can never be as bad as the phone hacking


 
I'm not really sure we're looking for a hierarchy of villainy here. They're all scum, and they're all going down. I couldn't care less which tribe they belong to.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2011)

laptop said:


> As Coulson would probably have informed them.
> 
> If they've any sense, they'll try to put Ashcroft back in the bottle and focus on Baldwin. But it may not go back in the bottle...


 
I don't think the Baldwin stuff will be that damaging to Milliband - there is a public interest angle - Ashcroft was avoiding tax, lying about his domicile status, and giving millions to the Tory party - The Tories won't want this getting out again.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm not really sure we're looking for a hierarchy of villainy here. They're all scum, and they're all going down. I couldn't care less which tribe they belong to.


 
well yes, but if they all go down, someone else will be along to replace them


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

marty21 said:


> well yes, but if they all go down, someone else will be along to replace them


 
Oh, right. We might just as well avoid the disruption and let them carry on then, if we are powerless to change anything, why bother? Is it just for some titillating newspaper articles before we forget about it and let them carry on with business as usual?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> Oh, right. We might just as well avoid the disruption and let them carry on then, if we are powerless to change anything, why bother? Is it just for some titillating newspaper articles before we forget about it and let them carry on with business as usual?


 
LLETSA likes this post.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> Oh, right. We might just as well avoid the disruption and let them carry on then, if we are powerless to change anything, why bother? Is it just for some titillating newspaper articles before we forget about it and let them carry on with business as usual?


 
not what I said  *waves finger* 

hopefully heads will roll, but unless there is a revolution, then the system will remain the same - just that Murdoch won't be able to influence it as much as before


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

Telling trio of headlines on the Graun website:



> Miliband joins calls for Murdoch to drop bid
> Clegg calls for Murdoch to drop BSkyB deal
> Hunt seeks Ofcom advice over BSkyB takeover bid


Miliband pretending to have grown a spine, Clegg begging Murdoch to do the right thing, Hunt hiding behind the biggest things he can find.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> I always feel a bit dirty after reading anything on the Daily Mail. Like I've been rummaging through someone's dustbin.


I daresay News international has a job for you, then!


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

marty21 said:


> not what I said  *waves finger*
> 
> hopefully heads will roll, but unless there is a revolution, then the system will remain the same - just that Murdoch won't be able to influence it as much as before


 
Well, what are you saying then? Cos all I can see is "Labour aren't as bad as the Tories".

It's a chance to bring all of them down. There is no need to put out matresses to protect the current least worst option from a lethal landing. They can all fuck the fuck off.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> Telling trio of headlines on the Graun website:
> 
> 
> Miliband pretending to have grown a spine, Clegg begging Murdoch to do the right thing, Hunt hiding behind the biggest things he can find.



as was said earlier on here, Clegg didn't meet Murdoch prior to the election, so is not as in bed with him as Cameron is , Cameron needs Clegg and Hunt to do the deed that he can't do, or won't do.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> Well, what are you saying then? Cos all I can see is "Labour aren't as bad as the Tories".
> 
> It's a chance to bring all of them down. There is no need to put out matresses to protect the current least worst option from a lethal landing. They can all fuck the fuck off.



again, not what I said 

I didn't say anything about Labour not being as bad as the Tories - Brown/Blair both sucked up to Murdoch

the point is Milliband is free to attack Murdoch - Cameron is hamstrung

and bring them all down? It won't happen, there will be change , but not revolution


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 11, 2011)

Huh, apparently Rupert Murdoch's mum is still alive. She's 102, and is a renowned philanthropist. 

/random fact


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Right, we're moving onto computer hacking it looks like now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Now we're talking:

#NOTW email shows Clive Goodman asked Andy #Coulson for cash to buy confidential directory of royal phone numbers, BBC's @Peston reveals


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 11, 2011)

Zabo said:


> I don't suppose that includes you then Melamine? You know, tarting yourself around the BBC such as venting off on 'The Moral Maze' and scribbling for that tawdry rag. You should check out the word 'hypocrisy' you dumb fuck.


look on the good side; the comments following that article show that Mad mel has _totally _misjudged this one


----------



## TruXta (Jul 11, 2011)

Any word on hacking the phones of 9/11 families? This needs to cross the Atlantic.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It's kind of giving.
> 
> You could argue that, at this rate of regular disclosure, the drip feed of revelations is orchestrated. It's maintaining the pressure on NI.
> 
> Today, it was the BBCs turn to get a nugget, yesterday it was the Telegraph, etc.



Yes I was wandering ealier in this thread as to how orchestrated this is. The Guardian have been sitting on this whilst waiting for a court case to finish. Were they lucky that the court case finsiehd just in time to stop the BskyB Bid? There are clearly cops working cloesly with the guardian on this - is there a group of people out to get Murdoch, or at least scuper the bid? Does it matter? 

On a realted note - surely News  international knew this was coming? Yet they seem to have repsonded like a particualrly disorganised set of headless chickens.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Any word on hacking the phones of 9/11 families? This needs to cross the Atlantic.


 
That one seems to be dying today - all that's came out was an approach to one person to do it, who refused  - doesn't mean they didn't approach others or didn't do it, but it seems no one has anything that for now. The people going through this new cache of emails may well throw something up later though.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

The Mirror remains the only source, although it's got some coverage in the states. 

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/07/notw_tried_to_hack_911_victims.html

The Mail's getting in a froth about it too:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hones-September-11-victims-claims-ex-cop.html


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That one seems to be dying today - all that's came out was an approach to one person to do it, who refused  - doesn't mean they didn't approach others or didn't do it, but it seems no one has anything that for now. The people going through this new cache of emails may well throw something up later though.


 
I was thinking that the fact that none of the other media have mentioned the 9/11 stuff means its unsubstantiated, whilst all the other stuff is reliably sourced.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Yes I was wandering ealier in this thread as to how orchestrated this is. The Guardian have been sitting on this whilst waiting for a court case to finish. Were they lucky that the court case finsiehd just in time to stop the BskyB Bid? There are clearly cops working cloesly with the guardian on this - is there a group of people out to get Murdoch, or at least scuper the bid? Does it matter?
> 
> On a realted note - surely News  international knew this was coming? Yet they seem to have repsonded like a particualrly disorganised set of headless chickens.


 This new batch of emails were surrendered to some lawyers about three weeks ago (iirc) - they must have known it was coming from that point on at least. These lawyers are feeding this stuff regularly now, it would be useful to map who is getting it first. Peston seems to be #1 atm


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Some nice shit stirring from the right 



> Andy Hayman was Assist. Comm. of Specialist Operations, including SO14 a.k.a. Royal Protection, 2005 - 2007. Now News Int. columnist.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm not really sure we're looking for a hierarchy of villainy here. They're all scum, and they're all going down. I couldn't care less which tribe they belong to.


tbh, Labour v 3.0 (new! squeaky clean! Red Ed!) are much less in the soup over this than cameron - he's the big scalp here, and he's the one who's mates with brooks, Murdoch (E. Ms), coulson, and the rest. Millibrow is nowt compared to that


----------



## two sheds (Jul 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> tbh, Labour v 3.0 (new! squeaky clean! Red Ed!) are much less in the soup over this than cameron - he's the big scalp here, and he's the one who's mates with brooks, Murdoch (E. Ms), coulson, and the rest. Millibrow is nowt compared to that



Yep, if Blair and Brown are caught cosying up to NI that's all a bit of a bonus, really


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Now we're talking:
> 
> #NOTW email shows Clive Goodman asked Andy #Coulson for cash to buy confidential directory of royal phone numbers, BBC's @Peston reveals


You mean this? or this?


----------



## Zabo (Jul 11, 2011)

The N.Y.T. haven't given it any coverage and they'd be first off the line. At a time like this I suppose one could say anything - at least it keeps NI under the glare of the media spotlight.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 11, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Yep, if Blair and Brown are caught cosying up to NI that's all a bit of a bonus, really


now that would be a lovely cherry on t'cake...


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

Latest news from BBC, Robert Preston: Another policeman stole a green directory ( holds all royal info, addresses, emails, phone numbers etc) in 1997 wanted £1000 from Goodwin... then held by a solicitor Ken McDonald... he gave it to the exec of NI after 4 years.. who gave it to the police... news corp and police have known for at least 10 years....


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> tbh, Labour v 3.0 (new! squeaky clean! Red Ed!) are much less in the soup over this than cameron - he's the big scalp here, and he's the one who's mates with brooks, Murdoch (E. Ms), coulson, and the rest. Millibrow is nowt compared to that


 
If he wants Labour v3, he's going to have to dump New Labour, Blair, his brother, et al, right in it. I look forward to that happening, but I won't be holding my breath.



butchersapron said:


> This new batch of emails were surrendered to some lawyers about three weeks ago (iirc) - they must have known it was coming from that point on at least. These lawyers are feeding this stuff regularly now, it would be useful to map who is getting it first. Peston seems to be #1 atm


 
Surrendered by NI? Peston is very close to Brooks too. It wouldn't be surprising to discover that Brooks is orchestrating the disclosure strategy. They're hiding something behind the flurry.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Latest news from BBC, Robert Preston: Another policeman stole a green directory ( holds all royal info, addresses, emails, phone numbers etc) in 1997 wanted £1000 from Goodwin... then held by a solicitor Ken McDonald... he gave it to the exec of NI after 4 years.. who gave it to the police... news corp and police have known for at least 10 years....



a grand? not the brightest of coppers then


----------



## brimm (Jul 11, 2011)

Those mad eyes of Jeremy Hunt 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14101866


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> If he wants Labour v3, he's going to have to dump New Labour, Blair, his brother, et al, right in it. I look forward to that happening, but I won't be holding my breath.
> 
> 
> Surrendered by NI? Peston is very close to Brooks too. It wouldn't be surprising to discover that Brooks is orchestrating the disclosure strategy. They're hiding something behind the flurry.



Yes, surrendered to the met by NI lawyers on 20th June.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2011)

it's a right old incestuous gang bang...



> More details are emerging about the garden party thrown by Matthew Freud and Elisabeth Murdoch in Oxfordshire last weekend, where guests included Rebekah Brooks, Alan Yentob and film director Tim Burton. It turns out BBC business editor Robert Peston, who is close to News International general manager Will Lewis, was also at the bash, resplendent in a peach cotton scarf. He was huddled together with Brooks, Lewis and James Murdoch for a good part of the evening, according to an eyewitness. Meanwhile, Jon Snow of Channel 4 News, which would break fresh revelations about Brooks later in the week, apparently cavorted on the dancefloor in embarrassing dad fashion. If the NI boss had known about the coverage Channel 4 News had planned she would have stuck a foot out as he strutted his stuff.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog+robert-peston


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Here



> 2.38pm: This would be shocking news if it turns out to be true – but Thursday's closure of the News of the World was pretty shocking too.
> 
> Michael Wolff, the author of the Rupert Murdoch biography The Man who owns the News, has just tweeted that Murdoch is considering a "get out of Dodge strategy": selling all of News International. We will look into this now.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

Seems like Americans are using the hash tag #MURDOCHGATE on twitter


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here


 
do you believe this ??! not saying you do, but isnt it stretching the credibility somewhat? 

and even if it's true who has enough money to buy it?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> do you believe this ??! not saying you do, but isnt it stretching the credibility somewhat?
> 
> and even if it's true who has enough money to buy it?


private equity outfits, other large dodgy MNC's, those kind of loverly people...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> you believe this ??! isnt it stretching the credibility somewhat?
> 
> and even if it's true who has enough money to buy it?


 
No one has to buy it outright, they buy the shares. The blokes a Murdoch biographer, i assume he built up some contacts writing the book. As for if it's true or not, no idea. I expect they'll be drawing up plans for every conceivable outcome. I would.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 11, 2011)

> 2.38pm: This would be shocking news if it turns out to be true – but Thursday's closure of the News of the World was pretty shocking too.
> 
> Michael Wolff, the author of the Rupert Murdoch biography The Man who owns the News, has just tweeted that Murdoch is considering a "get out of Dodge strategy": selling all of News International. We will look into this now.



lol, from the guardian


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2011)

'Latest news from BBC, Robert Preston: Another policeman stole a green directory ( holds all royal info, addresses, emails, phone numbers etc) in 1997 wanted £1000 from Goodwin... then held by a solicitor Ken McDonald... he gave it to the exec of NI after 4 years.. who gave it to the police... news corp and police have known for at least 10 years.... '


eh, that solicitor is the former DPP...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

Maybe he knows hes properly in the shit and is selling up whilst he still can in order to secure a comfortalbe retirement.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

***


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> do you believe this ??! not saying you do, but isnt it stretching the credibility somewhat?
> 
> and even if it's true who has enough money to buy it?


 
It's worth what someone will pay for it, which may well be more now than when the entire brand is trashed in a few months time. It's all about staying out of prison now, I think.


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2011)

'More details are emerging about the garden party thrown by Matthew Freud and Elisabeth Murdoch in Oxfordshire last weekend, where guests included Rebekah Brooks, Alan Yentob and film director Tim Burton. It turns out BBC business editor Robert Peston, who is close to News International general manager Will Lewis, was also at the bash, resplendent in a peach cotton scarf. He was huddled together with Brooks, Lewis and James Murdoch for a good part of the evening, according to an eyewitness. Meanwhile, Jon Snow of Channel 4 News, which would break fresh revelations about Brooks later in the week, apparently cavorted on the dancefloor in embarrassing dad fashion. If the NI boss had known about the coverage Channel 4 News had planned she would have stuck a foot out as he strutted his stuff. '



not a crime but it increasingly shows up the power grids in this country, etc..


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2011)

Not sure why I'm supposed to care about the colour of Robert Peston's scarf though.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 11, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'More details are emerging about the garden party thrown by Matthew Freud and Elisabeth Murdoch in Oxfordshire last weekend, where guests included Rebekah Brooks, Alan Yentob and film director Tim Burton. It turns out BBC business editor Robert Peston, who is close to News International general manager Will Lewis, was also at the bash, resplendent in a peach cotton scarf. He was huddled together with Brooks, Lewis and James Murdoch for a good part of the evening, according to an eyewitness. Meanwhile, Jon Snow of Channel 4 News, which would break fresh revelations about Brooks later in the week, apparently cavorted on the dancefloor in embarrassing dad fashion. If the NI boss had known about the coverage Channel 4 News had planned she would have stuck a foot out as he strutted his stuff. '
> 
> 
> 
> not a crime but it increasingly shows up the power grids in this country, etc..


I'll bet the so-called left-wing did absolutely nothing about it either!!!


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'Latest news from BBC, Robert Preston: Another policeman stole a green directory ( holds all royal info, addresses, emails, phone numbers etc) in 1997 wanted £1000 from Goodwin... then held by a solicitor Ken McDonald... he gave it to the exec of NI after 4 years.. who gave it to the police... news corp and police have known for at least 10 years.... '
> 
> 
> eh, that solicitor is the former DPP...


And he's been appointed by Murdoch to help get them out of the shit. He will mire them further in it. He was the DPP that managed the original investigation down to triviality too. Murdoch's bribable friends are now tainted by his bribery. The power has dissolved to nothing.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> Not sure why I'm supposed to care about the colour of Robert Peston's scarf though.


He walked into the party like he was walking onto a yacht, his hat strategically placed above one eye, his scarf it was apricot (well, sort of peach, really).


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

Newscorp stock price plummeting, down 5.85% so far today, market only been open for a bout 20 mins


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> Not sure why I'm supposed to care about the colour of Robert Peston's scarf though.


It's always good to hear about the whereabouts of  peach cotton scarves.


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2011)

'And he's been appointed by Murdoch to help get them out of the shit. He will mire them further in it. He was the DPP that managed the original investigation down to triviality too. Murdoch's bribable friends are now tainted by his bribery. The power has dissolved to nothing. '


Appointed by N/l as well, apparently sympathetic to anarchism as a student(easy to do)

Please let Blair be implicated in some way...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> Not sure why I'm supposed to care about the colour of Robert Peston's scarf though.


 
it's addin' flava to da report, innit?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

What's this all about? What's in the standard?



> Met says it believes info in Evening Standard article today is "part of a deliberate campaign to undermine" its corruption investigation.


 -from C4 news.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2011)

I need more popcorn god damn!


> 2.53pm: The BBC's
> Laura Kuenssberg tweets:
> 
> Rumours whirling around Westminster of more to come this afternoon perhaps with other papers, not just NoTW - PM press conference later too


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What's this all about? What's in the standard?
> 
> -from C4 news.


 
I presume it's this


> Personal details about the Queen and her closest aides were sold to the News of the World by corrupt royal protection officers, the Standard reveals today.
> 
> The information included phone numbers and tips about the movements and activities of the Queen, Prince Philip and staff in a serious breach of national security. The payments, and involvement of the royal and diplomatic protection squad, were uncovered by News International in 2007.
> 
> But despite the potential risk to security they were not passed on to the Met until last month. Scotland Yard was only informed after other News International bosses discovered the existence of the emails during a separate internal probe set up to uncover evidence of phone hacking. There are hundreds of royal protection officers.



http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ndal-queens-police-sold-her-details-to-now.do

She is not amused.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Well, it was fuck all to with the standard for starters - Peston had it first



> It is our belief that information that has appeared in the media today is part of a deliberate campaign to undermine the investigation into the alleged payments by corrupt journalists to corrupt police officers and divert attention from elsewhere.
> 
> At various meetings over the last few weeks information was shared with us by News International and their legal representatives and it was agreed by all parties that this information would be kept confidential so that we could pursue various lines of inquiry, identify those responsible without alerting them and secure best evidence.
> 
> However we are extremely concerned and disappointed that the continuous release of selected information - that is only known by a small number of people - could have a significant impact on the corruption investigation.



It's either them, NI or the lawyers who held the files. And what mug would believe the met? 

Who are they suggesting did it then?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2011)

Fair enough then butchers - and yep about them covering from every eventuality. 

Does anyone actually believe murdoch will end up in jail though?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well, it was fuck all to with the standard for starters - Peston had it first
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Maybe they have a rogue officer? lol


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Fair enough then butchers - and yep about them covering from every eventuality.
> 
> Does anyone actually believe murdoch will end up in jail though?


 
Well it's look more likely than it was 2 weeks ago


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Maybe they have a rogue officer? lol


 
I've heard this investigation is to root out these bad apples.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well, it was fuck all to with the standard for starters - Peston had it first
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
News International, presumably. It fits too.


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> He walked into the party like he was walking onto a yacht, his hat strategically placed above one eye, his scarf it was apricot (well, sort of peach, really).


 He had one eye in the mirror as he watched himself go by and all the girls...


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

So Couson's going down for (1) RIPA and (2) perjury, atm: You never know when you might need Harry Potter.


Bigger, faster, stronger moving story EVAH.


*Paging  Robert Maxwell's yacht captain*


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

mystic pyjamas said:


> He had one eye in the mirror as he watched himself go by and all the girls...


He's so vain, he probably thinks that song was about him.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> News International, presumably. It fits too.


It fits _if_ you think NI are doing an orchestrated drip-leak to move attention away from the real stuff. I don't buy that, it's too quick and too damaging. They're  not in control of it - on any number of levels.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2011)

why was he wearing a scarf at all?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I've heard this investigation is to root out these bad apples.


 
aye, the problem is the bad apples are right at the bottom of the barrel, underneath the rotten ones


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2011)

"Reports suggest that Gordon Brown will make a statement around 4.30 which will cause the hacking story to explode." Yahoo news on Twitter.

Feel I ought to pop down to pub to watch this, like the deciding session of an Ashes Test.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

killer b said:


> why was he wearing a scarf at all?


 
Because he's a Student cunt from 5 years ago. Coulsen is often seen looking a few years out of date wearing one too.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2011)

what a tease that gordon brown is.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

LOL. They hacked the PM.


"Hello, is that the Tower of London. Stand by ...."


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> LOL. They hacked the PM.
> 
> 
> "Hello, is that the Tower of London. Do stand by...."


 
Spoilers!!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2011)

killer b said:


> why was he wearing a scarf at all?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> And he's been appointed by Murdoch to help get them out of the shit. He will mire them further in it. He was the DPP that managed the original investigation down to triviality too. Murdoch's bribable friends are now tainted by his bribery. The power has dissolved to nothing.


Oh, they couldn't have made a less credible choice....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> "Reports suggest that Gordon Brown will make a statement around 4.30 which will cause the hacking story to explode." Yahoo news on Twitter.
> 
> Feel I ought to pop down to pub to watch this, like the deciding session of an Ashes Test.


 
Brown whose wife did Rebekah's 40th party and slumber parties for all the little female murdochs. Let's make them eat themselves.


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> News International, presumably. It fits too.


 
Especially if Peston is the conduit by which this is being transmitted.


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Brown whose wife did Rebekah's 40th party and slumber parties for all the little female murdochs. Let's make them eat themselves.


 
'But I was frightened of the bigger boy...'


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It fits _if_ you think NI are doing an orchestrated drip-leak to move attention away from the real stuff. I don't buy that, it's too quick and too damaging. They're  not in control of it - on any number of levels.


I agree. There's too much shit reigning down for this to be some sort of Machiavellian campaign, and the further into the gutter NI slides, the more likely previously intimidated witnesses/workers are going to come forward to spill the beans.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It fits _if_ you think NI are doing an orchestrated drip-leak to move attention away from the real stuff. I don't buy that, it's too quick and too damaging. They're  not in control of it - on any number of levels.


 NI aren't drip-feeding this. This is all from the new Met investigation team, and friends (inc. Cressida Dick).


----------



## magneze (Jul 11, 2011)

Rumour mill seems to be saying that Brown is going to reveal something about the Times. Hacking at the NI broadsheets too? Oh deary me, Mr Murdoch.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It fits _if_ you think NI are doing an orchestrated drip-leak to move attention away from the real stuff. I don't buy that, it's too quick and too damaging.


 
Firstly, this is what the Met are claiming, not what is happening. It's not a stupid story from them.

I do think NI are on a damage limitation exercise, and floundering because none of these cunts have ever had to operate without near absolute power before.  It is a plausible story from the Met, given the 'voluntary' disclosures from NI and the millions of allegedly deleted emails. They're trying to cut off the spread of the poison and limit it to 'one bad newsroom'. Cut it off at the level of criminal gossip-mongering and don't allow the trail to be followed all the way to Downing Street.

On the other hand, I can see the corrupt officers wanting to screw up the investigation, but not by naming themselves. NI's motivation for naming them would have to be either to distract from the more important details, or to fuck up future trials (of their own, as well as their bought off lackeys). This could just as easily be leaks from the inside, settling personal scores, or trying to take the heat off corruption at higher levels.

Whatever. The rats are turning on each other. It appears to be all good so far.


----------



## elbows (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It fits _if_ you think NI are doing an orchestrated drip-leak to move attention away from the real stuff. I don't buy that, it's too quick and too damaging. They're  not in control of it - on any number of levels.


 
Indeed. They were leaking some stuff a while back though, stuff they had agreed with the police to keep quiet about until August. I think its possible that their failure to honour that agreement has caused the police to leak stuff in retaliation.

Unfortunately I've forgotten the detail of what it was, will try to find out.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> Whatever. The rats are turning on each other. It appears to be all good so far.


There's _got_ to be some Mail revelations coming through soon too.

*crosses fingers


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> There's _got_ to be some Mail revelations coming through soon too.
> 
> *crosses fingers


 It would dilute attention away from Murdoch. Now is not the time, but the time will come.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

oh the irony......

Sunday: News Of The World closes. Monday: Threat to democracy reduced from 'severe' to 'substantial': http://www.independent.co.uk/n​ews/uk/home-news/uk-terror-thr​eat-level-reduced-2311979.html


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> I agree. There's too much shit reigning down for this to be some sort of Machiavellian campaign, and the further into the gutter NI slides, the more likely previously intimidated witnesses/workers are going to come forward to spill the beans.


 
Whilst that might be true, it should be pointed out that:

i) there is a strong incentive in _not_ spilling the beans, namely that (for journalists at least) if you do fess up then noone in Fleet Street (the tabloid end of which, as we all should know, is as guilty as the NOTW is) is ever going to employ you in that field again.  Look at what happened to Goodman, for instance - he did his time, kept quiet, got a big payoff and then was hired by the _Daily Star_.
ii) the issue is not so much about what comes out any more, its about who takes the blame for it.  A selective series of leaks would be of benefit to those people who do not want to be blamed, which would - based at least on what has been released so far - tend to suggest that its not coming from the Met, nor is it coming from Coulson.  This does tend to leave only one likely source.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 11, 2011)




----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Newscorp stock price plummeting, down 5.85% so far today, market only been open for a bout 20 mins



‎down 6.27 now.....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> Whilst that might be true, it should be pointed out that:
> 
> i) there is a strong incentive in _not_ spilling the beans, namely that (for journalists at least) if you do fess up then noone in Fleet Street (the tabloid end of which, as we all should know, is as guilty as the NOTW is) is ever going to employ you in that field again.  Look at what happened to Goodman, for instance - he did his time, kept quiet, got a big payoff and then was hired by the _Daily Star_.
> ii) the issue is not so much about what comes out any more, its about who takes the blame for it.  A selective series of leaks would be of benefit to those people who do not want to be blamed, which would - based at least on what has been released so far - tend to suggest that its not coming from the Met, nor is it coming from Coulson.  This does tend to leave only one likely source.


 
All good points, but what some people are smelling now is jounos turning on each other - the days where _we don't do that to each other_ have been destroyed by the internet, this is different.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Million things from people who should know saying Brown is only going to blow the bloody doors off.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

It can only be that NotW hacked the British PM - what else could it be.

Probably when his child died, as well.


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2011)

Meanwhile, Cameron launches the privatisation of the century, all public services to be opened to competition...


btw, no thread on the Southhampton strikes?


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 11, 2011)

is the Guardian doing good? it reminds me of the time when that other paper did that expenses thing.... it was like, POW, POW, POW!! day after day and the paper sold millions of copies.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 11, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> aye, the problem is the bad apples are right at the bottom of the barrel, underneath the rotten ones


 
Well that's the thing with rotten apples. If you leave them in the barrel, as has been done, they very soon turn the whole fucking barrel rotten. 

In police terms, eventually they *all* get to know that some officers are committing crimes, and not reporting it makes them all complicit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

treelover said:


> Meanwhile, Cameron launches the privatisation of the century, all public services to be opened to competition...
> 
> 
> btw, no thread on the Southhampton strikes?



Just wait, people opposed to these actions are not going to not bother fighting because there's a media emphasis on something else.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Million things from people who should know saying Brown is only going to blow the bloody doors off.


 
It's the fact that he's going to be having a go at The Sunday Times, not a tabloid, that is whetting whistles, I think. People are itching for this to emphatically encompass all things Murdoch. Brown's credibility doesn't matter any more than Bryant's or Grant's.


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> All good points, but what some people are smelling now is jounos turning on each other - the days where _we don't do that to each other_ have been destroyed by the internet, this is different.


 
Is it though?  None of the NOTW journalists have publicly come out and said what was going on, the other tabloids havent exactly gone to down on this story, and there is ample anecdotal evidence (like this, for instance) that the old ways continue.  If anything, there is probably a massive effort behind the scenes to keep every other paper out of the firing line on this, for the simple reason that they have so much to lose.


----------



## paolo (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It can only be that NotW hacked the British PM - what else could it be.


 
I thought his phone being hacked was awhile back (when chancellor), but when it was discovered Brown chose not to pursue it because it would have looked too cheap in the election battle?

Maybe it's that, but with much more juicy detail (e.g. child as you say). Or something new.

All will be revealed shortly I guess.


----------



## gavman (Jul 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you're right, it grates. so please shut the fuck up.


 
so that makes how many people on this thread do you require to stfu?
just who is it that you think you are?

i'm absolutely certain that others on here don't share your high opinion of yourself. go away


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's the fact that he's going to be having a go at The Sunday Times, not a tabloid, that is whetting whistles, I think. People are itching for this to emphatically encompass all things Murdoch. Brown's credibility doesn't matter any more than Bryant's or Grant's.


 
True, it does raise questions about what will happen to Miliband afterwards though (given the Baldwin link).


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 11, 2011)

Brown: phone & bank details apparently.
They did people's computers too, still waiting for that shoe to drop.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It can only be that NotW hacked the British PM - what else could it be.
> 
> Probably when his child died, as well.


 
Oh, I dunno, summat about governments seeking approval for policy from Murdoch before implementing it, changing policy at his behest, that kind of thing. You know, not just gossipy shite.


----------



## gavman (Jul 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Schadenfreude is the taking of pleasure in the misfortune of others, or at least that's the best I can render it in English. It's not about a desire to read stories that confirm your prejudices.


 
i defined it as exactly that, taking pleasure in the misfortune of celebs


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I thought his phone being hacked was awhile back (when chancellor), but when it was discovered Brown chose not to pursue it because it would have looked too cheap in the election battle?
> 
> Maybe it's that, but with much more juicy detail (e.g. child as you say). Or something new.
> 
> All will be revealed shortly I guess.


 
If I had to guess, it would be the stories from around 2009 that he was on medication, which (IIRC) actually named which medication he was on.  Such information could not, one imagines, have been obtained by normal means.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 11, 2011)

Bank account hacked when he was Chancellor is the rumour....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> Is it though?  None of the NOTW journalists have publicly come out and said what was going on, the other tabloids havent exactly gone to down on this story, and there is ample anecdotal evidence (like this, for instance) that the old ways continue.  If anything, there is probably a massive effort behind the scenes to keep every other paper out of the firing line on this, for the simple reason that they have so much to lose.



I said they can smell it - the chance of it happening. I can. I'm sure the massive effort is going on, but as i said, the they can't control but a small part of the media world now. There's all sorts of slack mouthed people who've been in and left...and they've all got the internet... and few hundred more after last week


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2011)

'Just wait, people opposed to these actions are not going to not bother fighting because there's a media emphasis on something else'



didn't mean that, this time, but the two issues are crucial


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

The Octagon said:


> Bank account hacked when he was Chancellor is the rumour....


 
If that genuinely is it, then Miliband must be going absolutely mental.  That is exactly (albeit it was to the tory bank account, and not Ashcrofts) what Baldwin was doing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> i defined it as exactly that, taking pleasure in the misfortune of celebs


 
No that's not it exactly at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> If that genuinely is it, then Miliband must be going absolutely mental.  That is exactly (albeit it was to the tory bank account, and not Ashcrofts) what Baldwin was doing.


 
Was he?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No that's not it exactly at all.


 
Yes, "this is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. "Oh yes," one would think. "


----------



## gavman (Jul 11, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'More details are emerging about the garden party thrown by Matthew Freud and Elisabeth Murdoch in Oxfordshire last weekend, where guests included Rebekah Brooks, Alan Yentob and film director Tim Burton. It turns out BBC business editor Robert Peston, who is close to News International general manager Will Lewis, was also at the bash, resplendent in a peach cotton scarf. He was huddled together with Brooks, Lewis and James Murdoch for a good part of the evening, according to an eyewitness. Meanwhile, Jon Snow of Channel 4 News, which would break fresh revelations about Brooks later in the week, apparently cavorted on the dancefloor in embarrassing dad fashion. If the NI boss had known about the coverage Channel 4 News had planned she would have stuck a foot out as he strutted his stuff. '
> 
> 
> 
> not a crime but it increasingly shows up the power grids in this country, etc..


 
fair point, but i don't think you could accuse jon snow of pulling his punches on this. c4 news seems to be in the vanguard


----------



## rikwakefield (Jul 11, 2011)

News Corp withdraws bid for BSkyB.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

The Octagon said:


> Bank account hacked when he was Chancellor is the rumour....



Gordon Brown is soon to share what the police have http://blogs.channel4.com/gary​-gib...s-ban​k-details-hacked-by-sunday-tim​es/15800 told him. I understand he’s been told that police think his bank accounts were illegally accessed by The Sunday Times when he was Chancellor.

announcement due before 5pm


----------



## TruXta (Jul 11, 2011)

rikwakefield said:


> News Corp withdraws bid for BSkyB.


 
Sauce?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

rikwakefield said:


> News Corp withdraws bid for BSkyB.



source?


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

> Gordon Brown will today break his silence over the phone-hacking scandal by accusing Rupert Murdoch's News International of illegally accessing his personal details, The Independent has learnt.
> 
> In a dramatic intervention in the deepening scandal, the Labour former Prime Minister is understood to be about to claim that private investigators working for the UK's largest newspaper group hacked his phone and accessed his personal bank account.
> 
> It is believed that material based on some of the illicitly-obtained information was subsequently used by one of News International's titles.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/im-a-hacking-victim-too-gordon-brown-to-say-2311980.html


----------



## rikwakefield (Jul 11, 2011)

Statement just released by them. Watching it on the news.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2011)

rikwakefield said:


> News Corp withdraws bid for BSkyB.


 
Soorze?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 11, 2011)

Davies has got in before Gordon Brown had the chance to speak:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/11/phone-hacking-news-international-gordon-brown

Edit: Bank account, legal file and medical records apparently.
Edit: And tax paperwork via his accountant's computer - so now we start to get onto the computer hacking. About time.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> fair point, but i don't think you could accuse jon snow of pulling his punches on this. c4 news seems to be in the vanguard


 
Of the enlightened? You miss the point. It's about how the powerful interact. Not what punches they pull. (as if you'd know not being on the inside)


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

It's being suggested that it was The Sunday Times that hacked Brown...

*sound of gears being ratcheted up


----------



## gavman (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No that's not it exactly at all.


 
taking pleasure in the misfortune of others, in this case celebs. 
pedant


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Yes, "this is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. "Oh yes," one would think. "


 
How about wanda jackson?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> It's being suggested that it was The Sunday Times that hacked Brown...
> 
> *sound of gears being ratcheted up


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Davies has got in before Gordon Brown had the chance to speak:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/11/phone-hacking-news-international-gordon-brown
> 
> Edit: Bank account, legal file and medical records apparently.


From that article:


> Journalists from across News International repeatedly targeted the former prime minister Gordon Brown, attempting to access his voicemail and obtaining information from his bank account, his legal file as well as his family's medical records.
> 
> There is also evidence that a private investigator used a serving police officer to trawl the police national computer for information about him.
> 
> ...


This is deep, deep criminal activity.


----------



## gavman (Jul 11, 2011)

rikwakefield said:


> News Corp withdraws bid for BSkyB.


 
fuck...linkee?


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2011)

rikwakefield said:


> Statement just released by them. Watching it on the news.


 
withdrawn its submission to the competition commission, not quite the same thing


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> taking pleasure in the misfortune of others, in this case celebs.
> pedant


 
You might as well define it as taking pleasure in the failure of gardeners. It doesn't mean that though gav.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

Are news international the Stasi now? We have clearly been living under a surveilance state. Mudoch and co must have detailed files from hacked info on everyone who matters - shared with the cops? 
I'm freewheeling here ...


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

Used_ against_ the cops, to keep them quiet. Note: Hayman and Yates' ex-marital affairs.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Can still be approved without the CC reccomedation?


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Was he?


 
Given the somewhat peculiar language of the denials from Labour, it does suggest that he was.  Take, for instance, Miliband's response:



> “Michael Ashcroft, the large Conservative party donor, has been putting it around that somehow Tom Baldwin hired a private investigator illegally to look into him,” said Mr Miliband. “Tom Baldwin absolutely denies that.”



Ashcroft actually alleged that the blagger - Gavin Singfield - had been hired specifically to access a Conservative Party bank account, held at Drummonds.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

And the pressure keeps up on all fronts for Murdoch:


> US schemes sue News Corp
> 
> US/UK - US pension funds and other institutional investors have filed an amended complaint alleging "rampant nepotism" and failed corporate governance" at News Corp. in light of the ongoing British phone hacking scandal.
> 
> ...


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

rikwakefield said:


> Statement just released by them. Watching it on the news.



BBC saying they are asking for their offer to be referred to competitions thingy not a withdrawal as such?

lol @ Editor.. read the thread


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> Given the somewhat peculiar language of the denials from Labour, it does suggest that he was.  Take, for instance, Miliband's response:
> 
> 
> 
> Ashcroft actually alleged that the blagger - Gavin Singfield - had been hired specifically to access a Conservative Party bank account, held at Drummonds.



Not much meat on that at this point.


----------



## past caring (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> It's being suggested that it was The Sunday Times that hacked Brown...
> 
> *sound of gears being ratcheted up


 
Guardian reporting that it was the Sun that obtained his son's medical records.


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Can still be approved without the CC reccomedation?


 
quite probably, in theory.  wont happen tho


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

And Rebekah's deep in it:


> Confidential health records for Brown's family have reached the media on two different occasions. In October 2006, the then editor of the Sun, Rebekah Brooks, contacted the Browns to tell them that they had obtained details from the medical file of their four-month-old son, Fraser, which revealed that the boy was suffering from cystic fibrosis. This appears to have been a clear breach of the Data Protection Act, which would allow such a disclosure only if it was in the public interest. Friends of the Browns say the call caused them immense distress, since they were only coming to terms with the diagnosis, which had not been confirmed. The Sun published the story.
> 
> Five years earlier, when their first child, Jennifer, was born on 28 December 2001, a small group of specialist doctors and nurses was aware that she had suffered a brain haemorrhage and was dying. By some means which has not been discovered, this highly sensitive information was obtained by news organisations, who published it over the weekend before Jennifer died, on Monday 6 January 2002.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/11/phone-hacking-news-international-gordon-brown


----------



## paolo (Jul 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> withdrawn its submission to the competition commission, not quite the same thing



Graun...

"News Corporation has just withdrawn its previous offer to spin off Sky News as part of the undertakings made to get the bid cleared by regulators. Our head of media Dan Sabbagh understands this means the bid will now automatically be referred to the Competition Commission, but will be filing a full explanation shortly."

Bizarre - it's like they're torpedoing their own bid.


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2011)

'Withdrawn its offer to spin off Sky News' - thus leading to a reference to the CC being necessary.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 11, 2011)

Gordon Brown is going to enjoy having a pop at News International considering all the shit they gave him


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

past caring said:


> Guardian reporting that it was the Sun that obtained his son's medical records.


Yes, but according to that same report, the Sunday Times is deeply involved too. 



> Abbey National bank found suggestion that a "blagger" acting for the Sunday Times on six occasions posed as Brown and gained details from his account;
> 
> Brown's London lawyers, Allen & Overy, were tricked into handing over details from his file by a conman working for the Sunday Times;


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2011)

'Are news international the Stasi now? We have clearly been living under a surveilance state. Mudoch and co must have detailed files from hacked info on everyone who matters - shared with the cops? 
I'm freewheeling here ... '

Union leaders?


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Bizarre - it's like they're torpedoing their own bid.


 
better to do it themselves than let someone else do it to them


----------



## rikwakefield (Jul 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> withdrawn its submission to the competition commission, not quite the same thing


 
Yes, I was watching Bloomberg. They didn't get it quite right.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

What dirt has Murdoch got on the head of the CC.... JOKE!


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Graun...
> 
> "News Corporation has just withdrawn its previous offer to spin off Sky News as part of the undertakings made to get the bid cleared by regulators. Our head of media Dan Sabbagh understands this means the bid will now automatically be referred to the Competition Commission, but will be filing a full explanation shortly."
> 
> Bizarre - it's like they're torpedoing their own bid.


I think they're gambling that with the loss of the NOTW, they no longer think that they have to make any 'sacrifices' to get Sky. Or something.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 11, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Bizarre - it's like they're torpedoing their own bid.


 
Delaying tactic. Gives them time to sell off News Int.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> taking pleasure in the misfortune of others, in this case celebs.
> pedant


 
Still nothing to do with celebs though. It is about the power exerted when every fucker is afraid of you. Murdoch liked the dirt being dug, but he also liked to control if and when it was flung:



> One interesting page is the November 1999 issue bearing the headline "Archer quits as News of the World exposes false alibi". It was a truly sensational story, exposing the former Tory MP as a liar and perjurer that was to end with Lord Archer going to jail.
> 
> That was an example where I thought the paper was wholly justified in its subterfuge and covert taping.
> 
> ...


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

So if they sell NI, and fail to get BSkyB, Murdoch will be down to just 31% of that, and nothing else in the UK?


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> Yes, but according to that same report, the Sunday Times is deeply involved too.


 
Almost all of Fleet Street is - what is being disclosed about Brown now is what Motorman discovered (against other people) in 2003.  It does sort of raise the question why on earth neither he, or their government, did anything about it though - since it is now confirmed that they (or at least he) knew all about it, with the possible exception of the Mulcaire-style phone hacking.


----------



## Kippa (Jul 11, 2011)

Maybe Murdoch realises the bid is well and truely fucked, so is keeping Sky News.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 11, 2011)

Wonderful stuff.

Whats that chinese saying about if you wait long enough on the riverbank the bodies of your enemies will float past


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

In the light of all these revelations, it's almost easy to lose perspective but _what the fuck_ was the Sun doing illegally accessing the medical records of Brown's disabled child? It's obscene.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> So if they sell NI, and fail to get BSkyB, Murdoch will be down to just 31% of that, and nothing else in the UK?


 
Most of his business is in the US, though. NI is becoming more trouble than it's worth. If he can shed it, and delay the BSkyB bid in the meantime, he can get what he really wants (ie. BSkyB). He's through with UK print journalism. Tactical retreat in full effect.
Edit: I understand that James M is the main fan of UK print media in the Murdoch empire. As I asked a few days ago, has anyone got any thoughts on how this affects Rupe's succession battle?
Wade will go at a tactically-convenient time, of course. Then it leaves James to carry the can internally. He loses most of his own personal fiefdom within NewsCorp ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Wonderful stuff.
> 
> Whats that chinese saying about if you wait long enough on the riverbank the bodies of your enemies will float past



It's



> if you wait long enough on the riverbank the bodies of your enemies will float past


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

The Sun and the Sunday Times and News of the World all now implicated - this is the end of news international. 

I'm assuming Brown is only speaking about this now becasue the info was about to come out. Which means he did nothing about in the past depiste clear knowledge that he was being fucked over. So what did they have on him? 

I think unitl this scandal broke people assumed that politicians sucked up to murdoch and never ever did anything agasint becasue of fear of the influence of his newspapers in turning the pbulic agasint their party. 

Now its becoming clear that a large part of it was becasue they had everyone under survilence and were using that info to blackmail individuals throughout the political system - industrial scale balckmail carried out by a huge media organsiation for the past 20 years with the collusion of the cops.  

Its up there with watergate. Its fucking jaw dropping. 

I think even rupert may end up before a judge now.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> In the light of all these revelations, it's almost easy to lose perspective but _what the fuck_ was the Sun doing illegally accessing the medical records of Brown's disabled child? It's obscene.


 
And reporting that the little girl was dying, thats fucking disgusting.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 11, 2011)

It's certainly got legs (this whole story)


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Most of his business is in the US, though. NI is becoming more trouble than it's worth. If he can shed it, and delay the BSkyB bid in the meantime, he can get what he really wants (ie. BSkyB). He's through with UK print journalism. Tactical retreat in full effect.


*Squeaks*


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 11, 2011)

Extraordinary day. And I've only just tuned into any of it.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's certainly got legs (this whole story)


 
Ain't she!

/Cool Lester Smooth


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 11, 2011)

BBC told medical records of Gordon Browns son with cystic fibrosis illegally obtained + info then published by the Sun when Brooks in charge


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Extraordinary day. And I've only just tuned into any of it.


 
Got a whole year of this yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> BBC told medical records of Gordon Browns son with cystic fibrosis illegally obtained + info then published by the Sun when Brooks in charge


 
On holiday surely?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

Full Met Police statement on leaks in the #NOTW #phonhacking case: It is our belief that information that has appeared in the media today is part of a deliberate campaign to undermine the investigation into the alleged payments by corrupt journalists to corrupt police officers and divert attention from elsewhere.

At various meetings over the last few weeks information was shared with us by News International and their legal representatives and it was agreed by all parties that this information would be kept confidential so that we could pursue various lines of inquiry, identify those responsible without alerting them and secure best evidence.

However we are extremely concerned and disappointed that the continuous release of selected information - that is only known by a small number of people - could have a significant impact on the corruption investigation.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> So if they sell NI, and fail to get BSkyB, Murdoch will be down to just 31% of that, and nothing else in the UK?


 
Presumably, they'd rather lose the deal because of the CC and not because OfCom declare them unfit. The former means no BSkyB takeover, the latter means selling all their current broadcast media holdings and being barred from future ownership.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> *Squeaks*


 
Question is, who's buying? In these circumstances, it looks like a fire sale. I heard a rumour that Sue Douglas was getting a deal together to re-start the NOTW. Whether she could get the finance to buy NI wholesale is another thing, though.

Edit: Worth noting that the CC will have a much weaker case once NewsCorp sheds NI. The BSkyB deal will go through as a result. Unless the 'fit & proper persons' test is evoked of course. But RM wants BSkyB. He's done with newspapers, they're not his priority anymore. They've got him where he is today, but there's no money in them. He has bigger fish to fry.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Mason says, this way he avoids the 'fit and proper' test.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> BBC told medical records of Gordon Browns son with cystic fibrosis illegally obtained + info then published by the Sun when Brooks in charge


 By whom.... it's looking like it's coming from various sources now.

It's becoming a giant  bush fire set in a dozen places.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 11, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> I heard a rumour that Sue Douglas was getting a deal together to re-start the NOTW.


I was wondering if someone might do that. It's a big name, and if they could spin the "new owners" line...?


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

Full list of known hacking victims here: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/10/phone-hacking-victims-list


----------



## gavman (Jul 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> What you're talking about would be as generative of ignorance as your own experiences, though. However you legislate it, you'd be removing a source of information, and I don't just mean the information known as "news" that is represented to us via the media, I mean also the information that you become aware of through your own experiences of the media - that political, economic and social biases and prejudices exist; that the media isn't an impartial purveyor, it's a biased mediator; that as above, so below.


 
my question

how many people go on to attain this level of critical thinking and source awareness?

clearly for someone as brilliant as you it was inevitable. is that true for everyone?
i remember being taught to assess different sources as part of o-level history. lots of kids didn't do o-level history, and of those that did many never developed the ability to think critically about the perspectives they were offered.
so what to some was a springboard to greater insight, for others was a barrier never surmounted. many people still believe what they read in the paps

and regarding the abstract nature of impartiality, uk broadcasters seem to do a better job than print media most of the time, so i don't believe it's anything like as problematic as you suggest


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 11, 2011)

NOTW re-launch plan:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/plan-emerges-to-re-launch-news-of-the-world.html

Rumour that Richard Desmond wants NI (he's tried in the past). Can't see that one working - I thought he was slowly reducing his print interests?


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Now its becoming clear that a large part of it was becasue they had everyone under survilence and were using that info to blackmail individuals throughout the political system - industrial scale balckmail carried out by a huge media organsiation for the past 20 years with the collusion of the cops.


 
At the risk of repeating myself, it is a mistake to assume this has been going on "with the collusion of the cops".  From the Guardian's Brown article:



> In 2003, Devon and Cornwall police discovered that one of their junior officers was providing information from the police national computer to a network of private investigators. The Guardian has established that one of these investigators, Glen Lawson of Abbey Investigations in Newcastle upon Tyne, used this contact to commission a search of police records for information about Brown on 16 November 2000. Lawson also commissioned searches related to two other Labour MPs – Nick Brown and Martin Salter.
> 
> Lawson made these searches on behalf of journalists, a previously unreported court hearing was told. Transcripts obtained by the Guardian show that the search on Martin Salter was made at a time when the News of the World, then edited by Brooks, was attacking him for refusing to support the paper's notorious "Sarah's law" campaign to name paedophiles. Lawson currently refuses to name the journalists who commissioned him.
> 
> An attempt to prosecute this network was blocked by a West Country judge, Paul Darlow, who shocked police by ruling that it would be a misuse of public money to pursue the case. However, Devon and Cornwall police contacted the office of the then chancellor to warn him that he had been a victim, as they also did with his two Labour colleagues.



Similar things ruined the Motorman investigation, plus of course (as that article makes clear) even the victim of this did not, apparently, want to make any kind of issue of it at all.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 11, 2011)

Murdoch has got plently of front

The dumping of the NotW  reduces his media footprint enough to get CC approval.

If it doesnt get through, Murdoch will take the matter to court  & claim that the decision was political rather than based on the ethos of competition.

NotW is still going down and taking everyone with it and seeming sucking more in as it goes under. Murdoch beleives this gives him a clean slate, as his other businesses will not be connected to this particular problem.Brooks and the other twats will take the shit to ensure the rest of his fleet remain afloat.

And you know the worst thing - if it does go to Court following a CC rebuttal, he will likely win.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

Hunt on Radio 5 now http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/c​onsole/bbc_radio_five_live in the commons


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Edit: Worth noting that the CC will have a much weaker case once NewsCorp sheds NI. The BSkyB deal will go through as a result. Unless the 'fit & proper persons' test is evoked of course. But RM wants BSkyB. He's done with newspapers, they're not his priority anymore. They've got him where he is today, but there's no money in them. He has bigger fish to fry.


He's gambling of course. Perhaps the bigger question will become whether Cameron can be 'persuaded' to tell him to feck off regardless of the CC, and OFCOM hoops....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> my question
> 
> how many people go on to attain this level of critical thinking and source awareness?
> 
> ...


 
What level oh master? Of what does your level CONSIST of?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> He's gambling of course. Perhaps the bigger question will become whether Cameron can be 'persuaded' to tell him to feck off regardless of the CC, and OFCOM hoops....


 
He's always gambling, business IS a gamble. This is the best tactic in the circs, though. A bold amputation to stop the gangrene from spreading.
Edit: The most important thing right now for RM is to isolate this within his UK business. He absolutely has to protect his overseas interests. The level of media coverage this was getting in the US and Australia has probably been a major worry, particularly with this lawsuit from US shareholders.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 11, 2011)

Hunt referring to Competition Commission


----------



## gavman (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You might as well define it as taking pleasure in the failure of gardeners. It doesn't mean that though gav.


 
'satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune.' dictionary.com

over to you


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Business isn't a gamble, it a slow grinding out of other people lives for your own benefit. 

The relation between institutions is what counts now, not the institutions. Who grasses first.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> my question
> 
> how many people go on to attain this level of critical thinking and source awareness?
> 
> ...


 
People aren't as stupid as you think. It's not about believing the dominant narrative, it's about squeezing out space for anything else, including providing a conveniently safe anti-establishment narrative.

This is useful, as it the interview it dissects.

UK broadcast media are subject to a different set of regulations to the print media, BTW.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> 'satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune.' dictionary.com
> 
> over to you


Cab you take this dull and irrelevant petty spat off this thread please? In case you missed it, there's real, world-changing news going on. Thanks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> 'satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune.' dictionary.com
> 
> over to you


 
Not then "satisfaction or pleasure felt at the misfortune of gardeners or celebs"


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Business isn't a gamble, it a slow grinding out of other people lives for your own benefit.


 
It is, of course, both.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> "However we are extremely concerned and disappointed that the continuous release of selected information - that is only known by a small number of people - could have a significant impact on the corruption investigation."


 
Like making sure the investigation doesn't get to sweep everything under the carpet. I assume that's the significant impact that worries the Met.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 11, 2011)

Milliband on the attack in pmqs


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

The 9/11 hacking story is started to be picked up by more US media now. If any of this gets to stick, it could really hurt Murdoch, although the story's credibility is damaged by it only having one source (the Mirror) so far.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/07/were_911_victim.php


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Full spectrum guilty attack now. Bridges being crossed


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 11, 2011)

Re: kids' medical records: Presumably they did it to Cameron's child as well?


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2011)

Cameron's absence in the Commons is noteworthy.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

LOL. Somone sent me a link to this: George Michael - he's going mental on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/georgemichael




temper_tantrum said:


> He's always gambling, business IS a gamble. This is the best tactic in the circs, though. A bold amputation to stop the gangrene from spreading.
> Edit: The most important thing right now for RM is to isolate this within his UK business. He absolutely has to protect his overseas interests. The level of media coverage this was getting in the US and Australia has probably been a major worry, particularly with this lawsuit from US shareholders.


Hopefully,  with the 9/11 attempted hacking, the contagion has begun...


Milliband is doing reasonably well in HoC...


----------



## gavman (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> Cab you take this dull and irrelevant petty spat off this thread please? In case you missed it, there's real, world-changing news going on. Thanks.


 
ermm....i've been trying to talk about the story. blame the pedants


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Hopefully,  with the 9/11 attempted hacking, the contagion has begun...


 
I'm reasonably sure the two things (9/11 stories and the BSkyB move) are not unconnected. As soon as RM saw that the contagion was beginning to spread, he moved to isolate it.


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 11, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Milliband on the attack in pmqs


 
something about that phrase just doesn't seem right!


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

Hunt is going for the "we're all shit" line. Which is about right. Miliband is in danger of defeating his own purpose on this if he doesn't start hanging Blair and Brown out to dry.


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Milliband on the attack in pmqs


 
Its not PMQs, its Miliband trying to seize headlines by taking on Hunt during Media questions.  And failing.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

Jeremy  - checks to make sure the spelling is right - Hunt at the Despatch Box: "Now is not the time for party political posturing". Bless.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> Its not PMQs, its Miliband trying to seize headlines by taking on Hunt during Media questions.  And failing.


It's indicative of what labour's stategy will be though. Brazen finger pointing. It might work.


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Jeremy  - checks to make sure the spelling is right - Hunt at the Despatch Box: "Now is not the time for party political posturing". Bless.


 
He is right though, or at least he is a lot more right than a party who deliberately ignored everything that went on for at least eight years, and yet who now harp on about how bad it is.  Also that point of Milibands about tampering with evidence must surely be one of the most mindbendingly idiotic things ever heard in the Commons.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

That's the role of the Public Inquiries though?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Jeremy  - checks to make sure the spelling is right - Hunt at the Despatch Box: "Now is not the time for party political posturing". Bless.


 
Steps to deal with a serious and rapidly-spiralling public scandal:
1) claim 'now is not the time for party political posturing'
2) 'all right-thinking people will surely be horrified'
3) 'do the utmost to get to the bottom of this'
4) 'no stone left unturned'
5) 'not our place to pre-empt these serious enquiries'
6) sit down & hope it all goes away for another 6 months.
(Edit: 7) Pray for a re-shuffle in the meantime).


----------



## Santino (Jul 11, 2011)

Hunt has had to state publically that Cameron is a 'decent and honourable man'.

Is Cameron fucked?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Full spectrum guilty attack now. Bridges being crossed


 
What a great time to be alive this is.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Steps to deal with a serious and rapidly-spiralling public scandal:
> 1) claim 'now is not the time for party political posturing'
> 2) 'all right-thinking people will surely be horrified'
> 3) 'do the utmost to get to the bottom of this'
> ...



Very good!

We can now add: As PM, hide at Canary Wharf rather than speak to the HoC.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

lol @ Alan Johnston "I am surprised we have the monkey at the dispatch box and not the organ grinder"


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 11, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Milliband on the attack in pmqs


 
'Turn off the targetting computer, Ed. Use the force'


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

> Now is not the time for party political posturing"



Wheeled out when a party is on the rocks. _Help us or we'll fuck you._ Not today.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Very good!
> 
> We can now add: As PM, hide at Canary Wharf rather rather speak to the HoC.


 
Also, try the 'we are at war' line. 'He has matters of great gravity to deal with'. I note Hunt tried this one today as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> Hunt has had to state publically that Cameron is a 'decent and honourable man'.
> 
> Is Cameron fucked?


 
At this point, no, he's not been helped though. As there's bucket loads left he might be.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> lol @ Alan Johnston "I am surprised we have the monkey at the dispatch box and not the organ grinder"


 
    "I remember when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum's Circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the program which I most desired to see was the one described as 'The Boneless Wonder.' My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralizing and revolting for my youthful eye, and I have waited 50 years to see The Boneless Wonder--sitting on the Treasury Bench."

    --Winston Churchill, January 28, 1931,

    in the House of Commons, referring to Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

The stuff about Brown is from 2006 and 2001 right. I mean the stuff about his kids was PUBLISHED by the Sun, in 2002 and 2006.  So this is more info that the police have sat on for years. Why is this coming out now. Is someone leaking from within the police? I asked the same question in relation to the Milly Dowler phone hacking and still don't really get it. What is the source of all this stuff?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

How Vince the Mince must regret impressing those two eye-fluttering reporters.....


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 11, 2011)

Hunts doing pretty well tbf, holding his own at the box - only slip was to mention his Japanese eating monkeys!


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

dylans said:


> The stuff about Brown is from 2006 right. So this is more info that the police have sat on for years. Why is this coming out now. Is someone leaking from within the police? I asked the same question in relation to the Milly Dowler phone hacking and still don't really get it. What is the source of all this stuff?


 
This latest stuff is from Brown himself, and he has known about it for some time.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Summation of brown stuff



> Journalists from across News International repeatedly targeted the former prime minister Gordon Brown, attempting to access his voicemail and obtaining information from his bank account, his legal file as well as his family's medical records.
> 
> There is also evidence that a private investigator used a serving police officer to trawl the police national computer for information about him.


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 11, 2011)

The Met Police said:
			
		

> It is our belief that information that has appeared in the media today is part of a deliberate campaign to undermine the investigation into the alleged payments by corrupt journalists to corrupt police officers and divert attention from elsewhere.
> 
> At various meetings over the last few weeks information was shared with us by News International and their legal representatives and it was agreed by all parties that this information would be kept confidential so that we could pursue various lines of inquiry, identify those responsible without alerting them and secure best evidence.
> 
> ...





The shit storm thickens.....


----------



## rorymac (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> The 9/11 hacking story is started to be picked up by more US media now. If any of this gets to stick, it could really hurt Murdoch, although the story's credibility is damaged by it only having one source (the Mirror) so far.
> http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/07/were_911_victim.php


 

It's impossible not to believe it now .. especially when (or if tbf) the details of the 3 English people who died were specifically asked for ! 
Come on the US !!


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

This is great. The focus really must be on the Met as much as Murdoch.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 11, 2011)

Interesting tweet from jon snow:



> Hunt refers BSkyB take over to Competition Commission -imasculated by Labour Govt by the removal of 'fit&proper' and 'public interest' tests


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> This is great. The focus really must be on the Met as much as Murdoch.


 
It will be, though the Met at least have the advantage of actually trying to do something about it before now.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> This is great. The focus really must be on the Met as much as Murdoch.


 
I know someone linked to it a while ago, but it's worth re-posting:
http://transpont.blogspot.com/2011/07/power-corruptions-and-lies.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> It will be, though the Met at least have the advantage of actually trying to do something about it before now.



In what way?

Why were the guardian helping Cameron get away with/avoid this? (not directed to ag)


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> This latest stuff is from Brown himself, and he has known about it for some time.


 
So have we. They were published stories. November 30th  2006. 







Am I missing something here? Did noone ask where they got this information from at the time?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 11, 2011)

You've got to lol at the thought of the dude in front of the mirror at his home, perfecting his best GB impression to phone up the bank to access his bank details 

If it wasn't so morally bankrupt (for every sideways laugh, the though of 'Kah phoning GB to tell him about his Son turned my stomach a bit - just how does that conversation go?) Journalism sounds like a right interesting game to get into!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

dylans said:


> So have we. They were published stories. November 30th  2006.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's easy to assume that stuff about people like brown comes from brown. That's not a failure of investigation.


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> It will be, though the Met at least have the advantage of actually trying to do something about it before now.



Which is what I am personally more outraged by than the phone hacking. However you look at it, it is completely outrageous that these issues have been reported so often and for so long. It just highlights the systematic failure and corruption of the met police force.

I keep wondering what else the met are ignoring/hiding...


----------



## rorymac (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> He is right though, or at least he is a lot more right than a party who deliberately ignored everything that went on for at least eight years, and yet who now harp on about how bad it is.  Also that point of Milibands about tampering with evidence must surely be one of the most mindbendingly idiotic things ever heard in the Commons.



I get what you're saying re tory/new labour .. I doubt any socialist minded person on earth wouldn't end of imo


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's easy to assume that stuff about people like brown comes from brown. That's not a failure of investigation.


 
Well didn't Brown think to ask "hold on a minute, how the fuck did they get my son's confidential medical information?


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In what way?


 
For a start there is Motorman and the Goodman / Mulcaire case, then you also have the issues around the Morgan investigation and the rumoured meeting with Brooks.  

Of course this was not sufficient (as we are now seeing), but it was considerably more than what various Governments had done up until these last two weeks - and perhaps the fact as to why it wasnt sufficient is explained, to a degree, by the deliberate lack of interest shown by very senior political figures, even with regards to offences against themselves and their families.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

dylans said:


> Well didn't Brown think to ask "hold on a minute, how the fuck did they get my son's confidential medical information?


 
Of course he did. Hence today.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> Hunt has had to state publically that Cameron is a 'decent and honourable man'.
> 
> Is Cameron fucked?


 
That was in response to Straw asking them to provide an evidenced timeline for who said what to whom and when.

ie _"Evidence? Who needs evidence when Dave is a decent and honourable man? What a silly thing to suggest. His word is better than any amount of evidence. Pfft!"_


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

dylans said:


> Well didn't Brown think to ask "hold on a minute, how the fuck did they get my son's confidential medical information?


 
You miss the point btw, it that's Brown let this out. If the assumption is that, then who would follow it up?


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Of course he did. Hence today.


 
yeah of course he did. So basically he chose not to make this public until today. He also had evidence of phone hacking in the highest levels of government and, along with the police he chose to do nothing about it. He stayed quiet for 5 years, until today? Is that what this means or am I being dim here because something just seems fucking odd. We know that in the Milly Dowler case, the police knew for years and did nothing, but the victims were in the dark,  but in this case we are looking at a situation where the victim (brown) and the cops both decided to keep this information quiet?


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You miss the point btw, it that's Brown let this out. If the assumption is that, then who would follow it up?


 
The assumption from the public? yeah. But Brown knew he didn't right? He knew someone was sniffing around his child's confidential medical information. So the question is why did Brown decide to keep this quiet? More fear of Murdoch's career ending power?


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Interesting tweet from jon snow:


 
That's the nub of it. They're all going down.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2011)

dylans said:


> yeah of course he did. So basically he chose not to make this public until today. He also had evidence of phone hacking in the highest levels of government and, along with the police he chose to do nothing about it. He stayed quiet for 5 years, until today? Is that what this means or am I being dim here because something just seems fucking odd. We know that in the Milly Dowler case, the police knew for years and did nothing but in this case we are looking at a situation where the victim (brown) and the cops both decided to keep this information quiet?


 
It's a measure of the power NI wielded - that Brown felt that he could not say or do anything for fear that NI would turn on him.


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a measure of the power NI wielded - that Brown felt that he could not say or do anything for fear that NI would turn on him.


 
Its a bit more than that - he went to various functions, including Rebekah Brooks wedding.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

dylans said:


> The assumption from the public? yeah. But Brown knew he didn't right? He knew someone was sniffing around his child's confidential medical information. So the question is why did Brown decide to keep this quiet? More fear of Murdoch's career ending power?


 
Now you're getting there.


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a measure of the power NI wielded - that Brown felt that he could not say or do anything for fear that NI would turn on him.


 
Yes, that's what I was getting at. I just wanted to clarify that my assumption that Brown has kept this information quiet until today was correct and I wasn't missing something.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> Its a bit more than that - he went to various functions, including Rebekah Brooks wedding.



Same thing. He knew what they were doing yet he constructed a political model in which they did what he said. And that placed moral cowards like him in this position


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

dylans said:


> yeah of course he did. So basically he chose not to make this public until today. He also had evidence of phone hacking in the highest levels of government and, along with the police he chose to do nothing about it. He stayed quiet for 5 years, until today? Is that what this means or am I being dim here because something just seems fucking odd. We know that in the Milly Dowler case, the police knew for years and did nothing, but the victims were in the dark,  but in this case we are looking at a situation where the victim (brown) and the cops both decided to keep this information quiet?


 
Blackmail doesn't need to be explicit (although it often was, according to some worms that have turned).


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Same thing. He knew what they were doing yet he constructed a political model in which they did what he said.


 
Thats too generous to Brown.  Personally I think it would be closer to say that he accepted what they were doing to him and his family in order to his achieve his wider aims.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> Thats too generous to Brown.  Personally I think it would be closer to say that he accepted what they were doing to him and his family in order to his achieve his wider aims.


 
Same thing in the end.


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Same thing in the end.


 
It isnt not though - Murdochs aim was to make money, Browns was to run the country in the way that he wanted.


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

WWWeed said:


> The Met Police said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
That's a *very* direct accusation that News International is attempting to interfere (at least) with the course of justice.

I'm guessing, between the likes, that the Met refers to an attempt by NI to change the subject from their own crimes to bent Royal Protection coppers...


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Now you're getting there.


 
Yeah. Got it, The obscene level of corruption and outright cowardice is so blatant and enormous, that I had to shake my head and check that I wasn't missing something here. So Brown is so afraid of NI that he learns that they are snooping around in the most intimate details of his sick children's lives and he does nothing. All out of fear that big scary Murdoch may write nasty things about him and change their support to the Tories... So he does nothing, he bites his tongue, he sits on his hands .....and then...... They turn on him in the middle of the Labour Party conference and attack him anyway. WOW.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> It isnt not though - Murdochs aim was to make money, Browns was to run the country in the way that he wanted.


 
Is Murdoch's aim money? I dunno. I would guess that he's at least as motivated by power. Brown's aim was to get into and then stay in power, surely, little more than that.


----------



## mack (Jul 11, 2011)

Was Brown worried about other rumours about him? hence feeling pretty powerless to go for them?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is Murdoch's aim money? I dunno. I would guess that he's at least as motivated by power. Brown's aim was to get into and then stay in power, surely, little more than that.


 
It's got very little to with murdoch.


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is Murdoch's aim money? I dunno. I would guess that he's at least as motivated by power. Brown's aim was to get into and then stay in power, surely, little more than that.


 
No, I think money and getting more of it is his main aim, and whilst he might have had a lust of power its not as if he actually had to do anything - both main parties were desperately scrambling around for his affection anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 11, 2011)

mack said:


> Was Brown worried about other rumours about him? hence feeling pretty powerless to go for them?


 
Doubt it. More worried about NI turning on Labour, I would guess. I may be wrong, but Brown has always struck me as a scandal-free kind of character - scandal of the kiss-and-tell variety at least.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

mack said:


> Was Brown worried about other rumours about him? hence feeling pretty powerless to go for them?


 
This wasn't a rumour.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

What other rumours?


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

Psychiatric rumours?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yeah. Got it, The obscene level of corruption and outright cowardice is so blatant and enormous, that I had to shake my head and check that I wasn't missing something here. So Brown is so afraid of NI that he learns that they are snooping around in the most intimate details of his sick children's lives and he does nothing. All out of fear that big scary Murdoch may write nasty things about him and change their support to the Tories... So he does nothing, he bites his tongue, he sits on his hands .....and then...... They turn on him in the middle of the Labour Party conference and attack him anyway. WOW.


 
I have to admit I'm having trouble getting my head around this too


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 11, 2011)

Congratulations to this thread - one week old today at 5:33pm - nearly 100 pages, more than 3,700 posts, the _News Of The World_ has gone, _News International_ share prices are dropping, bent cops are still being named along with corrupt private detectives, there's preening politicians under the cosh, dodgy journalists on the back foot, links to murder and interfering with a child murder investigation, there's phone hacking and computer hacking, social engineering and social climbing; stolen medical records, business accounts and tax statements; crime victims, MPs, royals, celebs - all targeted, and more being announced all the time…

Basically something for everyone to get on board with


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

laptop said:


> Psychiatric rumours?


 
Not sure howthey'd effect a court case against anyone. Are they generally admissible?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This wasn't a rumour.


 
what was he worried about? i have to say im quite confused ... sorry !


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

keep the pressure on where it matters... hit the money...


> ‎'Dear AKA,
> 
> Thank you for your email.
> 
> ...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 11, 2011)

Anonymous threatening to hack the Met and/or release material according to Guardian.


----------



## mack (Jul 11, 2011)

There was always the "gay rumour"

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7501.html/


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

news corp stock now ‎-7.46


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure howthey'd effect a court case against anyone. Are they generally admissible?


 
I _thought_ the question was "what other rumours was Brown afraid News International would pursue - or stand up - if he complained publicly about the building society and/or medical records intrusion?"

If that wasn't the question, beg pardon.

If there *were to have been* something in the rumours about him being in the care of a psychiatrist, that'd explain a lot.

The other explanation is simply generalised fear of Murdoch - and now he's getting his revenge in by pointing out that it's not just the NotW, it's all the (Murdoch) papers, case far from closed with shutting the NotW.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 11, 2011)

You'd have to be made of strong stuff to not wish to confide in a therapist/counsellor etc when you consider how Brown was ridiculed by the press and the people...


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 11, 2011)

Weren't Blair's people spinning that Brown was 'nutter' from a very early point in the Nulabor era?


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I have to admit I'm having trouble getting my head around this too


 
Yes because it's massive. We are used to accepting a kind of symbiotic relationship between the media and the executive with each needing the other and being reliant on the other, with the media manufacturing consent, to use Chomsky's phrase and serving as a propaganda tool for the state,  but what we are witnessing the past week is the revealing of the total distortion of that relationship into one that is completely one sided. A relationship of the dominance of corporate media power over the elected executive and even the police. Murdoch, through political intimidation, has been free to act as king maker (and even if he hasn't, he has been able to convince the political elites that he has, which amounts to the same thing) and as a result has been able to operate with legal impunity even to the extent of being able to spy on the prime ministers family's (or Chancellor at the time) most intimate medical record, bank details and phone calls and the PM does nothing? Absolutely incredible.


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> what was he worried about? i have to say im quite confused ... sorry !


 
He was worried about Murdoch doing exactly what Murdoch did do. dumping Labour and supporting the Tories. The irony is, Brown did as he was told, gave the bully his lunch money and Murdoch fucked him anyway.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 11, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Weren't Blair's people spinning that Brown was 'nutter' from a very early point in the Nulabor era?


 
And others put forth the notion that Blair was mad... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/dec/01/uk.highereducation

I remember reading in PE or NS that Campbell allegedly threatened the careers of journos putting forth the said notion...


----------



## two sheds (Jul 11, 2011)

It would be nice if, looking back in a year's time, NI was seen as another Enron.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> And others put forth the notion that Blair was mad... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/dec/01/uk.highereducation
> 
> I remember reading in PE or NS that Campbell allegedly threatened the careers of journos putting forth the said notion...


 
What is your  point here?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Evidence of illegal data checks on Gordon Brown buried by 2005 ruling



> An unexpected ruling by a judge six years ago effectively covered up the chance to publicly expose evidence of the illegal targeting of Gordon Brown, which had been unearthed by a startled team of provincial detectives.
> 
> 
> Operation Reproof, by Plymouth police, revealed the first *of what became many systematic attempts to gain illegal confidential information on the prime minister and his family*, but their findings were suppressed.
> ...



My bold


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Evidence of illegal data checks on Gordon Brown buried by 2005 ruling


 
Wow so now we have the whole shebang. The executive, the police and now the judiciary,  all implicated in covering up for Murdoch, can things possibly get any dirtier? 



> An unexpected ruling by a judge six years ago effectively *covered up* the chance to publicly expose evidence of the illegal targeting of Gordon Brown, which had been unearthed by a startled team of provincial detectives.
> 
> Operation Reproof, by Plymouth police, revealed the first of what became many systematic attempts to gain illegal confidential information on the prime minister and his family, but their findings were *suppressed*.......
> 
> ...







(yes)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Now we have the judiciary  as well.



> hem to agree to limit the range of defendants and to focus research on their own west country area. But, a police spokesman told the Guardian this week, as far as those six were concerned: "We thought we had a strong case".
> 
> 
> The police team were then surprised and upset, when Judge Paul Darlow refused in 2005 to regard the issue as sufficiently serious to go to trial. He prevented a jury from hearing the case, saying the alleged behaviour was too trivial to justify criminal misconduct charges, and the proposed trial would be a waste of public money.
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

BBC coverage is mental, They really don't know what's going on.


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

> The police team were then surprised and upset, when Judge Paul Darlow refused in 2005 to regard the issue as sufficiently serious to go to trial. He prevented a jury from hearing the case, saying the alleged behaviour was *too trivial *to justify criminal misconduct charges, and the proposed trial would be a waste of public money.



Too trivial.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

My feeling is that Brown kept quiet becaue they had personal shit on him. 

News International were spying on everyone, News Interantional had a file on everyone and used that info to blackmail, bully and destroy people. 

Thats way beyond threatening to slag of the government in your newspaper - thats a huge criminal enterprise holding the entire political system to ransom. 

Thats also why talk of Murdoch dumping his newspapers as irrelevant cos they dont make much money is off the mark - they were the weapons that gave him power. He cant use sky news in the same way.


----------



## Mitre10 (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> And Rebekah's deep in it:


 

As much as I dislike Gordon Brown, the fact that these people published these disgusting releases regarding his dead daughter and his son is utterly vile. 

Sincerely hope the whole house of cards comes down and people near the top do some prison time.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

Skinner on form earlier...


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Now we have the judiciary  as well.


 
Is it?  Its one judge, making what admittedly seems to be a bizarre decision on the limited facts we have available to us.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yes because it's massive. We are used to accepting a kind of symbiotic relationship between the media and the executive with each needing the other and being reliant on the other, with the media manufacturing consent, to use Chomsky's phrase and serving as a propaganda tool for the state,  but what we are witnessing the past week is the revealing of the total distortion of that relationship into one that is completely one sided. A relationship of the dominance of corporate media power over the elected executive and even the police. Murdoch, through political intimidation, has been free to act as king maker (and even if he hasn't, he has been able to convince the political elites that he has, which amounts to the same thing) and as a result has been able to operate with legal impunity even to the extent of being able to spy on the prime ministers family's (or Chancellor at the time) most intimate medical record, bank details and phone calls and the PM does nothing? Absolutely incredible.


 
But why did he do nothing? What does NI have on him?? thats what i am really confused about (assuming he did know of course) why would anyone allow them to do that, i thought gordon brown was an incompetent idiot but i didn't think he could allow something like that to happen AND KNOW ABOUT IT? 

Is that what people are saying happened here? Im not saying anyone is wrong i just have a massive difficulty getting my head around it !


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> In the light of all these revelations, it's almost easy to lose perspective but _what the fuck_ was the Sun doing illegally accessing the medical records of Brown's disabled child? It's obscene.


 
I can't get passed this.   It's fucking obscene alright.   And if it's the Sunday Times and not notw....the *political* side of these things is terrifying.

This isn't a free press, this is a savage, political animal.

It has to end.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> But why did he do nothing? What does NI have on him?? thats what i am really confused about (assuming he did know of course) why would anyone allow them to do that, i thought gordon brown was an incompetent idiot but i didn't think he could allow something like that to happen AND KNOW ABOUT IT?


Because in 2005 no-one could fuck with them, no-one.   Same in 2010 and a bit of 2011.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

So how before an advertising boycott of all News Interantional publications takes off?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's got very little to with murdoch.


 
What did it have to do with in your opinion butch? Sorry for asking all these questions i'm just really confused. 

ive never believed gordon brown was capable of being a deliberate scumbag, a chracterless bureaucrat yes (and thereby a scumbag) an incompetent idiot but i never thought he had the sense/sophistication to cover up something like this, to do with his medical records, his kids??


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> Is it?  Its one judge, making what admittedly seems to be a bizarre decision on the limited facts we have available to us.


 
Why? On a bizarre basis or because he's tied up in it? How many other bizarre decisions are reached by one judge acting alone? Anyway, it was a polemical point, i expect that something so rotten and so deep would infect all parts of society that it came into contact with. And it assuredly came into contact with the part of society that produces judges. This one will be being checked up the journos now. Oh hang on...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

If Murdoch could bend politicians and policemen to his will - why not judges?

Al Capone with a scandal sheet tommy gun.


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> But why did he do nothing? What does NI have on him?? thats what i am really confused about (assuming he did know of course) why would anyone allow them to do that, i thought gordon brown was an incompetent idiot but i didn't think he could allow something like that to happen AND KNOW ABOUT IT?


 
Because the scope of this is massive, would (and will) require immense reserves of political effort and skill to fix, it involves serious people committing serious crimes, and would (as we are seeing) severely impact whichever government happened to be in power when it was exposed.   These are all powerful reasons for Brown (and Labour) not to do anything about it, plus of course one should remember there are rewards for *not* doing anything about it - not the least of which is gaining press support for his party.  Browns inaction does not mean that they have something on him (indeed, if you want to be really cynical then surely if they did have something big on him they would have kept him around).


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> My feeling is that Brown kept quiet becaue they had personal shit on him.
> 
> News International were spying on everyone, News Interantional had a file on everyone and used that info to blackmail, bully and destroy people.
> 
> ...


 
The anti-Broon hacking took place when Blair was PM.

When Brown took over, they started schmoozing him instead:



> To describe her as a friend of David Cameron would be to underestimate their intimacy, say friends. Brooks and her second husband Charlie, a racehorse trainer and old Etonian, live very close to the Camerons in Oxfordshire. They met for dinner at least once over Christmas, and frequently see each other at weekends with what has been termed the "Chipping Norton set" – among them the PR man Matthew Freud and his partner, Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth, and Jeremy Clarkson . Brooks has even commented that unlike Murdoch senior she has no need to go to Downing Street for audiences with Cameron, since she sees him so frequently socially.
> 
> It is easy to forget that she was just as intimate with Cameron's predecessor, and the man at No 10 before that. Brooks, then Wade, was seen by many as half of a Labour power-couple, thanks to her then husband Ross Kemp 's vocal support of the party and their close relationship with the Blairs. So intimate a friend did Cherie Blair consider her, in fact, that she reproached the then editor for attending a party at 11 Downing St, seat of the hated Browns. That cooled as her friendship with the Browns grew closer – Brooks attended a "sleepover" of female friends of Sarah Brown's at Chequers in 2008. Guy (now Lord) Black, ex-director of the Press Complaints Commission, and his partner, Mark Bolland, once Prince Charles 's aide, were once holiday companions.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/08/rebekah-brooks-profile-phone-hacking


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> But why did he do nothing? What does NI have on him?? thats what i am really confused about (assuming he did know of course) why would anyone allow them to do that, i thought gordon brown was an incompetent idiot but i didn't think he could allow something like that to happen AND KNOW ABOUT IT?
> 
> Is that what people are saying happened here? Im not saying anyone is wrong i just have a massive difficulty getting my head around it !


 
Yes, that Brown said nothing because he was scared. fwiw I don't buy into the whole "they had something on him" line. I think the answer is much more simple than that. He kept quiet because some in the shadows of the party, told him, "attack NI and say goodbye to a labour victory". This is what they believed. This is what Blair believed and the lesson of the infamous Kinnock front page is one that has reached the level of lore within the Labour party, piss off Murdoch and lose the election. This was the mantra, this was the legend and the myth and they followed it and in doing so they made the myth a reality. There is no need for a corpse under the floorboards or a set of compromising photos in the drawer. This.the belief that Murdoch makes the kings, was enough. Brown was told, and Brown did as he was told. 


And Murdoch fucked him anyway.


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

Alistair Campbell on BBC - "We knew this was going on, we just didnt know the extent of it"

One more for the fib count, then.


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

> News International said it would investigate the claims.
> 
> In a statement, the company said: "We note the allegations made today concerning the reporting of matters relating to Gordon Brown. So that we can investigate these matters further, we ask that all information concerning these allegations is provided to us."
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14112097



The Met: "for fuck's sake don't give the cunts a thing".


----------



## 8den (Jul 11, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yes, that Brown said nothing because he was scared. fwiw I don't buy into the whole "they had something on him" line. I think the answer is much more simple than that. He kept quiet because some in the shadows of the party, told him, "attack NI and say goodbye to a labour victory". This is what they believed. This is what Blair believed and the lesson of the infamous Kinnock front page is one that has reached the level of lore within the Labour party, piss off Murdoch and lose the election. This was the mantra, this was the legend and the myth and they followed it and in doing so they made the myth a reality. There is no need for a corpse under the floorboards or a set of compromising photos in the drawer. This.the belief that Murdoch makes the kings, was enough. Brown was told, and Brown did as he was told.
> 
> 
> And Murdoch fucked him anyway.


 

If you want to look at journalistic integrity, look at the exchange of e-mails between the blogger Girl with a one track mind and the Sunday Times Journalist who outed her; 

"Pretty much we have you, we have everything about, we're going to publish all your personal details, now be a good girl, get in the car we're going to send for you, tart yourself up for the photoshoot and lets be having ya".


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

> We note the allegations made today concerning the reporting of matters relating to Gordon Brown. So that we can investigate these matters further, we ask that all information concerning these allegations is provided to us.



Check your emails.


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Check your emails.


 
very mysterious. please do expand


----------



## teqniq (Jul 11, 2011)

Well well well.

Chickens, roost?

No, there doesn't seem to presently be an adequate metaphor.

*awaits an interesting selection of floating bodies*


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

The quote is the NI response. The reply indicate that the evidence is in the never reported emails.


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

Maybe NI IT accidentally deleted the emails dealing with the Plymouth case?


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Skinner on form earlier...




legend! He was quite funny at the Miners Gala too, as usual


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

Ah. NI decided to lett Jeremy Hunt off the hook... 



> Forty-five minutes before Hunt was due to get up and address MPs to update them on how he would handle the Sky bid, Murdoch's News Corp said it was "withdrawing its proposed undertakings in lieu of reference to the Competition Commission".
> 
> Without the undertaking – spinning off Sky News into a separately listed public company 39.1% owned by News Corp – Hunt will have no alternative but to refer the bid for BSkyB to the Competition Commission.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/11/news-corp-bskyb-bid-hunt-competition-commission



So neither he nor Cameron needs to to a U-turn and block the bid: their hands are tied.

Still.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 11, 2011)

Can anyone sum up in a few words wtf's happened today for me please?

Ta


----------



## teqniq (Jul 11, 2011)

best can of worms, ever.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 11, 2011)

the shit has hit the fan, agin


----------



## rorymac (Jul 11, 2011)

Ongoing saga Bishie .. little bit of obfuscation .. little bit whey little bit blah blah


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 11, 2011)

Cheers!


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 11, 2011)

Tweet from Henry Kissinger:



> Henry_Kissinger Henry Kissinger
> I've never known a more honest & decent man than Rupert Murdoch, including even President Nixon. It's time to stop this liberal witch hunt.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 11, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Tweet from Henry Kissinger:



pmsl


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> news corp stock now ‎-7.46


 
how much has the price dropped since the scandal broke?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 11, 2011)

a tweet from tom watson:



> tom_watson tom_watson
> Robert @peston is being spoon fed the internal NI document handed over to the Met in chunks.They're spinning their bad news. It's not right.



he does seem to be well briefed


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2011)

Bishie: Rupert's thrown cameron a bone by essentially volunteering to be refered to the competition commission (so one presumes there will be no vote for cameron to lose on wednesday)
Gordon brown has revealed his and his dead kid's records were hacked
George michael is kicking some arse.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 11, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> a tweet from tom watson:
> 
> 
> 
> he does seem to be well briefed


 
How does that help NI?


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

marty21 said:


> how much has the price dropped since the scandal broke?


 
News Corp on New York down 7%:


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 11, 2011)

killer b said:


> Bishie: Rupert's thrown cameron a bone by essentially volunteering to be refered to the competition commission (so one presumes there will be no vote for cameron to lose on wednesday)
> Gordon brown has revealed his and his dead kid's records were hacked
> George michael is kicking some arse.



I knew George had it in him!


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

marty21 said:


> how much has the price dropped since the scandal broke?



Newscorp stock price is currently -6.69% wiping out 934.26 MILLION off its stock price


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

trashpony said:


> How does that help NI?


 
Changes the subject, as I suggested above. Take the heat of NI by focusing on corrupt plod. 

Not that corrupt plod aren't important, but focusing on one thing at a time would allow much more harm to be done to NI. 

I think.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 11, 2011)

laptop said:


> News Corp on New York down 7%:View attachment 16278



Best graph i've ever seen


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Newscorp stock price is currently -6.69% wiping out 934.26 MILLION off its stock price


 
ouch!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2011)

with all the people who've been hacked, including the queen, they must have done thatcher too.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2011)

Simon hughes is a dull cunt.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> with all the people who've been hacked, including the queen, they must have done thatcher too.


 
I doubt she had a mobile phone tbf, she might have had an aide with a phone, but they weren't that common in 1990 when the Tories stabbed her in the back


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> a tweet from tom watson:
> 
> 
> > tom_watson tom_watson
> ...


 The point's been made already here - the Met is drip-feeding disclosure in order to focus the attention on Murdoch and to maintain the pressure.

It's wrong, but at least now the 'good' cops are leaking to the 'good' journalists.... ish.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 11, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Tweet from Henry Kissinger:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2011)

i'm not sure if it really is kissenger tbh.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

It doesn't matter.


----------



## paolo (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> The point's been made already here - the Met is drip-feeding disclosure in order to focus the attention on Murdoch and to maintain the pressure.
> 
> It's wrong, but at least now the 'good' cops are leaking to the 'good' journalists.... ish.


 
Dunno if they'd want to do that. It would be giving their suspects advance warning. Given the damage already caused to the met, I don't sense they are up for inviting loads more at this point.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 11, 2011)

The way the Met are doing it is to 'notify' people they were on Mulcaire's list slowly over time. Then, like Gordon Brown,  some/many those people choose to go public.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 11, 2011)

Jon Craig just referred to  Jeremy Hunt as Mr Cunt before correcting himself on Sky News


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2011)

When i went down to buy the local papers today the murdoch papers were covering the story and seemingly being quite critical of murdoch etc ...


----------



## paolo (Jul 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> The way the Met are doing it is to 'notify' people they were on Mulcaire's list slowly over time. Then, like Gordon Brown,  some/many those people choose to go public.


 
I think we're talking cross purposes.

I was referring to the stuff that the met is complaining about being leaked.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)




----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2011)

Well another interesting day on this story, with many more to come I am sure.

Murdoch's move to get the Sky takeover kicked into the long grass whilst he attempts to sort out the shit at the newspapers is a clever move, and in no way does a referral to the CC change anything regarding what OFCOM may or may not do, despite what some have posted, competition issues are totally different to 'fit & proper' issues concerning broadcast licences. 

The EU has already ruled there's no competition issues, so he knows that the CC can only rule the same esp now he's closed the NOTW, reducing competition issues anyway. 

Now he has lost the power of his press, it wouldn't surprise me if he attempts to off-load the newspapers, and even agree stronger safeguards concerning the independence of Sky News, just to secure the Sky deal in a year or so.

Gordon Brown crawling out of the stone he should have remained under is also an interesting turn - basically admitting he was a weak PM and shitting himself over the power of Murdoch at the time, so did fuck all about it when he should have done. 

Most of this crap happened under Blair & Brown, and now we have Brown admitting he not only knew what was going on, but knew he was a victim - somewhat fucks Ed's  attempts to pile most of the blame on the current government.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 11, 2011)

killer b said:


> i'm not sure if it really is kissenger tbh.


 
It's not - it says 'parody' next to his name.  Still funny though.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Well another interesting day on this story, with many more to come I am sure.
> 
> Murdoch's move to get the Sky takeover kicked into the long grass whilst he attempts to sort out the shit at the newspapers is a clever move, and in no way does a referral to the CC change anything regarding what OFCOM may or may not do, despite what some have posted, competition issues are totally different to 'fit & proper' issues concerning broadcast licences.
> 
> ...


 
Ed is sitting pretty, Disco Dave hired Coulson, has cosy lunches with Brooks - Ed didn't and doesn't.


----------



## dylans (Jul 11, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Well another interesting day on this story, with many more to come I am sure.
> 
> Murdoch's move to get the Sky takeover kicked into the long grass whilst he attempts to sort out the shit at the newspapers is a clever move, and in no way does a referral to the CC change anything regarding what OFCOM may or may not do, despite what some have posted, competition issues are totally different to 'fit & proper' issues concerning broadcast licences.
> 
> ...


 
No no no no no no no. Cameron doesn't get off on this one. He brought a man who is now accused of what amounts to industrial espionage, spying for commercial purposes, into the heart of government and gave him access to classified information.  Nothing that happened under Brown or Blair (cowardly wankers that they are) changes that. Cameron fucked up badly and he should burn for it.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2011)

marty21 said:


> Ed is sitting pretty, Disco Dave hired Coulson, has cosy lunches with Brooks - Ed didn't and doesn't.


 
Ed was at a Murdoch party recently and admits he didn't bring-up the 'hacking' story when he had the chance to do so, he's been silence on the matter until he spotted an opportunity last week, he knew both Blair & Brown were so far up Murdoch's arse that you could see their heads popping out Murdoch's mouth.

Opportunist twat, he's just as bad as the rest.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2011)

editor said:


> Full list of known hacking victims here:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/10/phone-hacking-victims-list


 
Why do the Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday journalists get given numbers on that list, but everybody else is listed by name?


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

marty21 said:


> Ed is sitting pretty, Disco Dave hired Coulson, has cosy lunches with Brooks - Ed didn't and doesn't.


 
You got a crush on Ed or summat? Labour are in this up to their necks. Sarah Brown had Brooks over for a slumber party, whilst Cherie Blair reproached her for being friendly with their enemies (the Browns). Why in hell are you trying to give them an easy ride?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2011)

dylans said:


> No no no no no no no. Cameron doesn't get off on this one. He brought a man who is now accused of what amounts to industrial espionage, spying for commercial purposes, into the heart of government and gave him access to classified information.  Nothing that happened under Brown or Blair (cowardly wankers that they are) changes that. Cameron fucked up badly and he should burn for it.



True, but this story is nothing compared to what Blair, in particular, did - illegal wars, for example.

Cameron will survive this, whether we like it or not.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> True, but this story is nothing compared to what Blair, in particular, did - illegal wars, for example.
> 
> Cameron will survive this, whether we like it or not.


 
Very doubtful. And a disappointing lack of ambition, too.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> You got a crush on Ed or summat? Labour are in this up to their necks. Sarah Brown had Brooks over for a slumber party, whilst Cherie Blair reproached her for being friendly with their enemies (the Browns). Why in hell are you trying to give them an easy ride?



+ 1


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> You got a crush on Ed or summat? Labour are in this up to their necks. Sarah Brown had Brooks over for a slumber party, whilst Cherie Blair reproached her for being friendly with their enemies (the Browns). Why in hell are you trying to give them an easy ride?


 
This, and of course this:


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2011)

he looks like a right evil bastard.


----------



## Weller (Jul 11, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Jon Craig just referred to  Jeremy Hunt as Mr Cunt before correcting himself on Sky News


 
classic


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

Actually, having seen this picture in the Daily Mail, perhaps a little too much of News International is being exposed (apologies if its a repost).


----------



## teqniq (Jul 11, 2011)

I feel that this displays for all to see and what many may have thought: what a sordid, disgusting incestuous pile of shite it all is.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jul 11, 2011)

Sky Corp are not "Selling off Sky News" shock! Horror! ... lol... they "NOTW" hacked into the Queen's phone thanks to the "Royal Protection Officers" yes the same twats that drove into the rioting protesters... they sold the details for money... and now wait for it they wait "Hacked into Gordan Browns" phone shock horror!!!  not to mention that "Sky org leek about the bigoted old women comment which was recorded by Sky Corp...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Sky Corp are not "Selling off Sky News" shock! Horror! ... lol... they "NOTW" hacked into the Queen's phone thanks to the "Royal Protection Officers" yes the same twats that drove into the rioting protesters... they sold the details for money... and now wait for it they wait "Hacked into Gordan Browns" phone shock horror!!!  not to mention that "Sky org leek about the bigoted old women comment which was recorded by Sky Corp...


 
Thank you for your comments. They've been chucked into the bin. Same as your your original comments about what happened at G20 eh?


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jul 11, 2011)

shock horror butchersapron memory is better than my own and I can't even remember what I said...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

No you can't. Let's not drive this into your loon bigoted women shit set-up though. It's worth better than that.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> Actually, having seen this picture in the Daily Mail, perhaps a little too much of News International is being exposed (apologies if its a repost).


 
If ever there was a case for embedding a pic ...


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2011)

Rupe is basically monty burns isn't he?


----------



## strung out (Jul 11, 2011)

excellent


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

killer b said:


> Rupe is basically monty burns isn't he?


 
but who then is smithers?


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2011)

Good shout.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

"He looks like one of the Drunken Bakers from Viz."


----------



## teqniq (Jul 11, 2011)

Smithers, oh lol


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> "He looks like one of the Drunken Bakers from Viz."




How does this guy manage to look and sound so much like a cartoon-style-rat-tabliod-muck-racking-habk....it's uncanny.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> How does this guy manage to look and sound so much like a cartoon-style-rat-tabliod-muck-racking-habk....it's uncanny.


a) Cos he was.

b) Cos he's a pub landlord now and has absolutely nothing to lose bar his expense account with the Guardian. 

Think of it as the Guardian/Rusbridger version of Brooks' taking a serious wannabe journo and making him dress up as Harry Potter.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> You got a crush on Ed or summat? Labour are in this up to their necks. Sarah Brown had Brooks over for a slumber party, whilst Cherie Blair reproached her for being friendly with their enemies (the Browns). Why in hell are you trying to give them an easy ride?


 
I don't like him as it happens, just talking about how he is playing the game.


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> How does this guy manage to look and sound so much like a cartoon-style-rat-tabliod-muck-racking-habk....it's uncanny.


 
Is it the stitches in his cheek?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 11, 2011)

laptop said:


> Is it the stitches in his cheek?


 
I look at him and I see a lanky, hairy, grey, cartoon rat in a beige suit...all he needs is a hat with a card in it saying 'press'...uncanny.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> How does this guy manage to look and sound so much like a cartoon-style-rat-tabliod-muck-racking-habk....it's uncanny.


 
I find the clips of him, and this one in particlar, the way he talks, fascinating...he talks like I imagine I do, he's asked a question and see him start to answer it, the his mind shoots off in different directions, he forgets much of what he should remember, reveals much of what he shouldn't, and the point he's trying to make, like a clean, sober cokehead! 

All bordering on endearing if he's dropping his former employees, but I pity the poor guys who have to decifer all that when I have to explain some insurance analysis!


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

stock price for newscorp is now -7.10%...thats almost down a billion


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 11, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> I find the clips of him, and this one in particlar, the way he talks, fascinating...he talks like I imagine I do, he's asked a question and see him start to answer it, the his mind shoots off in different directions, he forgets much of what he should remember, reveals much of what he shouldn't, and the point he's trying to make, like a clean, sober cokehead!
> 
> All bordering on endearing if he's dropping his former employees, but I pity the poor guys who have to decifer all that when I have to explain some insurance analysis!



I can see why people are liking him for his drop-others-in-it factor...I just can't get past an overwhelming sensation that tells me; CartoonjournalistRat, couldn't trust him as far as I could throw him....judgemental I know but seriously, I am quite intrigued because I feel it so strongly with him.  Never had someone provoke such a vivid caricature ever.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 11, 2011)

Does McMullan only have that one suit?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> shock horror butchersapron memory is better than my own and I can't even remember what I said...


 
the beauty of a forum is you can go back through your posts and see what you've said.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Does McMullan only have that one suit?


 
doesn't look a fit man to own a pub does he?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I can see why people are liking him for his drop-others-in-it factor...I just can't get past an overwhelming sensation that tells me; CartoonjournalistRat, couldn't trust him as far as I could throw him....judgemental I know but seriously, I am quite intrigued because I feel it so strongly with him.  Never had someone provoke such a vivid caricature ever.


 
Thing is, he's one of the few people being honest here.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 11, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Does McMullan only have that one suit?



he'd be able to afford a new suit or two after the week he's just had - suspect he'll piss it all up against the wall though.


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 11, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Does McMullan only have that one suit?



It's his 'I'm Martin Bell. You can trust me' suit..


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 11, 2011)

Aye..Martin Bell...that's who he is.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

Small point, The guardian site says:

News International papers targeted Brown

Why not?

News International papers hacked Brown?

Is there really still some holding back at this point?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jul 11, 2011)

REPLY FROM LEEDS LABOUR MP (fabian Hamilton ) 


> Dear AKA,
> 
> There is no way on earth that I would have supported the BskyB takeover even before the current revelations. No Labour MP will support this but we also need the LibDems and some Tories to oppose it as well. Sadly, there won't be a vote on the ...issue for months, but we have tabled an opposition day motion on Wednesday which will require the Government Parties to think before they vote individually – we'll see what they do. Today in the House, Ed Miliband asked for all discussions on the takeover to be halted until the police have finished their enquiries.
> 
> ...



feck bitchin, get active......


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

You don't get to decide do you fabian you expenses thief.

Active? Doesn't mean asking these thiefs to act for you.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I can see why people are liking him for his drop-others-in-it factor...I just can't get past an overwhelming sensation that tells me; CartoonjournalistRat, couldn't trust him as far as I could throw him....judgemental I know but seriously, I am quite intrigued because I feel it so strongly with him.  Never had someone provoke such a vivid caricature ever.



x1


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Small point, The guardian site says:
> 
> News International papers targeted Brown
> 
> ...


 
Possibly because it's not just about hacking any more. Mobile phone messages have been listened to and trojans passed on in emails, but they didn't hack his medical records - they got someone to photocopy them.

It is not a hacking-only scandal, and never could have been, given that this shit started under Thatcher, from when NotW went tabloid in 1984, long before PCs took hold, let alone mobile phones.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> i defined it as exactly that, taking pleasure in the misfortune of celebs


 
If that is the case, then you're inarticulate.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> Possibly because it's not just about hacking any more. Mobile phone messages have been listened to and trojans passed on in emails, but they didn't hack his medical records - they got someone to photocopy them.
> 
> It is not a hacking-only scandal, and never could have been, given that this shit started under Thatcher, from when NotW went tabloid in 1984, long before PCs took hold, let alone mobile phones.


 
In that case then, we well beyond 1984 and the NOTW.

On why it doesn't say hacking, yes, you're right - they claim that there's been 'interception'.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 11, 2011)

James Murdoch used to follow the grateful dead around and wanted to be an archaeologist .. goes to show the nature of business and the survival of the fittest aint an exact science beyond even a single generation !!


----------



## two sheds (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You might as well define it as taking pleasure in the failure of gardeners. It doesn't mean that though gav.


 
That would be gardenfreude


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2011)

two sheds said:


> That would be gardenfreude


 
Bastard


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Small point, The guardian site says:
> 
> News International papers targeted Brown
> 
> ...


 
I think it's that they didn't *just* "hack" Brown: they blagged bank/mortgage details; attempted (says the _Guardian_) to hack his voicemail; and obtained legal and medical records by means unspecified.

Also, "targeted" has more of a flavour of "were out to get"...


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In that case then, we well beyond 1984 and the NOTW.
> 
> On why it doesn't say hacking, yes, you're right - they claim that there's been 'interception'.


It always has been about more than NotW. Murdoch is just particularly arrogant in his exercise of power and Thatcher particularly craven in her sucking up to right-wing newspaper proprietors - leaving her spineless successors to do what came naturally to them without even bothering to try and hide it.

The sheer untouchable arrogance of it all is what eventually brought it all crashing down, IMO.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 11, 2011)

laptop said:


> I think it's that they didn't *just* "hack" Brown: they blagged bank/mortgage details; attempted (says the _Guardian_) to hack his voicemail; and obtained legal and medical records by means unspecified.
> 
> Also, "targeted" has more of a flavour of "were out to get"...


dont we have really shit security services .....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> my question
> 
> how many people go on to attain this level of critical thinking and source awareness?



Anyone who sees differences and chooses to ask "why?".



> clearly for someone as brilliant as you it was inevitable.



Clearly.



> is that true for everyone?



It's true for anyone who wants to do so.



> i remember being taught to assess different sources as part of o-level history. lots of kids didn't do o-level history, and of those that did many never developed the ability to think critically about the perspectives they were offered.
> so what to some was a springboard to greater insight, for others was a barrier never surmounted. many people still believe what they read in the paps



So you keep saying, but you provide nothing to substantiate your opinions except...your opinions. No facts, no data at all.

You talk about "critical thinking" as though it's a skill divorced from everyday life. It isn't. The man who studies the form of horses in order to back a horse more likely to place learns to think critically - to weigh evidence from different sources and attribute values to that evidence. 

You set yourself up as an "enlightened" spectator and pass judgement on these "many" 9according to you) people who don't engage in critical thinking, but by your own lack of engagement in critical thinking on the subject, you show yourself to be guilty of what you abhor.



> and regarding the abstract nature of impartiality, uk broadcasters seem to do a better job than print media most of the time, so i don't believe it's anything like as problematic as you suggest


 
Impartiality is a chimera. It doesn't exist. All mediated information is value-laden. The act of mediation sees to that, even without overt "spin". The reason that broadcast media *seems* more impartial is due to the way you (as a viewer) interact with the broadcast media - the relationship is more personal. What's printed in a paper is inflexible, impersonal prose. You (the consumer) relate to the forms of media differently.

This, by the way, is elementary stuff that "media studies" students learn in their first year at uni.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> It is not a hacking-only scandal, and never could have been, given that this shit started under Thatcher, from when NotW went tabloid in 1984, long before PCs took hold, let alone mobile phones.


so before 1984 the news of the world didn't do anything of this sort.


----------



## theCIA (Jul 11, 2011)

not a word of this on fox's main new site, and only some drivel on the business page.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> so before 1984 the news of the world didn't do anything of this sort.


 
You left out the p)


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 11, 2011)

News International hacked the police officers investigating phone hacking:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/europe/12yard.html?_r=1&hp


----------



## gavman (Jul 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anyone who sees differences and chooses to ask "why?".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
i find waffle extends throughout academia, far beyond the first year


----------



## gavman (Jul 11, 2011)

two sheds said:


> That would be gardenfreude


----------



## gavman (Jul 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> If that is the case, then you're inarticulate.


 
then lets not play together anymore


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> i find waffle extends throughout academia, far beyond the first year


But you're assuming that people need formal education to work this out, which is nonsense. Most education encourages people to accept the establishment view without question, even as it explains how to expose the bullshit (if it ever does). 

Take medical science. The stuff I teach usually challenges orthodox views, and it is invariably the research assistants, admin officers and 'consumers' (ugh) who spot the problems before the medics, because the medics are too afraid to call bullshit on a published author. My boss nearly failed her masters in neurology ~25 years ago because she reported all her failed experiments. These days, you'd fail if you didn't, but back then all the apparent master scientists were just throwing away any results that didn't suit their theories, and people were being taught to do that when it is self-evidently wrong. 

To assume that people generally just accept what they're told unless they're formally educated in how to think for themselves is massively arse about face.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> i find waffle extends throughout academia, far beyond the first year


 
It's hardly waffle, it's a fairly standard *analysis* supported by about 30 years of psychological research. 

Of course, you'd *like* it to be "waffle", but fate just isn't being kind to you, Gav.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2011)

In the Guardian article it says that Brown 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/11/phone-hacking-news-international-gordon-brown 



> Scotland Yard recently wrote separately to Brown and to his wife to tell them that their details had been found in evidence collected by Operation Weeting, the special inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World. It is believed that this refers to handwritten notes kept by Mulcaire, which were seized by police in August 2006 and never previously investigated. Brown last year asked Scotland Yard if there was evidence he had been targeted by the private investigator and was told there was none.



wtf ...


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 11, 2011)

Yes, and they HACKED THE FUCKING PLOD INVESTIGATING THEM. It's full-on criminal conspiracy stuff now, there's no way Murdoch can escape unscathed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> To assume that people generally just accept what they're told unless they're formally educated in how to think for themselves is massively arse about face.



Absolutely, which is why gavman's attribution of unthinking acceptance by (to use his own word) "many" people of what they read in the paper shows a lack of understanding, and a horrific level of condescension from this supposedly enlightened poster.

To assume that because a person reads a particular paper they're unwilling and/or unable to think critically is the worst kind of humbug.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2011)

elevendayempire said:


> Yes, and they HACKED THE FUCKING PLOD INVESTIGATING THEM. It's full-on criminal conspiracy stuff now, there's no way Murdoch can escape unscathed.


 
Do we mean Murdoch, or do we mean News International/Newscorp, though?

I'd rather see News International tank, and earn Murdoch the loss of power and position, than just see Rupe retire from public life, IYSWIM.


----------



## pk (Jul 11, 2011)

Oh, this gets gooder and gooder by the day.

Cops are livid, ex-NoTW staff setting up anonymous accounts to drop even more examples of horrific insider stuff, it's almost too good to be true!

Putting hundreds of media-savvy unscrupulous hacks out on "gardening leave" whilst trying to spin a sympathy tale is probably Murdoch's most "senior" moment to date.

Newsflash, Rupert... your fucking phones and Rebekah Wade's too were almost certainly hacked by the cops, think this was a one-way street?

I've waited a long time for this, I really have.


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do we mean Murdoch, or do we mean News International/Newscorp, though?
> 
> I'd rather see News International tank, and earn Murdoch the loss of power and position, than just see Rupe retire from public life, IYSWIM.


Best-case scenario: Rupert, James and Rebekah facing criminal charges in the UK and US, ruled not 'fit and proper' to own a single share of BSkyB, News Corp effectively dismantled, and the phone-hacking rot spreading to the Daily Mail and Dacre. Oh, that would be _beautiful_.


----------



## flutterbye (Jul 11, 2011)

Are the telephone companies escaping from this unscathed?


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 11, 2011)

pk said:


> Oh, this gets gooder and gooder by the day.
> 
> Cops are livid, ex-NoTW staff setting up anonymous accounts to drop even more examples of horrific insider stuff, it's almost too good to be true!
> 
> ...


We already know the NotW hacks tapped into Brooks' phone for the lulz, right? They _must _have some dirt on her. Firing 200 of them was not, perhaps, the best idea NI have ever had.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do we mean Murdoch, or do we mean News International/Newscorp, though?
> 
> I'd rather see News International tank, and earn Murdoch the loss of power and position, than just see Rupe retire from public life, IYSWIM.


 
Newsnight just had his biographer on, from the US. According to him, it's now an issue of corporate governance over there. Murdoch running a public company like a personal fiefdom, what the fuck were the board doing, etc etc.

Looks like we can happily answer 'both' to that question.


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

elevendayempire said:


> Best-case scenario: Rupert, James and Rebekah facing criminal charges in the UK and US, ruled not 'fit and proper' to own a single share of BSkyB, News Corp effectively dismantled, and the phone-hacking rot spreading to the Daily Mail and Dacre. Oh, that would be _beautiful_.


 
That's the worst case scenario now, surely.

Best case is the coalition crumbling along with everything New Labour stood for, the complete collapse of the Met, CPS and large parts of the judiciary, along with the pro-austerity, pro-banker media in this country, and a series of governments brought to their knees in short order whilst we, 'the people'. have a proper think about what democracy really means and how we want to implement it.

That is an absolute best case scenario, obv.


----------



## elbows (Jul 11, 2011)

Several times in 2011 I thought Id died and gone to heaven.

Oh news, you've seldom been so sweet, a long way to go but a good start.

Potential. Hope of real change on multiple fronts. Gains not solidified yet by any means but at least there is potential. Don't know which way the winds of change are blowing yet but at least they are blowing in a way that isn't 100% ugly, unlike certain decades I could name.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2011)

my feelings too elbows - am i being too optimistic do you think?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 11, 2011)

Take me... 
to the magic of the moment,
on a glory night,
where the children of tomorrow dream away,
on the wind of change...

*waves lighter


----------



## pk (Jul 11, 2011)

I hear nasty revelations about hacking into Harry Potter star's phone messages are imminent, particularly those of Emma Watson and Rupert Grint when they were still young children.. lots and lots of jaw-dropping stuff from beyond the grave too, email accounts, etc.

This will be another week of rage against the Murdochs.

If I were them I'd liquidate all UK assets and flee.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2011)

pk said:


> Newsflash, Rupert... your fucking phones and Rebekah Wade's too were almost certainly hacked by the cops, think this was a one-way street?


 why would the cops need to hack them when the state's got ECHELON?


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 11, 2011)

pk said:


> I hear nasty revelations about hacking into Harry Potter star's phone messages are imminent, particularly those of Emma Watson and Rupert Grint when they were still young children.. lots and lots of jaw-dropping stuff from beyond the grave too, email accounts, etc.
> 
> This will be another week of rage against the Murdochs.
> 
> If I were them I'd liquidate all UK assets and flee.


Wouldn't surprise me. I mean, it basically seems to have been NI policy to hack _literally anyone_ who came into the public eye or found themselves at the centre of a story. So it'd be a surprise if the Potter kids _weren't_ hacked.

Every. Single. Story. There is _years_ worth of dirt on the NI fuckers.


----------



## agricola (Jul 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> why would the cops need to hack them when the state's got ECHELON?
> 
> do you think those golf balls at menwith hill are for display only?
> 
> newsflash: all telephone calls are recorded.



((( the agent who has to listen to Pickmans calls )))


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2011)

agricola said:


> ((( the agent who has to listen to Pickmans calls )))


(((your wife)))


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> agricola said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

(((the hotel room you'se getting)))


----------



## petee (Jul 11, 2011)

theCIA said:


> not a word of this on fox's main new site


 
still none on their front page (i just checked)
fair and balanced: everyone else is reporting it so fox won't


----------



## cybertect (Jul 11, 2011)

flutterbye said:


> Are the telephone companies escaping from this unscathed?


 
As I understand it, the 'hacking' involved accessing the voicemail boxes of mobiles that had been left with their default password/PIN because the owners of the phones hadn't changed them when they got the account.

Not really within the realm of the telcos, although you could argue they should issue a unique PIN securely to each of their customers in the way a bank does for your credit cards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2011)

laptop said:


> (((the hotel room you'se getting)))


 
(((laptop's overactive imagination)))


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2011)

cybertect said:


> As I understand it, the 'hacking' involved accessing the voicemail boxes of mobiles that had been left with their default password/PIN because the owners of the phones hadn't changed them when they got the account.


 
not all of it - there was also a load of blagging and corrupt employees selling details...


----------



## gavman (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu;11925382 because the medics are too afraid to call bullshit on a published author[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> because of the exact process as demonstrated by this thread.
> all the self appointed guardians of truth come and belittle any attempt to come up with ideas that don't fit into their own rigid formula, or use the agreed code words.
> and by the time you understand the formula you can't suggest anything original of your own, because all you can do is question the basis or construction of the work of others, in the light of the work of others, that prove in fact we know nothing at all, and so it's better not to act and *oh shit i'm being eaten by a tiger*
> 
> ...


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2011)

cybertect said:


> As I understand it, the 'hacking' involved accessing the voicemail boxes of mobiles that had been left with their default password/PIN because the owners of the phones hadn't changed them when they got the account.



As I understand it, it *also* involved blagging the 15-digit über-PIN required to discover, or alter, the PINs of those who'd set something other than default.

So the 'phone companies are arguably liable for being blaggable.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 11, 2011)

Wasn't murdoch called the dirty digger?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 11, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Wasn't murdoch called the dirty digger?


yep  well remembered


----------



## ska invita (Jul 11, 2011)

pk said:


> If I were them I'd liquidate all UK assets and flee.


 supposedly dumping all uk papers may be on the cards, the logic being it would leave them in a better position to take over Sky as there wont be an issue about 'plurality' (just one voice-piece) - that would also explain why they've reneged on the farming off of Sky NEws - dump the papers and keep/move for all of Sky.

[probably already been said on this thread, but just in case...]


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> Lots of words


 
Ffs - take it somewhere else. Can we keep this thread focused on the actual subjet - a huge and fast moving news story - not whatever it is you are whinging about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Ffs - take it somewhere else. Can we keep this thread focused on the actual subjet - a huge and fast moving news story - not whatever it is you are whinging about?


 
quite.


----------



## gavman (Jul 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anyone who sees differences and chooses to ask "why?".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
so how much critical thinking is going on at the heart of the anti-paedophile campaigns, or even the debate on drugs, as conducted by the tabloids?
or rational debate? 

the hysterical idiots drown out reasoned debate, and i'm absolutelyfree to call them that because i suffer the hounding from the police forces working to their idiotic anti-soft drugs agenda
i don't need to see an academic paper on something to form an opinion. when being poked with a sharp stick i don't need any back up to say 'i'm being poked with a sharp stick'

and i never set myself up as 'enlightened', i just used the test of how an enlightened person might respond


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2011)

gavman said:


> so how much critical thinking is going on at the heart of the anti-paedophile campaigns, or even the debate on drugs, as conducted by the tabloids?
> or rational debate?
> 
> the hysterical idiots drown out reasoned debate, and i'm absolutelyfree to call them that because i suffer the hounding from the police forces working to their idiotic anti-soft drugs agenda
> ...


 i'd lay off the 'soft' drugs if i were you. in your case, the drugs don't work they just make you worse


----------



## gavman (Jul 12, 2011)

i'd say drugs are what you need, but that would imply i cared


----------



## elbows (Jul 12, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> my feelings too elbows - am i being too optimistic do you think?


 
May as well be optimistic when the opportunity arises. Id rather have my hopes dashed later than never to have felt hope in the first place.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 12, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> Why do the Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday journalists get given numbers on that list, but everybody else is listed by name?


 
Because when it comes to the crunch, the Guardian is staffed by journalists too. Which is why they revert to type and protect the privacy of other journalists but don't give a damn about anyone else.


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2011)

It's also of course possible that the Guardian doesn't have the names. 

Who recalls when and how and by whom the hacking of Mail hacks was revealed?


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 12, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> I can't get passed this.   It's fucking obscene alright.   And if it's the Sunday Times and not notw....the *political* side of these things is terrifying.
> 
> This isn't a free press, this is a savage, political animal.
> 
> It has to end.


 
You are finally getting to grips with the full horror of it. It really is that bad, and it has been that bad for decades. See if you can get hold of a DVD of the TV show Hot Metal from 1986. Then bear in mind that was actually a fairly gentle parody. Watch The Thick Of It, then bear in mind that they are struggling to write a new series because they can't dream up fictional ideas that are anywhere near as bad as the reality, and because Armando Ianucci spends most of the time too angry to come up with anything funny (an old friend of mine is a senior member of their production team).

What disgusts me most is that although not every journalist is that bad, one hell of a lot of them have known all along how bad things were and preferred to show solidarity with their own profession rather than tell the public the truth as should have been their primary obligation.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 12, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yes, that Brown said nothing because he was scared. fwiw I don't buy into the whole "they had something on him" line. I think the answer is much more simple than that. He kept quiet because some in the shadows of the party, told him, "attack NI and say goodbye to a labour victory". This is what they believed. This is what Blair believed and the lesson of the infamous Kinnock front page is one that has reached the level of lore within the Labour party, piss off Murdoch and lose the election. This was the mantra, this was the legend and the myth and they followed it and in doing so they made the myth a reality. There is no need for a corpse under the floorboards or a set of compromising photos in the drawer. This.the belief that Murdoch makes the kings, was enough. Brown was told, and Brown did as he was told.
> 
> 
> And Murdoch fucked him anyway.


 
Precisely.

Way back in 1986 that was the line coming from Philip Gould and co. Treat the tabloids as a force of nature and never attempt to show them to be wrong. Though it wasn't until Blair became Labour leader that the whole party was pretty much held to that approach.

I thought it was stupid then, and I certainly haven't changed my opinion since. Basically, by never taking on the press they gave effective control of the country over to newspaper editors and proprietors, because as soon as something was printed as news the Labour Party would immediately accept it regardless of whether or not it had any foundation in fact. All in order to have a bunch of people who have absolutely no use for the Labour Party anyway not stick the boot in quite yet.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 12, 2011)

mack said:


> There was always the "gay rumour"
> 
> http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7501.html/


 
The "Brown is gay" rumour always struck me as macho idiots assuming that any bloke who doesn't try to shag every woman he encounters MUST be gay. There never seemed to be anything other than that to it.

I think what Brown was more worried about was a concerted campaign to claim that because he had taken medication for stress related problems he was a lunatic unfit for high office. Something that may well have been threatened a couple of times during his time in number 10.


----------



## gavman (Jul 12, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Because when it comes to the crunch, the Guardian is staffed by journalists too. Which is why they revert to type and protect the privacy of other journalists but don't give a damn about anyone else.


 
i find this aspect rather depressing, even amongst all the other shit- that limit to their outrage, evidenced when russbridger is interviewed. he seems right on it, then pulls all his punches towards his own profession


----------



## gavman (Jul 12, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> What disgusts me most is that although not every journalist is that bad, one hell of a lot of them have known all along how bad things were and preferred to show solidarity with their own profession rather than tell the public the truth as should have been their primary obligation.


 
you've nailed it there


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Because when it comes to the crunch, the Guardian is staffed by journalists too. Which is why they revert to type and protect the privacy of other journalists but don't give a damn about anyone else.


 
That seems vanishingly unlikely given that we're talking about Mail journos here, and the Guardian is one of the only papers that is quite happy to report on how widespread the practice is, probably because there is just one entry for the Observer and none for the Guardian in these documents.

If the names were in the public domain yet, I think they'd have printed them.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Just found this (on the days before 'hacking' as such was possible):



> At the outset, in the 1980s, much of their work – such as obtaining ex-directory numbers or helping find addresses – was relatively routine. Sometimes it involved covert surveillance, even though it was not always for reasons that could be justified in the public interest. An outside agency was employed to establish that Freddie Mercury had HIV. One former journalist told how the bar belonging to the brother of a television personality was bugged. "Half the dressing rooms on [the television soap] Eldorado were also done," he said.
> 
> But the arrival of the mobile phone added a new dimension. "It used to be much easier to listen to live phone calls when it was the old analogue cell system," one former journalist said. "In the early 1990s there used to be an advert in the Exchange and Mart from a mobile shop in Bridgend which offered for sale an old Motorola carphone-type phone which had been doctored with a serial cable that could be connected to your PC. With the software provided you could use it as a live scanner showing people's numbers and listen in to calls via the PC."
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/09/phone-hacking-scandal-rupert-murdoch


----------



## little_legs (Jul 12, 2011)

Respectfully, agricola, I don't understand your obsession with Tom Baldwin. I've read the links you provided (the Conservative Home one was authored by Aschroft) and I've read the Sunday Times and the Indy articles about the evidence of multiple "infringements of the law" Aschcroft is _threatening_ to hand over to police.

Allegedly, Aschroft _'has been provoked by Miliband's attacks on David Cameron for employing Andy Coulson'_ and that's all very good. My question is why delay it, why not do the right thing and hand the _evidence_ to police now? If Aschroft's _evidence_ is sound, I'd like Baldwin to be exposed asap. Let's just hope the police treats Aschroft's _evidence_ as competently as as they have all previous complaints until now.  

Personally, I would not have a problem if Baldwin had poisoned Aschcroft. I would actually write a thank you letter to Baldwin if he did that.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Interesting version of events from the Brown camp pov.



> Ever since the Sun dramatically withdrew its support from Labour in September 2009, Brown has no doubt felt the paper not just betrayed him, but killed his premiership. Like Tony Blair, he had done his best to cultivate good relations with the Murdoch executives, just as he had worked hard over the years to persuade Paul Dacre at the Daily Mail that he was a moral and serious figure.
> 
> The loss of the Sun's support mattered less for its editorial comment than for the way in which the paper then slanted its daily coverage, for instance, pursuing Brown for letting down British troops in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

More worms turning.



> A bitter internal wrangle has broken out at News International over who saw emails retrieved by the company four years ago which suggest that News of the World journalists approved payments to police.
> 
> The emails were recovered during a 2007 internal investigation into claims that phone hacking was widespread at the paper.
> 
> ...



Turns out sacking people doesn't shut them up if the media have an interest in reporting what they have to say. Who'd have thunk it? Not Murdoch, apparently. He appears to have totally lost it.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Interesting version of events from the Brown camp pov.


 
so brown's saying they tried to do the right thing, but were foiled by sir humphrey? i guess the suggestion now is that NI changing from labour to tory shortly after this was as much about making sure there's a new, more pliable govt in downing street as it was about chasing a change in the public mood?

we can only hope some record emerges of a conversation between cameron & someone at NI on the subject...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2011)

My brother told me last night that when he phoned his boss last week, it went to voicemail and he lol'ed on hearing 'please leave a message and the News of the World will get back to you'.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

killer b said:


> so brown's saying they tried to do the right thing, but were foiled by sir humphrey? i guess the suggestion now is that NI changing from labour to tory shortly after this was as much about making sure there's a new, more pliable govt in downing street as it was about chasing a change in the public mood?
> 
> we can only hope some record emerges of a conversation between cameron & someone at NI on the subject...


I don't think so, no. That would be to buy into the myth that Murdoch does actually choose the govt. What he does is plump for the front-runner once it's obvious which party will win, and then sets about making sure they do his bidding.

Brooks has a reputation for schmoozing people beyond all reason. There's some story about a Tory MP she did over on his family life, who rang the next day to thank her for handling it so sensitively.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> I don't think so, no. That would be to buy into the myth that Murdoch does actually choose the govt. What he does is plump for the front-runner once it's obvious which party will win, and then sets about making sure they do his bidding.


 
you and I don't buy into it - but several successive governments did, and possibly news international believed it themselves... in which case the effect is identical.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2011)

I don't suppose any of these e-mails will ever become public under freedom of information will they? I mean, I seem to recall reading of a ruling that the East Anglia university climate research should be made public, and surely the papers are similarly all involved in 'research'. 

I for one would be happy to show my public spirit and help out with a trawling operation if the Guardian ever did what they did to the Sarah Palin e-mails  .


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I don't suppose any of these e-mails will ever become public under freedom of information will they? I mean, I seem to recall reading of a ruling that the East Anglia university climate research should be made public, and surely the papers are similarly all involved in 'research'.
> 
> I for one would be happy to show my public spirit and help out with a trawling operation if the Guardian ever did what they did to the Sarah Palin e-mails  .


 
That was in the US and related to a public body. Not going to happen here. FOI is only for public bodies.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

killer b said:


> you and I don't buy into it - but several successive governments did, and possibly news international believed it themselves... in which case the effect is identical.


 
I don't think 'several successive governments' did buy into it though. The myth was born in 1992, but it suited Blair to make Labour buy into it, and I'm fairly convinced by Broon the hapless naif. The Tories have never needed to buy into it. Murdoch is a Thatcherite through and through. They're kindred spirits, and half the current cabinet had a crush on her at school.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That was in the US and related to a public body. Not going to happen here. FOI is only for public bodies.


It was in the UK, and the University of East Anglia is a public body.

Otherwise, spot on. Early start? 


@two sheds

IIRC the information that was publicly available was already in the public domain because that was their policy already - the only data they hadn't published was owned by other bodies that refused to release it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

I think he meant in terms of their relationship with the electorate, not personal convictions. And they did/do.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> It was in the UK, and the University of East Anglia is a public body. (The information that was publicly available was already in the public domain though - the only data they hadn't published was owned by other bodies that refused to release it.)
> 
> Otherwise, spot on. Early start?


 
Alaska is in the uk now then?


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Alaska is in the uk now then?


Ah, apologies. I missed that it wasn't a response to the whole post.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> I don't think 'several successive governments' did buy into it though. The myth was born in 1992, but it suited Blair to make Labour buy into it, and I'm fairly convinced by Broon the hapless naif. The Tories have never needed to buy into it. Murdoch is a Thatcherite through and through. They're kindred spirits, and half the current cabinet had a crush on her at school.


 
ok, but the clear implication of the what the brown camp is saying is 'we tried to go up against them, and got thrown out of government for our troubles'. that's what they're saying, regardless how true it actually is.

edit: also, cameron's clearly shitting himself about something...


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

killer b said:


> ok, but the clear implication of the what the brown camp is saying is 'we tried to go up against them, and got thrown out of government for our troubles'. that's what they're saying, regardless how true it actually is.


 
That bit is true (although he'd have broken for the Tories anyway, unless Brown looked like winning). It's the bit about Murdoch telling the electorate who to vote for, rather than Murdoch knowing fine well which way the wind is blowing before declaring his support, that is a myth. Backing Labour for 1997 was a no-brainer. As it was in 2001 and 2005. Backing the Tories for 2010 was also a no-brainer (but Cameron nearly managed to fuck that one up).

He makes/breaks reputations. Not governments.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 12, 2011)

Murdoch's biographer was interviewed on Newsnight last night.When Paxman asked him if he could foresee a time in years to come when the name "Murdoch" would not be at the helm of News Coporation, he replied..I could see that happening in a couple of months


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

killer b said:


> ok, but the clear implication of the what the brown camp is saying is 'we tried to go up against them, and got thrown out of government for our troubles'. that's what they're saying, regardless how true it actually is.
> 
> edit: also, cameron's clearly shitting himself about something...


 
 He certainly is. Gone missing for last few days.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Murdoch's biographer was interviewed on Newsnight last night.When Paxman asked him if he could foresee a time in years to come when the name "Murdoch" would not be at the helm of News Coporation, he replied..I could see that happening in a couple of months


 
Excellent.. 

The more people say it, the more it becomes possible


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Murdoch's biographer was interviewed on Newsnight last night.When Paxman asked him if he could foresee a time in years to come when the name "Murdoch" would not be at the helm of News Coporation, he replied..I could see that happening in a couple of months


 
Just to add to that ... the biographer is based in the US, and was invited on to comment on the shitstorm over there. Dunno if he's right, but it sounds very hopeful.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

I hope that Yates get roasted today at the Home Affairs Committee, not at all confident of that though if someone so weak and ineffetive as Keith Vaz was elected chair of the committee. Yates is still saying that:



> "Therefore, as can be seen, in relation to events that took place in 2009, I was provided with some considerable reassurance (and at a number of levels) that led me to a view that this case neither needed to be reopened or reviewed."



_I was right to be wrong_ in other words


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> I think the post title should change to Roast in Hell NOTW


I was thinking that the title should possibly change, given that the story has now changed so much. Suppose people are familiar with this title though.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2011)

Yates will go, im wondering what they have on him in order for him to keep quiet - affair maybe?

Alistair Campbell on 5Live was calling for his head this morning as was Prescott.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 12, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Yates will go, im wondering what they have on him in order for him to keep quiet - affair maybe?



That's exactly it, isn't it? (i.e., it;s been revealed, yet doesn't seem to attract the hopping up and down that I would expect - goes a touch further down the common or garden blackmail route if the case)


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2011)

BBC Live text coverage said:
			
		

> In response to Gordon Brown's allegations about working with known criminals, News International says it has "no comment".
> 
> But it reiterates the position that the Sun newspaper is satisfied about the methods in which it obtained the story about Gordon Brown's son's medical condition.


I bet it is 

I actually smirked at that, the idea that they think there's a 'legitimate' way to poke your nose into the medical history of someone's child.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2011)

In other news, apparently blagging has been illegal since 1994.

I hope they don't have access to my degree essays  (*boom tsh*  )


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Early kick off across all BBC formats this morning. LOL.

You could almost think it's personal.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Here's something i'd forgot about. Goodman (the bloke convicted of hacking the royal slaves phones) was paid off by NI with a lump sum in 2007, supposedly for being 'unfairly' dismissed - as was Mulcaire. Is anyone looking into what appears to potentially be 'hush money', and what he was potentially keeping hush about? As far as i can see it's only the met who've shown any recent interest in Goodman recently.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Any journos mapping the non NI journos in NI's pocket, or at least the exec centred part of the network?


----------



## elbows (Jul 12, 2011)

Murdoch in decades past is covered pretty well by some programs Adam Curtis put on his blog a good while ago, which includes stuff about how the BBC view Murdoch:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/01/rupert_murdoch_-_a_portrait_of.html


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here's something i'd forgot about. Goodman (the bloke convicted of hacking the royal slaves phones) was paid off by NI with a lump sum in 2007, supposedly for being 'unfairly' dismissed - as was Mulcaire. Is anyone looking into what appears to potentially be 'hush money', and what he was potentially keeping hush about? As far as i can see it's only the met who've shown any recent interest in Goodman recently.


 
There has been a bit about him that I've seen in the last day or two. The hush money was paid after he'd come out and said hacking was common practice at the paper, so it is fully expected that he will be involved in future inquiries. He's refusing to comment at the moment.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 12, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Murdoch's biographer was interviewed on Newsnight last night.When Paxman asked him if he could foresee a time in years to come when the name "Murdoch" would not be at the helm of News Coporation, he replied..I could see that happening in a couple of months


 
Not sure if this has been posted yet but he also wrote an article about the family politics at News Corp.  Might go far to explaining why they are so reluctant to let Brooks go.

http://www.adweek.com/news/press/people-named-murdoch-133267


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Any journos mapping the non NI journos in NI's pocket, or at least the exec centred part of the network?


 
Lots of muttering about Peston. Not seen much other than that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> In other news, apparently blagging has been illegal since 1994.
> 
> I hope they don't have access to my degree essays  (*boom tsh*  )


blagging is not a synonym for plagiarism.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2011)

NI have made two statements...



> We note the allegations made today concerning the reporting of matters relating to Gordon Brown. So that we can investigate these matters further, we ask that all information concerning these allegations is provided to us.



Let me run that through the translator,



> "We are trying desperately to cover our executive arses, and would definitely like to know how much you all know about what we've done so we can compare it to what we did and work out who we can blame.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Just 26 hours to go to PMQs.... feels like a lifetime away atm...


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Just 26 hours to go to PMQs.... feels like a lifetime away atm...


 
We're due 4 shocking revelations and 2 twists before then.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Lots of muttering about Peston. Not seen much other than that.


I wouldn't call it muttering, there are clear links between him and the chipping norton set as i understand they're being labelled (takes in cameron, brooke, murdoch&freud, etc). I don't trust his reporting at all.


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> the chipping norton set as i understand they're being labelled (takes in cameron, brooke, murdoch&freud, etc).


 
Don't forget Alex the bassist from Blur.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> Don't forget Alex the bassist from Blur.


i wish someone would hack that fucker, preferably with a rusty machete.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

He's been hacking me off for years.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2011)

nick davies= van helsing


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I don't suppose any of these e-mails will ever become public under freedom of information will they?



No.

If, however, they are presented as evidence in open court...


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jul 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i wish someone would hack that fucker, preferably with a rusty machete.



Or a rusty cheese knife.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> I wouldn't call it muttering, there are clear links between him and the chipping norton set as i understand they're being labelled (takes in cameron, brooke, murdoch&freud, etc). I don't trust his reporting at all.


I didn't intend to imply that the man was innocent! He's clearly been the NI mouthpiece in the last few days and it stinks.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> Don't forget Alex the bassist from Blur.


 
And Jeremy Clarkson who I'm sure gives Dave his normal balanced opinions on both global warming and the road/rail balance.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2011)

http://gawker.com/5820243/jon-stewart-tackles-the-news-of-the-world-scandal


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Peston is a NI "mouthpiece" because he was fed a story about NI buying from a police officer personal and security details about  the head of state?


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2011)

He wears a peach scarf.


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2011)

Meanwhile in the US...

I guess given US legal culture it was inevitable there'd already be a lawsuit, but nice to know the name of one litigant against Murdoch:



> There is already one US lawsuit related to the current scandal. News Corporation is being sued by a group of shareholders who allege a failure of corporate governance.
> 
> The lawsuit was filed in Delaware by Amalgamated Bank and a group of pension funds, and is an updated version of a previous action.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14111966



Wonder what the previous action was about?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

What did Delaware? She wore a peachy scarf.


----------



## mack (Jul 12, 2011)

Peston drives me up the fucking wall the way he talks and drawls his words.


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2011)

laptop said:


> Wonder what the previous action was about?


 
I think it was related to the fact that he had bought his daughter's production company for squillions.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 12, 2011)

laptop said:


> Wonder what the previous action was about?



I think it was about News Corp buying Elisabeth Murdoch's company for a vastly inflated price.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

mack said:


> Peston drives me up the fucking wall the way he talks and drawls his words.


 
He does love a performance and his screen time: proper old-school theatrical slapper. Bless.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Worth recalling that Peston bascially put his arse up for sale in the mid-2000′s when he signed up with Editorial Intelligence – “where PR meets journalism” (set up by Stalinists Eric Hobsbawm’s daugher btw).


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

And?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Which suggests that he's quite prepared to do stuff that he shouldn't and has a track record for it - esp where PR and journalism 'meet' Summed up nicely in the article that you didn't read:



> One marvels how these people could have got mixed up with Editorial Intelligence in the first place. How could the cause of good journalism possibly be strengthened by a PR operation whose main purpose is to help companies manipulate the media? Mr D'Ancona is quoted as saying that Editorial Intelligence had become too much of a "distraction". The truth is that he and others have belatedly woken up to the fact that they had no business helping a PR organisation.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 12, 2011)

Edward Bernays has a lot to answer for. Pity the fucker's already croaked.


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2011)

Balbi said:


> http://gawker.com/5820243/jon-stewart-tackles-the-news-of-the-world-scandal


 
"Schadenfreudegasm"


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Which suggests that he's quite prepared to do stuff that he shouldn't and has a track record for it - esp where PR and journalism 'meet' Summed up nicely in the article that you didn't read:



All I saw was he was involved at the start of a new venture, and got out when it turned out to be something other?

Are you trying to recreate a Murdoch style smear, for old times sake?


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Balbi said:


> http://gawker.com/5820243/jon-stewart-tackles-the-news-of-the-world-scandal


 
For anyone interested in the US take on this, that ^^ is a Jon Stewart's Daily Show clip. And a damn fine one too.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 12, 2011)

mack said:


> Peston drives me up the fucking wall the way he talks and drawls his words.



it's like his batteries need replacing


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> All I saw was he was involved at the staet and got out when it turned out to be something other?
> 
> Are you trying to recreate a Murdoch style smear?


 
Yes i am. That's what i'm doing.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Well you're shit at that as well.

Anyone got any substance at all on this 'Peston is a NI mouthpiece' angle - like that's a productive place to be this week?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

It seems that the person Wade (as was) went to in 2009 to shockingly reveal that naughty Glenn Mulcaire had tapped her phone was...Robert Peston - at that time BBC _Business_ Editor.That ceratinly suggests he's at least close to the inside of the NI network.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Is the BBC's Robert Peston too close to Rupert Murdoch's man Will Lewis?



> And *once again,* questions are emerging over quite who is providing the enthusiastic journalist with the 'inside track' that has placed him at the vanguard of the story.
> 
> Media commentators have highlighted the close personal and formerly professional relationship between Mr Peston and Will Lewis, the very senior News International troubleshooter, amid suggestions that the BBC man is being used by the Murdoch machine.
> 
> There are certainly links between Mr Peston, the son of Labour peer and economist Maurice Peston, and Mr Lewis.



(My bold)

Do try and keep abreast of the story london_calling.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It seems that the person Wade (as was) went to in 2009 to shockingly reveal that naughty Glenn Mulcaire had tapped her phone was...Robert Peston - at that time BBC _Business_ Editor.That ceratinly suggests he's at least close to the inside of the NI network.



Or she was keen to ingratiate herself, or to try and drag him in, or to build relations with the BBC, or a hundred other possibilities. Well done.


And now you're quoting the Daily Mail on a high profile BBC employee. LOL.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Or she was keen to ingratiate herself, or to try and drab him in, or to build relations with the BBC, or a hundred other possibilities. Well done.


 
So in order to suggest that Peston isn't close to NI top level networks you put forward the idea that key top level NI personnel might have sought to a develop close relationship to Peston. Well done you!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

elevendayempire said:


> Best-case scenario: Rupert, James and Rebekah facing criminal charges in the UK and US, ruled not 'fit and proper' to own a single share of BSkyB, News Corp effectively dismantled, and the phone-hacking rot spreading to the Daily Mail and Dacre. Oh, that would be _beautiful_.


 
I don't know about you, but I got a semi when I read that!


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2011)

I think all we know about Peston is that:


he hung out at Brooks's;
the Met provided information to News International in confidence, possibly including cop-bribing;
IIRC Peston broke the story about payola for Royal Protection cops; and
I speculate - and I think I'm right - that this changing of the subject from bent Murdoch to bent cops is what the Met is so upset about (here).

So - is he a shill, or was he used, by feeding him a juicy story?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

flutterbye said:


> Are the telephone companies escaping from this unscathed?


 
What are they guilty of? From what I can make out, they're guilty of having employees who're not averse to a bung, and some other employees who're vulnerable to the sort of "social engineering" (in the "hacking" sense of the word rather than the Fabian) that anyone can be taken in by.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Peston is a NI "mouthpiece" because he was fed a story about NI buying from a police officer personal and security details about  the head of state?


I answered a direct question from BA. Why are you now pretending you understand the answer when you clearly don't?

The Met accused NI of leaking information about the corrupt police officers. Peston has been writing those stories. It doesn't take much to work out where he's getting his information from, which is why lots of journalists have been 'muttering'.

If that's still too much for you to get your head around, ask nicely for a source and you might get one.


E2A: no need. BA has more patience.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

laptop said:


> I think all we know about Peston is that:
> 
> 
> he hung out at Brooks's;
> ...


 tfb to him, he doesn't just hang out with *a* group. He works the Murdoch group, and the Bank of England people, and the former master of the universe, etc, etc. It is, after all, his job as Business Editor.

If someone has evidence to the contrary - 'evidence' not being a Daily Mail article - then I'm all ears.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> That's the worst case scenario now, surely.
> 
> Best case is the coalition crumbling along with everything New Labour stood for, the complete collapse of the Met, CPS and large parts of the judiciary, along with the pro-austerity, pro-banker media in this country, and a series of governments brought to their knees in short order whilst we, 'the people'. have a proper think about what democracy really means and how we want to implement it.
> 
> That is an absolute best case scenario, obv.


 
To be fair, the original question was asked w/r/t Murdoch and NI/NC, rather than about the possibilities w/r/t the wider social and political effects.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> If someone has evidence to the contrary - 'evidence' not being a Daily Mail article - then I'm all ears.


 
you're Andrew Marr??


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> The Met accused NI of leaking information about the corrupt police officers. Peston has been writing those stories. It doesn't take much to work out where he's getting his information from, which is why lots of journalists have been 'muttering'.
> 
> If that's still too much for you to get your head around, ask nicely for a source and you might get one.


It's almost like The Guardian doesn't exist. Peston is the Business Editor of a public broadcaster, you know that?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

I thought it was well known that Peston's source is Brooks herself.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It's almost like The Guardian doesn't exist. Peston is the Business Editor of a public broadcaster, you know that?


 

so it's impossible for him to become to close to a source, just because he is Business Editor? If you are scrupulous in such a position you explicitly _dont_ hang out with the likes of Brooks, so as to remain impartial


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> tfb to him, he doesn't just hang out with *a* group. He works the Murdoch group, and the Bank of England people, and the former master of the universe, etc, etc. It is, after all, his job as Business Editor.



And of course, he never get's 'worked' in return. It's all one way traffic.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> For anyone interested in the US take on this, that ^^ is a Jon Stewart's Daily Show clip. And a damn fine one too.


 
hehehe that is indeed class.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> I thought it was well known that Peston's source is Brooks herself.


 
He's only got the one, after all these years. And now 200 sacked staff as well. And with the world and his wife laying in the boot. Poor fella.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> I thought it was well known that Peston's source is Brooks herself.


It is. Just not well known to lazy contrarians on the internet.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2011)

How many fingers are you fitting in those big ears of yours, elsie?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> blagging is not a synonym for plagiarism.


How absolutely very dare you sir!

The bullshit contained within those essays was all my own.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jul 12, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> the beauty of a forum is you can go back through your posts and see what you've said.



Isn't this the same as "Phone Hacking"


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

It all depends whether you think Peston should be allowing himself to be a conduit for NI news management purposes or not. This isn't about him running some stories he got from Brooks. These are the specific stories the Met issued a press release about yesterday.

It really isn't that difficult to get your head around.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Isn't this the same as "Phone Hacking"


 
No.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> so how much critical thinking is going on at the heart of the anti-paedophile campaigns, or even the debate on drugs, as conducted by the tabloids?
> or rational debate?



You're talking about how the tabloids conduct themselves and exert influence on their many readers.

*If* there were a vast swathe of the UK population (6 million readers of _The Sun_, 3 million sales per day, for example) who are "hysterical idiots", why haven't we seen mass social disruption on a scale consonant with those readership numbers? Even if we pared that 6 million down by 90%, to six hundred thousand, we still haven't seen social unrest on the issue of, say, paedophiles consonant with that many _[Sun_ readers being dupes.

Do you know why not? Because contrary to the lack of critical thinking you attribute to them, the vast majority of _Sun_ readers, _NOTW_ readers etc *are* able to think critically, and do so. They separate the froth from the core information.



> the hysterical idiots drown out reasoned debate, and i'm absolutelyfree to call them that because i suffer the hounding from the police forces working to their idiotic anti-soft drugs agenda
> i don't need to see an academic paper on something to form an opinion. when being poked with a sharp stick i don't need any back up to say 'i'm being poked with a sharp stick'



Simplistic, arrogant and wrong-headed.



> and i never set myself up as 'enlightened', i just used the test of how an enlightened person might respond


 
Now you're floundering into sophistry.

Have a word with yourself.


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> It all depends whether you think Peston should be allowing himself to be a conduit for NI news management purposes or not.



Tough one. It was and is a story. In any other week it, by itself, would have been a lead story all week.

If your concern was to maximise damage to Murdoch, you'd run it _later_ - possibly much later. 

If your concern was to focus attention - for the moment - _away_ from bent cops, you'd run it later. And the Met would be pleased.

And when it came out that you'd had it and sat on it, fingers would be pointed... is Peston too keen to please the Met?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

Quite enjoying Brian Whelan's tweets on all this. 

http://twitpic.com/5orkw7 

bloody hell ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i wish someone would hack that fucker, preferably with a rusty machete.


 
Nah, beat him to death with one of his own cheeses.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

laptop said:


> Tough one. It was and is a story. In any other week it, by itself, would have been a lead story all week.
> 
> If your concern was to maximise damage to Murdoch, you'd run it _later_ - possibly much later.
> 
> ...


We're not talking about pleasing the Met. This is an attempt by NI to manage the news in their favour and possibly pervert the course of justice. And he has to have known that, because there is no other reason NI would leak dirt on themselves.

It's piss poor.


----------



## Ms T (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> I answered a direct question from BA. Why are you now pretending you understand the answer when you clearly don't?
> 
> The Met accused NI of leaking information about the corrupt police officers. Peston has been writing those stories. It doesn't take much to work out where he's getting his information from, which is why lots of journalists have been 'muttering'.
> 
> ...


 
It's not just Peston who has those stories - the Guardian does too.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

BBC News Channel: Home Affairs Select Committee: John Yates' opening statement....


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Ms T said:


> It's not just Peston who has those stories - the Guardian does too.


They all do, now that Peston's published.


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> We're not talking about pleasing the Met. This is an attempt by NI to manage the news in their favour and possibly pervert the course of justice. And he has to have known that, because there is no other reason NI would leak dirt on themselves.



Indeed it does appear to be that attempt.

*Also*, the Met has an interest in managing news in its favour, directing attention away from bent cops (and Haywood and Yates) and toward bent hacks who've betrayed their close relationship.

Once given the story - damned if you run it, damned if you don't.

(The option of running it, with an intro reading "Rebecca B leaked me, in strict confidence, this story about crimes she was responsible to divert attention from her other crimes and she's an evil cow so now I'm betraying my confidential source and thereby setting a precedent that will harm all other journalists in the future, but it's worth it..." is simply too complicated to come up in the middle of a fast-breaking mega-story, I think.)


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Oh, ffs! This is ridiculous. 



> On the Today programme this morning Christopher Graham, the information commissioner, made much the same point. He said that blagging was an offence under the Data Protection Act, but that it attracted a "rather puny penalty". The last Labour government actually passed a law bringing in a much tougher penalty, he said. But this law has never been enacted because of opposition from the press, he went on.
> 
> 
> _  We really need to get a serious penalty in place to stop this happening ... Frankly, we need to say to people 'You will go to prison if you do this'. The serious penalty that is needed has been on the statute book since 2008 - Section 77 of the 2008 Criminal Justice Act provides for a custodial sentence of up to two years in the Crown Court, but it has been suspended for three years because of a stand-off between the Press and the politicians._
> ...


----------



## Dan U (Jul 12, 2011)

re: Peston

iirc Private Eye have had a few bits and pieces about his friendship with Will 'Thirsty' Lewis.

I've just chucked a load out for recylcling so can't check sadly.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

laptop said:


> Indeed it does appear to be that attempt.
> 
> *Also*, the Met has an interest in managing news in its favour, directing attention away from bent cops (and Haywood and Yates) and toward bent hacks who've betrayed their close relationship.
> 
> ...


 
He named people accused of a criminal offence, who had not yet been arrested. Given that his source is herself being investigated for criminal activity, including having a copper followed and harrassed whilst on a murder investigation, he should have had both the nowse and the integrity to ring up the Met for comment before publishing. 

He knew what he was doing. Like NI, he's still not got his head out of the era when this shit was normal and untouchable. I hope he's dragged himself well and truly into it and placed his head irretrievably on the block. The sermonising hypocritical shitcunt.


----------



## gosub (Jul 12, 2011)

http://gawker.com/5820243/jon-stewart-tackles-the-news-of-the-world-scandal


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2011)

gosub said:


> http://gawker.com/5820243/jon-stewart-tackles-the-news-of-the-world-scandal


Didn't work for me but this link did:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/07/jon-stewart-world-scandal-news


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Why do they always say this bollocks?



> Yates says if he has unwittingly misled the committee, "then that is a matter of regret".



Look, regrets, thasands of 'em.


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

Yates on the ropes at the select committee


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why do they always say this bollocks?
> 
> 
> 
> Look, regrets, thasands of 'em.


 
I'm sorry that you feel this answer is inadequate, butchers.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 12, 2011)

I regret everything I've ever been caught for.

But this is no time for politics.


----------



## dennisr (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why do they always say this bollocks?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Well played Nicola Blackwood - Tory, 2010 intake. But had him on a hook.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2011)

jesus



> “Gordon insisted - despite a heavy brow-beating from Rebekah - that he was not willing to let his son's medical condition be the stuff of a Sun exclusive,” recalls this source. “So he put out a statement on PA to spike their scoop and make clear that despite his condition, Fraser was fit and healthy. The Sun were utterly furious, and Brown's communications team were told that if Gordon wanted to get into No 10, he needed to learn that was not how things were done.”


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

I have a feeling Murdoch is planning to sell his British newspapers. It would raise a lot of the money he needs to firstly buy the remaining stake in BSkyB, and secondly pay the compensation liability he has from News of the World. Selling them would mean he did not have to hive off Sky News in order to buy BSkyB. It leaves the fit and proper test as his remaining hurdle. And, the other question, who would buy the newspapers?


----------



## gabi (Jul 12, 2011)

is the select committee on any other station other than 5live? they've switched to some regular programming


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 12, 2011)

Full list of hacking victims (going to be updated by the guardian):
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdGhnMlllQzVZQTI0cUpKeVFEd1hBTkE&hl=en


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I have a feeling Murdoch is planning to sell his British newspapers. It would raise a lot of the money he needs to firstly buy the remaining stake in BSkyB, and secondly pay the compensation liability he has from News of the World. Selling them would mean he did not have to hive off Sky News in order to buy BSkyB. It leaves the fit and proper test as his remaining hurdle. And, the other question, who would buy the newspapers?


 
One of the US papers suggested that he could junk all the UK papers and still turn a healthy profit from the state of the art printing presses he's now got.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Great drama but...  Yates managed 50 mins. of stone walling.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 12, 2011)

laptop said:


> "Schadenfreudegasm"


 
2:49m onwards - it has it all - listen to the audience draw breath when they hear about the fone hacking of 9/11 victims families (@5:11m)


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2011)

This new story about phone pinging is a blatant lift from The Wire series 3.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2011)

Time to change up.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

That's where Queen Madge went wrong, she kept the same burner.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14119225


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

> A former show business reporter for The News of the World, Sean Hoare, who was fired in 2005, said that when he worked there, pinging cost the paper nearly $500 on each occasion. He first found out how the practice worked, he said, when he was scrambling to find someone and was told that one of the news desk editors, Greg Miskiw, could help. Mr. Miskiw asked for the person's cellphone number, and returned later with information showing the person's precise location in Scotland, Mr. Hoare said. Mr. Miskiw, who faces questioning by police on a separate matter, did not return calls for comment.



Anyone know what Miskiw's 'separate matter' is?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> One of the US papers suggested that he could junk all the UK papers and still turn a healthy profit from the state of the art printing presses he's now got.


 
IIRC Murdoch doesn't own them, he owns 20+-year contracts for use.

Which would still, of course, be worth a nice sum.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 12, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> 2:49m onwards - it has it all - listen to the audience draw breath when they hear about the fone hacking of 9/11 victims families (@5:11m)




Fab! (I used to watch the Daily Show in Aotearoa, it was rebroadcast there. It's funny and clever, but it's not as funny and clever as it thinks it is. But that was pretty good, though).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> IIRC Murdoch doesn't own them, he owns 20+-year contracts for use.
> 
> Which would still, of course, be worth a nice sum.


 
Ah right, i seem to remember clapham boy saying something like that the other day now you mention it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

BTW, bit of advice to everyone, if you're ever nicked just be uncooperative and the police will stop investigating.


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> BTW, bit of advice to everyone, if you're ever nicked just be uncooperative and the police will stop investigating.


 
No, TELL them you're being co-operative but secretly lie.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

HAC stuff is live here for those at work


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> No, TELL them you're being co-operative but secretly lie.


 
Oh, what a tangled web that would be to unravel. It would take years.


----------



## dylans (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> BTW, bit of advice to everyone, if you're ever nicked just be uncooperative and the police will stop investigating.


 
No need. Just pay em to go away like everyone else


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

James Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks & Rupert Murdoch have been invited or requested to attend the UK Parliament - Culture and Media Select Comittee next week on Tuesday. 

That should make interesting watching.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

> Yates: I don't know what was in the 11,000 pages of hacking inquiries





> Yates asks if he can start with an opening statement.
> 
> He says that concerns have been voiced about his interview to the Sunday Telegraph. In his interview he said that if he knew now what he knew in 2009, he would have taken different decisions.



Can any posters think of any possible ways to square this circle? Some way by which Yates could have known in 2009 what was in the evidence?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> James Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks & Rupert Murdoch have been invited or requested to attend the UK Parliament - Culture and Media Select Comittee next week on Tuesday.
> 
> That should make interesting watching.


 
A lot of squirming, no doubt. Unless it's all blown over by then.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2011)

BBC Latest



> Labour MP Tom Watson says Rebekah Brooks, Rupert Murdoch and his son James have been asked to appear before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee next Tuesday.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2011)

Sorry, multi-post


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> A lot of squirming, no doubt. Unless it's all blown over by then.


 
As I understand it, they cannot be compelled to attend, so they may just decline the invitation. 

But if they decide to attend, I imagine they will do plenty of rehearsals to get their stories straight beforehand. At least, I would if it were me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> As I understand it, they cannot be compelled to attend, so they may just decline the invitation.
> 
> But if they decide to attend, I imagine they will do plenty of rehearsals to get their stories straight beforehand. At least, I would if it were me.


 
They most certainly can compel them to attend.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 12, 2011)

How the hell did Andy Hayman make Asst Commissioner?!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They most certainly can compel them to attend.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 12, 2011)

Badgers said:


> BBC Latest
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They should be appearing before a public enquiry, under oath, hopefully some or all of them will yet.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> How the hell did Andy Hayman make Asst Commissioner?!


 
have you met many police officers?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They most certainly can compel them to attend.


 
oh, didn't know that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> oh, didn't know that.


 
Doesn't mean they have to answer any questions mind.


----------



## Ms T (Jul 12, 2011)

Dan U said:


> re: Peston
> 
> iirc Private Eye have had a few bits and pieces about his friendship with Will 'Thirsty' Lewis.
> 
> I've just chucked a load out for recylcling so can't check sadly.



I think this is more on the mark than the allegations here that the source is Rebekah Brooks.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 12, 2011)

Haymen being made to look dodgy in the select commitee.  He was informed that. His phone was hacked, he wasn't bothered.

He admits he always wanted to be a journalist, he admits he accepted hospitality from people he was investigating for criminal offences.  Then he retired and got a highly paid job working with them 2 months later, it stinks but he can't see it.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2011)

cameron lying low again today - refusing to speak to the press at the welsh assembly.

what's he up to?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 12, 2011)

We can be sure of one thing - there will be nothing to directly connect Old man Murdoch with this little escapade, whatever he actually knew over the years

Brooks is fucked - RM is keeping her close in order to ensure she goes along with the plan & when its right, she takes all the shit when its time to dump her. Despite all the talk of Brooks having an family member type of relationship with RM, he is hard faced enought to dump her for the sake of his blood & his business. The longer she hides behind RM, the harder she is going to fall when its her time & Im not even sure she realises this yet.

As I mentioned a couple of days ago & about 1,0000,0000 posts ago, RM had no interest in keeping print going if it will adversley affect his Digital footprint & plans.

they will be sold off and RM will achieve his take over of BSB towards the end of the year/ early 2012 after a high court case following the initial CC decision to block the bid


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 12, 2011)

Hayman makes the members of the committee laugh, but doesn't know why.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 12, 2011)

killer b said:


> cameron lying low again today - refusing to speak to the press at the welsh assembly.
> 
> what's he up to?


 
Deleting emails?


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2011)

not-bono-ever said:


> We can be sure of one thing - there will be nothing to directly connect Old man Murdoch with this little escapade, whatever he actually knew over the years


 
wouldn't be too sure of that. not saying he will get nailed, but this has already gone far beyond anyone really hoped for - so why not?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

These incompetent freaks were the ones doing the investigating? Really?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 12, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> Haymen being made to look dodgy in the select commitee.  He was informed that. His phone was hacked, he wasn't bothered.
> 
> He admits he always wanted to be a journalist, he admits he accepted hospitality from people he was investigating for criminal offences.  Then he retired and got a highly paid job working with them 2 months later, it stinks but he can't see it.


 
This bit -from the Guardian coverage - is laughably incredulous. I mean what kind of fucking world does he live in!

_Michael Ellis, a Conservative, asks Hayman to confirm that he received hospitality from people he was investigating in relation to a criminal offence. Hayman says that's correct.

The MPs on the committee seem to find this surprising. Hayman regards that as normal. *He says it would have been odd if he had cancelled the dinner*, he says._


----------



## teqniq (Jul 12, 2011)

oops QueenOfGoths beat me to it

incompetent freaks doesn't begin to cover it.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> HAC stuff is live here for those at work


 
Hayman (now retired and working for ... wait for it ... News International as a journalist) admits lunching with NI journalists during the enquiry/investigation into the First News International Hacking Affair whilst at the same time being the senior Met Officer in charge of overall of that enquiry


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 12, 2011)

Phew

I would usually be all outraged out on this kind of thing by now, but the way this is unravelling real time in front of us, I cant  seem to detach from it...


----------



## gosub (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They most certainly can compel them to attend.


 
what like the head of Kraft, who parliament wanted to chat to over the Cadbury take over.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Ms T said:


> I think this is more on the mark than the allegations here that the source is Rebekah Brooks.


You know that Will Lewis is Rebekah Brooks's right-hand man, appointed for his loyalty to her when the NotW newsroom started to mutiny under her 'leadership', as well as being a close pal of Peston's, right?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

gosub said:


> what like the head of Kraft, who parliament wanted to chat to over the Cadbury take over.


 
They're not compelled to compel, nor can they compel non UK citizens - like this chappess.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 12, 2011)

> Lorraine Fullbrook says the public will see Hayman as a "dodgy geezer". The inquiry was a "disaster", she says.



you don't say Lorraine.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 12, 2011)

That sounded like a fib.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 12, 2011)

They said earlier that they had 11 dedicated officers for the case and many helpers yet not enough manpower to skim through 11000 pages?  Bollocks.

Hayman goes mental when asked if he received payments from any news corp, yet earlier admitted receiving hospitality, same thing really.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2011)

the internet seems to suggest that with the appearance of hayman, mcmullan finally has a rival...


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 12, 2011)

Judging from the Guardian blog, Hayman really isn't making himself look good, is he?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 12, 2011)

killer b said:


> the internet seems to suggest that with the appearance of hayman, mcmullan finally has a rival...


 
Lol - that almost makes me feel sorry for Hayman...almost.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 12, 2011)

Hayman protesting too much imo.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 12, 2011)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I think it's a fib, and the smirk I believe I heard in his voice is related to him gloating in the knowledge that it could never be proven and having got away with it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

We had this?

Former Scotland Yard detective to sue News International for harassment 



> Mark Lewis, a lawyer for the policeman, Dave Cook, and for his wife Jacqui Hames, told Reuters he believed the planned suit against News Group Newspapers would be the first action against the now-defunct weekly for the physical trailing and electronic surveillance of a police officer by journalists working for it.
> 
> The case is particularly sensitive for the paper, since the man accused of the axe murder, in 1987, later worked for the News of the World as an investigator.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Judging from the Guardian blog, Hayman really isn't making himself look good, is he?


 
I can just imagine the Tory MP telling him he sounds like a _tabloid_ journalist. Nicely constructed dig that, given that he works for The Times.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

(credit: Jason Hazeley)


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2011)

you know you're fucked when keith vaz is pwning your arse.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 12, 2011)

''There is little worse than a bent copper who mocks the law by abusing the privileged powers bestowed on him.''

Andy Hayman, Feb 2010.


----------



## baffled (Jul 12, 2011)

"this is coming across more Clouseau than Columbo" was one of Vaz's better lines


----------



## dylans (Jul 12, 2011)

I don't know about you guys but i'm beginning see this Hayman bloke as a bit of a dodgy geezer


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 12, 2011)

dylans said:


> I don't know about you guys but i'm beginning see this Hayman bloke as a bit of a dodgy geezer



Ya reckon ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Re: Clegg asking Murdoch to reconsider his BskyB bid. No other fucker listens to him, why should Murdoch?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Re: Clegg asking Murdoch to reconsider his BskyB bid. No other fucker listens to him, why should Murdoch?


 
Although you welcome his position as an objective observer - no chance his phone was hacked as no-one would tell him anything!


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Re: Clegg asking Murdoch to reconsider his BskyB bid. No other fucker listens to him, why should Murdoch?


 
Yep like when Hague told Syria to abandon repression. "Ooooh yes immediately, sir."


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 12, 2011)

Just got an email from paypal 


> Dear xxxxxxxx
> 
> You can now subscribe to The Times and The Sunday Times Digital Pack the easy way using PayPal. Experience The Times on your mobile, your iPad or online - and see the news come to life with video, podcasts and exclusive content.
> 
> Use PayPal to sign up for a faster, simpler subscription that keeps your details secure. Sign up now and get your first 30 days for just £1*!


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

not-bono-ever said:


> Phew
> 
> I would usually be all outraged out on this kind of thing by now, but the way this is unravelling real time in front of us, I cant  seem to detach from it...


 
same, its gripping, i cant tear myself away from it


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

> 2.12pm: Back at the home affairs hearing, Akers has suggested that no one will be charged in the current investigation until October.
> 
> She also named the News International executives liaising with the police in the inquiry. They are Will Lewis and Simon Greenberg.



Oh, what a surprise, Peston's mate has been assigned police liaison duties. I can understand Brooks not seeing it as ridiculously inappropriate to use Peston for her own purposes whilst making zero effort to hide it - she probably thinks being so blatant is hilarious, as well as having been a good way to exercise power previously. But Peston agreeing to it? Now?

Beggars belief. The BBC should be well onto this by now. They can't let fucking Peston screw up their credibility on this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Peston's two mates. He's 'close' to Green berg too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Just read that the NI share price drop has allowed Murdoch to buy back £5 billion. (that's from that guido fawkes right winger mind)


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> same, its gripping, i cant tear myself away from it


 
Then you'll be delighted to know that 


> At the end of her evidence, Sue Akers said that the police had only contacted 173 of the 4,000-odd people named in Glenn Mulcaire's files.


Should take a while to drip feed the rest to the media.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

Bloody hell, that's pitiful.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> How the hell did Andy Hayman make Asst Commissioner?!


 
Fuck knows, especially if you've had the misfortune to read the whining, buck-passing wanker's "autobiography" (ghost-written, of course).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Then you'll be delighted to know that
> 
> Should take a while to drip feed the rest to the media.


 
Wasn't it that there were roughly 4,000 names where there was a first and last name; and then about 9,000 phone numbers, landline and mobile, to sift through?


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Peston's two mates. He's 'close' to Green berg too.


Cheers. I'm only just catching up on Greenberg. IIRC he was appointed around the same time as Lewis, when Brooks decided to surround herself with loyal acolytes because Colin Myler hated her guts.

There was a good article looking at this, but it's somewhere in the masses of stuff that comes up on google for this search. 

I'll keep looking.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Just read that the NI share price drop has allowed Murdoch to buy back £5 billion. (that's from that guido fawkes right winger mind)


 
BBC are twittering it as "bloody hell, there's a $5bn share buyback!"

Murdoch trying to shore up the share price, presumably. Possibly with the bonus of a face-saving deal with some investors who want quietly out?


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Wasn't it that there were roughly 4,000 names where there was a first and last name; and then about 9,000 phone numbers, landline and mobile, to sift through?


 
The numbers change all the time, and there's now more than one set of documents. 

Someone reported NI senior insider estimates of 80,000 people hacked. If it was Peston, we can consider that true.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> The numbers change all the time, and there's now more than one set of documents.
> 
> Someone reported NI senior insider estimates of 80,000 people hacked. If it was Peston, we can consider that true.


 
I thought we were talking about the figures in Akers' evidence.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu;11926143][QUOTE=Balbi said:


> http://gawker.com/5820243/jon-stewart-tackles-the-news-of-the-world-scandal



For anyone interested in the US take on this, that ^^ is a Jon Stewart's Daily Show clip. And a damn fine one too.  [/QUOTE]

That's worth watching for anyone that hasn't yet - classic.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> I thought we were talking about the figures in Akers' evidence.


I assumed not because I quoted from the Guardian liveblog. Were you quoting from Akers' evidence? I didn't watch it on TV, so I don't know how badly I was lied to by the journalist I am relying on.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2011)

Reading is obviously not a skill required by Andy Hayman. Muppet.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> I assumed not because I quoted from the Guardian liveblog. Were you quoting from Akers' evidence? I didn't watch it on TV, so I don't know how badly I was lied to by the journalist I am relying on.


 
Akers said that there are 4000 in the original Mulcaire evidence, which has led to others (though I didnt hear a number when I was listening) that have been identified as potential victims - apparently the initial number that had been passed to / obtained by Mulcaire was sometimes followed by other numbers, which could only be easily identified once they had spoke to an initial victim (eg: they were on their friends and family list, or were numbers of personal friends etc etc).*

* though I was only half listening when I heard this


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> Reading is obviously not a skill required by Andy Hayman. Muppet.


 
Doesn't seem to be a skill required by the met at all going by Yates earlier.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> Reading is obviously not a skill required by Andy Hayman. Muppet.


 
I would imagine a police officer of Hayman's pedigree would be more comfortable with verbals than writtens.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2011)

I really really hope they all get their karmic payback.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> I would imagine a police officer of Hayman's pedigree would be more comfortable with verbals than writtens.


 Or the blackmails.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> One of the US papers suggested that he could junk all the UK papers and still turn a healthy profit from the state of the art printing presses he's now got.


 
Any ideas how many 'state of the art printing presses' he actually owns?

Because two he uses for printing the NI titles are owned & operated by Johnson Press, one is the 'The News' press in Portsmouth and the other up north somewhere.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Any ideas how many 'state of the art printing presses' he actually owns?
> 
> Because two he uses for printing the NI titles are owned & operated by Johnson Press, one is the 'The News' press in Portsmouth and the other up north somewhere.


 
Just wait lad.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Someone reported NI senior insider estimates of 80,000 people hacked. If it was Peston, we can consider that true.


 
The amusing thing about that figure is that its probably guessed at by counting *everyone* who has been either reported on, or they tried to report on, or was connected to someone that they were reporting on, since this started.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> The amusing thing about that figure is that its probably guessed at by counting *everyone* who has been either reported on, or they tried to report on, or was connected to someone that they were reporting on, since this started.


 
This is from a very senior source on the anti-Murdoch half of the NewsCorp board. Probably one of those dropped in it recently. I think the estimate is likely to be more accurate than that, but it's hard to tell because a couple of them seem to be out to get Murdoch, so they'll say whatever damages him most right now.

Which is nice.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Hayman's whole career needs be looked at right now. That's someone who is going down.


----------



## baffled (Jul 12, 2011)

Hayman looked dodgy as fuck, everything said with a slight grin.

edit; or smirk


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 12, 2011)

That slimy fuck Vaz should have a word with himself about the moral stance he is taking, given his murky history regarding the truth


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 12, 2011)

Thing is aswell, if you were a NI journo, he'd be such an easy target to cosy up to too.

The mind just boggles what he must have doen to rise to such a rank. Is the pool of senior police persons that shit?


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2011)

not-bono-ever said:


> That slimy fuck Vaz should have a word with himself about the moral stance he is taking, given his murky history regarding the truth


 
Well exactly - I mean, for all his outrage over people lying to committees, he does have form for that himself.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 12, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> The mind just boggles what he must have doen to rise to such a rank. Is the pool of senior police persons that shit?



Would you want to be a copper -senior or not ?

Coppery doesnt get the cream of the intellectual crop


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

So as far as I can work out, the original investigation ended up in the hands of anti-terrorist police solely because of the involvement of royals.  Given all the shit that was going on with terrorism in the country at the time and this was patently not terrorism this seems the wrong department to deal with it.

Clarke thought it a waste of time so set very tight parameters which they kept to and concluded.  He made a half-hearted attempt to investigate further but hit a brick wall because of the News of the World's lawyers, he didnt fancy the fight with people with deep pockets and he was getting no support from above (Hayman) so he shut the investigation down at the earliest opportunity with some vague idea that others would inform those who had been hacked.

I can see why Clark would make these decisions, he had limited resources and no one's life was in immediate danger, although it now turns about to be bad decision.  The questions for me are why wasnt the investigation passed to a more appropriate department of the met and what the fuck is it with Hayman?  He appears to have been far to close to News International, and he makes for a decidely shifty and dodgy witness.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> She is far from finished. Look at Piers Moron's rise from the ashes.



Wait a bit 

Bodies/river


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Just wait lad.


 
Looks like News Int has three sites - 



> Newsprinters is the manufacturing division of News International with three purpose-built plants in Scotland, the North and South of England. The very latest state-of-the-art printing equipment ensures that we remain at the forefront of the newspaper printing industry.
> 
> http://www.newsprinters.co.uk/



- in addition to the two Johnson Press sites and I assume another contract printer in Ireland.

ETA: They print the Telegraph & FT too.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Hayman's whole career needs be looked at right now. That's someone who is going down.



More to the point who put him there ..?...knowing his limitations or potential ...there now appears to be a librarian in charge of the investigation ....I suppose there's a lot of bin liners


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wait a bit
> 
> Bodies/river



soemone like this would be unable to function without the power & authurity she truly believes she deserves. Shes worked hard to get there. life will effectively end for her very very very soon

If there is a body in a river, it will be self inflicted


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

not-bono-ever said:


> soemone like this would be unable to function without the power & authurity she truly believes she deserves. Shes worked hard to get there. life will effectively end for her very very very soon
> 
> If there is a body in a river, it will be self inflicted


 
Do what?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Tankus said:


> More to the point who put him there ..?...knowing his limitations or potential ...there now appears to be a librarian in charge of the investigation ....I suppose there's a lot of bin liners


 
To be corrupt you don't need to have been placed anywhere. It's not internal affairs.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> So as far as I can work out, the original investigation ended up in the hands of anti-terrorist police solely because of the involvement of royals.  Given all the shit that was going on with terrorism in the country at the time and this was patently not terrorism this seems the wrong department to deal with it.
> 
> Clarke thought it a waste of time so set very tight parameters which they kept to and concluded.  He made a half-hearted attempt to investigate further but hit a brick wall because of the News of the World's lawyers, he didnt fancy the fight with people with deep pockets and he was getting no support from above (Hayman) so he shut the investigation down at the earliest opportunity with some vague idea that others would inform those who had been hacked.
> 
> I can see why Clark would make these decisions, he had limited resources and no one's life was in immediate danger, although it now turns about to be bad decision.  The questions for me are why wasnt the investigation passed to a more appropriate department of the met and what the fuck is it with Hayman?  He appears to have been far to close to News International, and he makes for a decidely shifty and dodgy witness.


 
The first part seems somewhat reasonable - though I would point out that the "lack of support from the top" goes much higher than Hayman.  After all, by this point in time it seems there had been at least one select committee investigation and report into this, as well as Operations Motorman and Reproof, and the Government themselves (as we now find out) were well aware of what was going on to the extent of being repeat victims of it themselves(but were utterly (in public at least) unconcerned about it).  In short, noone at the top of Government did anything, so its a bit rich to pin this on Hayman.

As for "appropriate department of the Met" - there probably wasnt one then, just as there isnt one now.  They would have had to set up a team to look at this (as they have done now) and basically steal officers, police staff and office space from other departments and squads, all of whom would have their own thing to focus on and their own management teams complaining about it.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2011)

15.44 BBC news now leading with this:

'News International tried to "thwart" the original inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World, senior Met police officers have told MPs.' 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14116786

Also reports that Ms Brooks has been asked to come before the Committee, but no response has yet been made. I say frogmarch her in and make the decision for her.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> So as far as I can work out, the original investigation ended up in the hands of anti-terrorist police solely because of the involvement of royals.  Given all the shit that was going on with terrorism in the country at the time and this was patently not terrorism this seems the wrong department to deal with it.
> 
> Clarke thought it a waste of time so set very tight parameters which they kept to and concluded.  He made a half-hearted attempt to investigate further but hit a brick wall because of the News of the World's lawyers, he didnt fancy the fight with people with deep pockets and he was getting no support from above (Hayman) so he shut the investigation down at the earliest opportunity with some vague idea that others would inform those who had been hacked.
> 
> I can see why Clark would make these decisions, he had limited resources and no one's life was in immediate danger, although it now turns about to be bad decision.  The questions for me are why wasnt the investigation passed to a more appropriate department of the met and what the fuck is it with Hayman?  He appears to have been far to close to News International, and he makes for a decidely shifty and dodgy witness.


 
I don't know if Akers knew what Yates, Clarke and Hayman were going to say about not having the manpower to do it properly, but I did enjoy her remark at the end as to whether she had enough resource for the new investigation and was it sustainable.

_"45 officers will not be missed out of a force of 50,000."_

Sweet.


----------



## xenon (Jul 12, 2011)

This better be on BBC Parlament Iplayer later. (Cant' watch anythingat work.)


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Tankus said:


> More to the point who put him there ..?...knowing his limitations or potential ...there now appears to be a librarian in charge of the investigation ....I suppose there's a lot of bin liners


Librarian? What librarian?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Tankus is a pointless weirdo. Don;t waste your time.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2011)

At least librarians will read the evidence.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Murdoch now US citizen, is his kid?


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> The first part seems somewhat reasonable - though I would point out that the "lack of support from the top" goes much higher than Hayman.  After all, by this point in time it seems there had been at least one select committee investigation and report into this, as well as Operations Motorman and Reproof, and the Government themselves (as we now find out) were well aware of what was going on to the extent of being repeat victims of it themselves(but were utterly (in public at least) unconcerned about it).  In short, noone at the top of Government did anything, so its a bit rich to pin this on Hayman.
> 
> As for "appropriate department of the Met" - there probably wasnt one then, just as there isnt one now.  They would have had to set up a team to look at this (as they have done now) and basically steal officers, police staff and office space from other departments and squads, all of whom would have their own thing to focus on and their own management teams complaining about it.


 
Are the government supposed to interfere with police operations then? 

There's a lot of dirty hands here agricola. Pointing the finger emphatically in one of the many correct directions doesn't make the Met look any better.

Although it is bloody excellent for making them turn on each other and say shit they never would have otherwise. So you carry on.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Tankus is a pointless weirdo. Don;t waste your time.



you just know you want me ...!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Why was rusbridger warning cameron? What did he know? How?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why was rusbridger warning cameron? What did he know? How?


 
That Coulson had links to someone who was about to go on trial.  The press all knew but there was a reporting restriction.  Cameron was warned about Coulson, he chose to ignore it, Cameron is up to his eyeballs in it, as was Blair.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> That Coulson had links to someone who was about to go on trial.  The press all knew but there was a reporting restriction.  Cameron was warned about Coulson, he chose to ignore it, Cameron is up to his eyeballs in it, as was Blair.


 
I know _what_. I want to know _why_. What was the case? What trial what restriction? Rusbridger just says he could not print it, not that there was a trail. So, what is he doing saving people rather than burying them?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> I don't know if Akers knew what Yates, Clarke and Hayman were going to say about not having the manpower to do it properly, but I did enjoy her remark at the end as to whether she had enough resource for the new investigation and was it sustainable.
> 
> _"45 officers will not be missed out of a force of 50,000."_
> 
> Sweet.


 
But she now has the full support of superiors and politicians.  When Clarke was investigating he seemingly had neither and was also trying to manage a fairly difficult ongoing terror threat.  He seemed ok to me, came across as a decent copper who just wanted to catch bad people and people listening to other people's messages wasnt very high on his agenda.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Murdoch now US citizen, is his kid?


 
I think Jimmy boy is English.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I know _what_. I want to know _why_. What was the case? What trial what restriction? Rusbridger just says he could not print it, not that there was a trail. So, what is he doing saving people rather than burying them?


 
I seem to recall something somewhere (Lobster magazine?) to the effect that Rusbridger had links to the security organs . . .


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

All you journos sitting tight on other papers, one crack and you're all gone.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2011)

Govt to support millibands motion saying the BskyB takeover shouldnt go ahead


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2011)

BBC reporting that the Tories will back Labour's motion tomorrow.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> I seem to recall something somewhere (Lobster magazine?) to the effect that Rusbridger had links to the security organs . . .


 
No idea on that Idris, i think it's more a case of we're all chaps in this together. We all piss in the same pot.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why was rusbridger warning cameron? What did he know? How?


 
It's a bit rich Rusbridger warning Cameron off Coulson due to the _NOTW_'s links to Rees.

Rusbridger himself discontinued the contracts of freelance journalists Flynn and Gillard, who were digging into the links between corrupt Met cops and Rees, at the insistence of Andy Hayman.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I know _what_. I want to know _why_. What was the case? What trial what restriction? Rusbridger just says he could not print it, not that there was a trail. So, what is he doing saving people rather than burying them?


 
It was the Jonathan Rees murder trial, Coulson had links to Rees.  I'm doing this from memory so can't remember the exact nature of the reporting to restriction.  As to why Rusbridger wanted to warn Cameron as opposed to hammer him, I don't know, it kinda makes it look a bit like a cosy club.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No idea on that Idris, i think it's more a case of we're all chaps in this together. We all piss in the same pot.


 
Christ I wish I could remember the full details. It was something to do with a couple of freelancers who had their work abruptly cancelled by El Guardianista Maximo.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2011)

Ahem.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Are the government supposed to interfere with police operations then?


 
I didnt say interfere, I said that there was a lack of support (which they would have to provided, given the national importance of this) from the Government.  As for pointing fingers, that surely is justified given that the previous Government was both far more responsible (for what was happening overall rather than the failure of individual investigations) and much more compromised (lets not forget that they were collaborating with NI as to the timing of news stories and government policy) than the Met ever was.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's a bit rich Rusbridger warning Cameron off Coulson due to the _NOTW_'s links to Rees.
> 
> Rusbridger himself discontinued the contracts of freelance journalists Flynn and Gillard, who were digging into the links between corrupt Met cops and Rees, at the insistence of Andy Hayman.


 
Hayman again, he keeps popping up.  He has a lot of questions to answer.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 12, 2011)

the government that they will vote for the opposition motion tomorrow:



> "This House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB"


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's a bit rich Rusbridger warning Cameron off Coulson due to the _NOTW_'s links to Rees.
> 
> Rusbridger himself discontinued the contracts of freelance journalists Flynn and Gillard, who were digging into the links between corrupt Met cops and Rees, at the insistence of Andy Hayman.


 
can you clarify the personal insistence here please dave? Rusbridgers or Haymans?


----------



## past caring (Jul 12, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's a bit rich Rusbridger warning Cameron off Coulson due to the _NOTW_'s links to Rees.
> 
> Rusbridger himself discontinued the contracts of freelance journalists Flynn and Gillard, who were digging into the links between corrupt Met cops and Rees, at the insistence of Andy Hayman.


#

So which came first? Did Rusbridger give them the push before speaking to Cameron - or only afterwards?


----------



## past caring (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> can you clarify the personal insistence here please dave? Rusbridgers or Haymans?



Has to be Hayman's unless dave is shit at writing sentences. Why would Rusbridger need to insist to himself?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Just needed to check, whole new door opens...


----------



## yardbird (Jul 12, 2011)

I was chatting to a Sunday Times journalist at lunch today - "There's a lot of disquiet in the office".
Other than that, he was very guarded I'm afraid.
I did try.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

**


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2011)

Hayman wrote a "strictly confidential" letter to Rusbridger about Flynn & Gillard's articles on corruption in the Met - including in the anti-corruption squad. Rusbridger subsequently did not renew their freelance contracts, and the articles in the _Guardian_ on this particular seam of corruption ended.

Rusbridger later claimed that - wait for it - he was on holiday when the letter arrived, and did not personally deal with it.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 12, 2011)

I was chatting to a Sunday Times journalist at lunch today - "There's a lot of disquiet in the office".
Other than that, he was very guarded I'm afraid.
I did try.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2011)

About time the governement & opposition stood up to Emperor Murdoch and his evil empire. Better late than never, chaps.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Lot of holidays ain't there?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Hayman wrote a "strictly confidential" letter to Rusbridger about Flynn & Gillard's articles on corruption in the Met - including in the anti-corruption squad. Rusbridger subsequently did not renew their freelance contracts, and the articles in the _Guardian_ on this particular seam of corruption ended.
> 
> Rusbridger later claimed that - wait for it - he was on holiday when the letter arrived, and did not personally deal with it.


 Have you talked to these two, do you have contacts for them?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2011)

past caring said:


> #
> 
> So which came first? Did Rusbridger give them the push before speaking to Cameron - or only afterwards?


 
This was in 2000! 

_Guardian_ journos following leads that linked _News Of The World_ (and _Mirror_ and _Sunday Mirror_) hacks to corrupt cops, violent underworld figures and dodgy private detectives in a web of criminal enterprise - spiked by Hayman and Rusbridger.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Hayman wrote a "strictly confidential" letter to Rusbridger about Flynn & Gillard's articles on corruption in the Met - including in the anti-corruption squad. Rusbridger subsequently did not renew their freelance contracts, and the articles in the _Guardian_ on this particular seam of corruption ended.
> 
> Rusbridger later claimed that - wait for it - he was on holiday when the letter arrived, and did not personally deal with it.



Oh for heavens sake...

I wish I could get out of stuff so easily.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Have you talked to these two, do you have contacts for them?


 
No I don't. This is all a matter of public record, mind.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

Why would a editor of a national newspaper stop articles on corruption in the met on the say so of the met? Why would he do that? Are they all in the same gentlemans club or something?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 12, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Hayman wrote a "strictly confidential" letter to Rusbridger about Flynn & Gillard's articles on corruption in the Met - including in the anti-corruption squad. Rusbridger subsequently did not renew their freelance contracts, and the articles in the _Guardian_ on this particular seam of corruption ended.
> 
> Rusbridger later claimed that - wait for it - he was on holiday when the letter arrived, and did not personally deal with it.


 
This must be the case I was thinking of. . .


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 12, 2011)

> *BREAKING NEWS*_ Laura Kuenssberg Chief political correspondent, BBC News channel:_ In the last couple of minutes it has been confirmed that the government will support Labour's motion that says MPs believe it would not be in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to takeover BSkyB.


Will that actually have much impact on proceedings?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

no


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 12, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> Will that actually have much impact on proceedings?


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why was rusbridger warning cameron? What did he know? How?


Edit  - Q clarified.

There was an ongoing court case that could not be reported on (the Daniel Morgan murder, Rees and Fillery in the dock). The case has collapsed five times in 15 years due to police corruption. It was barely reportable at all until recently. The Graun splashed on it in the early 2000s, IIRC.

It's exactly the kind of information you'd expect an editor to pass onto a senior politician who is about to do something so incredibly fucking stupid. I'm actually quite surprised that no other paper did, in private. Whatever their own dodgy dealings, they must have known this would blow up in his face.

Plus, Rusbridger had been chasing this story for years. Given that Cameron would ignore him on principle, getting it on record that he had been warned was arguably a bit of a master stroke.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 12, 2011)

Of course they have to support them, they'd look fucking stupid if they don't. But no, not much impact at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> I don't get your fixation on this. There was an ongoing court case that could not be reported on (the Daniel Morgan murder, Rees and Fillery in the dock). It's exactly the kind of information you'd expect an editor to pass onto a senior politician who is about to do something so incredibly fucking stupid. I'm actually quite surprised that no other paper did, in private. Whatever their own dodgy dealings, they must have known this would blow up in his face.
> 
> Plus, Rusbridger had been chasing this story for years. Given that Cameron would ignore him on principle, getting it on record that he had been warned was arguably a bit of a master stroke.


 
You think editors should be helping people like cameron? Of course you don't. So why the question?


> It's exactly the kind of information you'd expect an editor to pass onto a senior politician who is about to do something so incredibly fucking stupid



It's exactly what i'd not expect them to pass on.


----------



## past caring (Jul 12, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> This was in 2000!
> 
> _Guardian_ journos following leads that linked _News Of The World_ (and _Mirror_ and _Sunday Mirror_) hacks to corrupt cops, violent underworld figures and dodgy private detectives in a web of criminal enterprise - spiked by Hayman and Rusbridger.



Sorry - don't read the Guardian, so wasn't sure when this stuff was being reported.


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2011)

I talked with Gillard and/or Flynn back in 2000/2001... I failed to get a coherent account of what'd happened with the _Guardian_.

Back in 2006 detective-boy was trying and failing to get hold of their book _Untouchables_... review here.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 12, 2011)

this is totally destroying Cameron, for once he has no one to take the hit for him


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Edit  - Q clarified.
> 
> There was an ongoing court case that could not be reported on (the Daniel Morgan murder, Rees and Fillery in the dock). It's exactly the kind of information you'd expect an editor to pass onto a senior politician who is about to do something so incredibly fucking stupid. I'm actually quite surprised that no other paper did, in private. Whatever their own dodgy dealings, they must have known this would blow up in his face.
> 
> Plus, Rusbridger had been chasing this story for years. Given that Cameron would ignore him on principle, getting it on record that he had been warned was arguably a bit of a master stroke.


 
Look up. Wasn't so hot then was he?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 12, 2011)

laptop said:


> I talked with Gillard and/or Flynn back in 2000/2001... I failed to get a coherent account of what'd happened with the _Guardian_.


 
Why? Laurie Flynn is very straightforward to speak to.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Of course they have to support them, they'd look fucking stupid if they don't. But no, not much impact at all.


 
Makes Cameron look pretty stupid though, and the spectacle of watching two lots of lobby fodder trooping into the same lobby en masse will be deeply depressing.


----------



## Kanda (Jul 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> Makes Cameron look pretty stupid though


 

That's what I just said wasn't it?


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Why? Laurie Flynn is very straightforward to speak to.


 
I don't remember the detail - just that there was _lots_ of detail and I couldn't get from it to the heart of a coherent story. Much the same as the reviewer above. Often happens with journos writing books...


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> Will that actually have much impact on proceedings?


No, but it forces the govt to oppose Murdoch properly. They couldn't be seen to vote against, abstaining is cowardice, and amending it out of all recognition a bit tricky with such a simple motion. It was based on a poll, showing 70% in favour and only 9% against.

Little Ed has learnt how to play the politics game. Bless.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2011)

Kanda said:


> That's what I just said wasn't it?


 
Ah, thought you meant they would be stupid if they _didnt_ vote with Labour.  IMHO what Cameron should have done is made his side of this a free vote, rather than impose this farce.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> No, but it forces the govt to oppose Murdoch properly. They couldn't be seen to vote against, abstaining is cowardice, and amending it out of all recognition a bit tricky with such a simple motion. It was based on a poll, showing 70% in favour and only 9% against.
> 
> Little Ed has learnt how to play the politics game. Bless.



Hunt will not attend the vote.


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2011)

Peston:



> My focus will inevitably shift - for a while - from the crisis at News Corp to the crisis in the eurozone.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14122109



Reassigned?


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You think editors should be helping people like cameron? Of course you don't. So why the question?
> 
> 
> It's exactly what i'd not expect them to pass on.


But they're not you, Rusbridger has some grand liberal ideas about his role in the establishment. It's not at all surprising, and I can't see what is so sinister. Whatever his motives, I'm bloody glad he did it because it massively increases the chances of bringing Cameron down over this.

I don't give a shit about his personal politics or motivations. He's useful right now. Fucking use him. We can pick over his corpse when the others are buried, but right now he's not on the ropes and Cameron is. I think we should be focusing on the easy targets for the time being ...


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 12, 2011)

laptop said:


> Peston:
> 
> Reassigned?


 
Doubt it.  He's the Business Editor, after all.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Hunt will not attend the vote.


I don't think he can vote on it. He is in a quasi-judicial role and is the one member of parliament who is unable to express an opinion on the matter. Convenient for him, yes. Meaningful, no.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I know _what_. I want to know _why_. What was the case? What trial what restriction? Rusbridger just says he could not print it, not that there was a trail. So, what is he doing saving people rather than burying them?


I think it's highly likely Rusbridger was referring to the Daniel Morgan murder case (bloke found outisde the Red Lion in Sydenham with an axe embedded in his head), which Jonathan rees of southern Investigations went on trial for; Coulson had used Reees and southern extensively


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

laptop said:


> Peston:
> 
> 
> 
> Reassigned?


I'd imagine so, yes. If so, well done Beeb.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> But they're not you, Rusbridger has some grand liberal ideas about his role in the establishment. It's not at all surprising, and I can't see what is so sinister. Whatever his motives, I'm bloody glad he did it because it massively increases the chances of bringing Cameron down over this.
> 
> I don't give a shit about his personal politics or motivations. He's useful right now. Fucking use him. We can pick over his corpse when the others are buried, but right now he's not on the ropes and Cameron is. I think we should be focusing on the easy targets for the time being ...



It does matter if they're not  me. It's quite important that they're not. That they're part of this - all together, That the editor of the paper who brought this down went to cameron to try and help him out of it before it happened. That happened *because* they're not me. 

Also don't tell me what to target on. You want to spread this, don't concentrate it.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I think it's highly likely Rusbridger was referring to the Daniel Morgan murder case (bloke found outisde the Red Lion in Sydenham with an axe embedded in his head), which Jonathan rees of southern Investigations went on trial for; Coulson had used Reees and southern extensively


It's not just likely, it is reported fact. He has not hidden this - he just couldn't reveal it until the case irretrievably collapsed and they all got acquitted - earlier this year, I think.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I think it's highly likely Rusbridger was referring to the Daniel Morgan murder case (bloke found outisde the Red Lion in Sydenham with an axe embedded in his head), which Jonathan rees of southern Investigations went on trial for; Coulson had used Reees and southern extensively


 
ARrggh it doesn't matter what fucking case it was, why was he going to  cameron to help him.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2011)

wasn't it the daniel morgan murder case? i think that's it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Wtf is this the media should hep the national interest shit? Help the govt of the day? It's mental

You've just argued that there should be no state media.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> ARrggh it doesn't matter what fucking case it was, why was he going to  cameron to help him.


 
It has been said of Murdoch that he got close to Political leaders not because of threats but because he insulated them from close media investigation.  Perhaps Rusbridger was trying to do the same, to build a closer relationship with Cameron?


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Why would a editor of a national newspaper stop articles on corruption in the met on the say so of the met? Why would he do that? Are they all in the same gentlemans club or something?


 
a) masons
b) lizards
c) masons + lizards together


----------



## dylans (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> ARrggh it doesn't matter what fucking case it was, why was he going to  cameron to help him.


 
YMU is right on this.Who cares why he warned him. We all know Rusbridger is a liberal shit. So what? I don't care if he thought he was "helping out the PM in the national interest" Or if he was trying to ingratiate himself with him. That's of secondary importance here. The important thing is that we know that Cameron was warned about Coulson...and hired him anyway. The opportunity to hurt Cameron is the number one priority here not attacking the fucking Guardian. That's not spreading the crisis, its diluting it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

> Whatever his motives, I'm bloody glad he did it because it massively increases the chances of bringing Cameron down over this.



No it doesn't. The chances of the guardian being caught in the same net have increased though.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> It has been said of Murdoch that he got close to Political leaders not because of threats but because he insulated them from close media investigation.  Perhaps Rusbridger was trying to do the same, to build a closer relationship with Cameron?


 
Unlikely.  Murdoch has control over a wide range of media outlets and large resources... Rusbridger doesnt, is merely an editor, and the Guardian is broke anyway.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It does matter if they're not  me. It's quite important that they're not. That they're part of this - all together, That the editor of the paper who brought this down went to cameron to try and help him out of it before it happened. That happened *because* they're not me.
> 
> Also don't tell me what to target on. You want to spread this, don't concentrate it.


 
A wedge is usually the most effective strategy for forcing through a very tough line.

It does matter that they're not you because most people aren't, and I can't wait for you to clone yourself ten million times and bring the little aprons up to be right-thinking citizens. I addressed the wedge issue pages ago, and (as you know) I'm not interested in playing heroes and villains.

We're in the world we're in. It's not going to change at all without massive pressure and an undoing of the massive damage wrought by Thatcher. Break the back of the beast, give us a taste of what it feels like to win, and then we might be able to achieve something.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wtf is this the media should hep the national interest shit? Help the govt of the day? It's mental
> 
> You've just argued that there should be no state media.


 
Where have I argued any of that? For fuck's sake.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 12, 2011)

should NI's legal team get sent to the beak  ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

dylans said:


> YMU is right on this.Who cares why he warned him. We all know Rusbridger is a liberal shit. So what? I don't care if he thought he was "helping out the PM in the national interest" The important thing is that we know that Cameron was warned about Coulson...and hired him anyway. The opportunity to hurt Cameron is the number one priority here not attacking the fucking Guardian. That's not spreading the crisis, its diluting it.


 
I care about why he helped him and why. I'm interested in what it says about how the media works, about the personal connections and how they play out in real life. You have the editor of the largest left wing paper looking to defend a tory prime minister from future attacks.  If you're not then sorry, you're out of the game, you don't realise that is happening. It's a legitimation crisis anmd you're trying to restrict it pot one company.  Clueless.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> A wedge is usually the most effective strategy for forcing through a very tough line.
> 
> It does matter that they're not you because most people aren't, and I can't wait for you to clone yourself ten million times and bring the little aprons up to be right-thinking citizens. I addressed the wedge issue pages ago, and (as you know) I'm not interested in playing heroes and villains.
> 
> We're in the world we're in. It's not going to change at all without massive pressure and an undoing of the massive damage wrought by Thatcher. Break the back of the beast, give us a taste of what it feels like to win, and then we might be able to achieve something.


 wtf has this got do with your cowardice over the guardian?


----------



## dylans (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I care about why he helped him and why. I'm interested in what it says about how the media works, about the personal connections and how they play out in real life. You have the editor of the largest left wing paper looking to defend a tory prime minister from future attacks.  If you're not then sorry, you're out of the game, you don't realise that is happening. It's a legitimation crisis anmd you're trying to restrict it pot one company.  Clueless.


 
I will concern myself with Rusbridger's motives once we have Cameron's head on a spike thanks and whichever way you want to spin this, attacking the paper that not only broke this story but doggedly followed it for years at a time when Cameron is in the sniper sights is just bloody stupid.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2011)

BBC reporting that NI has announced that *most* of the 200+ former NotW staff are being re-employed.

The countdown to the Sun on Sunday is on.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

dylans said:


> I will concern myself with Rusbridger's motives once we have Cameron's head on a spike thanks and whichever way you want to spin this, attacking the paper that not only broke this story but doggedly followed it for years at a time when Cameron is in the sniper sights is just bloody stupid.


 
I'll concern myself with them right now. I'll not attack others for their priorities either. Not you though eh?


----------



## Kanda (Jul 12, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> BBC reporting that NI has announced that *most* of the 200+ former NotW staff are being re-employed.
> 
> The countdown to the Sun on Sunday is on.


 
Probably cheaper than the redundancy process/payout.


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wtf is this the media should hep the national interest shit? Help the govt of the day? It's mental



But the net effect - since Cameron didn't heed the warning - is that he's set Cameron up beautifully. "Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why and how he appointed a person he knew to be involved in criminal activity...?"

I discussed (a couple of days ago on this thread!) the downside: what if Cameron had heeded the warning? Not much harm done. 

And I reckoned, given the timing of at least one of the warnings, that Rusbridger was playing a different political game entirely: trying to get a Lib/Lab coalition rather than the Lib/Tory trainwreck. The sort of thing UK national newspaper editors have done since they were invented.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'll concern myself with them right now. I'll not attack others for their priorities either. Not you though eh?


 



			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> wtf has this got do with your cowardice over the guardian?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

#dontattacktheguardian


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

Much as I see your point about what the Rusbridge-Cameron exchange can shed light on butchers, what exactly have you got to go on? Seems to me that in lieu of some more evidence/data all one can do at this point is indulge in idle speculation.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

agricola said:


>


 
Going to say any thing roman?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Much as I see your point about what the Rusbridge-Cameron exchange can shed light on butchers, what exactly have you got to go on? Seems to me that in lieu of some more evidence/data all one can do at this point is indulge in idle speculation.


Evidence of what. The cosy world they live in, yep got that. Rusbridger going to cameron to warn him. To go on? It happening.


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 12, 2011)

RM, JM and RB accepted committee invitation for next week!!!!


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2011)

The 2 Murdochs & Brook has agreed to appear next week before the Select Committee!


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Evidence of what. The cosy world they live in, yep got that. Rusbridger going to cameron to warn him.


 
Well, you seem to be asking _what were his motivations?_, and if the man himself isn't saying anything apart from what he's already said what have we got to go on? I did see him on Newsnight the other night, and AFAIR he was saying something along the lines of wanting to warn him about taking on a dodgy fella as his comms man. You can infer whatever you want from that, but it'll still be speculation.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> The 2 Murdochs & Brook has agreed to appear next week before the Select Committee!


 
I'm amazed Rupert has decided to attend, he must fancy a dust up.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 12, 2011)

Fwiw I find it fucking odd he warned him too. I would have been willing Coulson in to the job if I was rubbisher


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Going to say any thing roman?


 
Best for you to illustrate your own daftness, I feel.  

Though as you have asked, how on earth is it that someone can be accused of their "cowardice over the guardian" when this is about comments on a bulletin board?


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> wtf has this got do with your cowardice over the guardian?


What the fuck are you on about?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2011)

The Chair of the Select Committee is saying they could have forced Brook to appear, as she's a UK citizen, but they couldn't have forced RM & JM to attend, he seems surprised that they have agreed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Well, you seem to be asking _what were his motivations?_, and if the man himself isn't saying anything apart from what he's already said what have we got to go on? I did see him on Newsnight the other night, and AFAIR he was saying something along the lines of wanting to warn him about taking on a dodgy fella as his comms man. You can infer whatever you want from that, but it'll still be speculation.


 
I am asking what his motivations was, and i'm asking what produced that motivation.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I am asking what his motivations was, and i'm asking what produced that motivation.


 
Yeah I got that. Do you have any answers that aren't essentially speculation?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> The Chair of the Select Committee is saying they could have forced Brook to appear, as she's a UK citizen, but they couldn't have forced RM & JM to attend, he seems surprised that they have agreed.


 
Oh, so Jimbo is *not* a UK national then? Googling turned up conflicting results.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> What the fuck are you on about?


 
Did you really get ran out of Islington by a horde of CiF commentators?  Fled in terror when faced with weapons-grade biscoti and couscous?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> The Chair of the Select Committee is saying they could have forced Brook to appear, as she's a UK citizen, but they couldn't have forced RM & JM to attend, he seems surprised that they have agreed.


 
This is going to be beautiful viewing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yeah I got that. Do you have any answers that aren't essentially speculation?


 
I have the last 300 years of  British history. Is that enough?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Oh, so Jimbo is *not* a UK national then? Googling turned up conflicting results.


 
Looks that way, not surprising considering his father has never been a UK citizen.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I have the last 300 years of  British history. Is that enough?


 
It's a start, but it won't suddenly make you into a mind-reader.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I am asking what his motivations was, and i'm asking what produced that motivation.


He's a liberal. What more explanation do you need?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> This is going to be beautiful viewing.


 
It is, but I reckon it'll go one of 2 ways, either it will be a proper paga with accusations flying around or the MP's will get a bit star struck and intimidated and give em an easy ride.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yeah I got that. Do you have any answers that aren't essentially speculation?


 
Proof of motivation? What counts as proof of motivation TruXta? Acts? Got them.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> Did you really get ran out of Islington by a horde of CiF commentators?  Fled in terror when faced with weapons-grade biscoti and couscous?


 
Yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> He's a liberal. What more explanation do you need?


 
Meaningless


----------



## dylans (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Evidence of what. The cosy world they live in, yep got that. Rusbridger going to cameron to warn him. To go on? It happening.


 
Let's remind us what Cameron has done. He hired a man mired in accusations of industrial espionage and brought him into the heart of the government. That is massive. That alone should be enough to force his resignation and now we knew he did it despite being warned not to. 

Rusbridger warning tightens the screw a little bit by taking away the excuse of ignorance. Cameron can no longer say he didn't know. By warning Cameron he has given us evidence that Cameron knew Coulson was a liabilty and yet hired him anyway. Whatever Rusbridger's motives I'm glad he did. Now Cameron can't claim ignorance and we are one step closer to bringing him down. That's my priority, but hey knock  yourself out attacking the Guardian instead.


----------



## xenon (Jul 12, 2011)

`





butchersapron said:


> No it doesn't. The chances of the guardian being caught in the same net have increased though.


 

Do you think it's possible he did it, betting Cameron would ignore his warning? Maybe he warned him at a stage where it was too late for Cameron to get rid of Coulson, with out contractual problems or something. But it would be on record he'd been told. I mean it's possible Russbringer could have been that cunning.


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Meaningless


 
Try:

He's a *L*iberal. What more explanation do you need?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> It's a start, but it won't suddenly make you into a mind-reader.


 
I don't have to be. It' plain as day. The lovely guardian editor warned the nasty Cameron out of a collegiate responsibility.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> collegiate responsibility.


 
LOL. I'll borrow that.

 The Wire again (S5): "collegiate atmosphere in the news room".


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Proof of motivation? What counts as proof of motivation TruXta? Acts? Got them.


 
Nah, acts are shit proofs of motivation. Psych 101, mate. _I meant to go home after 2 beers, but...._


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I don't have to be. It' plain as day. The lovely guardian editor warned the nasty Cameron out of a collegiate responsibility.


 
Again, that's you speculating. FWIW I'm inclined to agree with you, but stop pretending this a slam-dunk, case shut type of thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Again, that's you speculating. FWIW I'm inclined to agree with you, but stop pretending this a slam-dunk, case shut type of thing.


 
What are you the fucking hacking journo standard monitor? I know what happened. So do you. Stop being a wuss.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Yes. C'mon TruXta, show some collegiate responsibility here.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 12, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> This is going to be beautiful viewing.



Innit. Sod 7 days, I want it no(t)w!

I fear it will be as exasperating as Blair's act though. A masterclass exhibition in avoidance and doublespeak if nothing else.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What are you the fucking hacking journo standard monitor? I know what happened. So do you. Stop being a wuss.


 
Really? You know what happened? James Randi's 1 million dollars are waiting in that case.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Innit. Sod 7 days, I want it no(t)w!
> 
> I fear it will be as exasperating as Blair's act though. A masterclass exhibition in avoidance and doublespeak if nothing else.


 
I don't, I think they'll come out fighting.  I can't see Murdoch senior being spoken to the same way they spoke to the cops today.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

What choice did he have; it's an opportuity to show what a fit and proper person he is. Full cooperation, got nothing to hide, etc.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> ARrggh it doesn't matter what fucking case it was, why was he going to  cameron to help him.


It's simple why Rusbridger did it; to trap cameron. he knew that cameron would ignore his warning, given that it came from the Guardian.
So, when it later emerges that cameron had ignored a warning about Coulson's criminal associations - from  a figure as eminent as a national broadsheet editor, no less, then Cameron's even further & deeper in the shit.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Innit. Sod 7 days, I want it no(t)w!
> 
> I fear it will be as exasperating as Blair's act though. A masterclass exhibition in avoidance and doublespeak if nothing else.


I wouldn't bet on it. They will be well prepared, of course. But they're running around like they still have the power they used to have. None of them has any real experience of dealling with situations where people are not fucking terrified of them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Really? You know what happened? James Randi's 1 million dollars are waiting in that case.


 
Weird thing to say. Rusbridger helped Cameron - why? Is this a mental question? Is the reply that it doesn't matter right now good enough? It's not and it's not oh intrepid journos.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 12, 2011)

Some seem to getting a little over excited here, in thinking Cameron is dead in the water and will be forced to resign.

He's not, it's never going to happen.

In fact I'll put it on record that if Cameron resigns over this, I'll donate £50 to the server fund.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> It's simple why Rusbridger did it; to trap cameron. he knew that cameron would ignore his warning, given that it came from the Guardian.
> So, when it later emerges that cameron had ignored a warning about Coulson's criminal associations - from  a figure as eminent as a national broadsheet editor, no less, then Cameron's even further & deeper in the shit.


 
That's pretty mental. The guardian had no motivation to trap Cameron. They support his govt. If you're right - where is this trap being used? 

#No, all in it together.


----------



## past caring (Jul 12, 2011)

laptop said:


> But the net effect - since Cameron didn't heed the warning - is that he's set Cameron up beautifully. "Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why and how he appointed a person he knew to be involved in criminal activity...?"
> 
> I discussed (a couple of days ago on this thread!) the downside: what if Cameron had heeded the warning? Not much harm done.
> 
> And I reckoned, given the timing of at least one of the warnings, that Rusbridger was playing a different political game entirely: trying to get a Lib/Lab coalition rather than the Lib/Tory trainwreck. The sort of thing UK national newspaper editors have done since they were invented.


 
Hurrah! for Rusbridger, eh?









xenon said:


> `
> Do you think it's possible he did it, betting Cameron would ignore his warning? Maybe he warned him at a stage where it was too late for Cameron to get rid of Coulson, with out contractual problems or something. But it would be on record he'd been told. I mean it's possible Russbringer could have been that cunning.



No. It's because when the chips are down, Cameron, Rusbridger, Murdoch, Milliband _are_ "all in it together", all have the same class interest. Rusbridger didn't tip Cameron the wink in the hope of being able to use it as leverage to engineer a Lib/Lab pact at some unforeseeable point in the future (it's as mad a notion as thinking that the lizards were behind 9/11) - yes, there's conspiracy, but the motivation is the obvious one, there's no need to look deeper for something that's not there.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> It's simple why Rusbridger did it; to trap cameron. he knew that cameron would ignore his warning, given that it came from the Guardian.
> So, when it later emerges that cameron had ignored a warning about Coulson's criminal associations - from  a figure as eminent as a national broadsheet editor, no less, then Cameron's even further & deeper in the shit.


Not impossible, but far, far too charitable as the most likely answer, let alone the only possible one.

I still have no idea why it matters. I'm not waiting around for some ideologically spotless knight in shining armour, and I'm sure as hell not going to knock the evil knight off his horse just as he's about to spear the dragon. After, yes. Before, no.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's pretty mental. The guardian had no motivation to trap Cameron. They support his govt. If you're right - where is this trap being used?
> 
> #No, all in it together.


 Oh FFS.

Take a break. Get some air.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Weird thing to say. Rusbridger helped Cameron - why? Is this a mental question? Is the reply that it doesn't matter right now good enough? It's not and it's not oh intrepid journos.


 
No, the question's a good one. All I'm saying is that neither you nor anyone else posting on this thread has any _*evidence*_ for what Rusbridge's motivations for that were. Apparently that's something you're not inclined to agree with. Whoop-dee-doo.

Does it matter right now? IMO not as much as other stuff, like figuring out the relationships NI and the Met had for example. That's my personal opinion, and you and anyone else are of course free to focus on whatever the hell takes your fancy.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Some seem to getting a little over excited here, in thinking Cameron is dead in the water and will be forced to resign.
> 
> He's not, it's ever going to happen.
> 
> In fact I'll put it on record that if Cameron resigns over this, I'll donate £50 to the server fund.


 
I'm with you, I don't think he will resign but I think thats largely because he's not under enough pressure, the facts are pretty damning but Milliband is just scatter gunning.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> No, the question's a good one. All I'm saying is that neither you nor anyone else posting on this thread has any _*evidence*_ for what Rusbridge's motivations for that were. Apparently that's something you're not inclined to agree with. Whoop-dee-doo.
> 
> Does it matter right now? IMO not as much as other stuff, like figuring out the relationships NI and the Met had for example. That's my personal opinion, and you and anyone else are of course free to focus on whatever the hell takes your fancy.



This is the _only time_ that it's ever going to matter, To connect the parlty dots -  to shut up now in favour of some 'what?' is to destroy the story.


----------



## dylans (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Weird thing to say. Rusbridger helped Cameron - why? Is this a mental question? Is the reply that it doesn't matter right now good enough? It's not and it's not oh intrepid journos.


 
Hey there is some really good dirt on the PM, he brought a spy and a criminal at the centre of a massive scandal into government and he did so in spite of numerous warnings not to do so. His judgement is seriously in question as is his relationships with some really dodgy groups of people who did some really nasty things. I have a good idea, lets put that to one side and focus on attacking  the paper that broke the story  That seems like the most important thing to do right now, yeah. 
FUCKING IDIOT.


----------



## love detective (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm sure as hell not going to knock the evil knight off his horse just as he's about to spear the dragon. After, yes. Before, no.


 
i wouldn't be too concerned, chatting about a news story on a message board is unlikely to knock any evil knights of their horse, whether a dragon has been speared or not


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Doesn't seem to be a skill required by the met at all going by Yates earlier.


 
Hayman, Yates, Dick and a whole host of other people in the upper echelons of the Met are managers working to a managerialist template. Skills such as "listening" come second to being able to file the correct forms and tick your achievement boxes so you can move up the greasy pole.

We thought that the police forces were shit 30 years ago, back when the majority of the upper echelons had worked their way up from the beat, but they're far worse now, with the upper echelons mostly manned by people who were basically the creation of management programmes, and who care more about internal politics than in fulfilling their job descriptions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> I would imagine a police officer of Hayman's pedigree would be more comfortable with verbals than writtens.


 
Andy Hayman. Pedigree by Heinz.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This is the _only time_ that it's ever going to matter, To connect the parlty dots -  to shut up now in favour of some 'what?' is to destroy the story.


 
Hey, have at it. Me pointing out your confirmation bias wasn't meant to stop you from going down that route of inquiry.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

dylans said:


> Hey there is some really good dirt on the PM, he brought a spy and a criminal at the centre of a massive scandal into government and he did so in spite of numerous warnings not to do so. His judgement is seriously in question as is his relationships with some really dodgy groups of people who did some really nasty things. I have a good idea, lets put that to one side and focus on attacking  the paper that broke the story  That seems like the most important thing to do right now, yeah.
> FUCKING IDIOT.


 
It's the PM not the system. Marxist.


----------



## past caring (Jul 12, 2011)

dylans said:


> Hey there is some really good dirt on the PM, he brought a spy and a criminal at the centre of a massive scandal into government and he did so in spite of numerous warnings not to do so. His judgement is seriously in question as is his relationships with some really dodgy groups of people who did some really nasty things. I have a good idea, lets put that to one side and focus on attacking  the paper that broke the story  That seems like the most important thing to do right now, yeah.
> FUCKING IDIOT.



You're either with us or against us.

Tool.


----------



## Wolfie Smith (Jul 12, 2011)

It's a well known fact that liberal newspaper editors are actually _more _evil than Tory PM's, bent coppers and right wing press barons.  If we can possibly nail them we should.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Hayman's whole career needs be looked at right now. That's someone who is going down.


 
read his piece of crap autobiography ("The Terrorist Hunters" ). According to Hayman he's never put a foot wrong. It's always been the fault of either other people lower in the food chain, or it's been the fault of events, dammit!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> It's a well known fact that liberal newspaper editors are actually _more _evil than Tory PM's, bent coppers and right wing press barons.  If we can possibly nail them we should.


 
Can we have a scale of evil please?


----------



## past caring (Jul 12, 2011)

Why not nail all of them? why is it either/or?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

past caring said:


> You're either with us or against us.
> 
> Tool.


 
You can do all sorts of things with _priorities_.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This is the _only time_ that it's ever going to matter, To connect the parlty dots -  to shut up now in favour of some 'what?' is to destroy the story.


Why do you think you're the only person joining those dots? It's a strategic argument. The same one we had earlier about why the Mail isn't (yet) in full focus. Feel free to disagree, but stop this hysterical nonsense, please.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Can we have a scale of evil please?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Where's collegiate evil?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 12, 2011)

I've been made very aware that the Johann Hari affair is by far the most heinous, because he represented "the left"


----------



## past caring (Jul 12, 2011)

Fuck off jer.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

past caring said:


> Why not nail all of them? why is it either/or?


 
More powerful people than us are nailing the NI, a few people questioning what the guardian does = shut up while the powerful nail the rich don't you dare come up with your own research, your own angles. Wait till you're officially allowed to. By some mug on the internet.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 12, 2011)

Or should I say he claimed to represent the left, as someone else claimed.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> More powerful people than us are nailing the NI, a few people questioning what the guardian does = shut up while the powerful nail the rich don't you dare come up with your own research, your own angles. Wait till you're officially allowed to. By some mug on the internet.


 
Research? You've already made your mind up, and ain't no changing that it seems. As per above, long live confirmation bias.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> I seem to recall something somewhere (Lobster magazine?) to the effect that Rusbridger had links to the security organs . . .


 
Indirectly, unlike for example, Matthew D'Ancona or Dominic Lawson. He's still amenable to the occasional nudge, though.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

The Guardian _aaaand_ Robert Peston remember. Throw in Tom Watson and a couple of others and you've bagged the whole evil NI conspiracy.


----------



## dylans (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You can do all sorts of things with _priorities_.


 
Yes priorities. Cameron is the priority not the fucking Guardian, fool.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why do you think you're the only person joining those dots? It's a strategic argument. The same one we had earlier about why the Mail isn't (yet) in full focus. Feel free to disagree, but stop this hysterical nonsense, please.



I don't care what dots you join. Don't tell me not to join others. Don't tell me to shut up because you have your priorities and that they override mine.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yes priorities. Cameron is the priority not the fucking Guardian, fool.


 
Yes, without you he'd get away with it. No one else is on his case. The supporting culture, nah, let's not bother eh?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

butchers - seriously, stick to abstractions, like, political theory - we all know you're strong there. This dynamic, real world, shity end of the sick  stuff...


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's pretty mental. The guardian had no motivation to trap Cameron. They support his govt. If you're right - where is this trap being used?
> 
> #No, all in it together.


as to motivation, I'm informed by decent contacts @ The Guardian that their high command have taken a sharp dislike to Cameron, plus ideological differences (though the latter are minor, I grant you). As to the trap - it's being used now, I would say.
I *certainly* don't think Rusbridger did it to help Cameron, or out of any sense of nation al duty.


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I don't care what dots you join. Don't tell me not to join others. Don't tell me to shut up because you have your priorities and that they override mine.


Don't put words in my mouth and I won't have to tell you to shut the fuck up you arrogant tool. I answered your question, you attacked me for doing so, and made up a load of nonsense in your head that I didn't say and then hijacked a great thread going on about it.

Not everyone thinks it's sensible to take on all the dominoes at the same time when they are set up to topple. It's your idiocy translating that into leaving the rest of the dominoes in place, no one elses's.


----------



## dylans (Jul 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> as to motivation, I'm informed by decent contacts @ The Guardian that their high command have taken a sharp dislike to Cameron, plus ideological differences (though the latter are minor, I grant you). As to the trap - it's being used now, I would say.
> I *certainly* don't think Rusbridger did it to help Cameron, or out of any sense of nation al duty.


 
I really don't care what his motives were, I'm just glad he did it. If someone is kicking my enemy in the guts I am not too bothered who is wearing the boots.


----------



## elbows (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Weird thing to say. Rusbridger helped Cameron - why? Is this a mental question? Is the reply that it doesn't matter right now good enough? It's not and it's not oh intrepid journos.


 
Its not a mental question, but the answer involves things that are fairly well known already.

The media is the fourth estate, this alone is almost enough to answer the question.

If you are in a position of power and responsibility, or are privy to very interesting information, then there are many opportunities for the weight of responsibility to produce internal conflicts between opposing goals, beliefs and forces. This can result in decisions that speak volumes about how things really are, what really counts, what forces will run roughshod over nobler aims. Usually the journey to the position of power will have provided plenty of opportunity to ensure that the person in question will 'do the right thing' and in particular a sense of loyalty to the nation on some level can be stretched a long way. Going to Oxford or Cambridge will also tend to increase confidence that the humanoid in question will be a safe pair of hands. 

On a more general human level, not exclusive to those with some power and influence, knowing a secret or any information which could be of benefit to another can really heat up our brains. Whilst there are all manner of occasions on which people manage to keep their cards close to their chest, sometimes we end up with a burning desire to share information with others, including those affected, even if the consequences carry more personal risk than potential benefit.

Of course none of this in any way rules out other motivations that are specific to the situation & people involved, theres plenty of room for you to decide that he did it to help the Tories or the Lib Dems or whatever. I don't think there is anything wrong with dwelling on this stuff now, but at the same time I can see why people would be keen to focus on one target at a time, not fight on too many fronts at once in case the overall effort is undermined. This can be easier said than done, for some of us may question whether anything will really be solved if we ignore all the double-standards and hypocrisy that shows up along the way. We might be rather interested in the full reality of how things are, even if shining a torch into certain dark corners at the wrong moment causes the struggle to become fragmented.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yes priorities. Cameron is the priority not the fucking Guardian, fool.


 
c'mon.  If you got on Question Time, don't you think it'd be worth a one liner, after ripping into the whole of NI, along the lines of 'and wtf was Rusbridger doing giving Cameron that information, anyway?'


----------



## smokedout (Jul 12, 2011)

dylans said:


> I have a good idea, lets put that to one side and focus on attacking  the paper that broke the story  That seems like the most important thing to do right now, yeah.
> FUCKING IDIOT.



I think it's a good idea, i'm bored of murdoch now, showing how the guardian editor acts against his pretend politics to chum up to tories could prove to be far more significant politically in the long term


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

dylans said:


> I will concern myself with Rusbridger's motives once we have Cameron's head on a spike thanks and whichever way you want to spin this, attacking the paper that not only broke this story but doggedly followed it for years at a time when Cameron is in the sniper sights is just bloody stupid.


 
Doesn't that kind of ignore the possibility of Rusbridger having an unhealthy relationship with power, and therefore possibly acting to serve his own interests rather than those of his employers?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Don't put words in my mouth and I won't have to tell you to shut the fuck up you arrogant tool. I answered your question, you attacked me for doing so, and made up a load of nonsense in your head that I didn't say and then hijacked a great thread going on about it.
> 
> Not everyone thinks it's sensible to take on all the dominoes at the same time when they are set up to topple. It's your idiocy translating that into leaving the rest of the dominoes in place, no one elses's.



What words did i put in you mouth? Exactly what words? Oh empire smasher? As if your 'tactic mean fuck all. The only thing left to topple statues is new info and new investigation. But you say don't do that. It stops the massive investigation that is unstoppable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Well, you seem to be asking _what were his motivations?_, and if the man himself isn't saying anything apart from what he's already said what have we got to go on? I did see him on Newsnight the other night, and AFAIR he was saying something along the lines of wanting to warn him about taking on a dodgy fella as his comms man. You can infer whatever you want from that, but it'll still be speculation.


 
Asking what his motivations were is a fairly simple question. Did he act to serve the people who pay his not inconsiderable salary, or did he act to serve the establishment he's part of?


----------



## elbows (Jul 12, 2011)

dylans said:


> I really don't care what his motives were, I'm just glad he did it. If someone is kicking my enemy in the guts I am not too bothered who is wearing the boots.


 
Its probably a good idea for futures sake that even if you don't try to stop the kicking, at least pay a little attention to the boots just in case they are one day stomping in your direction.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

**


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Asking what his motivations were is a fairly simple question. Did he act to serve the people who pay his not inconsiderable salary, or did he act to serve the establishment he's part of?


 
Yes, it's a simple question and a good one, in case anyone didn't already get that. That's not the same as saying that answers to that questions, answers based on more than "gut feeling"/"I've read 300 years of British history"/"lizards", are forthcoming. Evidence, where the fuck is it?

edit - btw, there's no difference between his employes and the establishment, they are per definition one and the same.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

elbows said:


> Its not a mental question, but the answer involves things that are fairly well known already.
> 
> The media is the fourth estate, this alone is almost enough to answer the question.
> 
> ...


 
Things that are fairly well known often mean that they're fairly well known by a select few. Make ot known to all right now. Who will lose? Or is all principle drowned in (inept internet) tactics?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yes, it's a simple question and a good one, in case anyone didn't already get that. That's not the same as saying that answers to that questions, answers based on more than "gut feeling"/"I've read 300 years of British history"/"lizards", are forthcoming. Evidence, where the fuck is it?
> 
> edit - btw, there's no difference between his employes and the establishment, they are per definition one and the same.



I think offering historically informed answers is fair enough to questions you say are legitimate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> He's a liberal. What more explanation do you need?


 
It's not enough of an explanation, frankly.

We may customarily cuss liberals on this site, but Rusbridger's undoubted liberalism doesn't explain why he'd engage in an action that didn't serve the interests of his employers.

So, if we ask ourselves whose interests were most likely to have been served by his action, the only tenable conclusion is that it was the interests of the establishment that were served.


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> We may customarily cuss liberals on this site, but Rusbridger's undoubted liberalism doesn't explain why he'd engage in an action that didn't serve the interests of his employers.


 
Once again: I believe he believed he was serving the interests of the party he'd backed in the election - the Liberals.

But, short of administering a Truth Serum to him, I may never know.

Should newspaper editors back parties?


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Things that are fairly well known often mean that they're fairly well known by a select few. Make ot known to all right now. Who will lose? Or is all principle drowned in (inept internet) tactics?


 
I think the Guardian would be a much easier nut to crack once the workings of the media are already laid bare. You disagree. Now, move on because this is fucking ridiculous.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

They should not save parties from shit. But oh no, two posts and murdoch is off the hook. All over


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 12, 2011)

belboid said:


> c'mon.  If you got on Question Time, don't you think it'd be worth a one liner, after ripping into the whole of NI, along the lines of 'and wtf was Rusbridger doing giving Cameron that information, anyway?'


I don't think so, because Rusbridger cvan always act whiter than white and say he was acting in the national interest


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> I think the Guardian would be a much easier nut to crack once the workings of the media are already laid bare. You disagree. Now, move on because this is fucking ridiculous.


 

You decide once more


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not enough of an explanation, frankly.
> 
> We may customarily cuss liberals on this site, but Rusbridger's undoubted liberalism doesn't explain why he'd engage in an action that didn't serve the interests of his employers.
> 
> So, if we ask ourselves whose interests were most likely to have been served by his action, the only tenable conclusion is that it was the interests of the establishment that were served.


 
Why are you addressing a point I never made?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I don't think so, because Rusbridger cvan always act whiter than white and say he was acting in the national interest


 
And that's how we expose what the national interest is.

No sorry, must only talk about murdoch


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I don't think so, because Rusbridger cvan always act whiter than white and say he was acting in the national interest


 
getting him to  say that would be worthwhile, imo. National fucking Interest?  My arse.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2011)

B3ta outstrips itself.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

There's something here that covers all sorts of parts of social life - what sort of idiot says no, narrow it down. Investigate less.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 12, 2011)

A question if I may, been out of the country, what information did Rusbridger give to Cameron??


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

Ed Milliband is pressing the accusation that Cameron displayed bad judgement in hiring Andy Coulson.

Say Cameron at tommorrows Question Time says, "yes I am guilty of bad judgement in this case" .. What then?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> A question if I may, been out of the country, what information did Rusbridger give to Cameron??


 
That Coulson was dodgy.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I think offering historically informed answers is fair enough to questions you say are legitimate.


 
Fair enough, we disagree on the standards of evidence needed to answer that particular question. NEXT!


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Ed Milliband is pressing the accusation that Cameron displayed bad judgement in hiring Andy Coulson.
> 
> Say Cameron at tommorrows Question Time says, "yes I am guilty of bad judgement in this case" .. What then?



Use it to rip on poor judgement over everything else? The 'schools and hospitals must be allowed to fail' thing that came out last week.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> A question if I may, been out of the country, what information did Rusbridger give to Cameron??


 
Apparently Rusbridger tried to warn Cameron that Coulson was damaged goods.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> A question if I may, been out of the country, what information did Rusbridger give to Cameron??


 
That they might get in trouble in they carried on with their employment plans. Couslen esp.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Ed Milliband is pressing the accusation that Cameron displayed bad judgement in hiring Andy Coulson.
> 
> Say Cameron at tommorrows Question Time says, "yes I am guilty of bad judgement in this case" .. What then?


He gave Coulson a second chance. A SECOND CHANCE. Because, without David Good Samaritan Cameron, his life was over. Really, really over.

Did everyone hear that: A SECOND CHANCE.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Fair enough, we disagree on the standards of evidence needed to answer that particular question. NEXT!


 
Weren't you saying that even asking the question was soft headed idiocy? Or was that someone else?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That they might get in trouble in they carried on with their employment plans. Couslen esp.


 
Seems a fairly obvious thing to say to someone you didn't want to get in the shite.... Why tell Cameron this if not to help him or warn him off Coulson?!


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Use it to rip on poor judgement over everything else? The 'schools and hospitals must be allowed to fail' thing that came out last week.


 
But MPs and ministers during various governments have admitted mistakes before and survived? though I can't think of any at the moment  ...


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Weren't you saying that even asking the question was soft headed idiocy? Or was that someone else?


 
Someone else, guv.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Seems a fairly obvious thing to say to someone you didn't want to get in the shite.... Why tell Cameron this if not to help him or warn him off Coulson?!





> to someone you didn't want to get in the shite



Key


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2011)

Cameron's said 'I didn't get warned, or don't recall being warned' at his press conference last week Fed. The next few days everyone who had warned him popped up.

I think Rusbridger was trying to ensure a P.M didn't get larruped like Murdoch and Brooks are now. If all of this 'new' information had come out in January, which forced Coulson to resign, Cameron would have been hammered into the deck.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2011)

I think it's rapidly heading towards a vote of no confidence in Cameron, and a new leader for the conservatives.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> But MPs and ministers during various governments have admitted mistakes before and survived? though I can't think of any at the moment  ...


 
When you're a P.M who's pushing through radically dangerous and unpopular reform, insisting there is no alternative, relying on palling up with your mates in the media to ensure some sort of stability - standing up and going 'I demonstrated poor, poor judgement before I even got elected' slaps a coat of cunt tar on him and gives the opposition, his noisier coalition partners and his own backbench sackfuls of feathers.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Seems a fairly obvious thing to say to someone you didn't want to get in the shite.... Why tell Cameron this if not to help him or warn him off Coulson?!


 
Keyword being "seems". We all speculate on motivations for all sorts of actions made by all sorts of people, doesn't mean we're right about them does it? In fact, most of the time we're dead fucking wrong. Again, psych 101 - confirmation bias, fundamental attribution error.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> I think it's rapidly heading towards a vote of no confidence in Cameron, and a new leader for the conservatives.


 
As long as it is David Davis !!


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 12, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Cameron's said 'I didn't get warned, or don't recall being warned' at his press conference last week Fed. The next few days everyone who had warned him popped up.



Big difference between I wasn't warned and I don't recall..... But the point is why would Rusbridger do that at the time? Hardly the work of someone hostile to Cameron. And if Cameron was warned, by so many people, he's going to look a right fud ain't he if they all come out and say so. As such don't recall, wasn't told etc etc all works.



> I think Rusbridger was trying to ensure a P.M didn't get larruped like Murdoch and Brooks are now. If all of this 'new' information had come out in January, which forced Coulson to resign, Cameron would have been hammered into the deck.



You don't think there was a more simply less 'officious' reason such as trying to stop a politician he supported, and his paper supports, dropping himself into the shite?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> I think it's rapidly heading towards a vote of no confidence in Cameron, and a new leader for the conservatives.


 
Have there been any murmerings?


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You decide once more


 
No. You asked a question. I answered it. You decided to attack me for supporting Rusbridger when I did no such thing, and then mixed this up with an entirely separate strategic argument, also misrepresented.

If you want to discuss the topic, you are perfectly capable of doing so without making insulting claims about what other people have said.

Now, tell me why it would be a great idea to start trashing the Guardian right now, because that's one of the tactics these cunts used to get the cops and the politicians and the rest of the media to ignore this story (note I said "one of" there) and I can't see how it would help anything at the moment.

If you're just talking about a bit of private ideological wanking, whatever, not interested.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Keyword being "seems". We all speculate on motivations for all sorts of actions made by all sorts of people, doesn't mean we're right about them does it? In fact, most of the time we're dead fucking wrong. Again, psych 101 - confirmation bias, fundamental attribution error.


 
So, if you heard someone you disliked/opposed politically was gonna do summat you thought would rebound on them badly would you tell them or keep schtum hoping it does go tits up??

Conversely, if a mate/politico you liked and supported was doing something you thought would come back to haunt him would you tell him/try to warn him off doing it?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Big difference between I wasn't warned and I don't recall..... But the point is why would Rusbridger do that at the time? Hardly the work of someone hostile to Cameron. And if Cameron was warned, by so many people, he's going to look a right fud ain't he if they all come out and say so. As such don't recall, wasn't told etc etc all works.



I think the chances of Cameron not looking a right fud are slim anyway  So far Rusbridger, Clegg and Ashdown have come out to say they warned against it.




			
				Fedayn said:
			
		

> Ypu don't think there was a more sinmply less 'officious' reason such as trying to stop a politician he supported, and his paper supports, dropping himself into the shite?



That may be it. But Cameron ignored him. He's either arrogant as fuck, or utterly gullible


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> I think it's rapidly heading towards a vote of no confidence in Cameron, and new leader for the conservatives.


And a general election.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Lets see how PMQs tomorrow goes first. That's Cameron's next Big Moment.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> So, if you heard someone you disliked/opposed politically was gonna do summat you thought would rebound on them badly would you tell them or keep schtum hoping it does go tits up??
> 
> Conversely, if a mate/politico you liked and supported was doing something you thought would come back to haunt him would you tell him/try to warn him off doing it?


 
Depends entirely on what the bad/good thing in question was. In any case I have no friends that are journos or politicos (in this country) anyway, so it's all a bit hypothetical.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Lets see how PMQs tomorrow goes first. That's Cameron's next Big Moment.


 
Given that Miliband's currently seeming to be leading Cameron around by the nose - I expect him (Ed) to fuck it up as usual.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 12, 2011)

Balbi said:


> I think the chances of Cameron not looking a right fud are slim anyway  So far Rusbridger and Ashdown have come out to say they warned against it.



Well aye, but imho Rusbridger saw an obvious boomerang given the previous investigations and, imho and logivally, tried to ward him off. 



> That may be it. But Cameron ignored him. He's either arrogant as fuck, or utterly gullible



Public school arrogance? He won when he was an 'outsider', the midas touch etc? I'd go with arrogant as fuck! Also, Cameron wanted someone he thought could do a job on the press..... He did for a while.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2011)

I've heard no murmurings, but given past form for these things, it's only a matter of time before he goes. Here's to a general election!


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Depends entirely on what the bad/good thing in question was. In any case I have no friend that are journos or politicos (in this country) anyway, so it's all a bit hypothetical.


 
Makes no difference, it's about what you do if someone you liked might get in the shite if he'she continues along a certain course. As a mate what would you do....?? Seems pretty obvious to me....


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Given that Miliband's currently seeming to be leading Cameron around by the nose - I expect him (Ed) to fuck it up as usual.


 Did quite well yesterday vs. Jeremy Hunt - yesterday was decent practice on these issues, as well. Miliband likes a sniff of moral high ground.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Makes no difference, it's about what you do if someone you liked might get in the shite if he'she continues along a certain course. As a mate what would you do....?? Seems pretty obvious to me....


 
I'm not being coy, Feds. It really does depend. If someone I like are about to do something that might get them in the shit I might or might not warn them. If what they're about to do is likely to hurt other people I'd probably try to change their minds. If they themselves were the only ones likely to get hurt doing something stupid I might just keep my mouth shut in the hopes they'll take some learning from their fuck-up.

So, it depends.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I'm not being coy, Feds. It really does depend. *If someone I like are about to do something that might get them in the shit I might or might not warn them. If what they're about to do is likely to hurt other people I'd probably try to change their minds*. If they themselves were the only ones likely to get hurt doing something stupid I might just keep my mouth shut in the hopes they'll take some learning from their fuck-up.
> 
> So, it depends.



Exactly.... What Cameron has done has had a big effect on his wider plans.... Seems pretty logical/straightforward/obvious to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> No. You asked a question. I answered it. You decided to attack me for supporting Rusbridger when I did no such thing, and then mixed this up with an entirely separate strategic argument, also misrepresented.



Didn't happen.

_Don't trash the Guardian because..."that's one of the tactics these cunts used to get the cops and the politicians and the rest of the media to ignore this story (note I said "one of" there) and I can't see how it would help anything at the moment."
_

Wow. How fucking headcase is that? Let me decide what are legitimate targets for me and in what order they may be attacked. Any reason why ymu?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> I've heard no murmurings, but given past form for these things, it's only a matter of time before he goes. Here's to a general election!


 
Certainly the tories know how to knife a leaders when necessary. I never fancied Cameron in the first place, PR Boy / no substance. I think Davis as a more real person with life experience might have been a lot better. I don't rate Ed Milliband either, somehow innefectual. If Milliband can't land a punch in the current environment, there may be no hope for him!


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2011)

Schadenfreude on a massive scale here.

It took Labour about four or five years to begin to be unpopular, thirteen for them to be turfed out altogether by the electorate. 

Cameron's done it in about fourteen months, complete with sandpit war and dodgy connections scandal. And he'll take the LD's with him in all hope.

Who's his likely replacement though? Davis is an outsider, cHunt? Letwin? Osborne


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Exactly.... What Cameron has done has had a big effect on his wider plans.... Seems pretty logical/straightforward/obvious to me.


 
"Seems". Appearances can deceive, Feds. I don't get what's so fucking difficult with suspending judgment on this particular point.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Who's his likely replacement though? Davis is an outsider, cHunt? Letwin? Osborne


 
Letwin? Letwin is a twat !


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I don't rate Ed Milliband either, somehow innefectual. If Milliband can't land a punch in the current environment, there may be no hope for him!


 
Thats a good point.  Its not just Cameron that this is a crucial time for, if Milliband can't make this work then he'll be out before the summer is over.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> "Seems". Appearances can deceive, Feds. I don't get what's so fucking difficult with suspending judgment on this particular point.


 
There's nothing wrong with it, but it does give a wider context to the whole shebang.... The likes of Rusbridger want it nailing at News Int. He's not exactly gonna want it to be looked at in the wider context of the political culture and backslapping that could well, indeed SHOULD, get dragged into this is he?! So, warn Cameron off, get in a few brownie points when it goes tits up and Coulson is elsewhere.... And it doesn't affect the wider media/political culture....


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Didn't happen.
> 
> _Don't trash the Guardian because..."that's one of the tactics these cunts used to get the cops and the politicians and the rest of the media to ignore this story (note I said "one of" there) and I can't see how it would help anything at the moment."
> _
> ...


 
I've invited you to explain why gunning for Rusbridger and the Guardian would be an effective strategy right now, under these circumstances, given what is happening, and what is likely to happen.

And you have come back with yet another insulting and inaccurate paraphrasing with no new content, for at least the dozenth post in a row. 

Which says to me, you know you're floundering. If you had an argument, you'd give it. You don't, so you're resorting to sneering. Well done you.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Letwin? Letwin is a twat !


 
Yes. He also sorted a lot of the manifesto out, a driver behind Cameron's P.R spin.

Fucking hell, i've just thought - Hague  He'd eat Ed Milliband for breakfast week in, week out.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I don't rate Ed Milliband either, somehow innefectual. If Milliband can't land a punch in the current environment, there may be no hope for him!


 
Echoes of Kinnock bottling it/making a cunt of it over the Westlands Affair back in 1986.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> There's nothing wrong with it, but it does give a wider context top the whole shebang.... The likes of Rusbridger want it mailing at News Int. He's not exactly gonna want it to be looked at in the wider context of the political culture and backslapping that could well, indeed SHOULD, get dragged into this is he?! So, warn Cameron off, get in a few brownie points when it goes tits up and Coulson is elsewhere.... And it doesn't affect the wider media7political culture....


 
That's a very useful hypothesis. All I'm asking is that people don't treat it as dead cert fact. Anyway, minor point, have at it folks.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

Does anyone agree that the two enquiries have been set up with parameters that were probably not enough thought through. They have been generated as a knee jerk reaction and limit their scope which could as a side effect limit the result of the enquiry. 

"Why did the original police enquiry fail?" (with the judge) 

"the ethics of the press" (was it?) 

I bet if they took their time to generate the scope of the enquiries they could do better.


----------



## elbows (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Things that are fairly well known often mean that they're fairly well known by a select few. Make ot known to all right now. Who will lose? Or is all principle drowned in (inept internet) tactics?


 
I tend to think of these things as fairly well known by more than the few, but seldom discussed or factored into the full scope of issues that they can affect.

Or to put it another way, things seldom discussed sanely on the telly.

I don't think any drowning of principal is a new internet phenomenon, I think we could apply this struggle between full consideration of the whole truth, and a far more selective focussing on certain issues, to almost everything humans ever discuss. 

Humans, organisations, etc don't seem to be great at sticking to principals all of the time, and the quantity of contradictions that life seems to feature provide ample opportunities for us all to fall down when it comes to principals.

The world needs people who stick to their principals, but it seems hard to imagine a world completely filled with such people. Much could be done with a decent system designed to reduce conflicts of interest, belief and dodgy compromises as much as is possible, without having to rely on specific individuals to do the right thing. But there are probably always going to be limits to quite how far ideas of principal and truth can go. Because if we do it properly then we must question our own motivations endlessly, and may easily end up paralysed and unable to act if we endlessly view the full nature of the conflict, if there are never any heroes, if the foul reality always seeps through, if we are unable to hold our noses, or make grand but flawed compromises in the name of achieving anything at all. Humanity needs Thomas Paines, but a few of them can go a long way so I don't think we need everyone to get in on this action.

Personally I find it very hard to hold my nose and so I've never joined anything, but I have been thinking much about the nature of politics and compromise, because one day I would like to be a part of something and I need to get more of a clue about when to be harmonious and when to kick up a stink. Internet and brief involvement with the organisation of something non-political seemed to show me that unless great care is taken, my concerns and beliefs and the way I expressed them within the org were far more destructive than constructive.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> I've invited you to explain why gunning for Rusbridger and the Guardian would be an effective strategy right now, under these circumstances, given what is happening, and what is likely to happen.
> 
> And you have come back with yet another insulting and inaccurate paraphrasing with no new content, for at least the dozenth post in a row.
> 
> Which says to me, you know you're floundering. If you had an argument, you'd give it. You don't, so you're resorting to sneering. Well done you.



And rather than ignoring you i argued why it's important to attack the guardian *right now*, to reject and narrowing of the focus down to the NOTW. I also laughed at the pomposity of the idea that what you do matters, what tactical swerves you post on here matter. Or what i post for that matter. That said, if you're so dumb you're only looking at murdoch now then they have already won. You mug.


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And rather than ignoring you i argued why it's important to attack the guardian *right now*, to reject and narrowing of the focus down to the NOTW. I also laughed at the pomposity of the idea that what you do matters, what tactical swerves you post on here matter. Or what i post for that matter. That said, if you're so dumb you're only looking at murdoch now then they have already won. You mug.


 
You laughed at the pomposity of ymu!  You card.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

> I've invited you to explain why gunning for Rusbridger and the Guardian would be an effective strategy right now



For what? What are our united aims?


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 12, 2011)

Just checked the Sun webpage,not a fucking sausage,just shows the contempt they hold for their readers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> You laughed at the pomposity of ymu!  You card.


 
Were you hacked roman?


----------



## agricola (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Were you hacked roman?


 
Do you have to have been to laugh at someone elses pomposity?


----------



## elbows (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And rather than ignoring you i argued why it's important to attack the guardian *right now*, to reject and narrowing of the focus down to the NOTW. I also laughed at the pomposity of the idea that what you do matters, what tactical swerves you post on here matter. Or what i post for that matter. That said, if you're so dumb you're only looking at murdoch now then they have already won. You mug.


 
I doubt its that straightforward. If you state what you think is the ultimate prize that could be achieved by attacking on more fronts right now is, it would be easier to judge.

The mass media, especially print media, is already facing an uncertain future. TV is ugly, internet has potential. But even with the net, even if we aren't dealing with the same hierarchies, we'll likely face new ones. There will still be certain people who are articulate, funny,or can rally the troops, or whatever, that have a far greater ability to influence masses of people. And with such power, we could expect that the state and business will want to have a similar relationship with these people as they do with the present media.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> Do you have to have been to laugh at someone elses pomposity?


Nope. Up Pompeii.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

elbows said:


> I doubt its that straightforward. If you state what you think is the ultimate prize that could be achieved by attacking on more fronts right now is, it would be easier to judge.
> 
> The mass media, especially print media, is already facing an uncertain future. TV is ugly, internet has potential. But even with the net, even if we aren't dealing with the same hierarchies, we'll likely face new ones. There will still be certain people who are articulate, funny,or can rally the troops, or whatever, that have a far greater ability to influence masses of people. And with such power, we could expect that the state and business will want to have a similar relationship with these people as they do with the present media.


 
So let's take our eyes off the NOTW sharpish


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> For what? What are our united aims?


I first made this argument with reference to the Mail a week ago, when the advertisers were pulling out of NotW. I have been very clear that I want the whole fucking establishment cleaned out by this.

I have no idea what yours are because you have repeatedly refused to frame your argument in anything other than the broadest possible terms, and insulting misrepresentations.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> I first made this argument with reference to the Mail a week ago, when the advertisers were pulling out of NotW. I have been very clear that I want the whole fucking establishment cleaned out by this.
> 
> I have no idea what yours are because you have repeatedly refused to frame your argument in anything other than the broadest possible terms, and insulting misrepresentations.



Why does you saying what you what to happen days ago change things? How does that effect me having different priorities? How does that effect the sheer fucking cheek of of you tell me that my priorities aren't valid because YOU disagree with them?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 12, 2011)

ego poo BORING!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> I first made this argument with reference to the Mail a week ago, when the advertisers were pulling out of NotW. I have been very clear that I want the whole fucking establishment cleaned out by this.
> 
> I have no idea what yours are because you have repeatedly refused to frame your argument in anything other than the broadest possible terms, and insulting misrepresentations.



I want to deligitmate the media and everything else i can. Was that not clear? I think this is an  ideal opportunity to do so. So i do so. Not too bothered about your own Internet plans..


----------



## gavman (Jul 12, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> How the hell did Andy Hayman make Asst Commissioner?!


 
he was competing against other police officers. in the land of the blind..


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2011)

Hayman reminded me of Richard Lintern's bent copper in The Shadow Line today.


----------



## gavman (Jul 12, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> Hayman goes mental when asked if he received payments from any news corp, yet earlier admitted receiving hospitality, same thing really.


 
bluster from a copper used to setting the agenda


----------



## elbows (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So let's take our eyes off the NOTW sharpish


 
Well one problem with that is that we are reliant on others to spill the beans about a range of other media entities. If nobody unleashes any of this stuff into the public domain then I'll have to wait for the enquiry and then make exceedingly loud noises if the enquiry shows no signs of touching the vast bulk of media pus.

And there are just so many choices as to where to turn our eyes next, but not much to focus clearly on. Plus we could easily throw in another musky dimension in the form of the intelligence agencies, and I wouldn't hold out too much hope of getting to the bottom of much in that world.

By the way since I mentioned the net in last post, I should add that for a few years I was paying fairly close attention to the evolving concept of blogs, and all the hype that went with it. During this time the ethics and principals of some of those in the blogosphere was tested, and found wanting to an extent that can even at times rival that of traditional journalism. A noticeable hierarchy also formed pretty quickly, although barriers to entry remain exceptionally low if you have ability, so there is still potential. For me some of the excitement of talk about things such as the long tail wore off when it became apparent that there is presently not a vast pool of talent that the existing hierarchies have failed to make use of, that now emerges via the net. There remains potential, but at the very least more time is needed for more humans to emerge as players on this front.

If I was designing a world from scratch then I may well say to hell with specialisation of a wide variety of roles, at least ones that have deep political significance. Many more of us should spend less hours at our paid job, and take part in civilisation on a non-commercial basis in a variety of ways, many of which are made practical by the net.


----------



## gavman (Jul 12, 2011)

marty21 said:


> this is totally destroying Cameron, for once he has no one to take the hit for him


 
he's being cruelly exposed as a lightweight


----------



## elbows (Jul 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> he's being cruelly exposed as a lightweight


 
Well he'd be nothing but a condom filled with one of Thatchers farts were it not for the way the media & politics has intertwined and evolved in recent decades. So even if the Coulson aspect did not exist, he is hardly the right man for the job of sailing the good ship corrupticus on these particular seas.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

elbows said:


> Well one problem with that is that we are reliant on others to spill the beans about a range of other media entities. If nobody unleashes any of this stuff into the public domain then I'll have to wait for the enquiry and then make exceedingly loud noises if the enquiry shows no signs of touching the vast bulk of media pus.
> 
> And there are just so many choices as to where to turn our eyes next, but not much to focus clearly on. Plus we could easily throw in another musky dimension in the form of the intelligence agencies, and I wouldn't hold out too much hope of getting to the bottom of much in that world.
> 
> ...



That's the same whatever 'our' targets'. Nothing is easy lad. NI, i think there's people looking into that. Rusbridger - no.

It's telling of who 'we ' are on here i have to admit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> It's simple why Rusbridger did it; to trap cameron. he knew that cameron would ignore his warning, given that it came from the Guardian.
> So, when it later emerges that cameron had ignored a warning about Coulson's criminal associations - from  a figure as eminent as a national broadsheet editor, no less, then Cameron's even further & deeper in the shit.


 
I don't buy Rusbridger playing at espionage. Rusbridger ingratiating himself with power is more understandable, especially if we take into account his manouvering to ingratiate himself with the Lib-Dems from 2009-onward.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

dylans said:


> Hey there is some really good dirt on the PM, he brought a spy and a criminal at the centre of a massive scandal into government and he did so in spite of numerous warnings not to do so. His judgement is seriously in question as is his relationships with some really dodgy groups of people who did some really nasty things. I have a good idea, lets put that to one side and focus on attacking  the paper that broke the story  That seems like the most important thing to do right now, yeah.
> FUCKING IDIOT.



Because it couldn't possibly be a case of power speaking unto power, could it? There couldn't possibly be any implications as to why Rusbridger chose to do what he did, could there?


----------



## gavman (Jul 12, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Schadenfreude on a massive scale here.
> 
> It took Labour about four or five years to begin to be unpopular, thirteen for them to be turfed out altogether by the electorate.
> 
> ...


 
portillo portillo portillo. he's painted a masterpiece of positioning, just ready for such an opportunity


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

Wolfie Smith said:


> It's a well known fact that liberal newspaper editors are actually _more _evil than Tory PM's, bent coppers and right wing press barons.  If we can possibly nail them we should.


 
What are you gibbering about? No-one has claimed that Rusbridger is  "more evil" than a grapefruit, let alone than bent coppers etc.


----------



## gavman (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Letwin? Letwin is a twat !


 
they're _all_ twats


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2011)

Wonder why miliband's bothering with a cosy meeting with dave 'n' clegg tonight? He's played it fairly smartly so far - this looks like a false step to me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why do you think you're the only person joining those dots? It's a strategic argument. The same one we had earlier about why the Mail isn't (yet) in full focus. Feel free to disagree, but stop this hysterical nonsense, please.


 
It's hardly strategic, it's a tactical argument.

Bloody civvies always mix them up!


----------



## gavman (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Were you hacked roman?


 
you do know rumplestiltskin was a fairy story?


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> portillo portillo portillo. he's painted a masterpiece of positioning, just ready for such an opportunity


 
You're mad. There isn't the faintest chance.


----------



## gavman (Jul 12, 2011)

elbows said:


> Well he'd be nothing but a condom filled with one of Thatchers farts were it not for the way the media & politics has intertwined and evolved in recent decades. So even if the Coulson aspect did not exist, he is hardly the right man for the job of sailing the good ship corrupticus on these particular seas.


 
it's funny,cos he swept to parliament on a wave of revulsion over mp's corruption, but is clearly so out of his depth in dealing with....corruption


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> they're _all_ twats


 
Then Letwin is an UberTwat


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

dylans said:


> Yes priorities. Cameron is the priority not the fucking Guardian, fool.


 
ymu mentioned a strategic argument above. You are not even thinking tactically, let alone strategically. Has it not occurred to you that there may be more than a single front to attack Cameron on, that investigating the why and the wherefore of what Rusbridger did may create one of those fronts?

Leave no stone unturned, even if all that boring plodding and following unglamourous and unexciting leads doesn't give you the same boner that prioritising Cameron does.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> portillo portillo portillo. he's painted a masterpiece of positioning, just ready for such an opportunity


 
_Banksy, banksy, murals, graffiti, bollards, and stairwells!_


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2011)

Perhaps Rusbridger saw it as his only chance of a knighthood.


----------



## gavman (Jul 12, 2011)

killer b said:


> You're mad. There isn't the faintest chance.


 
then why does he linger in politics like a bad smell?

he's a permanent fixture on political programming, surrounded by serving politicians. he opines on great matters of populist principle, from the death penalty to rail travel. he's been blatantly de-toxifying himself, imo ready for a return to politics, and this will be his big chance. the fact that he's not currently an mp serves to strengthen his credibility. and he's a heavyweight next to disco dave


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yes, it's a simple question and a good one, in case anyone didn't already get that. That's not the same as saying that answers to that questions, answers based on more than "gut feeling"/"I've read 300 years of British history"/"lizards", are forthcoming. Evidence, where the fuck is it?
> 
> edit - btw, there's no difference between his employes and the establishment, they are per definition one and the same.


 
In the final analysis, you're correct, but in terms of the everyday functions of his role as editor of the Guardian, there is a difference, one of positioning and possible leverage.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2011)

lol


----------



## gavman (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Then Letwin is an UberTwat


 
granted


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2011)

ive asked Mr Rushbridger why he went to Cameron with the details about Coulson, ill let you know if i get a reply


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

laptop said:


> Once again: I believe he believed he was serving the interests of the party he'd backed in the election - the Liberals.
> 
> But, short of administering a Truth Serum to him, I may never know.
> 
> Should newspaper editors back parties?



Explicitly? I personally don't believe they should if they're making any kind of a pretence to be a "newspaper of record", but papers taking and promoting party lines is so deeply embedded in print media culture I don't think we can ever escape it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Why are you addressing a point I never made?


 
Because you never made it.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 12, 2011)

Balbi said:


> B3ta outstrips itself.


 
Shit that's good. I fucking LOVE Horatio Caine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There's something here that covers all sorts of parts of social life - what sort of idiot says no, narrow it down. Investigate less.


 
People who want a quick fix/resolution.

The problem with narrowing the focus is that by making sure the light is only cast over a small part of the whole, we miss the rest of the vista that could be providing us with other, perhaps better, information.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

Balbi said:


> When you're a P.M who's pushing through radically dangerous and unpopular reform, insisting there is no alternative, relying on palling up with your mates in the media to ensure some sort of stability - standing up and going 'I demonstrated poor, poor judgement before I even got elected' *slaps a coat of cunt tar on him* and gives the opposition, his noisier coalition partners and his own backbench sackfuls of feathers.


 
Best expression evah!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Yes. He also sorted a lot of the manifesto out, a driver behind Cameron's P.R spin.
> 
> Fucking hell, i've just thought - Hague  He'd eat Ed Milliband for breakfast week in, week out.


 
Ooh er!

Or, even worse than Vague, Iain Duncan Shit, "the quiet twat". He'd bore everyone into a coma.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2011)




----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2011)

Bless.

VP - Hague was the only Tory who got close to Blair at the dispatch box, he's a canny one (as long as he doesn't listen to his PR people)


----------



## elbows (Jul 12, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Bless.
> 
> VP - Hague was the only Tory who got close to Blair at the dispatch box, he's a canny one (as long as he doesn't listen to his PR people)


 
He has an interesting recent history with certain sections of the media.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> you do know rumplestiltskin was a fairy story?


 
You do know that rumpledforeskin is a medical condition?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> NI, i think there's people looking into that. Rusbridger - no.


 
And why is that do you think? What have you or anyone else offered in the way of supporting evidence for why Rusbridger did what he claims to have done - and by evidence I mean relevant statements or documents that support any inferences as to what his motives were. Sorry, but "history" doesn't do it for me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Then Letwin is an UberTwat


 
The _Capo di Tutti Twatti_, as it were.


----------



## elbows (Jul 12, 2011)

I like the latest Guardian update:



> A meeting between David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg to discuss the hacking affair has ended.
> 
> Cameron is to make a statement following tomorrow morning's prime minister's questions, according to Sky News.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> And why is that do you think? What have you or anyone else offered in the way of supporting evidence for why Rusbridger did what he claims to have done - and by evidence I mean relevant statements or documents that support any inferences as to what his motives were. Sorry, but "history" doesn't do it for me.


 
Other than what he has said and done what does it require to be able to  ask questions? What's the truxta  test? What get us a certification of being able to ask about certain people at ceratin times?


----------



## Tankus (Jul 12, 2011)

nice correlation ...you think .....look at the date... 2006


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

It is all very well this idea of a new conservative leader, but Cameron, despite that I don't like PRBoy, is quite good verbally. I expect he will have rehearsed a good deal before tommorrows PMQs and will probably make it through.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Other than what he has said and done what does it require to be able to  ask questions? What's the truxta  test? What get us a certification of being able to ask about certain people at ceratin times?


 
Come come, you're doing a helluva lot more than asking the question. You're not even doing that in any meaningful sense AFAIK. Have you sent inquiring emails to Rusbridge? If so, did you get answers? In short, do you know anything the rest of us don't?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Tankus said:


> nice correlation ...you think .....look at the date... 2006


 
What correlation?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

Tankus said:


> nice correlation ...you think .....look at the date... 2006


 
Suggests to me that the Mirror and Mail could be happy hunting grounds for the enquiry.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Come come, you're doing a helluva lot more than asking the question. You're not even doing that in any meaningful sense AFAIK. Have you sent inquiring emails to Rusbridge? If so, did you get answers? In short, do you know anything the rest of us don't?


 
It's not about what i've done. It's about what you and others decide should be done and what can legitimately be done. I could be Nick Davies or piss face mcullan and it wouldn't effect the argument or the question. So answer me, what does it take to be branded as a legitimate question, a legit topic of interest? What need i do?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's not about what i've done. It's about what you and others decide should be done and what can legitimately be done. I could be Nick Davies or piss face mcullan and it wouldn't effect the argument or the question. So answer me, what does it take to be branded as a legitimate question, a legit topic of interest? What need i do?


 
Mate, don't lump me in with people whose opinions I've not shared. I've already said the question is a good one - did you not get that after the fifth post where I said so? It's not about the question, it's about how you go about getting answers. So far all I'm seeing from you and everyone else on the matter is speculation and educated guesses dressed up as incisive analysis.

So for the last time:

Yes, it's a good topic.
No, you don't need my permission to go wild on the speculation on who, why, what and where.
Yes, I will pull you up for presenting speculation as fact.

That cover it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Mate, don't lump me in with people whose opinions I've not shared. I've already said the question is a good one - did you not get that after the fifth post where I said so? It's not about the question, it's about how you go about getting answers. So far all I'm seeing from you and everyone else on the matter is speculation and educated guesses dressed up as incisive analysis.
> 
> So for the last time:
> 
> ...


That's fair enough, now you know what you can't  get away with.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> ...
> Yes, I will pull you up for presenting speculation as fact.
> ...


 
That is all very well, but as far as I understand it, most of the allegations against the News of the World are still allegations without concrete proof. That we can discuss them as more than allegation is because NotW have reacted as they have. 

What there is, it seems to me, is names in a notebook and numbers and passwords, that actual hacking took place requires the phone companies to confirm this. Unless NotW's actions can be taken to verify that these allegations are fact.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's fair enough, now you know what you can't  get away with.


 
Pardon? I can't get away with what now?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> That is all very well, but as far as I understand it, most of the allegations against the News of the World are still allegations without concrete proof. That we can discuss them as more than allegation is because NotW have reacted as they have.
> 
> What there is, it seems to me, is names in a notebook and numbers and passwords, that actual hacking took place requires the phone companies to confirm this. Unless NotW's actions can be taken to verify that these allegations are fact.



Which allegations are without proof?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> That is all very well, but as far as I understand it, most of the allegations against the News of the World are still allegations without concrete proof. That we can discuss them as more than allegation is because NotW have reacted as they have.
> 
> What there is, it seems to me, is names in a notebook and numbers and passwords, that actual hacking took place requires the phone companies to confirm this. Unless NotW's actions can be taken to verify that these allegations are fact.


 
I'm not talking about the wider issue of phone hacking, rather I've been on about what I consider unfounded speculation about why Rusbridger purportedly tried warn Cameron about Coulson.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Pardon? I can't get away with what now?





> Yes, it's a good topic.
> No, you don't need my permission to go wild on the speculation on who, why, what and where.
> Yes, I will pull you up for presenting speculation as fact.


 
Have i done any of that speculation as fact btw?


----------



## paulhackett (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Which allegations are without proof?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

paulhackett said:


>


 
shh!


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Have i done any of that speculation as fact btw?


 
Yes, IMO you did just that when you asserted that Rusbridge warned Cameron for reason XYZ.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yes, IMO you did just that when you asserted that Rusbridge warned Cameron for reason XYZ.


 
And what's wrong with that sort of speculation?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

_Rusbridger warned Cameron._ Don't post how or why. #1 for the P&P news!


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 12, 2011)

smokedout said:


> I think it's a good idea, i'm bored of murdoch now, showing how the guardian editor acts against his pretend politics to chum up to tories could prove to be far more significant politically in the long term


 
The whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yes, IMO you did just that when you asserted that Rusbridge warned Cameron for reason XYZ.


 
Where and when?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I care about why he helped him and why. I'm interested in what it says about how the media works, about the personal connections and how they play out in real life. You have the editor of the largest left wing paper looking to defend a tory prime minister from future attacks.


 
Or, he didn't particularly want to see this PM, any PM, hire a journo that he suspected would turn out to be a crook. I know you find such things hard to believe, but it just might be that Rusbridge thought the PMship deserved "better", that he actually believes what he says - the state as know it is good, and it deserves the best people to serve it it can get.

Mind you, this isn't at all what I suspect happened. If anything, my thoughts would follow your trajectories in many ways. But they are just that, thoughts and suspicions. Nothing wrong with it. I'm perhaps being unfair in picking on you, as it is this thread is absolutely rampant with delightful speculations and wishful thinking. The downside is that some people, you included, seem to have started treating these speculations as more facts than possibilities.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Or, he didn't particularly want to see this PM, any PM, hire a journo that he suspected would turn out to be a crook. I know you find such things hard to believe, but it just might be that Rusbridge thought the PMship deserved "better", that he actually believes what he says - the state as know it is good, and it deserves the best people to serve it it can get.
> 
> Mind you, this isn't at all what I suspect happened. If anything, my thoughts would follow your trajectories in many ways. But they are just that, thoughts and suspicions. Nothing wrong with it. I'm perhaps being unfair in picking on you, as it is this thread is absolutely rampant with delightful speculations and wishful thinking. The downside is that some people, you included, seem to have started treating these speculations as more facts than possibilities.



1)Supposition not FACT, Sorry.

2) Where?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

1) OK, I'll take your word for it.

2) I just quoted it. You know the context, you work it out.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

You didn't. If you did then i missed it sorry, can you post it again?


----------



## little_legs (Jul 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> then why does he linger in politics like a bad smell?
> 
> he's a permanent fixture on political programming, surrounded by serving politicians. he opines on great matters of populist principle, from the death penalty to rail travel. he's been blatantly de-toxifying himself, imo ready for a return to politics, and this will be his big chance. the fact that he's not currently an mp serves to strengthen his credibility. and he's a heavyweight next to disco dave


 
it's called equality and diversity policy


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You didn't. If you did then i missed it sorry, can you post it again?



This 


> You have the editor of the largest left wing paper looking to defend a tory prime minister from future attacks.



in a context where you and others are heavily hinting that Rusbridge is covering his own arse and that of his fellow journos rather than anything else. It's a good hypothesis, and that's it _so far_. A hypothesis. Anyway, I shan't try and spoil everyone's fun anymore. Ciao.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

> You have the editor of the largest left wing paper looking to defend a tory prime minister from future attacks.



This is fact bella!


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This is fact bella!


 
But the why of it is not. END OF


----------



## Balbi (Jul 12, 2011)

PMQ's followed by a Dave Smug special tomorrow. That'll stymie Milliband somewhat, as any targeted questions can be dismissed as 'you should wait for my prime ministerial statement dear'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> But the why of it is not. END OF


 
I was told, by you and others, not to ask why.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I was told, by you and others, not to ask why.


 
Since we're playing the quote game, can I have one please? AFAIK I only pulled you up on the presentation of speculation as fact. If you interpreted that as me saying you shouldn't go there fair enough, but that was never my intention.

See what I did there?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Since we're playing the quote game, can I have one please? AFAIK I only pulled you up on the presentation of speculation as fact. If you interpreted that as me saying you shouldn't go there fair enough, but that was never my intention.
> 
> See what I did there?



I'm happy to say that you didn't. See what _i_ did there?


----------



## little_legs (Jul 12, 2011)

never mind


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Which allegations are without proof?


 
It seems to me that all allegations are not facts otherwise they would be facts and not allegations. 

The phone hacking allegations will imho only become facts if and when the mobile phone companies confirm that hacking actually took place. Yes assuming the numbers and pins were in Mulcaire's notebook it does seem more than likely that he hacked them but that is not yet proof. 

And there is a long way to go with that, the police have apparently contacted about 170 people and there are 4,000 names and details in the notebooks. It could at this rate take them years to contact them all and investigate their phone records.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> It seems to me that all allegations are not facts otherwise they would be facts and not allegations.
> 
> The phone hacking allegations will imho only become facts if and when the mobile phone companies confirm that hacking actually took place. Yes assuming the numbers and pins were in Mulcaire's notebook it does seem more than likely that he hacked them but that is not yet proof.
> 
> And there is a long way to go with that, the police have apparently contacted about 170 people and there are 4,000 names and details in the notebooks. It could at this rate take them years to contact them all and investigate their phone records.


 
What about when people say that they've done it?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm happy to say that you didn't. See what _i_ did there?


 
A nice show of contrition. Thank you good sir.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What about when people say that they've done it?


 
Well that would indeed change things. 

Has Mulcaire said that he hacked all those 4,000 individuals?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Well that would indeed change things.
> 
> Has Mulcaire said that he hacked all those 4,000 individuals?


 
Yes he has Mr yates.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes he has Mr yates.


 
 

Oh... 

Can he be charged and jailed again, for more of the same offence?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

Dan U said:


> Fwiw I find it fucking odd he warned him too. I would have been willing Coulson in to the job if I was rubbisher


 
Exactly!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Different offences yes. Same offence no.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Andy Hayman. Pedigree by Heinz.


i've just seen the footage of him in committee, like a fucking pantomime dame when asked about possibly having taking payments, pathetic stuff.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I've been made very aware that the Johann Hari affair is by far the most heinous, because he represented "the left"


 
the person who said that was me, and i in no way said that it was the most henious did i??


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Or should I say he claimed to represent the left, as someone else claimed.


 
wtf? ive got nothing against you so why are you twisting my words in this manner??


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

smokedout said:


> I think it's a good idea, i'm bored of murdoch now, showing how the guardian editor acts against his pretend politics to chum up to tories could prove to be far more significant politically in the long term


 
yep, what the hell was the guardian doing warning him - and then bragging about it, it's none of their fucking business surely, especially since the guardian claims to be all anti tory and shit


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> wtf? ive got nothing against you so why are you twisting my words in this manner??


 
Not worth it FW. It's gone down the line now anyway. _Just remember._


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 12, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> yep, what the hell was the guardian doing warning him - and then bragging about it, it's none of their fucking business surely, especially since the guardian claims to be all anti tory and shit


the guardian doesn't claim to be anti-tory froggie, no way now how. prolly more right wing than they've ever been.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> So, if you heard someone you disliked/opposed politically was gonna do summat you thought would rebound on them badly would you tell them or keep schtum hoping it does go tits up??
> 
> Conversely, if a mate/politico you liked and supported was doing something you thought would come back to haunt him would you tell him/try to warn him off doing it?


 
Well exactly it don't make sense, if you hated cameron so much why would you warn him about something that was gonna damage him?


----------



## xenon (Jul 12, 2011)

little_legs said:


> Dave Smug special tomorrow = press briefing, right?


 

He'll say it's all very serious, express contrition at making bad hiring decision, wider implications for the media must be treated with utmost gravity, anounce the terms of public enquiry, reiterate Police are investigating again blah, blah. Hence  Can we therefore please shut up now and let those take their courses. He wants to be seen to ascert some kind of control over events.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> the guardian doesn't claim to be anti-tory froggie, no way now how. prolly more right wing than they've ever been.


 
Still claim to be a paper based on thorough investigative journalism though. Looks like Nick Davies went rogue!


----------



## xenon (Jul 12, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> yep, what the hell was the guardian doing warning him - and then bragging about it, it's none of their fucking business surely, especially since the guardian claims to be all anti tory and shit


 


Theories run thus.

1. A clever move, knowing Cameron wouldn't take any notice or it would be too late to do so, yet the warning would be on record.
2. Russbrigner just wanted to do the decent thing by holding up the position of Prime Minister. Not to see that office denigrated by a foolish mistake.
3. Establishment figures looking out for each other. Shared class interest.
4. Just being one of those types of peple who can't see someone make a foolish blunder and has to unburden themselves of useful knowledge.

I don't know enough about Russbringer to state a definite position IMO.  I suggested 1, along with a couple of other posters. I suspect 3 and 4 maybe closer to the truth.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Still claim to be a paper based on thorough investigative journalism though. Looks like Nick Davies went rogue!


you suspect his gordie broon piece yesterday to be suspect for some reason or am i missing a point? assuming that's what you're driving at.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

5?


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2011)

Perhaps a bit of arse-covering too.

'Mr Rusbridger, is it true that you knew about Coulson's criminal connections and failed to inform the Prime Minister that he was bringing a known criminal into the heart of government?'


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> the guardian doesn't claim to be anti-tory froggie, no way now how. prolly more right wing than they've ever been.


 
but they're always printing left wing stuff and being all pretend left wing, i know they're not, i know it's bollocks, but it's this type of bullshit "radicalism" in the guardian and they always claim to support everything left wing, they have that repuation, they trade on that reputation, but nonetheless its the only paper some people i know trust to report anything remotely halfly objectively (and yes I know that they're a lib-dem paper etc) and i thought a lot of people read it thinking that they are, they're opposed to cuts, being all anti tory etc, and i do wonder if they're trading on the reputation of being opposed to cameron what they are doing warning him about a shit storm being about to hit his door ... 

unless they are all navie, and think that cameron is a great guy with just some "wrong ideas" and wrong people like coulson, which being the proprietor of a national newspaper and probably having to have been as dirty as Murdoch on occasion I doubt rusbridger is ... 

so yes I do think that attacking the guardian is relevant, their's some massive questions to be asked over their conduct as well (particularly with that report I posted the other day which mentioned the high level of observer journalists trying to sell/pay for private information on individuals)


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2011)

there's no 5  - confused.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 12, 2011)

xenon said:


> He'll say it's all very serious, express contrition at making bad hiring decision, wider implications for the media must be treated with utmost gravity, anounce the terms of public enquiry, reiterate Police are investigating again blah, blah. Hence  Can we therefore please shut up now and let those take their courses. He wants to be seen to ascert some kind of control over events.



Ok, got you. So basically as, I think, Balbi suggested Cameron is making sure that he can talk unchallenged. 

I finally caught up with the last pages of the thread. I love this country, man. If it were Russia, the government would nationalise the UK subsidiary of the News Intl. and that would be the end of it, if it were the US, by now the offices of News Intl. would be taken over by the FBI agents and the building would be sealed. What an amazing experience just to be able to sit and observe all this.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Still claim to be a paper based on thorough investigative journalism though. Looks like Nick Davies went rogue!



yes exactly they claim to be a serious paper, better than the other papers such as the mail, torygraph, the sun, etc 

they have that reputation of being if not left, then "balanced" and they trade on it, so if they have been involved in wrongdoing why should they not be exposed


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you suspect his gordie broon piece yesterday to be suspect for some reason or am i missing a point? assuming that's what you're driving at.


 
You are PT. The guardian claims to be a paper of investigative journalism. If so, why is the editor warning 'targets' of potential 'trouble'. The investigative stuff that got done seems to have been against the editor (his sacking two FLers on the case) - hence my characteristion of having to go rogue (as Goodman was supposed to have done) to get the fucking stuff printed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> Perhaps a bit of arse-covering too.
> 
> 'Mr Rusbridger, is it true that you knew about Coulson's criminal connections and failed to inform the Prime Minister that he was bringing a known criminal into the heart of government?'


 Poss. 

Mr Rusbridger, how did you know this shit?


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2011)

Possibly also a creeping fear of letting a Murdoch man get his hands on actual government secrets. No one's really talked about that angle yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> Possibly also a creeping fear of letting a Murdoch man get his hands on actual government secrets. No one's really talked about that angle yet.


 
Yes. They haven't. I think the door needs being held open without any of the crap thrown earlier. If we're getting people, let's understand why we're getting them. That said, 97 onwards was murdoch sunshine.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i've just seen the footage of him in committee, like a fucking pantomime dame when asked about possibly having taking payments, pathetic stuff.


 
"I dunno why you're laughing … we would never, ever have a dinner that would compromise the investigation."


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> "I dunno why you're laughing … we would never, ever have a dinner that would compromise the investigation."


 
Q E fucking D


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You are PT. The guardian claims to be a paper of investigative journalism. If so, why is the editor warning 'targets' of potential 'trouble'. The investigative stuff that got done seems to have been against the editor (his sacking two FLers on the case) - hence my characteristion of having to go rogue (as Goodman was supposed to have done) to get the fucking stuff printed.


Ah, with you now, give me time and i'll get there in the end


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

i don't understand how this could be allowed? how a policeman could be allowed to have dinner with people he was investigating, and this be common knowledge and not get him pulled off the investigation, at the very least? 

well, actually, i do understand


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 12, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> "I dunno why you're laughing … we would never, ever have a dinner that would compromise the investigation."


shameless fucking wanker eh? it's similtaneously cringe-worthy yet cunt-tasticly punchable.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

I should be applauded for spelling rogue correctly twice as well. Hard work that.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not worth it FW. It's gone down the line now anyway. _Just remember._


 
indeed - just a bit fucking annoyed - and confused - thats all


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I should be applauded for spelling rogue correctly twice as well. Hard work that.



Congralutations.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> Congralutations.


 I would like to thank danny and danny.

Edit: and danny


----------



## xenon (Jul 12, 2011)

little_legs said:


> Ok, got you. So basically as, I think, Balbi suggested Cameron is making sure that he can talk unchallenged.
> 
> I finally caught up with the last pages of the thread. I love this country, man. If it were Russia, the government would nationalise the UK subsidiary of the News Intl. and that would be the end of it, if it were the US, by now the offices of News Intl. would be taken over by the FBI agents and the building would be sealed. What an amazing experience just to be able to sit and observe all this.


 

he wants to at least to be seen getting a grip on the situation swirling around him. Subjudicy aside, if charges are brought, which will dampen much reportage. There'll be loads more to come out. he'll look like a twat shouting in a hurricane. 

And yep. It's better than the World Cup for gripping Summer entertainment. I hope the momentum isn't lost and it's not just made a NI issue, which ultimately can be packaged up and flushed away.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 12, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-nick-davies-select-committee
This Guardian's Nick Davies does a wonderful 8 minute destruction of today's police evidence and other stuff.

The Guardian deserves the credit for its massive part in this.

Hope it hasn't been posted.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 12, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> but they're always printing left wing stuff and being all pretend left wing, i know they're not, i know it's bollocks, but it's this type of bullshit "radicalism" in the guardian and they always claim to support everything left wing, they have that repuation, they trade on that reputation, but nonetheless its the only paper some people i know trust to report anything remotely halfly objectively (and yes I know that they're a lib-dem paper etc) and i thought a lot of people read it thinking that they are, they're opposed to cuts, being all anti tory etc, and i do wonder if they're trading on the reputation of being opposed to cameron what they are doing warning him about a shit storm being about to hit his door ...
> 
> unless they are all navie, and think that cameron is a great guy with just some "wrong ideas" and wrong people like coulson, which being the proprietor of a national newspaper and probably having to have been as dirty as Murdoch on occasion I doubt rusbridger is ...
> 
> so yes I do think that attacking the guardian is relevant, their's some massive questions to be asked over their conduct as well (particularly with that report I posted the other day which mentioned the high level of observer journalists trying to sell/pay for private information on individuals)


since julian glover took over, the editorial line has become much more right wing/authoritarian in tone and content. but, you're right, they do present a more balanced view (and provide a space for alternative commentary) than most of the rest of the mainstream media combined.

i also think you need to separate out the actual published content from the editors and owners - its indisputable that cameron is deeply immersed in the same worlds and circles as rusbridger, (and therefore by simple extension, murdochs and co) and this quaint notion that none of these people ever talk about the day job when they meet socially is quite frankly ludicrous.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

Hugh Grant was just on NewsNight, he apparently now has an organisation called "Hacked Off" .. anyone heard about that and what it is up to? 

Grant was pushing for the enquiries to be wider than just News International.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 12, 2011)

The peerless Nick Davies analyses the Parliament v Plod stuff from today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-nick-davies-select-committee

ETA: Oh, we've had it. Never mind. Good enough to post at least twice.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 12, 2011)

I have to assume that Mulcaire hid the number of the phone he was using to hack the mobile voicemails, otherwise the phone companies could probably identify his activity relatively easily by scanning their databases of activity looking for that number.


----------



## xenon (Jul 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> shameless fucking wanker eh? it's similtaneously cringe-worthy yet cunt-tasticly punchable.


 

I've yet to hear this. Today in Parlament R4 shortly will hopefully play his own words.


----------



## Ms T (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Hugh Grant was just on NewsNight, he apparently now has an organisation called "Hacked Off" .. anyone heard about that and what it is up to?
> 
> Grant was pushing for the enquiries to be wider than just News International.


 

It's for victims of hacking.  Milly Dowler's parents are involved too I think.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 12, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The peerless Nick Davies analyses the Parliament v Plod stuff from today.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-nick-davies-select-committee
> 
> ETA: Oh, we've had it. Never mind. Good enough to post at least twice.


Even three times 

telegraph link



> US ethics watchdogs yesterday called on the Senate and House of Representatives to investigate the parent company of News International and hold “thorough public hearings” on whether the voicemails of Americans had been hacked.



Oh my....


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2011)

Late to the war, as per.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I have to assume that Mulcaire hid the number of the phone he was using to hack the mobile voicemails, otherwise the phone companies could probably identify his activity relatively easily by scanning their databases of activity looking for that number.


 
They might be able to identify him as Glen Mulcaire if he's not careful. The one who does the phone stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> Late to the war, as per.


 
yeh but they're fighting on the important fox news front.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 12, 2011)

Exactly.


----------



## xenon (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I have to assume that Mulcaire hid the number of the phone he was using to hack the mobile voicemails, otherwise the phone companies could probably identify his activity relatively easily by scanning their databases of activity looking for that number.


 

Just use an unregistered pay as you go sim.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> since julian glover took over, the editorial line has become much more right wing/authoritarian in tone and content. but, you're right, they do present a more balanced view (and provide a space for alternative commentary) than most of the rest of the mainstream media combined.
> 
> i also think you need to separate out the actual published content from the editors and owners - its indisputable that cameron is deeply immersed in the same worlds and circles as rusbridger, (and therefore by simple extension, murdochs and co) and this quaint notion that none of these people ever talk about the day job when they meet socially is quite frankly ludicrous.


 
yes, i'd agree with all of that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I have to assume that Mulcaire hid the number of the phone he was using to hack the mobile voicemails, otherwise the phone companies could probably identify his activity relatively easily by scanning their databases of activity looking for that number.


 
i think it was jack crawford in 'silence of the lambs' who says something along the lines of 'if you assume something you make an ass of you and me'. in this case, of course, you're just making an ass of yourself because - as xenon points out - an unregistered pay as you go, and more likely quite a few of them, were probably mulcaire's phones of choice.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 12, 2011)

xenon said:


> I've yet to hear this. Today in Parlament R4 shortly will hopefully play his own words.


i'm glad i wasn't about when it was going out live, don't think my blood pressure could have taken it.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 12, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-nick-davies-select-committee
> This Guardian's Nick Davies does a wonderful 8 minute destruction of today's police evidence and other stuff.
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, very good ta. And yes say what you like about the Guardian they've kept at this. 

Ooo break-ins that *does* make it more like Watergate  

He didn't mention hacking into computers. And the original investigation being stopped because it wasn't 'life threatening' unlike terrorist threats - is that the requirement now for the police? In that case why are they going after shoplifters - they're not life threatening, why they going after peaceful protesters - they're not life threatening. That is just crap.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 12, 2011)

Listening to radio 4 just now his (plod's) statement stressed hacking voice-mail was the specific area of investigation.

So obviously live phone hacking is yet to break properly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Listening to radio 4 just now his (plod's) statement stressed hacking voice-mail was the specific area of investigation.
> 
> So obviously live phone hacking is yet to break properly.


it's the scandal that just keeps giving


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 12, 2011)

Is anyone else missing db?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Is anyone else missing db?


 
not really, no.

let me remind you of what he's like:

i'll throw some fucks into you, dextertcn, you and the rest of the cunt collective.


----------



## Santino (Jul 12, 2011)

Fuck me.


----------



## xenon (Jul 12, 2011)

Andy Hayman, 'kinell. LOL Pantomime. You can hear the cunt smurking.


----------



## kmarxs&sparks (Jul 12, 2011)

I'm listening to this on "Today in parliament" as I type.
The cops sound like twits. Hayman reacted way too "offended" when asked if he'd been on the take.
If that wasn't suspect, not a lot is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> Fuck me.


 
oho 

the game's afoot


----------



## Kippa (Jul 12, 2011)

Looks like all out war between Murdoch and the political elite now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Proper war it is


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

That just completely reminded me of The Sun's  Hillsborough headline 'THE TRUTH'


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 12, 2011)

two sheds said:


> ... And the original investigation being stopped because it wasn't 'life threatening' unlike terrorist threats - is that the requirement now for the police? In that case why are they going after shoplifters - they're not life threatening, why they going after peaceful protesters - they're not life threatening. That is just crap.


Ah but it was because there was a royal connection that they had it.

What are they saying?   That they didn't thoroughly investigate the chance there was a threat to her maj & co?

Laughable - the royal gig is one of the biggest money earners for the police and politically, publicly and media-wise friendly, I'm sure...they'd have *lots* of resources for it.  Fucking gazillions.   Nothing but good stuff for the police investigating a possible terror link to the royals from a minor voicebox crime.

Entirely unbelievable.

(If I have my timeline right)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

Kippa said:


> Looks like all out war between Murdoch and the political elite now.


 
between? Likes he's outside?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

If Gordon Brown is part of a 'political elite', I'm Winnie Mandela.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> If Gordon Brown is part of a 'political elite', I'm Winnie Mandela.


good evening, mrs mandela


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> Fuck me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> If Gordon Brown is part of a 'political elite', I'm Winnie Mandela.


 
He's the ex prime minister. That's quite quite high up i hear. quite elite sort of thing


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

So's John Major. He's about as 'elite' as a fish finger sandwich.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> So's John Major.


 
yeh. and he's part of a political elite too. so was edward heath, so was james callaghan, so was fucking campbell-bannerman.






henry campbell-bannerman recently


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> So's John Major. He's about as 'elite' as a fish finger sandwich.


 
 Spot the bit where they're different people.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 12, 2011)

Got a right double act here. Who's holding the other up?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Got a right double act here. Who's holding the other up?


you're holding everyone else up. now fuck off.


----------



## kmarxs&sparks (Jul 12, 2011)

Kippa said:


> Looks like all out war between Murdoch and the political elite now.



A few skeletons are very likely to wander out for a walk. 
If this carries on I can see some politicians getting written about. Wilde suggested "the only thing worse than being talked about was not being talked about".
I suspect a few in parliament may disagree with the lad in the next few months.

However, I predict Murdock would loose big style in the long run. (Hope I'm right)


----------



## two sheds (Jul 13, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. and he's part of a political elite too. so was edward heath, so was james callaghan, so was fucking campbell-bannerman.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You'd never think he broke the world water speed record would you


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

You quote Wilde and you can't spell Murdoch.

Got to go now, the Gimp told me so.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Got a right double act here. Who's holding the other up?


it is difficult to see what useful point you're trying to make. mr broon isn't a part of the political elite? how so?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Fantastic, you've built on this mornings embarrassments to tell us that gordon brown is not and never was part of a Political elite. Well done london calling.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2011)

kmarxs&sparks said:


> A few skeletons are very likely to wander out for a walk.
> If this carries on I can see some politicians getting written about. Wilde suggested "the only thing worse than being talked about was not being talked about".
> I suspect a few in parliament may disagree with the lad in the next few months.
> 
> However, I predict Murdock would loose big style in the long run. (Hope I'm right)







rupert murdoch





howling mad murdock out of the a-team


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Fantastic, you've built on this mornings embarrassments to tell us that gordon brown is not and never was part of a Political elite. Well done london calling.



Says the man who was certain NI wouldn't drip-feed information, and then berated Peston for being  NI's mouthpiece.

Mr Finger on the Pulse.


----------



## paolo (Jul 13, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-nick-davies-select-committee
> This Guardian's Nick Davies does a wonderful 8 minute destruction of today's police evidence and other stuff.
> 
> The Guardian deserves the credit for its massive part in this.
> ...



I watched earlier - it's an excellent piece. Way more incisive and considered than anything I've seen on the BBC so far.

I'll be keeping an eye out for his coverage now.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Says the man who was certain NI wouldn't drip-feed information, and then berated Peston for being  NI's mouthpiece.
> 
> Mr Finger on the Pulse.


have you contributed anything but personal scorn of late to this thread?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

DexterTCN/paolo - Thanks for that, I had missed it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Says the man who was certain NI wouldn't drip-feed information, and then berated Peston for being  NI's mouthpiece.
> 
> Mr Finger on the Pulse.


 
Wow, that is mental.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> have you contributed anything but personal scorn of late to this thread?


All I did was disagree with Brown as part of some 'elite'.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, that is mental.


 
Not really, you do it most days.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> All I did was disagree with Brown as part of some 'elite'.


 
All I did it's a matter of regret etc. you're beend picking and losing personal fights all day


----------



## xenon (Jul 13, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> So's John Major. He's about as 'elite' as a fish finger sandwich.


 

Don't be silly. Brown's been out of office less than 18 months. This stuff surrounded his tenia as both chancellor and PM. If he's not part of the political elite at the pertinent times, who the fuck is.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 13, 2011)

OK so Mulcaire probably used unregistered mobiles to hack the voicemails of his targets. I hadn't thought of that. 

Nevertheless it may be possible for the mobile phone companies to track or identify a voicemail that was accessed from a different number when the mobile phone that it applied to was on and registered to the home network. That would not happen in normal service so it could be a way to identify a hacking event. 

I am just thinking that it might take less time to approach this via the mobile phone networks than to wait for the police to leaf through all the notebooks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Not really, you do it most days.


 
 I would ask what it is I do all day that's mental but I don't care and the thread doesn't need it.  go to bed silly boy.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 13, 2011)

weltweit said:


> ...
> I am just thinking that it might take less time to approach this via the mobile phone networks than to wait for the police to leaf through all the notebooks.


 
Of course getting mobile companies to identify hacking events would identify ALL events, not just those that the NotW had done.


----------



## elbows (Jul 13, 2011)

What was the image posted here recently that everyone was going wow about? Its not working for me.


----------



## xenon (Jul 13, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Of course getting mobile companies to identify hacking events would identify ALL events, not just those that the NotW had done.


 

He was done for hacking. He's admitted hacking. He's got people's mobile phone numbers. There's no need to go with warrent, RIPA or whatever to the phone companies. Not unless they're planning to build another case against him.


----------



## xenon (Jul 13, 2011)

elbows said:


> What was the image posted here recently that everyone was going wow about? Its not working for me.


 

I'd like to know too. Presume it's a pic of a front page.

Can someone describe please?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2011)

xenon said:


> I'd like to know too. Presume it's a pic of a front page.
> 
> Can someone describe please?


 
basically the sun are calling brown a liar and that they published the story about his child with his cooperation, if not blessing.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

What really happened between the Sun and PM

then big banner headline saying Brown Wrong

followed by a refutation of the claims made today, along the lines of mr broon was a party to all of this and/or cozied up to murdoch et al post shedding a mournful tear and/or it was their (police/politicians) fault not ours.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

in the currant bun itself, by the way


----------



## binka (Jul 13, 2011)

elbows said:


> What was the image posted here recently that everyone was going wow about? Its not working for me.


 
the one from b3ta? http://www.b3ta.com/ its on the main page. [edit ignore that im obviously getting confused] 

btw im enjoying reading this topic but was a bit baffled about half a dozen pages ago by people saying now isnt the time to criticise the guardian! im sick of seeing rusbridgers face on telly and not one interviewer asking him the important question - why?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 13, 2011)

Sun headlines tomorrow apparently: 

“WHAT REALLY AHPPENED BETWEEN THE SUN AND EX-PM 

BROWN WRONG

•	We didn’t probe son’s medical records 
•	Browns gave us consent to run story
•	Source was dad of cystic fibrosis child 


Unless you mean the Campbell Bannerman bit.


----------



## xenon (Jul 13, 2011)

Cheers. Yeah, that is rather a hostile move. The ordacious shitehounds. 

"We continue to inquire in to other allegations made by Mr Brown, and implore him to provide details to us so we can establish the facts."


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 13, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-nick-davies-select-committee
> This Guardian's Nick Davies does a wonderful 8 minute destruction of today's police evidence and other stuff.
> 
> The Guardian deserves the credit for its massive part in this.
> ...


 
I am very grateful for that link ,a very good piece and it pointed out how this may progress


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2011)

I assume they cannot actually prove that Brown gave them consent, so they're banking on it being their word against his. Sounds like a desperate ploy to me.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I assume they cannot actually prove that Brown gave them consent, so they're banking on it being their word against his. Sounds like a desperate ploy to me.


Doesn't matter anyway, all those thick Sun-readers won't keep up with what's going oh look there's Madonna.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 13, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I assume they cannot actually prove that Brown gave them consent, so they're banking on it being their word against his. Sounds like a desperate ploy to me.


 
Not totally sure but as i remember he pre-empted them by announcing it himself but only because Sun said they were going to run it anyway. 

Oooooh i just hope they're found out for something similar so their high moral ground swallows them up.


----------



## xenon (Jul 13, 2011)

We discussed with  his colleagues (not him personlly) Got his apparent permission by something he'd not said himself. What colleagues? One's leaking how his mental state might be effecting him? Loyal Brownites?

"On receipt of the information, The Sun approached Mr Brown and discussed with his colleagues how best to present it. 

Those colleagues provided quotes which were used in the published piece which indicated his consent to it."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2011)

xenon said:


> We discussed with  his colleagues (not him personlly) Got his apparent permission by something he'd not said himself. What colleagues? One's leaking how his mental state might be effecting him? Loyal Brownites?
> 
> "On receipt of the information, The Sun approached Mr Brown and discussed with his colleagues how best to present it.
> 
> Those colleagues provided quotes which were used in the published piece which indicated his consent to it."



Is that really what they're saying? Fuck me, that's weak.


----------



## xenon (Jul 13, 2011)

OK maybe they didn't get access to medical records. They sure didn't get Gordon Brown's personal expressed permission to run the article.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 13, 2011)

xenon said:


> We discussed with  his colleagues (not him personlly) Got his apparent permission by something he'd not said himself. What colleagues? One's leaking how his mental state might be effecting him? Loyal Brownites?
> 
> "On receipt of the information, The Sun approached Mr Brown and discussed with his colleagues how best to present it.
> 
> Those colleagues provided quotes which were used in the published piece which indicated his consent to it."


 
"Never argue with a man who buys his ink by the barrel …" Ben Franklin


----------



## laptop (Jul 13, 2011)

So I ran into John Whittingdale (chair of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport) and asked him why he thought Rusbridger had warned Cameron.

He rolled his eyes. He has a trademark roll of the eyes. TBF, as a senior backbench Tory he couldn't really answer.

A bystander, who turned out to be a Labour member of the Select Committee, leapt in to say that he reckoned Rusbridger had done it, certain that Cameron would reject advice from the Guardian, in order to nail him down now.

FWIW.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2011)

I admit to being genuinely confused by Rusbridger. I don't understand it.


----------



## xenon (Jul 13, 2011)

weltweit said:


> "Never argue with a man who buys his ink by the barrel …" Ben Franklin


 

Heh,  Not heard that before.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2011)

laptop said:


> A bystander, who turned out to be a Labour member of the Select Committee, leapt in to say that he reckoned Rusbridger had done it, certain that Cameron would reject advice from the Guardian, in order to nail him down now.
> 
> .



how credible do you think that is? It doesn't sound very credible to me at all.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is that really what they're saying? Fuck me, that's weak.


 
TBH I think this is probably the one story where they actually are telling the truth.  The article itself (assuming that it hasnt been edited since) reads more like a government puff-piece than anything else, certainly its not the kind of story that would drive a man to tears (and then invite the person to charge to a sleepover, and after that go to her wedding and numerous other social functions besides).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 13, 2011)

Well yes, the wedding attendance, etc, at the very least show Brown up to be a very weak man - that he would allow himself to be shafted and shafted again.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 13, 2011)

laptop said:


> So I ran into John Whittingdale (chair of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport) and asked him why he thought Rusbridger had warned Cameron.



"I mean, what's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives you his bleeding phone number the next morning?"


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well yes, the wedding attendance, etc, at the very least show Brown up to be a very weak man - that he would allow himself to be shafted and shafted again.


 
Perhaps, though the same evidence might be used to show how determined he was to use anything and everything to gain (and then remain in) power.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

Melo/dramatic Guardian front page:


----------



## weltweit (Jul 13, 2011)

One thing we know (I think) will be confirmed next Tuesday at the Culture Media & Sport Select Commitee is that under Rebekah Brook NI paid members of the police for stories. We know this because last time she was before a commitee, she admitted it.  Surely the confirmation of this would be enough to get her at least an interview with the new police enquiry.


----------



## laptop (Jul 13, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> how credible do you think that is? It doesn't sound very credible to me at all.


 
I mention it only to report that someone in a position to do a few things about stuff agrees with me (unprompted) on what the _effect_ of Rusbridger's communication with Cameron's people was, and in their opinion it was the motive.


----------



## xenon (Jul 13, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I admit to being genuinely confused by Rusbridger. I don't understand it.


 

I admit to having been genuinnely confused by his name. Was calling him Russbringer before 

Jus watched the News Night clip again, where he mentions the warning he gave. HE just said it seemed reasonable to warn Cameron. There was a Q & A with Rusbridger over all this in Comment is Free. Neither Kirsty Wark or a commenter asked directly why he gave this warning. From his tone, it does rather come across as him just wanting to see them avoid making a blunder prior to the election, for the sake of reasonableness. He warned Clegg too and the Guardian of course were backing the Libdems but it would have seemed crudely partizan and perhaps just not cricket to withold the information from Cameron too. Mentioned other editors tried getting warnings through also. And they're all more similar than different at that level. The establishment that is.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

Rusbridger on the Hayman letter (2001 _Press Gazette_ article):



> Two award-winning journalists who believe they have been "betrayed" by The Guardian over an investigation into police corruption are calling for an inquiry into a letter sent to the newspaper's editor, Alan Rusbridger, by a senior Metropolitan Police officer.
> 
> Michael Gillard and Laurie Flynn want the Police Complaints Authority to find out why a letter, containing what they believe are serious allegations against them and demanding details of their investigation sources, was sent by Commander Andy Hayman to Rusbridger last August [2000].
> 
> ...



Perhaps Met links to criminals, private detectives and journalists were less interesting to Rubbisher in 2000 than they are now? 

Even though they are the exact same cops, villains, gumshoes and hacks, the exact same corrupt relationships, the exact same criminal enterprises...


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 13, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Letwin? Letwin is a twat !


 
Please, show at least some sense of perspective. That's really offensive. The vast majority of twats deserve better than to be compared with Letwin.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 13, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Rusbridger on the Hayman letter (2001 _Press Gazette_ article):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Cheers for tracking that down Dave, useful stuff.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 13, 2011)

Rockefeller vs Murdoch



> Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller said the authorities should consider whether journalists working for the media giant had broken US law.
> 
> He warned of "serious consequences" should that be found to be the case.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 13, 2011)

> Dear Badgers,
> 
> Thank you for your email.
> 
> ...


----------



## Badgers (Jul 13, 2011)

Three parties unite against the Murdoch then? 



> The Conservatives and Lib Dems are set to back a Labour motion urging Rupert Murdoch to withdraw his bid for BSkyB. They will call on Mr Murdoch's News Corporation to do so in the "public interest" while alleged phone hacking at the News of the World is probed. Prime Minister David Cameron is also set to detail the terms of a public inquiry into the hacking scandal.



This is good news: 



> News Corp shares have fallen 14% since 4 July, wiping about $5bn off the company's value.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 13, 2011)

The Sun are desperate with that headline.

What have The Times done?


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 13, 2011)

Balbi said:


> The Sun are desperate with that headline.
> 
> What have The Times done?


 The Sun suddenly develop an interest in the scandal after almost ignoring it since the whole saga broke


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

According to R4 this morn, the Sun have accused Brown of "smearing" News Int'l  ("allegations are false and a smear)".   Is any further comment needed?

Re the Graun/Rusbridger business:  many worthwhile questions/thoughts here.  Obviously Rusbridger is as establishment as any other paper baron...wonder if Graun/Observer hacks have been privy to info obtained by very dubious means too?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2011)

Badgers said:


>


 
pisspoor

fucking tesco's wouldn't advertise with me if i was the subject of a police investigation


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

Early lunch today then: Over to you, Prime Minister....


----------



## Tankus (Jul 13, 2011)

the debates at 4pm  according to sky ...not after PMQ's


----------



## Sue (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> According to R4 this morn, the Sun have accused Brown of "smearing" News Int'l  ("allegations are false and a smear)".   Is any further comment needed?



Shows how fucked it is that they still don't get that however the information was obtained, it's morally dubious (at best) to print private medical information. Especially when we're talking about a baby. And even more so a baby whose parents have just found out he's got a serious medical condition.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 13, 2011)

The Sun surely have no credibility on this, even if its actually true what they are saying.

NI spent years denying the scale of hacking at the NOTW only to be proved to be comprehensively lieing through its teeth


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Hayman whining that hos pathetic performance was down to anti-working class prejudices on the part of the committee.


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2011)

BBC reporting that Cameron won't take part in the hacking debate.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 13, 2011)

News of the World: Church of England retains stake in Murdoch empire

The Church of England is to retain its £9 million investment in Rupert Murdoch’s media empire in the hope that the share price will rise again if all his British newspapers are sold or closed.

The Church Commissioners, who manage the Church of England’s £5.3 billion investments portfolio, owns shares in both News Corp and BSkyB.
They have come under pressure from senior Anglicans to pull out of Murdoch-owned companies in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal on the grounds that continuing to invest is unethical and “embarrassing”.
Andreas Whittam Smith, the first church estates commissioner, acknowledged that the issue posed a “ticklish” dilemma for the investment fund.
But he suggested that selling the Church’s £3.8 million of shares in News Corp and £5.3 million invested in BSkyB, which is part-owned by Mr Murdoch, could waste an opportunity to make money.
He told the Church’s national assembly, the General Synod, in York:
“A premature sale of News Corp and BSkyB might just be simply very bad timing.
“I don't argue with anything that anybody is saying about them but I think it must be possible that News Corp will get rid of its entire British holdings of newspapers.
“If it is to do so, first of all the problem would have vanished from the point of view of the parent company, and for us as investors, and the shares will certainly bounce up again. So it is a ticklish area.”

Mr Whittam Smith’s remarks follow protests from clergy over the Church’s continued investment in Mr Murdoch’s media businesses.

more here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-England-retains-stake-in-Murdoch-empire.html


a "ticklish dilemma"


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

^^^"And ye, did Christ run through the Anglican money market, and did the mage called Whittam-Smith emote, "Knock it off, JC, if we hang on to these MurdochSatanInc shares, we'll be coining it in - loadsamoney"

(from the Book of Digger)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

Goodness, what a busy retirement old Andreas is having.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> ^^^"And ye, did Christ run through the Anglican money market, and did the mage called Whittam-Smith emote, "Knock it off, JC, if we hang on to these MurdochSatanInc shares, we'll be coining it in - loadsamoney"
> 
> (from the Book of Digger)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

£6 billion worth of assets. Only £1 billion of that  is used for pensions. 

Shittest 

church 

ever.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Goodness, what a busy retirement old Andreas is having.


 
same bloke who's looking into hari at the indie isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Yep, that's him.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

looking at his wiki, he's a very energetic man.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> looking at his wiki, he's a very energetic man.


 
A full life of boards and bodies and that -  i noticed earlier when checking his Independent editorship dates


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Suggests to me that the Mirror and Mail could be happy hunting grounds for the enquiry.


 
Which we already knew a week ago.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

Just recalled that Whittam-Smith was installed as President of the BBFC by Jack Straw, as a "fuck you" to James Ferman (for, amongst other things, daring to pass the "pornography" of films like "Crash", and also trying to pass utterly-watered-down/cut-to-pieces R18 "porn").  I had no time for the autocratic, dictatorial Ferman, but Straw's treatment of him, and Whittam-Smith's utterly useless term as President, stank to high heaven.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

weltweit said:


> It seems to me that all allegations are not facts otherwise they would be facts and not allegations.
> 
> The phone hacking allegations will imho only become facts if and when the mobile phone companies confirm that hacking actually took place. Yes assuming the numbers and pins were in Mulcaire's notebook it does seem more than likely that he hacked them but that is not yet proof.
> 
> And there is a long way to go with that, the police have apparently contacted about 170 people and there are 4,000 names and details in the notebooks. It could at this rate take them years to contact them all and investigate their phone records.


 
You're confusing the legal position, i.e. that there are only allegations until the facts are proven in a court of law, with the idea that there is factual evidence (i.e. a "paper trail", confirmation from he telecoms providers involved, etc) of these things having been done.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which we already knew a week ago.


 
Which we already knew eight years ago, you mean.


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2011)

Ha ha, Tom Watson geting a dig in at Nick Robinson.




			
				Tom Watson said:
			
		

> Frankly, I think the BBC should probably take a look at itself. I don't think their political journalists took this story seriously when the investigation was taking place in parliament. I think Nick Robinson, the most powerful political editor in the land, missed the story of his life and this will come out in the reviews over months and years to come.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

One has to wonder why Rusbridger and senior _Guardian_ management "could not defend the allegations that [their own journalists] were seeking to make" about the corrupt links between cops, crooks, newspapers and private detectives back in 2000, when it is the same allegations they are so vigorously putting forward today.

It was known in 2000 that the _News Of The World_ (editor: Rebekah Brooks), the _Mirror_ (editor: Piers Morgan) and the _Sunday Mirror_ (editor: Colin Myler) were knee-deep in shit on this.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> One has to wonder why Rusbridger and senior _Guardian_ management "could not defend the allegations that [their own journalists] were seeking to make" about the corrupt links between cops, crooks, newspapers and private detectives back in 2000, when it is the same allegations they are so vigorously putting forward today.
> 
> It was known in 2000 that the _News Of The World_ (editor: Rebekah Brooks), the _Mirror_ (editor: Piers Morgan) and the _Sunday Mirror_ (editor: Colin Myler) were knee-deep in shit on this.



Rusbridger guilty of similar dealings himself, perhaps?  Him sticking up to maintain the Fourth Estate?  The pro-Blair Graun not wanting to rock the boats of the pro-Blair NOTW, Sun and Mirror?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

Lest we forget _NOTW_ political editor David Wooding's lament last week:



> They cleared out all the bad people. They bought in a great new editor, Colin Myler, and his deputy, Victoria Newton, *who had not been sullied by any of the things that had gone on in the past*.
> 
> And there's nobody there, there's hardly anybody there who was there in the old regime.



Perhaps he meant to say _"who had not been specifically sullied by any of the things that had gone on in the past at the _NOTW_, but let's brush all that naughtiness he was involved with at the _Sunday Mirror_ under the carpet."_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

xenon said:


> He'll say it's all very serious, express contrition at making bad hiring decision, wider implications for the media must be treated with utmost gravity, anounce the terms of public enquiry, reiterate Police are investigating again blah, blah. Hence  Can we therefore please shut up now and let those take their courses. He wants to be seen to ascert some kind of control over events.


 
Unfortunately for him, he'll only be able to do so with any certainty once all the cats are out of the bag, and *that* is a long way from happening.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

UK media very very quiet on Piers 'cunt' Morgan getting dragged in. Getting closer now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> there's no 5  - confused.


 
Thing is, where 4 possible reasons for Rusbridger's behaviour can be found, so can #5, #6 and, for all we know 7-10 too.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> UK media very very quiet on Piers 'cunt' Morgan getting dragged in. Getting closer now.


 
any specific info on that?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> UK media very very quiet on Piers 'cunt' Morgan getting dragged in. Getting closer now.


 
Seeing as Brooks was his personal protégé, and one whom he fast-tracked for senior management, it's going to be difficult for him to keep his paws clean.

I wonder if Marina is going to drop him in it at any point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

Santino said:


> Possibly also a creeping fear of letting a Murdoch man get his hands on actual government secrets. No one's really talked about that angle yet.


 
Of course they haven't. Gives them time to brush any problems under the carpet.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

I think butchersapron may be referring to this story: http://www.businessinsider.com/murdoch-phone-hacking-piers-morgan-next-2011-7

(Apols to him if not so)


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> I wonder if Marina is going to drop him in it at any point.


 
Hyde?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> any specific info on that?


 
Only the Express in this country is running anything on him right now (apart from blogs and twitter). I sense people digging through his interviews and so on even as we speak...so expect more later...


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

Santino said:


> Hyde?


 
Yup.  Funnily enough, a while ago, at a Graun meejda event c/o Graun Towers, Ms Hyde laid into some Murdoch hacks for publishing details of her affair w/Moron (it's on the Graun site somewhere, if memory serves).  Will Rusbridger let her weigh in on this or silence her? 

e2a: Looks like Ms Hyde has been writing on this whole thing - see here for example.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

From the _Guardian_'s 'Media Top 100' profile of Rebekah Wade/Brooks in 2002:



> She has also had a string of impressive scoops, including the Prince Harry drugs scandal, Angus Deayton's romp with a prostitute, and the sting in which Sophie Rhys Jones spoke rather too freely with Mazir [sic] Mahmood (dressed as a fake sheik, naturally).



Hmmm.



> Wade also came under fire from the editor of Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore, who said she was too close to Mark Bolland, Prince Charles's deputy private secretary, and Guy Black, the director of the press complaints commission.
> 
> The Telegraph implied the three had colluded on the Prince Harry drug-taking story, and Moore called the PCC a "stitch-up."
> 
> Ms Wade retaliated by printing "10 Things You Never Knew About Charles Moore," and branded him "the hypocrite of Fleet Street."



Curious.



> But the chances of Ms Wade "pouring her heart out" are about as good as England's were of winning the World Cup. She oozes ambition and decided from the start to stay out of the limelight - like many of her News International mentors including the legendary Kelvin MacKenzie.



Ambition? Check.

Staying out of the limelight? Oops.



> Who knows, with a good wind she may even find herself back at the Sun where she was once deputy, only this time in the editor's chair [she did - 2003-9]. Now that would be interesting.



Looks like her good wind is repeating on her.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2011)

Responsible for hacking Ulrika's phone and finding out she was shagging Sven?


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> I think butchersapron may be referring to this story: http://www.businessinsider.com/murdoch-phone-hacking-piers-morgan-next-2011-7
> 
> (Apols to him if not so)



Moron has always been bent though - as anyone familiar with the City Slickers / Viglen case would know.

(edit - the outcome of which (Moron only ever recieved a slap on the wrist from the PCC) does raise even more eyebrows now than it did at the time, given the allegations of undue influence that the media has)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Yup.  Funnily enough, a while ago, at a Graun meejda event c/o Graun Towers, Ms Hyde laid into some Murdoch hacks for publishing details of her affair w/Moron (it's on the Graun site somewhere, if memory serves).  Will Rusbridger let her weigh in on this or silence her?


 
Currently underemployed ex-_NOTW_ showbusiness hack Dan Wootton is trying to whip up a twitter spat with her at the moment.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

marina had an affair with moron? i thought it was a common-or-garden boyf/girlf thing...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> shameless fucking wanker eh? it's similtaneously cringe-worthy yet cunt-tasticly punchable.


 
It's also an utterly fantastic illustration of the insidious nature of the relationship between the apparatus of the state and power. Hayman can't see that his position is compromised by what he did. Sod Freemasonry and the other stuff the conspiraloons rattle on about. You don't need that kind of network when power exerts it's influence so baldly!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> marina had an affair with moron? i thought it was a common-or-garden boyf/girlf thing...



Twas an affair initially, I recall - the Moron dumped his then wife for her.  Covered muchly by Private Eye, much to the (hilarious) annoyance of Moron.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> marina had an affair with moron? i thought it was a common-or-garden boyf/girlf thing...


 
Tell that to his wife of the time!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 13, 2011)

So have I missed much since this morning?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

agricola said:


> Moron has always been bent though - as anyone familiar with the City Slickers / Viglen case would know.


 
Indeed so - wasn't it the Slickers who copped the hand of Plod whilst Moron lived to fight another day?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2011)

Andy Hayman, poor dear....



> I've been through the mill several times in court, in journalistic interviews. I've never been treated like yesterday. There was cat-calling, there was loud laughter from the wings of Chris Bryant. It was an appalling display from them. The irony really is that they don't like being treated in this way disproportionately and yet they're prepared to put us through that.
> 
> I think all four of us were up for tough questioning, but not on that sort of basis. And to be accused, as I was, of being a dodgy geezer, which is probably on the basis on my accent, I think that's a really poor show ...
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

i think it bears repeating that dave isn't doing the debate this afternoon, on account of being 'too busy'.

i can't imagine that being a popular move.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> i think it bears repeating that dave isn't doing the debate this afternoon, on account of being 'too busy'.
> 
> i can't imagine that being a popular move.


 
Has he got an appointment with a hard-drive washer/paper shredder/phone records wiper etc?


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Indeed so - wasn't it the Slickers who copped the hand of Plod whilst Moron lived to fight another day?


 
I have edited it since to make that very point, but yes - Moron only ever got a slap on the wrist from the PCC.  He was "cleared" by the DTi, because of course there was nothing wrong with putting all his money, and a lot of his wifes money, on shares in one firm the day before his journalists (who has you correctly point out got convicted) wrote an article which boosted the share price.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 13, 2011)

Is there still PMQs today, and will Cameron be there? All I could find was that he'd be making a statement afterwards.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> If Gordon Brown is part of a 'political elite', I'm Winnie Mandela.


 
_Amandla_, Winnie!

I suspect your idea of what constitutes "the political elite" and the broader definition only partly coincide, but anyone who garnered the sort of contacts GB did as Chancellor and as Prime Minister should be considered a part of "the political elite". He may not retain credibility with the electorate, but as someone who can still wield power and, more importantly, influence, he's definitely part of the in-group.


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> i think it bears repeating that dave isn't doing the debate this afternoon, on account of being 'too busy'.
> 
> i can't imagine that being a popular move.



Yep ----- AND he's excusing himself by saying he has to meet the Dowlers. Isn't going to wash ----- I hope.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> Is there still PMQs today, and will Cameron be there? All I could find was that he'd be making a statement afterwards.


 
He is doing PMQs, wont be leading for the government in the Labour debate on Murdoch.  He is right to do so - after all, the debate is fundamentally pointless and its been brought by the opposition anyway.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> i think it bears repeating that dave isn't doing the debate this afternoon, on account of being 'too busy'.
> 
> i can't imagine that being a popular move.


 
He didn't turn up the other day either. Brown trousers and bicycle clips time for poor Dave.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> So's John Major. He's about as 'elite' as a fish finger sandwich.


 
Have a look at his post-Prime Ministerial CV some time. He was, for example, a member of Hakluyt & Co's "international advisory board" for several years, alongside former top-flight politicians and "public servants" (i.e. heads of intelligence agencies and military organisations) from around the capitalist world.

It's not what you know, it's who you know that makes you "elite".


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

From _Private Eye_ #1039 (19 October 2001):



> …For some reason, however, Hyde fails to direct any of her biting wit at [then-_Sun_ editor David] Yelland's equally absurd tabloid rival, _Mirror_ editor Piers Morgan. Why not?…





Whilst looking for that I also came across this cracker about Paul McMullan (_Private Eye_ #1023 (9 March 2001):



> After the recent scandal at a north London hospital which employed a cleaner with TB, undercover _News Of The World_ hack Paul McMullan applied for a job as a porter at the same hospital. Sure enough, he was taken on without being given any health checks or basic hygiene training. Great scoop!
> 
> Not for long, alas. When McMullan arrived for his first day at work he was teamed up with a porter who had joined a week or so earlier and would show him the ropes. To his consternation, he recognised his new colleague as… an undercover hack from the _Sunday Mirror_!





(Apologies for quality of pics, just quickies with the cameraphone.)


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

major & brown are members of the political elite however you define the word. how could they not be?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

Don't you need people to take your phone calls to be part of an elite?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 13, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> From _Private Eye_ #1039 (19 October 2001):
> 
> View attachment 16349


 
That is very funny !!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2011)

Hmmm... put a question on the open thread on the Guardian asking why it was Rushbridger felt the need to tell Cameron about Coulson's dodgy past. This morning...




> Phone-hacking scandal: Tuesday 12 July
> 
> Your comment 12 July 2011 8:45PM
> 
> This comment has been removed by a moderator.



There was nothing in there that was libelous....


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

It's what it would encourage and where it would lead..


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> i think it bears repeating that dave isn't doing the debate this afternoon, on account of being 'too busy'.
> 
> i can't imagine that being a popular move.


 
so he has fannied out of pmqs. You know he is bricking it when he fears to face millipede


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 13, 2011)

Used car salesmen... rarely around when your big end goes and you call in the warranty.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

DaveCinzano - just re-read the Eye/Hyde thing, and realised her piss-poor mental health "joke". Hmm.  See here Ms Hyde commenting on the X Factor in a "Lost In Showbiz" piece:



> Still, that's not all the drama concerning the programme. On Tuesday, the Sun splashed with news of Shirlena Johnson, a 30-year-old mother-of-one who appeared on Saturday's show and was put through to the bootcamp stage of the competition – but apparently "hid a serious mental illness from show bosses". As you know, *the cure for mental illness is being plastered on the front page of the Sun day after day*, and the paper have duly afforded Shirlena this treatment, declaring that she is a "ticking timebomb", according to "worried medics".



Apparently the "cure for mental illness" is to also make comments in the Guardian about sectioning people (irrespective of whether they're Murdoch scum or not).  Hypocrisy, anyone?


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2011)

'Only last month David Cameron, Ed Miliband and others were paying homage to the tycoon at his London summer party. If you had told Cameron and Miliband over the champagne that only a few weeks later that they would be uniting in the Commons to pass a motion opposing Murdoch's bid for BSkyB they would have thought you were barmy. Yet that's exactly what's going to happen today. As the New York Times has argued, Britain is going through its own version of the Arab spring. Truly, a spell has been broken.'


no we are not, this is the elites arguing, fighting amongst themselves, not the people rising up..


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> so he has fannied out of pmqs. You know he is bricking it when he fears to face millipede


 
Its not PMQs.  It is the debate on the Opposition motion, and he is right to do so - the motion is now pointless.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2011)

why is that?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

Pointless to a point. If no one opposes the motion there won't even be a vote. A vote, sitting in Hansard for posterity, would send a crystal clear message to Murdoch.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2011)

apparently sales of all NI titles are down, good, but on what grounds, the DM pushes the same bile, etc..


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2011)

agricola said:


> Its not PMQs.  It is the debate on the Opposition motion, and he is right to do so - the motion is now pointless.


 
I'm sure that's how people will perceive it. He's judging the public reaction to this so well, isn't he?


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Pointless to a point. If no one opposes the motion there won't even be a vote. A vote, sitting in Hansard for posterity, would send a crystal clear message to Murdoch.


 A vote is important because it'll (a) send out a message to Murdoch just how reviled his company is and  (b) it'll reveal who's still in his pocket


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

treelover said:


> no we are not, this is the elites arguing, fighting amongst themselves, not the people rising up..



Correct indeed.  On a slighty different angle, and has been pointed out here mucho times already, see the papers circling their wagons around Murdoch's lot only, without casting the net any wider so far.  A case of the elite Fourth Estate protecting its own too?


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

treelover said:


> no we are not, this is the elites arguing, fighting amongst themselves, not the people rising up..


 
TBH I think this is more a case of the political class doing what it invariably does when someone disposable becomes toxic - which is to immediately abandon and escoriate them, whilst simultaneously pretending that they were never that close anyway (despite what is often considerable evidence to the contrary) and insisting that they were the victims in all this.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

editor said:


> A vote is important because it'll (a) send out a message to Murdoch just how reviled his company is and  (b) it'll reveal who's still in his pocket



Unlikely - the whips will no doubt have ensured that everyone is voting correctly on this occasion.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

Contextually, this is all riding on the back of public opinion - specifically the revelation about, and reaction to, Millie Dwoler's voicemail being accessed/deleted.

Before that, it was all still being managed.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> so he has fannied out of pmqs. You know he is bricking it when he fears to face millipede


 
he's doing PMQs, but he's stitched it up so it's unlikely there'll be much talk of the hacking, as he's 'making a statement' afterwards. then he's buggering off for the debate this afternoon.

i expect it was all sorted out over port & cigars last night.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2011)

a proper whipping takes more than 24 hours, especially for tories


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> i expect it was all sorted out over port & cigars last night.


 Well, Cameron bent over for an hour, and Miliband inserted an agenda including the terms and scope of the public inquiry, plus the terms of this afternoons debate.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> he's doing PMQs, but he's stitched it up so it's unlikely there'll be much talk of the hacking, as he's 'making a statement' afterwards. then he's buggering off for the debate this afternoon.
> 
> i expect it was all sorted out over port & cigars last night.



ah, I see. 'I refer the rgt hon to my statement to be made later in the day'. Crafty.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

belboid said:


> a proper whipping takes more than 24 hours, especially for tories


 
They have had plenty of time, and its not as if this is an issue where many of them are going to put their heads up above the parapet anyway.  In many ways this debate will be like the annual Holocaust Day ones, where a load of MPs harp on about an issue where everyone feels the same way, and noone can do anything about it.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

Cameron has just thrown Coulson under the bus.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 13, 2011)

For all Ed Millibands faults, I don't know a name that rolls off the PMQ's annoucers tongue than his.

He should be a boxer


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

God, Cameron looks under pressure. 'kin great drama....


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2011)

Speaker getting shirty here


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

This is one of the best PMQs for ages.  Cameron looks like he wants to twat Miliband; Bercow basically at war with the Tory benches.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2011)

oh fuck insurance premiums, back to the drama pls


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

BBC saying the Legal Manager of News International has gone.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

According to the rolling Graun page today (see here), Borrie J reckons his phone might well have been hacked too, according to the Met.  So it wasn't just Osbourne then, if it is indeed the case.  Borrie was known to be a "maverick" (ahem) in the Shadow Cabinet at the time (serving under Disco) - was this a ruse to undermine Borrie in Disco's favour?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 13, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Contextually, this is all riding on the back of public opinion - specifically the revelation about, and reaction to, Millie Dwoler's voicemail being accessed/deleted.
> 
> Before that, it was all still being managed.



The public pressure must be kept up, this is one that can't be swept under the carpet. Also, am surprised the whole curious axe murder tale isn't more prominent.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 13, 2011)

I've got no sound on, but did the Labour minister just say "answer the question, this is crap"? 

Also, busiest I've seen Westminster for quite some time.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2011)

haha 'will the prime minister make sure the last government get a shafting if we must take one as well'


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Cameron said Rusbridger didn't tell him anything about Coulsen? is that right?


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 13, 2011)

agricola said:


> This is one of the best PMQs for ages.  Cameron looks like he wants to twat Miliband; Bercow basically at war with the Tory benches.


 
He really doesn't look happy, does he?  Osborne looks like he's chewing on a wasp too.


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Cameron said Rusbridger didn't tell him anything about Coulsen? is that right?


 
I think he was referring to subsequent meetings.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Cameron said Rusbridger didn't tell him anything about Coulsen? is that right?


 
not had the message passed on, and rusbridger hasn't raised it in a number of face to face meetings since, he sez.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Santino said:


> I think he was referring to subsequent meetings.


 
Ah right, ta, will double check later. Just read it, rather than hearing it.


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2011)

Now we get to it, the Chester-Crewe railway line. This is the real meat.


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

Santino said:


> Now we get to it, the Chester-Crewe railway line. This is the real meat.


 
Hey, it affects some of us.


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Cameron said Rusbridger didn't tell him anything about Coulsen? is that right?


 


Santino said:


> I think he was referring to subsequent meetings.



Rusbridger on Twitter:
>> second meeting was *after* Coulson had gone. Also just *not* true re Guardian warning. It had important new details


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

FWIW the question Tom Watson raised about 9/11 victims being targetted is almost certainly true - its a matter of public record that at least one victim (Elisa Ferraina) had her BT details blagged.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

Someone in the Chamber could have read that twitter, and asked a secondary question.

The immediacy of it is extraordinary. Unrelenting.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 13, 2011)

Nick Clegg really is a sock puppet isn't he.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 13, 2011)

regularly fisted by Dave, yes.


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Someone in the Chamber could have read that twitter, and asked a secondary question.
> 
> The immediacy of it is extraordinary. Unrelenting.


 
I think there's still a protocol, if not an actual rule, against MPs using phones etc during a debate for exactly that reason, i.e. receiving live updates from aides and the internet.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 13, 2011)

hate to say it but he has not done too bad there


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

Disco @ PMQ's (via the Beeb's live PMQ News site thing):



> 12.34: A startling admission from the PM - or it would have been two weeks ago before the latest hacking revelations - on the relationship between politicians and the media: "Your bins are are gone through by some media organisations but you hold back from dealing with it because you want good relations with the media."



Yet another confirmation of what we all knew/felt anyway?


----------



## agricola (Jul 13, 2011)

ddraig said:


> hate to say it but he has not done too bad there


 
Cameron?  If so, I especially liked his call for a register that would record all meetings between journalists and politicians, civil servants and SPADs, recieved in silence by the Labour benches.

edit:  Miliband laughably says this should be retrospective, but only to the last General Election.


----------



## gosub (Jul 13, 2011)

Santino said:


> I think there's still a protocol, if not an actual rule, against MPs using phones etc during a debate for exactly that reason, i.e. receiving live updates from aides and the internet.




that got changed last year, about a week after the high courts allowed twitter


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 13, 2011)

Santino said:


> I think there's still a protocol, if not an actual rule, against MPs using phones etc during a debate for exactly that reason, i.e. receiving live updates from aides and the internet.


 
No, they were given permission relatively recently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/comment/newsid_9514000/9514955.stm


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

agricola said:


> edit:  Miliband laughably says this should be retrospective, but only to the last General Election.



We wouldn't want any New Labour/meedja dealings coming out in the wash now, would we, eh Millibot?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

More Disco (c/o BBC):



> 12.40: News International must focus on "getting its house in order", the PM says. Those found to have done wrong must have no role in running a media company in future, he tells MPs.



Would that include Mr R Murdoch himself and NI/News Corp/Sky, eh Disco?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> More Disco (c/o BBC):
> 
> 
> 
> Would that include Mr R Murdoch himself and NI/News Corp/Sky, eh Disco?



I thought that was quite juicy too


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

I'm confused as to how a 'fit and proper person' test can be considered during the course of a public inquiry about the behaviour of the party subject to the test - and the PI will last 3-4 years. 

Even if it were to happen, I can't see it surviving on Judicial Review.

It's just over... surely?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 13, 2011)

This is a good crisis for Clegg - not tainted by previous sucking up to Murdoch - mostly because he wasn't deemed important enough -


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

And a potential quote of the day from The Grand Retainer, himself (c/o Beeb):



> 13.04: Former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell stresses the importance of preserving the name of the Metropolitan Police.



Poor old Met Plod.  So misunderstood etc.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2011)




----------



## marty21 (Jul 13, 2011)

ironically, there was a slight drop in the unemployment figures today (about 25000 I think) but this 'good' news for Disco is drowned out by hacking - good news buried by bad news


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

Carol Vorderman a regular on Loose Women!!?? Sounds about right.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 13, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'Only last month David Cameron, Ed Miliband and others were paying homage to the tycoon at his London summer party. If you had told Cameron and Miliband over the champagne that only a few weeks later that they would be uniting in the Commons to pass a motion opposing Murdoch's bid for BSkyB they would have thought you were barmy. Yet that's exactly what's going to happen today. As the New York Times has argued, Britain is going through its own version of the Arab spring. Truly, a spell has been broken.'
> 
> 
> no we are not, this is the elites arguing, fighting amongst themselves, not the people rising up..


Hang on while this is clearly not an "Arab spring" I don't think it's fair to say that it's *just* the elite fighting amongst themselves either. The reactions of the elite have been  motivated by the anger that most people feel about this issue. To say otherwise falls into the trap of just making people passive viewers.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2011)

twitter




> arusbridger
> Cameron should stop digging....
> 38 minutes ago





> alan rusbridger
> >> second meeting was *after* Coulson had gone. Also just *not* true re Guardian warning. It had important new details






> arusbridger
> Cam admits office warned. Red herring abt other mtgs with Gdn. One was group mtg *after* warning to discuss election >>


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

Barking_Mad:  if you're on Twitter now (mine isn't working at the mo), could you put in a reply to Rusbridger to see what his motivation was for contacting Disco on the Coulson stuff?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

Watson links News International to spooks:



> Labour's Tom Watson asks if the inquiry will have access to the intelligence services. At the "murkier end", there are allegations about contacts between the intelligence agencies and News International.



Could be an awkward one for Telegraph Media Group papers to report on, given who were editing their daily and Sunday titles not-so-long-ago (particularly across the crucial mid-90s to mid-00s period), and their own relationships with the buggers & burglars.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

Barking_Mad - We've had that. Has he said anything about Carol Vorderman?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 13, 2011)

I always used to call Cameron PRBoy, but after watching today's PMQs perhaps a better name might be SlimeBall ... 

Does anyone know what Private Eye call him?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Watson links News International to spooks:
> 
> Could be an awkward one for Telegraph Media Group papers to report on, given who were editing their daily and Sunday titles not-so-long-ago (particularly across the crucial mid-90s to mid-00s period), and their own relationships with the buggers & burglars.


 And possibly the erstwhile unexplored avenue of  breaking and entering  + accessing hard drives by persons  not identified on behalf of NI. Potentially delicious.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Barking_Mad:  if you're on Twitter now (mine isn't working at the mo), could you put in a reply to Rusbridger to see what his motivation was for contacting Disco on the Coulson stuff?


 
ive asked him twice and had no reply. I also asked his colleague Paul Lewis and had no reply....

edit: ive asked him 3 times now...


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> ive asked him twice and had no reply. I also asked his colleague Paul Lewis and had no reply....
> 
> edit: ive asked him 3 times now...


 
Quelle surprise, eh?  Thanks/well done for giving it a go though


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> DaveCinzano - just re-read the Eye/Hyde thing, and realised her piss-poor mental health "joke". Hmm.  See here Ms Hyde commenting on the X Factor in a "Lost In Showbiz" piece:
> 
> Apparently the "cure for mental illness" is to also make comments in the Guardian about sectioning people (irrespective of whether they're Murdoch scum or not).  Hypocrisy, anyone?


 
Surely not!

On a similar theme, here's an article from _News Statesman_ in October 2000 on Fleet Street hypocrisy and general unwillingness to turn over its own, which mentions the coy references then emerging about Morgan & Hyde.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Quelle surprise, eh?  Thanks/well done for giving it a go though


 
I also asked on the Guardian CiF thread, but it was deleted!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

Disco sticking up for Yates (c/o Beeb):



> 13.25:  David Cameron says senior Met police officer John Yates has "some questions to answer" about his review of evidence in the initial inquiry into phone hacking. But he insists Mr Yates is doing a "good job" in his role as head of counter-terrorism in the UK.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 13, 2011)

So, who scored most points in PMQs today, Ed Milliband or David Cameron?

Have to say, I think Cameron survived Milliband best shots, pretty much unscathed. I think Cameron had already well rehearsed for all of Millibands questions.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Surely not!
> 
> On a similar theme, here's an article from _News Statesman_ in October 2000 on Fleet Street hypocrisy and general unwillingness to turn over its own, which mentions the coy references then emerging about Morgan & Hyde.


 
Good article, there - thanks.  Interesting to note that it was K McKenzie who blabbed about this - did he have it in for the Moron?  It certainly puts Ms Hyde's saintly reputation into somewhat sharp relief too, if you consider the amount of frantic backpeddling she's been doing of late.  (Speculative thought:  Did she ever hand over any Murdoch/NI etc dirt to Rusbridger as a "price" for joining the Graun back in the day?)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Interesting to note that it was K McKenzie who blabbed about this - did he have it in for the Moron?


 
Morgan was MacKenzie's protégé much as Brooks was Morgan's - I would have thought it was just a case of him assuming journalistic omerta on hacks' cockswinging (in terms of what is actually published) would mean he could have a cheeky dig.


----------



## baffled (Jul 13, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Responsible for hacking Ulrika's phone and finding out she was shagging Sven?


 
Apologies if already answered, haven't got to end of thread yet.

The above is what GuidoFawkes tweeted yesterday and is on the blog, Piers supposedly knew Ulrika had been hacked.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 13, 2011)

BBC live text said:
			
		

> 1354: Remember David Cameron's startling claim at PMQs that he put up with things like reporters going through his bins because he wanted to maintain good relations with the media? Well, according to his official spokesman, it was Mirror Group reporters who did the dirty deed when Mr Cameron was in opposition...



It spreads further...

e2a: although I'm not sure that's on the same scale. Is it even illegal? Might just go down as "shit shitty hacks do".


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

baffled said:


> Apologies if already answered, haven't got to end of thread yet.
> 
> The above is what GuidoFawkes tweeted yesterday and is on the blog, Piers supposedly knew Ulrika had been hacked.


 
If they're to be believed, Morgan was paid by the telegraph to do a hacking seminar for their journos in 2000. Sounds rather outlandish. Doesn't it?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> It spreads further...
> 
> e2a: although I'm not sure that's on the same scale. Is it even illegal? Might just go down as "shit shitty hacks do".



he obv. said it in order to provide imagery to a culture, it's not about literalism.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Morgan was MacKenzie's protégé much as Brooks was Morgan's - I would have thought it was just a case of him assuming journalistic omerta on hacks' cockswinging (in terms of what is actually published) would mean he could have a cheeky dig.


 
Yeah, thinking about it, that sounds about right.  Certainly the Moron's subsequent journalistic endeavours and personal style has more than a touch of the McKenzies to it.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

> Peston is now a shimmering orb of pale blue light hovering about four feet above his chair at the BBC Television Centre
> 
> "He is no longer Robert Peston, BBC business editor. His atoms are now woven into the very fabric of the universe. He is become pure news.
> 
> ...



Robert Peston Transformed Into Pure Energy


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Yeah, thinking about it, that sounds about right.  Certainly the Moron's subsequent journalistic endeavours and personal style has more than a touch of the McKenzies to it.


 
PALS 4 LIFE


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

C/o the Graun, a  profile on the juddge chairing the phone hacking inquiry:



> Lord Justice Leveson, who has been put in charge of the hastily-assembled inquiry into phone hacking, is a trusted senior judge who is currently chairman of the Sentencing Council, which draws up guidelines for the courts.
> He was lead prosecutor in the case of Rose West, Britain's most prolific female serial killer ...
> Leveson was educated at Oxford University and became a barrister in 1970, working out of chambers in Liverpool. He initially practised in northern England across a range of crime, personal injury and commercial work.
> He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1986 and began his climb up the judicial ladder, sitting as a recorder and then a deputy high court judge. As Sir Brian Leveson, he joined the appeal court in 2006.
> ...


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> PALS 4 LIFE


 
<reaches for emergency bucket>


----------



## marty21 (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> C/o the Graun, a  profile on the juddge chairing the phone hacking inquiry:


 
'hastily assembled inquiry'  = Government shitting big bricks


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Peston says NI bid for bsykb withdrawn


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

marty21 said:


> 'hastily assembled inquiry'  = Government shitting big bricks


 
Yup.  Apparently according to the Graun, the judge in question was "outed" as being a soft-touch judge by The Sun - and here's what the Scum said of him:



> Chairman Lord Justice Brian Leveson insisted "none of us are soft on crime" after introducing proposals to let 4,000 assault convicts a year go free rather than face jail.



Naturally the Sun will want Judge Leveson to bang the gavel for justice and impose the highest penalties possible.


----------



## strung out (Jul 13, 2011)

news corp pulled out of bskyb bid?


----------



## paolo (Jul 13, 2011)

strung out said:


> news corp pulled out of bskyb bid?


 
Sky news has this on their ticker.


----------



## dylans (Jul 13, 2011)

News Corp has withdrawn its bid for BSKYB
http://www.guardian.co.uk/


----------



## yardbird (Jul 13, 2011)

strung out said:


> news corp pulled out of bskyb bid?


 
BBC just confirmed!


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 13, 2011)

bloody hell. wonder what's next?


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2011)

if Sky withdraw their bid, they wont be able to submit another for 'at least six months' - the six months durng which it'd have been with the Competition Commission anyway


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

will this steal millibean's thunder for this afternoon's debate i wonder?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 13, 2011)

strung out said:


> news corp pulled out of bskyb bid?


 

blimey, not unexpected though - just not possible at the moment - I'm sure Murdoch is planning a future bid though.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> will this steal millibean's thunder for this afternoon's debate i wonder?


 
they can all go to the pub now instead.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

marty21 said:


> blimey, not unexpected though - just not possible at the moment - I'm sure Murdoch is planning a future bid though.


 
Oh, I think you can guarantee that, for sure.  The Digger will wait a while, and then strike once more once he thinks the coast is (largely) clear and he can rely on HM Govt to ensure that his bid goes through next time.

Also:  is it just me, or is it a very handy co-incidence for the BSkyB bid withdrawal to be leaked/announced just as the debate in the House of Commons was about to start?  Nice way for Murdoch and Co to be seen to do the "right" thing.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 13, 2011)

strung out said:


> news corp pulled out of bskyb bid?


 
Buying more time?


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 13, 2011)

"Nice way for Murdoch and Co to be seen to do the "right" thing. "

Not sure that'll wash.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 13, 2011)

Must have been Clegg's input.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Watson links News International to spooks:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be an awkward one for Telegraph Media Group papers to report on, given who were editing their daily and Sunday titles not-so-long-ago (particularly across the crucial mid-90s to mid-00s period), and their own relationships with the buggers & burglars.


 
I agree about the _Telegraph_ titles being especially in the frame there, but the dailies and Sundays have historically maintained cordial relationships with the security services. It makes sense insofar as checking out certain information/sources of information.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

There is no right thing they can do. All they can do is wait it out and fuck 'people' (i.e their ex-mates) up. Which they're going to do sharpish.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 13, 2011)




----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> "Nice way for Murdoch and Co to be seen to do the "right" thing. "
> 
> Not sure that'll wash.


 
Well I certainly can't imagine any of the Urbanz falling for this little number, but let's see what the meedja say about it over the next 24-48 hours, and also what the politicos etc say once they've finished their self-congratulations ("it was the MPs wot won it") - personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is the beginning of Murdoch's campaign to get himself re-habiltated in the eyes of them all.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

it isn't timed so they can be seen to 'do the right thing'. it's timed to make the afternoon's vote pointless. more pointless than it was anyway... will they even bother now?


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Well I certainly can't imagine any of the Urbanz falling for this little number, but let's see what the meedja say about it over the next 24-48 hours, and also what the politicos etc say once they've finished their self-congratulations ("it was the MPs wot won it") - personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is the beginning of Murdoch's campaign to get himself re-habiltated in the eyes of them all.



Too little too late. (Crosses fingers)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> it isn't timed so they can be seen to 'do the right thing'. it's timed to make the afternoon's vote pointless. more pointless than it was anyway... will they even bother now?


 
To be more specific, it's to fuck up the _debate_, not the vote. It's what might come out or what's suggested there that offers any potential danger to them...

No idea what happens now, i expect they have substitute motions and all that.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2011)

Could simply substitute a question of whether NI are fit n proper to own _any_ of BskyB


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

belboid said:


> Could simply substitute a question of whether NI are fit n proper to own _any_ of BskyB


 
They ain't got the balls. That would brilliantly tie the lib-dems and tories to him if properly whipped though.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> it isn't timed so they can be seen to 'do the right thing'. it's timed to make the afternoon's vote pointless. more pointless than it was anyway... will they even bother now?


 
C/o the Graun - Twitter wotsits from Tory MP Louise Mensch:



> Glad News Corp doing the right thing on BSkyB. Now rest of press, including Associated Newspapers, Trinity Mirror, must also be scrutinised



And Emily Bell, former digital content person at the Graun:



> it is big news, but it would be strategically better to withdraw from BSkyB bid now, straighten management and return to it later?



I'd like to think that everyone is going to see straight through Murdoch's strategy, but I'm also gonna wait and see how it pans out....


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2011)

belboid said:


> if Sky withdraw their bid, they wont be able to submit another for 'at least six months' - the six months durng which it'd have been with the Competition Commission anyway


 
they've left the door open to make another bid even within that 6 month period (at a lower price as well)

this is from the press release on it



> For the purposes of Rule 2.8 and other relevant provisions of The City Code on Takeovers and Mergers ("City Code"), News Corp reserves the right to announce an offer or possible offer or make or participate in an offer or possible offer for BSkyB and/or take any other action which would otherwise be restricted under Rule 2.8 of the City Code within the next six months in the event that:
> 
> (i)         there is an announcement other than by News Corp or any subsidiary of News Corp of an offer or possible offer for or a merger or possible merger with BSkyB; or
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 13, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I agree about the _Telegraph_ titles being especially in the frame there, but the dailies and Sundays have historically maintained cordial relationships with the security services. It makes sense insofar as checking out certain information/sources of information.


 
Of course "historically [the papers have] maintained cordial relationships with the security [and intelligence] services", in much the same way as they have with the police - that's the point, surely? 

That whatever quid pro quo is superficially offered as a justification for these sorts of things, inevitably and swiftly they degenerate into symbiotically, corrosively corrupting clusterfucks of clubbability, self-interest and powerbrokering - at the expense of any public benefit. 

Because these sorts of relationships, shaded from public oversight, hidden from hoi polloi by self-selecting overseers, can only ever degenerate into back room carve-ups, back alley bungs, scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours secret deals, where the privileged gnostics always end out on top, invariably at our expense.


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 13, 2011)

Me too Melly.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> To be more specific, it's to fuck up the _debate_, not the vote. It's what might come out or what's suggested there that offers any potential danger to them...
> 
> No idea what happens now, i expect they have substitute motions and all that.


 
There was no debate to be had,it was always going to be 4 hours of who can come up with the worst superlatives for their alleged evil deeds and grandstainding about demands for NI's downfall.

If pulling out now stopped that, then I suppose the timing makes a little sense - the debate would also allow their 'enemies' (i.e. the 3 parties) to join and thus prevent any 'divide and conquer' tactic they have in their battle against 'everyone'.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 13, 2011)

tweet:


> jonnelledge Jonn Elledge
> You know the bit in Star Wars when the ewoks all start dancing? That's basically how I imagine the Guardian offices look right now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> There was no debate to be had,it was always going to be 4 hours of who can come up with the worst superlatives for their alleged evil deeds and grandstainding about demands for NI's downfall.



You don't know that. They don't know that. No one knows what info MP's would bung in under Parliamentary privilege. There's a reason i typed out the word 'potential'.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 13, 2011)

belboid said:


> Could simply substitute a question of whether NI are fit n proper to own _any_ of BskyB


 
Or any other motion (no non-dom taxpayer etc) that would indirectly drive out NC. One can but dream...


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

GeorgeMonbiot via twitter said:
			
		

> This is our Berlin Wall moment.



tosser.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Lord Monbiot has called this our berlin wall moment. 

I feel sick.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 13, 2011)

So focus swings to the Sun now?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 13, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> tweet:


 


> jonnelledge Jonn Elledge
> You know the bit in Star Wars when the ewoks all start dancing? That's basically how I imagine the Guardian offices look right now.



Loved it


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeMonbiot via twitter
> This is our Berlin Wall moment.
> 
> tosser.



the ewok is doing a jig


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

Badgers said:


> So focus swings to the Sun now?


 
The Sun have decided to play dirty with Gordon Brown....they must know they're next in line?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Badgers said:


> So focus swings to the Sun now?


 
Whose focus?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> tosser.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Lord Monbiot has called this our berlin wall moment.
> 
> I feel sick.


 
No


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 13, 2011)

> 2.46pm: According to Sky's Glen Oglaza, Gordon Brown will be speaking in this afternoon's Murdoch debate.



i'm glad he's going to anwser the Sun - my god, labour politicians with a bit of balls


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 13, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> the ewok is doing a jig




And threre's a hologram of Vince Cable can be seen like Ben Kenobi with a smirk and a nod


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> the ewok is doing a jig


 
[derail]I really fucking hate ewoks.  Make of that what you will, peeps. [/derail]


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> [derail]I really fucking hate ewoks.  Make of that what you will, peeps. [/derail]


 
You're less than human in that case.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> And threre's a hologram of Vince Cable can be seen like Ben Kenobi with a smirk and a nod


 
Timely reminder of how the lib-dems fucked up. Cable could have sat there and pulled the switch, got the plaudits for him and his party but no, he had to try and show off like a perv uncle.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You're less than human in that case.


 
I am Darth Vader.  Or something.

More serious point:  I think the gen publc have every right to cheer on this.  As for the Guardian journos in question (which the Twitter quote was specifically referring to), we shall see if they're whiter than white if there's a proper looking into all press whatnots.


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2011)

This is more like the medal ceremony in Star Wars. The Empire is still out there and will soon be hunting down the rebels with a Super Star Destroyer.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Timely reminder of how the lib-dems fucked up. Cable could have sat there and pulled the switch, got the plaudits for him and his party but no, he had to try and show off like a perv uncle.


 
I'm sure Simon Hughes only ever speaks to allow Nick Clegg think "ineffectual spineless twat" and in doing so give a view of what the rest of the country thing of him.


----------



## past caring (Jul 13, 2011)

If we're going with the sc-ifi analogies - is Milliband Rimmer out of Red Dwarf?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

They're coming for all you backstabbing MPs and journos btw. Not just yet, but they're coming.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Whose focus?


 
Ours and the Ewoks


----------



## ymu (Jul 13, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Oh, I think you can guarantee that, for sure.  The Digger will wait a while, and then strike once more once he thinks the coast is (largely) clear and he can rely on HM Govt to ensure that his bid goes through next time.
> 
> Also:  is it just me, or is it a very handy co-incidence for the BSkyB bid withdrawal to be leaked/announced just as the debate in the House of Commons was about to start?  Nice way for Murdoch and Co to be seen to do the "right" thing.


 
That's not them trying to do the right thing, that's them trying to fuck with the politicians. Murdoch withdrew the offer to hive off Sky to make referral to the CC just before Hunt was due to deliver a statement that was made irrelevant by his action. This is exactly the same. All three party leaders set to lead their parties out on a vote, so he withdraws before they can. 

There's no way anyone thinks he's doing the right thing, and he's not interested in whether they think that anyway. He's trying to wrongfoot the politicians, and is probably trying to withdraw from the UK completely to stop the poison spreading across the Atlantic. As with every other move he's made in the last couple of weeks, it's too little too late and the whole of News Corp is now under serious threat. The US takes corporate governance a great deal more seriously than we do.

I can't fathom the doom-mongers here. Murdoch is not coming back. His power has gone and without it, he cannot do anything except watch his empire slip away. It won't change the world overnight, but the chief cheerleaders for austerity and demonisers of the poor are severely damaged/deaded by this, in the UK at the very least. 

The Tories (blue, yellow or red) have lost the most vicious parts of their propaganda machine. It'll take them a while to rebuild it. There's a chink in the armour. Stuff happens because people make it happen - I think it's time to be thinking about what we would like to achieve, not dwell on the sheer impossibility of achieving it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 13, 2011)

past caring said:


> If we're going with the sc-ifi analogies - is Milliband Rimmer out of Red Dwarf?


 
In this situation there's too many Rimmers to choose from.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2011)

past caring said:


> If we're going with the sc-ifi analogies - is Milliband Rimmer out of Red Dwarf?


 
No, but this is Mas Ameeda (i.e. Mass Media), one of Palpatine's flunkies. It's like a metaphor or allegory for SOMETHING.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Ours and the Ewoks


 
After a hard day's Murdoch busting, do "we" and the Ewoks get together over some tasty Findus Crispy Pancakes?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> In this situation there's too many Rimmers to choose from.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 


(rarely do that, but it deserved it)


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

@ymu - I have to get back to work, but will reply to your last post as soon as I can.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 13, 2011)

Fox News UK here we come.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 13, 2011)

On Tuesday it seems Rebekah Brooks will be in trouble but what defence do you think James and Rupert Murdoch will have against the accusations of hacking and bribing the police? 

I mean, they must have a plan.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Cameron's only anti-murdoch plan is now gone.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 13, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Fox News UK here we come.


 
if you are fed up with wall to wall coverage of Murdoch and News International then i recommend this channel


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Who owns the rest of bskyb?


----------



## trevhagl (Jul 13, 2011)

dylans said:


> I don't know about you guys but i'm beginning see this Hayman bloke as a bit of a dodgy geezer


 
he proper lost his temper cos someone made a valid plausable point in the commons enquiry! I read his book. It was shit. Kissing blairs arse and wanting more draconian legislation


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who owns the rest of bskyb?


 
the usual suspects with various small percentage holdings all over the place - next biggest shareholder has something like 7% - some investment management firm


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> the usual suspects with various small percentage holdings all over the place - next biggest shareholder has something like 7% - some investment management firm


 
Ta 

(will get back on the other stuff asap - time not free atm)


----------



## ThirtyFootSmurf (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who owns the rest of bskyb?


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/06/bskyb-investors-aim-to-drive-up-murdoch-price



> BSkyB's top shareholders include investment firms BlackRock, Capital Research Global Investors, Franklin Templeton and Fidelity, and insurance group Legal & General.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 13, 2011)

it's quite amusing to see the politicians queuing up to see who can denounce News International in the most strongest possible terms


----------



## xenon (Jul 13, 2011)

Prob seen

BBC News front page, . News Corp withdrawn bid for B Sky B.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

_Alan Rusbridger said: "The prime minister's account of why he failed to act on the information we passed his office in February 2010 is highly misleading. Any ordinary person hearing of the unpublishable facts about a convicted News of the World private investigator facing conspiracy to murder charges would have recognised the need to investigate the claims. " _ Grauniad

Tom Watson just asked for an emergency intervention on this statement and what was said by Cameron during PMQs, during a debate about fixed term parliament debate, slapped down by Sexy Dawn in no uncertain terms and told to sling his hook.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

His office, not Cameron that's his current get out


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

Debate just kicking off now.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

Disco at it again (c/o the Graun) - the PM himself jumping on the good old "doing the right thing" Digger Express:



> That must be the priority, not takeovers, so [withdrawing the BSkyB bid is] the right decision, but also the right decision for the country too. We've now got to get on with the work of the police investigation and the public inquiry that I have set up today.



Is this going to be the spin/message from Number 10, that Murdoch is "doing the right thing" for the country?  Is Disco going to start quietly and slowly getting back on track w/the Digger, whilst more openly giving the Graun et al grief in public?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 13, 2011)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...-he-supped-from-the-devils-hands-2312535.html


----------



## ymu (Jul 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...-he-supped-from-the-devils-hands-2312535.html


 
That bears quoting from ... 



> "This is an issue about the abuse of political power..." he said of Murdoch's news-gathering tactics. Well, duh!, you might say. But oddly enough it isn't, or not as he meant it. At its core, it is an issue of the abuse of political power not by Murdoch, but by Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, David Cameron and every other elected quisling who supped with the devil not with a long spoon but from the devil's own satanic hands. "I came to the conclusion," Mr Brown went on of his urge for a judicial inquiry, "that the evidence was becoming so overwhelming about the underhand tactics of News International to trawl through people's lives, particularly the lives of people who were completely defenceless." Sweet Lord Jesus, isn't the point of a Labour prime minister to defend the defenceless? "I'm genuinely shocked to find that this happened," added the Captain Renault of Kirkcaldy. "If I – with all the protection and defences that a chancellor or prime minister has – can be so vulnerable to unscrupulous and unlawful tactics, what about the ordinary citizen?"
> 
> Frankly, it's a struggle to continue parsing this statement, because it feels like bullying a simpleton for being a simpleton. So it's worth recalling that Gordon Brown was the most fearsome juggernaut of a machine politician Britain has ever known – and here he is courting sympathy as the impotent victim whose "senior officials" overruled his request for an inquiry. The senior official to whom he refers, if subconsciously, is the ringer for Davros ("My vision is impaired," as his daleks often croaked, "I cannot see") who flew in on Sunday to smile at the cameras as he squired Mrs Brooks to dinner in Mayfair.



More rats scuttling the sinking ship, please.


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2011)

What's just occurred to me, which was perhaps blindingly obvious, is that Murdoch's arrival and behaviour in London have all been played for the benefit of News Corp and BSkyB investors. That's why he's seemed so clumsy in how he's handling sentiment in Britain, because it's way down on his list of priorities.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Is it? How big is his holding elsewhere? What brings the money in? (gen question, my assumption that it's more over there)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Did Brown press Blair over cross body ownership? They had legislation lined up - what happened to it? And why?

(you can say anything and add 'and why' and think you're a journo on the internet)


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

Gordon Brown says relationship between NI and Nu-Labour was never "cosy and comfortable" and also says that Tory line on media issues was formed in complicity with NI to achieve the same ends, about less regulation and associated media attacks on him, Tory's are getting well lairy, Bercow told one to sit down or clear off.


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is it? How big is his holding elsewhere? What brings the money in? (gen question, my assumption that it's more over there)


 
News Corp is (or was) worth $50+ billion.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Gordon Brown says relationship between NI and Nu-Labour was never "cosy and comfortable" and also says that Tory line on media issues was formed in complicity with NI to achieve the same ends, about less regulation and associated media attacks on him, Tory's are getting well lairy, Bercow told one to sit down or clear off.


 
Ignores fact that the relationship might have been prickly at times, nevertheless the relationship existed and was cultivated. 

(comment on brown not PT)


----------



## Balbi (Jul 13, 2011)

The Tory benches are being particularly restless towards Brown.

The newest boys, could be Rory Stewart or the older one Graham Stuart - has been asked to leave if they cannot shut up.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is it? How big is his holding elsewhere? What brings the money in? (gen question, my assumption that it's more over there)


 
IIRC I heard someone say that only 13% of NewsCorp revenue came from British newspapers, and that this was a dwindling proportion. Hence the cut and run rumours I suppose.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 13, 2011)

I'm watching the debate at the moment and trying to take it all in.
However, it's good to see a strident speaker.
Well done.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ignores fact that the relationship might have been prickly at times, nevertheless the relationship existed and was cultivated.
> 
> (comment on brown not PT)


well, he's clearly trying to put some blue water between himself and any notion that he allowed the easy ride for NI to continue, building on the emotive issue of his kid's health problems. i think that's why the tories are getting so upset, because this is a blame game aimed at NI, the police, the tories, the civil service, everyone but him having had _any_ responsibility whatsoever.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 13, 2011)

Rees-Mogg brings in McBride etc.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

Graham Stuart is the one whose been getting all shouty, raises a point about Lord Ashcroft and how he's been unfarily targeted


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Only one PM in the house.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 13, 2011)

Graham Stuart points at smearing Lord Ashcroft, Brown smacks him down by pointing out this is about the innocent victims etc - and that if he was so concerned then, why didn't he point out his concerns considering Coulson.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

"opposed by the home office?" In 2003? Straw?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> "opposed by the home office?" In 2003? Straw?


Blunkett?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Poss. Let's check. Nah, straw in 2003.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

I take that back -  it was Blunkett.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

champion!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

And we let kasper go to them for fuck all.


----------



## elbows (Jul 13, 2011)

Oh good someone just mentioned the Mail.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Can we list who labour employed and what networks they're part of?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

wtf is this freak on about?

Google stopped the news?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

i think he's got a point, insofar as corporates like google controlling what other media one can consume, as well as the ease with which people give away personal information unwittingly, whether through things like facebook or through collection of search items/terms in search engines. social media is changing the game in many ways, let's just hope his underlying intent isn't for more regulatory overlay.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i think he's got a point, insofar as corporates like google controlling what other media one can consume, as well as the ease with which people give away personal information unwittingly, whether through things like facebook or through collection of search items/terms in search engines. social media is changing the game in many ways, let's just hope his underlying intent isn't for more regulatory overlay.


 Didn't take you 15 minutes to get to it.


----------



## ymu (Jul 13, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i think he's got a point, insofar as corporates like google controlling what other media one can consume, as well as the ease with which people give away personal information unwittingly, whether through things like facebook or through collection of search items/terms in search engines. social media is changing the game in many ways, let's just hope his underlying intent isn't for more regulatory overlay.


 
I'm not sure that point makes any sense when you consider what access to the news was like before the internet. 100% controlled by the media barons isn't much better. But it was better than the days before the printing press when few people could read and relied on the village priest.

Internet privacy and security is a huge issue. But the existence of google isn't actually a problem. Baby/bathwater etc,


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> I'm not sure that point makes any sense when you consider what access to the news was like before the internet. 100% controlled by the media barons isn't much better. But it was better than the days before the printing press when few people could read and relied on the village priest.
> 
> Internet privacy and security is a huge issue. But the existence of google isn't actually a problem. Baby/bathwater etc,


there's a heap of people in china, for eg, who might not entirely agree with your last point. the fact of google itself isn't a problem, who controls what it does, and for what reasons, can be.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

I had an email from 38 degrees trying to claim victory over the bskyb bid...

What are they voting on after this anyway?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Don foster (lib-dem cunt) on bbc bristol news just claimed it as his/the peoples


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> I had an email from 38 degrees trying to claim victory over the bskyb bid...
> 
> What are they voting on after this anyway?


_Should Sam Cam take Dave away for a nice weekend in Guernsey? Yes or no, you decide...._ it's like a 38 degrees summer special....

yes, i had the same email claiming victory as well.


----------



## ymu (Jul 13, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> there's a heap of people in china, for eg, who might not entirely agree with your last point. the fact of google itself isn't a problem, who controls what it does, and for what reasons, can be.


You read my post as an endorsement of interference in the delivery and accessibility of information? Really?

Not a lot of point wasting my time responding if you're only going to engage with imaginary posts. Cheers for that.


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> IIRC I heard someone say that only 13% of NewsCorp revenue came from British newspapers, and that this was a dwindling proportion. Hence the cut and run rumours I suppose.


 
more like 5% - in terms of profits & market value it's even less, less than 1% of the overall total


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Of course "historically [the papers have] maintained cordial relationships with the security [and intelligence] services", in much the same way as they have with the police - that's the point, surely?
> 
> That whatever quid pro quo is superficially offered as a justification for these sorts of things, inevitably and swiftly they degenerate into symbiotically, corrosively corrupting clusterfucks of clubbability, self-interest and powerbrokering - at the expense of any public benefit.
> 
> Because these sorts of relationships, shaded from public oversight, hidden from hoi polloi by self-selecting overseers, can only ever degenerate into back room carve-ups, back alley bungs, scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours secret deals, where the privileged gnostics always end out on top, invariably at our expense.


 
Of course. That *is* the point of all that back-scratching, and you don't even need to roll up your trouser leg.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

the house of commons rowing team's triumph over the house of lords was the high point of what i caught of the debate anyway - was it better earlier on?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 13, 2011)

Things may not go well over the pond....



> Prosecute News Corp.
> The U.S. government should go after Murdoch's media company for its corrupt practices and revoke its TV licenses if it's found guilty.
> By Eliot Spitzer
> Updated Tuesday, July 12, 2011, at 4:09 PM ET
> ...



'pseudo-investigations' lol 

http://www.slate.com/id/2299038/


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

> Thirteen police officers are to be charged with perverting the course of justice, 21 years after they allegedly "moulded, manipulated and fabricated" evidence to secure convictions against three men wrongly accused of killing a prostitute.



Trial now on. The police



> Gafoor, who was finally jailed for killing White in 2003, was giving evidence at the trial of eight police officers accused of shaping and fabricating evidence to make a false case against the Cardiff Three. Asked if he knew any of the three men wrongly convicted of his crime, he replied: "No".



Shaping? Is that a legal term?


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

it's a hairdressing term.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> it's a hairdressing term.



Oh no


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

These coiffeurs have too much power


----------



## ddraig (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Trial now on. The police
> 
> 
> 
> Shaping? Is that a legal term?


dirty scumbags 



			
				bbc said:
			
		

> Mr Coker asked him if he could remember asking a police officer what could be the consequences of not signing, and was told: "It could affect your release date."
> 
> To that, Gafoor allegedly replied: "So it's technically blackmail."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14133767
wonder why it's being held in Swansea!
cunts


----------



## teqniq (Jul 13, 2011)

Are you sure you don't mean coffers?


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

btw butch, dunno if you saw c4 news, but they claimed revenues from sky pretty much equal the revenues of the rest of newscorp combined - that would suggest to me that even with only a 39% stake that makes britain his most important market.


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2011)

> they claimed revenues from sky pretty much equal the revenues of the rest of newscorp combined



that's nonsense!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> btw butch, dunno if you saw c4 news, but they claimed revenues from sky pretty much equal the revenues of the rest of newscorp combined - that would suggest to me that even with only a 39% stake that makes britain his most important market.


 
Got it on. was burning my mouth on the tea, will check that on the playback later. Cheers for that  - appreciate it.


----------



## ymu (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> btw butch, dunno if you saw c4 news, but they claimed revenues from sky pretty much equal the revenues of the rest of newscorp combined - that would suggest to me that even with only a 39% stake that makes britain his most important market.


 
Britain can never be an important market for a multinational. 1% of thr world's population, 2% of the consumption. It's one reason why it's so easy for large companies to stomp all over us. If they're not allowed to abuse the system, they're not that interested.


----------



## paolo (Jul 13, 2011)

@teqniq

At the moment contagion in to the US seems tantalisingly just out of reach.

There's rumbles of course, but it's not gone epic and it seems - right now - that unless something like the 9/11 victim hack moves from alleged to tangible, the situation here will be something that few outlets want to cover in any significant way.

There's some crumbs of comfort - the NY Times getting on it - but until a week or so ago, most Brits didn't care *that* much. It was news, amongst alot of other news.

In the US, the tipping point hasn't happened. Maybe, somewhere in Mulcaire's notes, is *the bomb*. If that's what it's going to take, we may need patience, waiting for it to pop out. Here's hoping.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

What's the spending  power? Why aren't all things aimed at india and china? Because there's no fucking market



> 1% of thr world's population, 2% of the consumption



Can we have a ref for this btw?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Also, we mean % of murdoch's stuff, not the worlds. Let's get this right.


----------



## strung out (Jul 13, 2011)

noticed this web address has just been registered... http://www.foxnewsuk.com/


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> Britain can never be an important market for a multinational. 1% of thr world's population, 2% of the consumption. It's one reason why it's so easy for large companies to stomp all over us. If they're not allowed to abuse the system, they're not that interested.


 
depends how they're defining 'Sky' - the Murdoch satellite stations for most of Europe & South America are Sky


----------



## ymu (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What's the spending  power? Why aren't all things aimed at india and china? Because there's no fucking market
> 
> 
> 
> Can we have a ref for this btw?



Pretty sure you don't need a reference for the world or UK populations, or how to work out the %.

The consumer goods % comes from something I read a while ago. It may have been industry-specific - if it was, it's the pharmaceutical industry, which is a pretty good marker for the market in relative luxuries.

I've no idea why you think the numbers are implausible. World GDP is about £6k per capita and, IIRC, about £15k per capita in the UK. What is it you're taking issue with here? There aren't enough people in Britain for us to matter much as a market. I can't see how that is a controversial point.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 13, 2011)

Cheers paolo999

Maybe there's also the prospect of a can of worms over there which may go some way to explaining not a great deal of mainstream coverage....

at least so far.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 13, 2011)

I kind of get where butchersapron is coming from on all this but I'd rather he spelled it out a bit more for the benefit of some of us tbf
Seriously !!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Who is this *quisling*  on C4 saying that murdoch's ownership of the times indicates his commitment to the freedom of the press?


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> I can't see how that is a controversial point.


 
not sure why it's relevant, more to the point.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> Pretty sure you don't need a reference for the world or UK populations, or how to work out the %.
> 
> The consumer goods % comes from something I read a while ago. It may have been industry-specific - if it was, it's the pharmaceutical industry, which is a pretty good marker for the market in relative luxuries.


 Come on.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 13, 2011)

It's all questions with implied answers .. I don't fucking know butchers !!!
Respect yer readership !!!!


----------



## ymu (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> not sure why it's relevant, more to the point.


 
Someone claimed that they cared about their UK revenues. I pointed out that it's unlikely. Did I misread the original point or something?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

rorymac said:


> It's all questions with implied answers .. I don't fucking know butchers !!!
> Respect yer readership !!!!


 
No leadership from me rory. Not my um...bag.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 13, 2011)

butchers, a genuine query - what do you reckon Murdoch's medium or long-term game plan might be re all this shit? 

There's seriously shady shenanigans going on, for sure!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> butchers, a genuine query - what do you reckon Murdoch's medium or long-term game plan might be re all this shit?
> 
> There's seriously shady shenanigans going on, for sure!


 I have no idea. I wanted to measure up the size of stuff to have a look. Gen don't know.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> more like 5% - in terms of profits & market value it's even less, less than 1% of the overall total


 
Quite possibly, my memory isn't what it was.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b said:


> btw butch, dunno if you saw c4 news, but they claimed revenues from sky pretty much equal the revenues of the rest of newscorp combined - that would suggest to me that even with only a 39% stake that makes britain his most important market.



Sky makes a £billion pound profit per annum

He wanted the whole lot so it could be a cash hoover - how much does Sky invest in British tv? I can't think of any British drama that they have produced

In the 80s he sucked out the profits from the Sun and used that to bankroll his expansion in the States


----------



## ymu (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Come on.


 
Why did you snip out the paragraph that gave world and UK GDP? It's blatantly fucking obvious that we can't be responsible for much more than 2% of the world consumer market - GDP isn't high enough for that to be possible.

If you dispute the figures, dig out some evidence. Cos this is basic common sense as far as I can see. The UK is a thriving consumer economy, but from the multinational perspective it is tiny, and always will be because we are a tiny island. If our GDP was ten times the world average, you'd have a point. But it isn't. If you want to dispute that, give us the figures you're basing your knee-jerk reaction on.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They're coming for all you backstabbing MPs and journos btw. Not just yet, but they're coming.


 
just want to clarify, 'they're' = News Intl.?


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I have no idea. I wanted to measure up the size of stuff to have a look. Gen don't know.


 
as i said earlier NI is around 5% of newscorp annual revenues and less than 1% of annual newscorp profits and also less than 1% of overall newscorp market value

newscorp annual revenues are around $33bn

bskyb annual revenues around $9bn (this is the 100% figure, not the news corp share)

NI annual revenues around $1.6bn


----------



## TruXta (Jul 13, 2011)

Why so coy, butchers? The sheep needs feeding dontchaknow.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No leadership from me rory. Not my um...bag.



Yeah well just realise some of us can't follow all the stuff you take for granted that we should .. your knowledge is immense but it leaves the likes of me floundering when you ask questions I don't even understand (owing to lack of same knowledge) 

Respect for sure but maybes just explain a bit better with a little more patience for the common maaaan !!


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> Someone claimed that they cared about their UK revenues. I pointed out that it's unlikely. Did I misread the original point or something?


 
i said


killer b said:


> btw butch, dunno if you saw c4 news, but they claimed revenues from sky pretty much equal the revenues of the rest of newscorp combined - that would suggest to me that even with only a 39% stake that makes britain his most important market.


 
ie, that the figures - if correct - suggest that the current income from sky is more than a third of the rest of newscorp. for a multinational, that's a huge chunk of their market, possibly their biggest. the makeup of the global market in this context is meaningless, surely?


----------



## ymu (Jul 13, 2011)

I may be misunderstanding again, but Sky operates worldwide, not just in the UK.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> as i said earlier NI is around 5% of newscorp annual revenues and less than 1% of annual newscorp profits and also less than 1% of overall newscorp market value
> 
> newscorp annual revenues are around $33bn
> 
> ...


 
ah, ok. that looks different to what they were on about on c4. maybe i misunderstood.

edit: it'll be on again any second on c4+1, but i've ceded control of the remote so i can't check...


----------



## paolo (Jul 13, 2011)

killer b... Needs to be more specific.

bSkyb? All of 'Sky' including Italia, Germany etc?

Equals the rest of News Corp, including *Fox*, which is massive?

Sounds wrong or wrongly understood to me.

On phone at the mo, will dig for proper numbers later.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 13, 2011)

apparently the "sergeant of arms" can arrest Rebecca Brooks and force her to attend the Parliamentary select committee if she fails to show up next week

what the fuck is the "sergeant of arms"? the beefeater from the tower of london?


----------



## paolo (Jul 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> I may be misunderstanding again, but Sky operates worldwide, not just in the UK.


 
As a brand yes, but each territory is a different business with different shareholdings for News Corp.


----------



## paolo (Jul 13, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> apparently the "sergeant of arms" can arrest Rebecca Brooks and force her to attend the Parliamentary select committee if she fails to show up next week
> 
> what the fuck is the "sergeant of arms"? the beefeater from the tower of london?


 
That would be cool, in a surreal way. Brooks marched in by a tourist re-enactment.


----------



## paolo (Jul 13, 2011)

In other news, Morris Dancers are preparing to detain James Murdoch.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 13, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> apparently the "sergeant of arms" can arrest Rebecca Brooks and force her to attend the Parliamentary select committee if she fails to show up next week
> ...


 
Oh there can be no doubt, come Tuesday Rebekah Brooks will be in trouble. She already admitted to paying police officers for information and I imagine that will be one of their first questions, "can you confirm your previous testimony that .... "


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 13, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> That would be cool, in a surreal way. Brooks marched in by a tourist re-enactment.


----------



## ymu (Jul 13, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> As a brand yes, but each territory is a different business with different shareholdings for News Corp.


Yes, I know that. I was responding to a post that seems to be claiming that the British market is huge because Sky is huge.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

right, it's profit rather than revenue, i think. 

newscorp profit for 2010 was $3.7 billion
bskyb (so the british sky operation i guess) profit was £1.7 billion, but is predicted to rise to £2.5 billion over the next couple of years, which i guess is around three and a bit billion dollars? either way, even 39% of that is a huge chunk of newscorp's income, and makes the UK a substantial part of murdoch's market.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> apparently the "sergeant of arms" can arrest Rebecca Brooks and force her to attend the Parliamentary select committee if she fails to show up next week
> 
> what the fuck is the "sergeant of arms"? the beefeater from the tower of london?


 
He's the monkey-rapist in a twee outfit who heads up the HoP's internal "police". Usually more usefully deployed finding out who flooded the khazi (usually Soames or Pickles, so I've heard).


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2011)

> right, it's profit rather than revenue, i think.
> 
> newscorp profit for 2010 was $3.7 billion
> bskyb (so the british sky operation i guess) profit was £1.7 billion, but is predicted to rise to £2.5 billion over the next couple of years, which i guess is around three and a bit billion dollars? either way, even 39% of that is a huge chunk of newscorp's



yeah that makes a bit more sense, but still a bit overinflated i'd say - bskyb's profits in 2010 (per their accounts) were £1bn, so around $1.6bn - so around 43% of newscorp total profits. 

but i'd imagine if bskyb profits are forecast to rise over the next few years then so will the like of fox and the other tv/cable channels in newscorp - so the proportion would probably hover around that same amount

either way, it shows the relative insignificance (in pure revenue/profit terms) of the rump news international portfolio - with the sun making around £70m a year and the times/s.times losing around £45m a year.

I reckon they'll be back for bskyb at some point - their press release today even left the door open for a return within 6 months if another bidder came along. My bet is the Sun gets sold off separately and the times/s.times get sold for a quid to some russian, or put into some kind of guardian type trust - anything to get them out the way of a second bite at bskyb


----------



## binka (Jul 13, 2011)

with regards to possible american senate investigations into news corp. it is my understanding that murdoch wanted to turn the new york post into a popular british style tabloid. i seem to remember reading about him bringing over to new york people from his british papers.

im trying to google who from this country may have gone over to new york but am not having much luck. i know david yelland worked on the new york post in the mid nineties. anyone know of any others?


----------



## pocketscience (Jul 13, 2011)

binka said:


> with regards to possible american senate investigations into news corp. it is my understanding that murdoch wanted to turn the new york post into a popular british style tabloid. i seem to remember reading about him bringing over to new york people from his british papers.
> 
> im trying to google who from this country may have gone over to new york but am not having much luck. i know david yelland worked on the new york post in the mid nineties. anyone know of any others?


 
maybe you can find it in one of the latter videos in this piece:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/01/rupert_murdoch_-_a_portrait_of.html


----------



## teqniq (Jul 13, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> In other news, Morris Dancers are preparing to detain James Murdoch.



with a hey nonny no no, no no nay.


----------



## killer b (Jul 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> but i'd imagine if bskyb profits are forecast to rise over the next few years then so will the like of fox and the other tv/cable channels in newscorp - so the proportion would probably hover around that same amount


 
not necessarily - newscorp certainly it doesn't seem to be on an upwards curve if you look at the past 4 years (i guess the 5 billion 'loss' in 2009 must be a large aquisition, so probably shouldn't be included) - it looks to be on a downward curve.

whereas sky seem to be on an upward curve

i'm no expert in this sort of stuff though, so i may be misreading the figures... but it looks like sky is savagely profitable, and the rest of newscorp much less so, despite being a much larger company. you can see why rupe's so desparate to get all of it...


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 13, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> That would be cool, in a surreal way. Brooks marched in by a tourist re-enactment.


 
<pickman's posting> I'll give her 'reenactment' </pickman's posting>


----------



## love detective (Jul 13, 2011)

this from the ft gives a bit of a perspective on the relative size of the various newscorp areas - each chunk shows the revenues and in brackets the profit/loss for 2010


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> <pickman's posting> I'll give her 'reenactment' </pickman's posting>


 





i'm more of a breaking on the wheel man myself.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

@ymu - hi there, just got back in, so can now have a look at you earlier reply to me - here goes:




			
				ymu said:
			
		

> That's not them trying to do the right thing, that's them trying to fuck with the politicians. Murdoch withdrew the offer to hive off Sky to make referral to the CC just before Hunt was due to deliver a statement that was made irrelevant by his action. This is exactly the same. All three party leaders set to lead their parties out on a vote, so he withdraws before they can.



I think that's what  I was trying to get at in a roundabout way, but w/a different emphasis on my part.  I though Murdoch wanted to deflate the H of C debate, hog the headlines (again...) and give himself some breathing space (he'll be back w/another go I reckon).  The "doing the right thing" thing...did you see the quote I posted earlier on this late afternoon about what Disco said on Murdoch's withdrawal?  I mean, it sure it a whole lotta flannel DC came out with - I'd be interested to see how that plays in the press tonight/tomorrow - but already the spin on this is on - hmm....




			
				ymu said:
			
		

> There's no way anyone thinks he's doing the right thing, and he's not interested in whether they think that anyway. He's trying to wrongfoot the politicians, and is probably trying to withdraw from the UK completely to stop the poison spreading across the Atlantic. As with every other move he's made in the last couple of weeks, it's too little too late and the whole of News Corp is now under serious threat. The US takes corporate governance a great deal more seriously than we do.



I was thinking about the US side on the way home this eve....if those 9/11 hacking allegations turn out to be 100% (isn't there at least one case that has been confirmed so far?  Think I may have seen it on this thread?), then theoretically Murdoch is in a whole lot of trouble.  He's probably planning/hoping on the hacking stuff remaining in the good old UK, leaving him to spin that the NOTW etc stuff is a "local" issue - keeping the shareholders and politicos etc over the Atlantic sweet.  If Obama/Congress etc decide to act though, then phew....that is gonna be one hell of a thing there.  As for the UK, I reckon he'll want to hold onto BSkyB with his bloody hands, and he won't dispose etc of the Sun and Times without a very bloody and dirty fight.  I can only see him getting out of the UK paper market as a desperate last resort (but he'll spin it his way).




			
				ymu said:
			
		

> I can't fathom the doom-mongers here. Murdoch is not coming back. His power has gone and without it, he cannot do anything except watch his empire slip away. It won't change the world overnight, but the chief cheerleaders for austerity and demonisers of the poor are severely damaged/deaded by this, in the UK at the very least.



I think I said on the "hooray for the BSkyB bid withdrawal" thread that Murdoch is far, far from finished.  He's a wily old schemer and plotter, and his intention to hold onto his BSkyB shares shows that he's not in full panic mode just yet.  He'll use the Sun to begin to "settle scores", as it were, and The Times to bang the business case drum for him taking ove BSkyB.  Sure, I'd love to think he's terminally down, but to me, he's taken a blow but he' still standing so far.




			
				ymu said:
			
		

> The Tories (blue, yellow or red) have lost the most vicious parts of their propaganda machine. It'll take them a while to rebuild it. There's a chink in the armour. Stuff happens because people make it happen - I think it's time to be thinking about what we would like to achieve, not dwell on the sheer impossibility of achieving it.



Yeah, Murdoch et al are going to find it very hard to unleash their full retinue of attack dogs at the moment without looking like amoral psychopaths.  Mind you, this comes to mind for me too: The NOTW may have gone, but bear in mind we still have 6 days per week of the Sun, who can be relied on to revert to old ways, such as their "Brown's smearing us" front page today (and doubtlessly there'll be plenty more where that came from).  And the rest of the press/media may be circling the wagons round NI at present, but let's not forget about the likes of the jolly old Daily Mail and Daily Express, for starters.  And Murdoch still is able to run Sky News (who I understand run Channel Five's news, and give quite a lot of feeds etc to Channel 4 (they also co-produce "Dispatches").  So ye olde propaganda machine is down, for sure, but certainly not out just yet. 

As for your last sentence - yeah, there's a lot to achieve/win for - my take would be to attack/pursue as many angles as possible - UK and International leads, continuing to explore the links between the UK "State" and the media (and how they collude in feeding us what they want for their own ends), pursuing financial/corporate links....many possibilities.  No easy fights or quick wins, but worth going for nonetheless.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 13, 2011)

Yep. Murdoch will have to be buried at a crossroads with a stake through his heart.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Yep. Murdoch will have to be buried at a crossroads with a stake through his heart.


 
given that his minions hacked the queen's phones, perhaps we could have hanging, drawing and quartering revived for one last time. in addition, a bill of attainder could be passed through parliament with the proceeds from murdoch and his foul henchmen (and women) going towards something socially useful, like libraries.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 13, 2011)

*gets knitting*


----------



## ymu (Jul 13, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Yep. Murdoch will have to be buried at a crossroads with a stake through his heart.


His power is not innate.

But, if you insist, I can get on board with that plan. I'll keep an eye out for some suitable driftwood to make the stake out of.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> His power is not innate.
> 
> But, if you insist, I can get on board with that plan. I'll keep an eye out for some suitable driftwood to make the stake out of.


i don't know why. you can get a perfectly good stake at any reputable diy store or garden centre. but if you want to wander up and down a beach looking for driftwood instead of spending a couple of quid at b&q don't let me stop you.


----------



## ymu (Jul 13, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know why. you can get a perfectly good stake at any reputable diy store or garden centre. but if you want to wander up and down a beach looking for driftwood instead of spending a couple of quid at b&q don't let me stop you.


 
I live on a narrowboat. We don't pay for wood when we're surrounded by free stuff.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 13, 2011)

.


----------



## bendeus (Jul 13, 2011)

ddraig said:


> dirty scumbags
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14133767
> wonder why it's being held in Swansea!
> cunts



They were so concerned about the team being 'got at' by corrupt officers or their sympathisers that the Entire investigating team was based behind the wire at RAF St. Athan rather than a normal police station. Incredible stuff.


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> as i said earlier NI is around 5% of newscorp annual revenues and less than 1% of annual newscorp profits and also less than 1% of overall newscorp market value
> 
> newscorp annual revenues are around $33bn
> 
> ...


 
With owning newspapers you gain massive political influence - you can easily get your man in power.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 13, 2011)

After this momentous, historic  day for the democracy, the Daily Mail's headline:


----------



## ymu (Jul 13, 2011)

bendeus said:


> They were so concerned about the team being 'got at' by corrupt officers or their sympathisers that the Entire investigating team was based behind the wire at RAF St. Athan rather than a normal police station. Incredible stuff.


I think this case is relevant to the NI storm, not least because of the fantastic timing ... but there is a good thread where it's being discussed already. Might be better to keep non-NI related comment on that one?


----------



## laptop (Jul 13, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> After this momentous, historic  day for the democracy, the Daily Mail's headline:


 

That'll be the paper that took out more contracts with private dicks than any other.

This has not escaped notice...


----------



## bendeus (Jul 13, 2011)

ymu said:


> I think this case is relevant to the NI storm, not least because of the fantastic timing ... but there is a good thread where it's being discussed already. Might be better to keep non-NI related comment on that one?


 
Point taken. Fair dos


----------



## little_legs (Jul 14, 2011)

gif of the day, ladies & gents:


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

bendeus said:


> Point taken. Fair dos


Wasn't aimed at you specifically - I just bounced off your post. That thread hasn't been bumped for a while, so I figured maybe people didn't know it was there. It started long before the case got to court too, so lots of good stuff on it.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

little_legs said:


> gif of the day, ladies & gents:


I just watched the vid. That .gif might just be the moment that brings this government down. 

Needs cutting in with Clegg closing his eyes in despair and Osbourne's head sinking even further into his collar-bone to fully capture the moment though.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2011)

This was mentioned on BBC World news this morning...



> News Corp. Investigation Fever Sweeping Congress.
> 
> What a difference a day makes: News Corp.'s scandal was barely on the Congressional radar screen early in the week, but by midweek, investigation fever was spreading fast on Capitol hill. Four Democratic senators dashed off letters to Attorney General Eric Holder and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro requesting the DOJ and SEC investigate whether News Corp. broke any laws in the U.S. And now that Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has joined the growing Congressional chorus, the call for the feds to get involved took on some extra, bipartisan heft.
> 
> ...





> Demands Mount in U.S. Congress for News Corp. Hacking Probes
> 
> Outrage over alleged bribery and phone hacking at a News Corp. tabloid in London mounted in Washington as lawmakers demanded probes of whether the company violated anti-corruption laws and Sept. 11 victims' privacy.
> 
> ...



The pundit on the BBC reckons there will be a Congress hearing and Murdoch will be appearing before it within the next couple of months.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2011)

BBC Breakfast has now picked-up on the earlier BBC World story and is leading on problems ahead in the US for News Corp, as the main item for it's coverage of the whole NotW/News corp story.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 14, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> The pundit on the BBC reckons there will be a Congress hearing and Murdoch will be appearing before it within the next couple of months.


 
Good times ahead maybe


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 14, 2011)

"The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit" James Murdoch, 2009. 

Try telling that to all the people who's privacy has been egregiously violated in search of juicy stories by your criminal scum organisation James you fucking worthless lump of shit.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 14, 2011)

I hope both the eichmanns and the little eichmanns @ NI are targetted by vigilantes. It's about time these hack scum and their vermin bosses are subjected to the sort of harrasment and intimidation they've abused their power inflicting on others over the years.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 14, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I hope both the eichmanns and the little eichmanns @ NI are targetted by vigilantes. It's about time these hack scum and their vermin bosses are subjected to the sort of harrasment and intimidation they've abused their power inflicting on others over the years.


 
Read the Guardian


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

must we?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Read the Guardian



Guardian ,

Guardian ??


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> must we?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> must we?


 
No no no.  It's all about the Morning Star, peeople


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

i got the morning star a few months ago.

i'm not sure if i need to know that much about unions tbh.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 14, 2011)

when you read the morning star,

it makes no difference who you are,

Socialist ideology will come, to you.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> i got the morning star a few months ago.
> 
> i'm not sure if i need to know that much about unions tbh.


 
Can see what you mean there, but I'd say that's probably preferable to another Graun puff-piece about some "socialist" who turns out to be another neo-liberal drum banger (albeit one who eats organic vegetables and likes The Vaccines (ha ha ha)).


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 14, 2011)

There's also that old Crisis song, "Back In The USSR", which namechecks the Morning Star.  (Might be on YouTube.....I'm not linking to it though, as the main songwriters went on to Death In June, and apparently Wakeford wrote "White Youth" whilst in Crisis as some sort of "racialist" anthem).


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Steve Bell is loving this.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> Osbourne's head sinking even further into his collar-bone





I love George Osbourne - he's like the _perfect_ comedy political financial villian.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

tom watson reckons they can compel the murdochs to appear in front of the committee btw, if they are in the UK. which makes more sense, when you think about it...


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 14, 2011)

little_legs said:


> gif of the day, ladies & gents:



I don't get BBC where I am, so what's the full story with regard to this one? Why is wee Ed making like a stunned goldfish there?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 14, 2011)

wouldn't that be great if they had to fly out of the country just to avoid appearing in front of the select committee


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> I don't get BBC where I am, so what's the full story with regard to this one? Why is wee Ed making like a stunned goldfish there?


When Cameron was lying through his teeth about who told him what and when. He lied to Parliament. Miliband looked astonished, Clegg closed his eyes in quiet horror at the realisation that Cameron just brought his own government down so it's all been for nothing, and Osborne's already terrified visage took on an aura of total and uttter defeat.

It's beautiful. You have to watch it. Miliband was doing the horrified goldfish impression for a looooong time whilst Cameron lied and lied and lied.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> wouldn't that be great if they had to fly out of the country just to avoid appearing in front of the select committee


 
would they do that? i'm fairly sure that, if the 'fit and proper' test were ever applied (say in a future bid for sky), that 'fleeing the country to avoid giving evidence to a commons select committee' may blot their copybook. i think they're likely to have an eye to this in any moves they make in the near future.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 14, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> wouldn't that be great if they had to fly out of the country just to avoid appearing in front of the select committee


 
Even better if they tried that and got publicly arrested at the airport, by beefeaters, just for the general lolz.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> would they do that? i'm fairly sure that, if the 'fit and proper' test were ever applied (say in a future bid for sky), that 'fleeing the country to avoid giving evidence to a commons select committee' may blot their copybook. i think they're likely to have an eye to this in any moves they make in the near future.


 
Dunno, they've not exactly made the wisest decisions so far. Fleeing the country would be humiliating, but are they prepared to lie to parliament instead? Or just remain silent?

They don't have many options, and they still have the arrogance of power without any actual power left, so more headless chicken act is not at all unlikely.

It's all good. 



claphamboy said:


> Even better if they tried that and got publicly arrested at the airport, by beefeaters, just for the general lolz.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 14, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> I don't get BBC where I am, so what's the full story with regard to this one? Why is wee Ed making like a stunned goldfish there?


 
Context here:



It's at about 7:20 - Miliband's initial question from about 6:00.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> When Cameron was lying through his teeth about who told him what and when. He lied to Parliament. Miliband looked astonished, Clegg closed his eyes in quiet horror at the realisation that Cameron just brought his own government down so it's all been for nothing, and Osborne's already terrified visage took on an aura of total and uttter defeat.
> 
> It's beautiful. You have to watch it. Miliband was doing the horrified goldfish impression for a looooong time whilst Cameron lied and lied and lied.


 
That is interesting, what specific lies do you think Cameron made?


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

weltweit said:


> That is interesting, what specific lies do you think Cameron made?


I think Rusbridger has done a full run down. The easiest way to get a clue is to watch the video and watch for horrified goldfish impressions and sadly resigned expressions setting in ... but from my failing memory...

- that the information given to him by Rusbridger was no different to what was in the Guardian in Feb 2010 (what he was told was legally unpublishable at that time)

- that no one else saw fit to tell him about it (several other editors warned him too, or so Rusbridger claims)

- that no one ever asked a question about it in the house or a press conference so it couldn't have been that important (this was a bizarrely confused and apparently irrelevant point, but it is a lie - he was asked about it in at least one press conference)


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

Does this committee appearance next week matter in any material way now, given the scope of the public inquiry and the withdrawn bid  - it's surely reduced to grandstanding and venting?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Does this committee appearance next week matter in any material way now, given the scope of the public inquiry and the withdrawn bid  - it's surely reduced to grandstanding and venting?


 
Having listened to Radio 4 this morn, it turns out that as well as not being able to compel the Murdochs to attend (due to US citizenship), they can't force Brooks to turn up (i.e. they don't have the power to get Plod to arrest her and drag her to the committee).  If so, I fear you may well be right - a committee where none of the protagonists are present.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

Yep, but even if they were to turn up, so what. It'd be a just a show trial, without the trial.

It's all about the judge-led, under oath, Public Inquiry now. This committee is yesterdays chip wrapper.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Yep, but even if they were to turn up, so what. It'd be a just a show trial, without the trial.


 
It'd be worth it for the squirm factor, I s'pose, but even if Brooks did turn up, she'd be legally entitled to say "no comment" to every question thrown at her.  Something the meedja would cover with gusto, but as you say, would it actually achieve anything?  Would questions be answered, and would at least some of the truth finally be revealed?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

Thery don't have to lie, they just stonewall: 'it's subject to a police investigation, we can't say anything at this point'.

Of course, that's not going to stop some more Parliamentarians trying to get in on the televised ceremonial slaughter for their own self-promotional ends.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Thery don't have to lie, they just stonewall: 'it's subject to a police investigation, we can't say anything at this point'.
> 
> Of course, that's not going to stop some more Parliamentarians trying to get in on the televised ceremonial slaughter for their own self-promotional ends.



Good point on the MPs - wonder how many of these now "champions of the people" would have happily suckled on the Murdoch teat a few weeks ago?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> Miliband looked astonished, Clegg closed his eyes in quiet horror at the realisation that Cameron just brought his own government down so it's all been for nothing, and Osborne's already terrified visage took on an aura of total and uttter defeat.


Jesus,  Jeffery Archer is among us.


----------



## paolo (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> Steve Bell is loving this.


 
I had to stifle a 'laugh out loud' on the tube this morning seeing that.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 14, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Having listened to Radio 4 this morn, it turns out that as well as not being able to compel the Murdochs to attend (due to US citizenship), they can't force Brooks to turn up (i.e. they don't have the power to get Plod to arrest her and drag her to the committee).  If so, I fear you may well be right - a committee where none of the protagonists are present.


It's the same as why Cameron ducked the Common's debate yesterday and the same as why a defence counsel never makes their client take the stand when they know that they're guilty - their absence implicates them as much as anything that they could say.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu - you've predicted the fall of the government roughly once a week for a year now.

i'd be delighted to see you proved right, but i'll believe it when the taxi pulls away from number 10, and not before...


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 14, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> It's the same as why Cameron ducked the Common's debate yesterday and the same as why a defence counsel never makes their client take the stand when they know that they're guilty - their absence implicates them as much as anything that they could say.


 
I can certainly see what you mean there, but I'm also bearing in mind what London_Calling says about the "it's police investigation matter" line that the Murdochs and Brooks could spin whether or not they turn up.  Again, I think the media etc will make a lot out of it come the day, whatever happens, but in the longer term, would a non-appearance/stonewall appearance prove to be a deeply wounding blow to the parties involved?  I guess we shall see come the day itself.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

I also think the media haven't quite 'got' the change of mood from yesterday; the public have their scalps for now - NotW has gone, the BSkyB bid has gone, the Public Inquiry is of the right terms and scope.

Of course the media wants to maintain the incredibly intense narrative, but the mood has changed..... it's all about the long game now.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 14, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Good point on the MPs - wonder how many of these now "champions of the people" would have happily suckled on the Murdoch teat a few weeks ago?



Quite a few of them I reckon. Even so it was nice to receive through the post yesterday a reply from my M.P. assuring me he's been asking questions concerning the BSkyB case as far back as 13th January this year. Three pages no less! The most humorous (imo):




			
				 Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) Lab said:
			
		

> Is the real reason the Secretary of State is not delivering the the statement on BSkyB until the unusually late hour of 3 o'clock that Rupert murdoch has not written it yet?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2011)

You do realise the media, in their baying for blood, are really just looking for the altar on which to sacrifice their goats?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

I rather thought they were looking to put the boot in a feared rival, and then stamp on his head.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

Brooks absolutely can be made to appear before either of the select committees after them. Atm it's a process of invitation. If they decline the committees can takes steps to bring them in - ii think the final act is a vote in the house.  Good time for some MPs to make a name for themselves.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

No one's saying otherwise.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

There is no 'the media' on this - there's different people and bodies pursuing different agendas with different motivations - back covering, journalistic integrity, personal vendettas and so on.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I rather thought they were looking to put the boot in a feared rival, and then stamp on his head.


 
They'd love you to think that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> No one's saying otherwise.


 
Apart from the poster mentioning that r4 said they can't compel brooks to appear not half an hour ago. 

You can't help yourself can you?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There is no 'the media' on this - there's different people and bodies pursuing different agendas with different motivations - back covering, journalistic integrity, personal vendettas and so on.


 
Most of them looking for the highest profile scapegoat they can get.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

You don't sacrifice scapegoats on altars btw, you banish them.

Sorry


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Apart from the poster mentioning that r4 said they can't compel brooks to appear not half an hour ago.
> 
> You can't help yourself can you?


 
Oh, you were replying to a poster from 30 posts ago without quoting them. That's... helpful.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 14, 2011)

belboid said:


> Could simply substitute a question of whether NI are fit n proper to own _any_ of BskyB


 
Actually the question is whether Murdoch is a fit and proper person to run a local newsagent.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Oh, you were replying to a poster from 30 posts ago without quoting them. That's... helpful.


 
No, i was making a general point to all posters concerned with the question. You evidently can't remember what was posted - indeed you even replied to the post, apparently with no memory of it - so i think that you may well be sort of poster who would find my post helpful.

14 posts before btw - as i said, you can't help yourself.


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2011)

How long before Murdoch becomes 'unwell'? Though that would probably necessitate him standing down from running the company (or be a good excuse for doing so).


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

butchers - Screen full of nonsense. As you've started early this morning, would you share some more nuggets about Robert Peston and NI?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

Anyone know who this latest arrest is this morning?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

Santino said:


> How long before Murdoch becomes 'unwell'? Though that would probably necessitate him standing down from running the company (or be a good excuse for doing so).


 
That's certainly the interesting thing about the USA angle. It's the rest of the Board of News Corp -  plus US shareholders - who are now key to whether the Murdoch family survives.

Only people called Murdoch on that Board care about owning British papers.


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> When Cameron was lying through his teeth about who told him what and when. He lied to Parliament. Miliband looked astonished, Clegg closed his eyes in quiet horror at the realisation that Cameron just brought his own government down so it's all been for nothing, and Osborne's already terrified visage took on an aura of total and uttter defeat.
> 
> It's beautiful. You have to watch it. Miliband was doing the horrified goldfish impression for a looooong time whilst Cameron lied and lied and lied.


 
At around 9.10 in that video a visibly shaken Disco Dave appears to be consoled by Lord Snooty 
Ed Balls does a good shocked face as Milliwossnim does his goldfish impression too.
Clegg looks like he wishes he wasn't there.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone know who this latest arrest is this morning?


 
Sadly not Cameron.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know why. you can get a perfectly good stake at any reputable diy store or garden centre. but if you want to wander up and down a beach looking for driftwood instead of spending a couple of quid at b&q don't let me stop you.


 
You don't want to be using that tannelised softwood crap for stakes, it'll rot out, and the entity you've slain will re-constitute within a couple of decades.

No, what you need is a good British hardwood stake. A nice bit of beech, oak, ash or (preferably) elm. In fact 5 stakes would be better: 2 for the hands, 2 for the feet, and one for where his heart should have been.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You don't sacrifice scapegoats on altars btw, you banish them.
> 
> Sorry


 
You can do what you like with a scapegoat. I don't think it matters much, except to the goat.


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone know who this latest arrest is this morning?


 
Twitter says that Sky News says it's Neil Wallis, former executive editor of NOTW.


----------



## big eejit (Jul 14, 2011)

Another great cartoon from Steve Bell. He's in his element with this Murdoch stuff.


----------



## xenon (Jul 14, 2011)

`





butchersapron said:


> Brooks absolutely can be made to appear before either of the select committees after them. Atm it's a process of invitation. If they decline the committees can takes steps to bring them in - ii think the final act is a vote in the house.  Good time for some MPs to make a name for themselves.


 

They werent' clear, Clegg, R4 this morning what exactly can happen if she still refused to attend. 

Hintt: nothing.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> ymu - you've predicted the fall of the government roughly once a week for a year now.
> 
> i'd be delighted to see you proved right, but i'll believe it when the taxi pulls away from number 10, and not before...


I am a hopeless optimist killer b. If I wasn't, I'd not be able to drag myself out of bed for no apparent reason. But there has been more than a touch of comedy optimism about most of those posts, no? Or am I really just that shit at being funny?

I don't think Cameron can survive this though. Clegg was still on the ropes from the local/regional elections before this - there'll be massive pressure from inside his party to do the obvious thing and walk out whilst they can still take some credit for bringing the govt down - and the Tory attack dogs in the media just lost a whole row of teeth, which makes the propaganda nonsense a very tough sell indeed given the number of U-turns they've had to do without this kind of pressure on them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

xenon said:


> `
> 
> 
> They werent' clear, Clegg, R4 this morning what exactly can happen if she still refused to attend.
> ...


 
Not true at all. There is a process they can start on that will compel her to appear. It's a pain in the arse and rarely used, but it exists.


----------



## big eejit (Jul 14, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You can do what you like with a scapegoat. I don't think it matters much, except to the goat.


 
According to this the goat was traditionally driven into the wilderness.

'And the Goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a Land not inhabited.' (Leviticus XVI, 22)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 14, 2011)

'Wolfman' Wallis - the "World's No 1 Reporter" from the _Star_, poached by Kelvin MacKenzie and memorably put on the (expensively false) Elton John rentboy story back in 1987.

He was also editor of Mirror Group's Sunday paper _The People_ in the crucial late-90s/early-00s period, before being brought over to the _NOTW_.


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2011)

What is the current official line from News International on when phone hacking 'stopped'?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 14, 2011)

Oh dear, it looks like Wallis was almost home and dry...


----------



## xenon (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not true at all. There is a process they can start on that will compel her to appear. It's a pain in the arse and rarely used, but it exists.


 

Backed up with legal penalties if ultimately non complied with?  I hope so.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2011)

Odds on Cameron being the next cabinet minister to leave, have been slashed from 100/1 to 20/1 with Ladbrokes in the wake of recent events.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2011)

big eejit said:


> According to this the goat was traditionally driven into the wilderness.
> 
> 'And the Goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a Land not inhabited.' (Leviticus XVI, 22)


 
You are aware that the term 'scapegoat' nowadays rarely involves any actual goats?

In the same way that stool pigeon doesn't involve either stools or pigeons.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> I don't think Cameron can survive this though. Clegg was still on the ropes from the local/regional elections before this - there'll be massive pressure from inside his party to do the obvious thing and walk out whilst they can still take some credit for bringing the govt down - and the Tory attack dogs in the media just lost a whole row of teeth, which makes the propaganda nonsense a very tough sell indeed given the number of U-turns they've had to do without this kind of pressure on them.


 
Clegg's problems stem more from political reality than his alliance with Cameron - after all, once the Lib Dems were actually put in a position where they took responsibility for something, they were always going to lose the ability to pretend that they were a less toxic alternative than whichever of the big parties they were standing against.  

As for iDave, he is damaged by this - but he has a number of useful get-outs.  For a start, there is the incontrovertible truth that Labour were in charge when all this was going on, they were deeply entwined with News International (dont forget the leaking of the 2005 election date, the leak of Hutton, "Sarah's Law" and a host of other collaborative efforts over things like immigration) at the time, and that despite all the evidence that was presented to both Blair and Brown they did almost nothing about it.  Furthermore, given the scale of the use of the dark arts across Fleet Street (and NI's support for Labour between 1997 and 2008), it is almost unimaginable that Cameron and his family were not targets of this at some stage, something which can be wheeled out when required.  As for the "attack dogs" comment, dont forget that the NOTW were only Tory at the last election (and before that, until 1995) - the Tories still have an overwhelming advantage when it comes to media outlets (and even if the scandal spreads to the rest of the tabloids, the _Mirror_ were one of the worst offenders).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 14, 2011)

How has Phil Hall so far evaded the reach of Knacker or the ire of the Westminster dining club? Too many mucky pics of our great & good stashed away for a rainy day?


----------



## treelover (Jul 14, 2011)

'For a start, there is the incontrovertible truth that Labour were in charge when all this was going on, they were deeply entwined with News International (dont forget the leaking of the 2005 election date, the leak of Hutton, "Sarah's Law" and a host of other collaborative efforts over things like immigration) at the time, and that despite all the evidence that was presented to both Blair and Brown they did almost nothing about it.'


Agricola, you can add welfare reform in the list of collaborations between the press and NL: the tabloid press through leaks, smears, misinformation, often provided by NL/govt depts was essential in creating the conditions/public mood, etc, which facilatated the implementation of the most draconian welfare regime since the 1930's or earlier..

in fact, someone like Nick Davies could do a very good investigation into the revolving doors between the DWP and private compainies, incompetence, lies and smears..


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

Not read this/followed up/checked in full yet, just passing it on - looks v important.

EXCLUSIVE: News of the World and the ‘hacking’ of Danielle Jones


----------



## T & P (Jul 14, 2011)

Just breaking: Brooks has announced she will be attending the Commons committee on Tuesday, but Rupert will not, and his son James says he's unavailable on that day. A summons has been issued for the appearance of those two.

So looks like Murdoch is going to do a runner and gtfo in the next day or two. I think it's safe to say that that the grip he and his newspapers have had over successive governments in the UK is now over for good. What good news this is cannot be overstated


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

This is Wallis who was on the Press Complaints Commission. Genius!


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'in fact, someone like Nick Davies could do a very good investigation into the revolving doors between the DWP and private compainies, incompetence, lies and smears..


 
Indeed, and TBH one of the most hypocritical things that was thrown at Hayman was the criticism of his getting employed by NI after he suddenly retired - it was dodgy, but it (ie: jump ship from something you have an oversight role at of to something that you oversaw) is something that an awful lot of cabinet ministers and senior civil servants have done.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Odds on Cameron being the next cabinet minister to leave, have been slashed from 100/1 to 20/1 with Ladbrokes in the wake of recent events.


 
That's quite stunning, given that there are 24 members of cabinet. They have a built in profit margin, but they're basically saying he's as likely to fall as any of his cabinet are to resign (on average).

And those prices depend on what the people are betting on. The same people whose opinions are driving this.

Aces!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not read this/followed up/checked in full yet, just passing it on - looks v important.
> 
> EXCLUSIVE: News of the World and the ‘hacking’ of Danielle Jones


 
Fuck my old boots!!!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2011)

a new low.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 14, 2011)

T & P said:


> I think it's safe to say that that the grip he and his newspapers have had over successive governments in the UK is now over for good. What good news this is cannot be overstated


 
It is joyous news but who will step into his shoes?


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

agricola said:


> Clegg's problems stem more from political reality than his alliance with Cameron .... <etc etc etc>


 
Clegg's problem stems solely from the fact that 2/3 of LD votes came from people who were voting to keep the Tories out. The LDs can bring down this govt simply by walking out of it. They'll never be forgiven if they don't, and their window of opportunity is nearly gone now. It's what happens to lapdog parties in coalitions - their support collapses, and rightly so.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

Brook's letter to the culture committee basically says that she'll be stonewalling, and she'll be doing so as this is what the police have done with the justification that they don't want to compromise ongoing investigations, so she feels obliged to follow their example. 

Still at it.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> Clegg's problem stems solely from the fact that 2/3 of LD votes came from people who were voting to keep the Tories out. The LDs can bring down this govt simply by walking out of it. They'll never be forgiven if they don't, and their window of opportunity is nearly gone now. It's what happens to lapdog parties in coalitions - their support collapses, and rightly so.


 
Perhaps, though that would probably lead to two worse situations than the one we are in now - either a Labour landslide as in 1997, or the Tories get in by themselves (of course the end result - in terms of policies implemented - would probably be broadly similar).  The weakness that the Lib Dems have brought into the government is a good thing, after all without that weakness a lot of this stuff would probably never have come out.


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2011)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though that would probably lead to two worse situations than the one we are in now - either a Labour landslide as in 1997, or the Tories get in by themselves (of course the end result - in terms of policies implemented - would probably be broadly similar).  The weakness that the Lib Dems have brought into the government is a good thing, after all without that weakness a lot of this stuff would probably never have come out.


 
1. The Lib Dems SUPPORT the hard neo-liberal policies of the Tories.
2. The coalition is much stronger than a Tory government with a slender majority would be.


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2011)

fuck me, what an appalingfly mealy mouthed defence


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 14, 2011)

agricola said:


> The weakness that the Lib Dems have brought into the government is a good thing, after all without that weakness a lot of this stuff would probably never have come out.


 
I don't really get that. I see the opposite - that under cover of 'coalition' and 'consensus', a whole raft of extremist measures is being pushed through. No way the Tories could have carried out their manifesto-busting agenda without the libdems, imo, even if they had a majority. With two parties in government, suddenly the very idea of honouring manifesto commitments becomes meaningless.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not read this/followed up/checked in full yet, just passing it on - looks v important.
> 
> EXCLUSIVE: News of the World and the ‘hacking’ of Danielle Jones


 holy shit


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Santino said:


> 1. The Lib Dems SUPPORT the hard neo-liberal policies of the Tories.
> 2. The coalition is much stronger than a Tory government with a slender majority would be.


 
3. Once we know we can bring down a govt, and how, Labour will be next in the firing line. We just need to keep sacking them until they behave or end up hanging from lamp-posts. If we have any sense.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2011)

belboid said:
			
		

> fuck me, what an appalingfly mealy mouthed defence


Agricola or Santino?


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2011)

Santino said:


> 1. The Lib Dems SUPPORT the hard neo-liberal policies of the Tories.
> 2. The coalition is much stronger than a Tory government with a slender majority would be.



1 - so do (and did) Labour
2 - perhaps, but there wouldnt be an obvious escape route from the government - after all, the "bastards" and the eurosceptics of the Major government had (at that time) no alternative party to jump to, they would (as they did) all have to live or die as Tories.  The Lib Dems have an obvious (and relatively consequence-free) escape route and they know they would bring down the government by doing so.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> holy shit


 
i know 10 years of journalism is being re evaluated in the light of but what that link suggests...I thought I'd ceased to be shocked by this story.


----------



## treelover (Jul 14, 2011)

on Newsnight last night they had a panel of 'undecided voters' and quizzed them about murdoch, hacking, the politicians response, the mass media, etc, to say they were not engaged, animated by the issues, etc would be an understatement, Paxo looked very embarassed at the bored faces, either they are just apolitical people happy to be on TV, on any programme or the general public is not as exercised by the scandals as we and the media are...


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> i know 10 years of journalism is being re evaluated in the light of but what that link suggests...I thought I'd ceased to be shocked by this story.


 
shit. i've only just realised what it does suggest.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

maybe they're just bored of seeing paxo tbh


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

vox pops panels are well known for being totally representative of the wider public.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2011)

treelover said:


> on Newsnight last night they had a panel of 'undecided voters' and quizzed them about murdoch, hacking, the politicians response, the mass media, etc, to say they were not engaged, animated by the issues, etc would be an understatement, Paxo looked very embarassed at the bored faces, either they are just apolotical people happy to be on TV, on any programme or the general public is not as exercised by the scandals as we and the media are...


Other side of the 'thicko Sun readers' coin.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

treelover said:


> on Newsnight last night they had a panel of 'undecided voters' and quizzed them about murdoch, hacking, the politicians response, the mass media, etc, to say they were not engaged, animated by the issues, etc would be an understatement, Paxo looked very embarassed at the bored faces, either they are just apolotical people happy to be on TV, on any programme or the general public is not as exercised by the scandals as we and the media are...


 
What's the left going to do about it then, eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

Rumour (that's all it is right now) that Jean De Menizies family phones were hacked.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

treelover said:


> on Newsnight last night they had a panel of 'undecided voters' and quizzed them about murdoch, hacking, the politicians response, the mass media, etc, to say they were not engaged, animated by the issues, etc would be an understatement, Paxo looked very embarassed at the bored faces, either they are just apolotical people happy to be on TV, on any programme or the general public is not as exercised by the scandals as we and the media are...


 
This wouldn't be happening without public opinion. It's not urban and the media driving this. 

They chose undecideds. Anyone who is undecided right now is likely to be extremely uninterested in politics.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 14, 2011)

treelover said:


> on Newsnight last night they had a panel of 'undecided voters' and quizzed them about murdoch, hacking, the politicians response, the mass media, etc, to say they were not engaged, animated by the issues, etc would be an understatement, Paxo looked very embarassed at the bored faces, either they are just apolotical people happy to be on TV, on any programme or the general public is not as exercised by the scandals as we and the media are...


 
Joe public doesn't give a shit, judging by NotW flying off the shelves on Sunday


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2011)

maybe they're just not all that surprised?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 14, 2011)

treelover said:


> on Newsnight last night they had a panel of 'undecided voters' and quizzed them about murdoch, hacking, the politicians response, the mass media, etc, to say they were not engaged, animated by the issues, etc would be an understatement, Paxo looked very embarassed at the bored faces, either they are just apolotical people happy to be on TV, on any programme or the general public is not as exercised by the scandals as we and the media are...



Bit of both, I'd have thought. If you're undecided what you think of this government, that's as close to a definition of apolitical as you can get. It is one of the enduring weaknesses of our current political set-up that the opinions of a small, disengaged group - the swing voters in marginal seats - are the opinions that matter most to politicians.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Joe public doesn't give a shit, judging by NotW flying off the shelves on Sunday


 
no, the reason loads of peope bought it (and it was only 3.8 million people who bought it despite the initial claim of 4.5 million) is because a lot of people wanted a keepsake from the whole thing, shit i know, but that doesn't mean they werent INTERSTED in the scandal ...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Joe public doesn't give a shit, judging by NotW flying off the shelves on Sunday


 
And to prove my point.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Joe public doesn't give a shit, judging by NotW flying off the shelves on Sunday


 
The other NI titles all had large drops in sales over the weekend. You're simply wrong.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

yep 250, 000 less people bought the sun at the weekend than usual.


----------



## treelover (Jul 14, 2011)

er, that is what I posted...


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Rumour (that's all it is right now) that Jean De Menizies family phones were hacked.


 
Everyone who was 'in the news' had their phone hacked, it was systematic and comprehensive. I don't care that this is being done, but it is just picking out names for dramatic effect.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Rumour (that's all it is right now) that Jean De Menizies family phones were hacked.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> no, the reason loads of peope bought it (and it was only 3.8 million people who bought it despite the initial claim of 4.5 million) is because a lot of people wanted a keepsake from the whole thing, shit i know, but that doesn't mean they werent INTERSTED in the scandal ...


 
Rather the opposite, in fact. I'd have loved it if nobody had bought it - a boycott would have been a fitting send-off, I think - but most will have just bought it out of curiosity. Tbf, I'm sure that last edition was more interesting than the usual drivel they churned out.


----------



## treelover (Jul 14, 2011)

Saddened by you joining the pack Froggie


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Everyone who was 'in the news' had their phone hacked, it was systematic and comprehensive. I don't care that this is being done, but it is just picking out names for dramatic effect.


 
Depends what else they did other than listen to messages though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


>


 
Firming up a bit now, looks like his cousin says he was told by the plod


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Depends what else they did other than listen to messages though.


The point was only about who had their phones hacked - what are you talking about?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

treelover said:


> Saddened by you joining the pack Froggie


 
erm, i wasn't, i was joking, didn't mean it badly. sorry if i upset you.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> no, the reason loads of peope bought it (and it was only 3.8 million people who bought it despite the initial claim of 4.5 million) is because a lot of people wanted a keepsake from the whole thing, shit i know, but that doesn't mean they werent INTERSTED in the scandal ...


 
A keepsake??? Ugh, how vulgar of them.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

i know, lots of people would have bought it out of curiosity though, and the sales weren't THAT much higher than usual compared to what was expected. they printed 5 million copies and most of those weren't sold at all.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Rumour (that's all it is right now) that Jean De Menizies family phones were hacked.



And this: @ChrisBryantMP: House should consider emergency motion on Monday to arrest murdoch's if continue to refuse to attend.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 14, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> And this: @ChrisBryantMP: House should consider emergency motion on Monday to arrest murdoch's if continue to refuse to attend.


 
How? I thought only UK subjects could be forced to attend.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How? I thought only UK subjects could be forced to attend.


 
Could he be extradited or something?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

Arrest people for not bothering with an after-the-Lord-Mayors-Show  grandstanding committee?

Get a grip, it's all about the PI now, not shrill and excitable MPs.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How? I thought only UK subjects could be forced to attend.



Just another rumour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 14, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Could he be extradited or something?


 
I don't see how. To be extradicted, you need to be charged with something.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 14, 2011)

Off topic but I thought this was a nice bit of evidence putting a hole in the 'tabloid readers believe everything' myth.



			
				UK POlling report said:
			
		

> While 69% agree that it is only a small minority of journalists who are tarnishing the reputation of others, the vast majority (78%) think that the same practices probably went on in other tabloid newspapers too. Only 8% think it was confined to the News of the World alone. People are more non-committal on the broadsheets – 35% think they are generally fair and accurate, 33% do not, 32% are unsure. Broadsheet readers are rather more trusting of broadsheets (59% think they are fair and accurate, 22% disagree), but even people who read tabloids don’t trust them much – 16% of tabloid readers think their reporting is fair and accurate, 60% do not.


link


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2011)

@Paul Waugh: Sir George Young adds he will have to take legal advice on Chris Bryant's suggestion Murdoch could be physically brought to House by Serj.


----------



## treelover (Jul 14, 2011)

'erm, i wasn't, i was joking, didn't mean it badly. sorry if i upset you. '

thats ok,


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 14, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Off topic but I thought this was a nice bit of evidence putting a hole in the 'tabloid readers believe everything' myth.


 
Nothing new in that - it has long been held that it is the broadsheet readers who are more susceptible to propaganda from their papers of choice. Tbh, I'm pretty amazed that as many as 16 percent of tabloid readers think their reporting is fair and accurate. How the fuck can anyone think that? But just because you don't trust the accuracy of your paper of choice, that doesn't mean you aren't influenced by it, particularly if it is your main source of news.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'erm, i wasn't, i was joking, didn't mean it badly. sorry if i upset you. '
> 
> thats ok,


 
ok  there are other explanations other than them *all* being bored/disintrested tho. to be fair i'd be bored in that setting too, particularly if i'd had to wait around for ages ...


----------



## marty21 (Jul 14, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> And this: @ChrisBryantMP: House should consider emergency motion on Monday to arrest murdoch's if continue to refuse to attend.


 
he's getting payback for underpantsgate


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

marty21 said:


> he's getting payback for underpantsgate


 
This must be the first week he's not been habitually referred to as _the pants MP._

Btw: suggestions that Yates has offered his resignation now.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 14, 2011)

I was trying to find this for the Guardian doesn't half print a load of shit thread but it's good here, too, I think. Kelvin McKenzie on the saviour of the world Mr. Murdoch before all this inconvenient information about his company got out. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/30/rupert-murdoch-monopoly-news-corp

Warning - you will feel ill reading bits of it. And no real information apart from McKenzie describing himself as a 'tabloid tosspot' but does show how far the yes-men are up Murdoch's bottom. Once again the comments are the best thing about it.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 14, 2011)

treelover said:


> on Newsnight last night they had a panel of 'undecided voters' and quizzed them about murdoch, hacking, the politicians response, the mass media, etc, to say they were not engaged, animated by the issues, etc would be an understatement, Paxo looked very embarassed at the bored faces, either they are just apolitical people happy to be on TV, on any programme or the general public is not as exercised by the scandals as we and the media are...


 
That was all a bit generally "wtf" embarassing a and wierd. You could feel Paxo mutter "where the fuck dod you get these twats?" and after one of the many moments of silence, I was more expecting someone to pipe up with "What's the News Of the World" or "So this _isn't_ Alan Carr Chatty Man? Sorry, wrong door...".

Undecided <> Unbothered


----------



## two sheds (Jul 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But just because you don't trust the accuracy of your paper of choice, that doesn't mean you aren't influenced by it, particularly if it is your main source of news.


 
As the research on Fox News viewers neatly showed after the Iraq war. The viewers scored well on questions like troop deployments and the range and speed of Patriot missiles, but badly on questions like where Iraq was, what the war was about and whether Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Btw: suggestions that Yates has offered his resignation now.



@cathynewman Met now insisting John Yates isn't resigning - 'currently' or otherwise


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

treelover said:


> Saddened by you joining the pack Froggie


Will you just stop this ridiculous sniping. She is right. The Sun and Sunday Times sold way less than usual. Murdoch gave away free advertising to charities and donated all proceeds to charity and a lot of people fell for that, or wanted a souvenir, or bought in bulk to sell on for a profit. I was tempted just to have a copy of NotW advertising LGBT aoption services. D)

Just stop this shit, yeah? It's not getting you anywhere, but it does get your more salient points ignored.


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> They chose undecideds. Anyone who is undecided right now is likely to be extremely uninterested in politics.


 
So extremely uninterested that they could form their own political movement that would be banned for being too extremist.


----------



## treelover (Jul 14, 2011)

'Will you just stop this ridiculous sniping. She is right. The Sun and Sunday Times sold way less than usual. Murdoch gave away free advertising to charities and donated all proceeds to charity and a lot of people fell for that, or wanted a souvenir, or bought in bulk to sell on for a profit. I was tempted just to have a copy of NotW advertising LGBT aoption services. ()'

Just stop this shit, yeah? It's not getting you anywhere, but it does get your more salient points ignored. 


eh, I was referring to Froggie's comment on ''what is the left doing about it?'', the usual refrain from some when I post on here..


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

They bought the Daily Mail instead? That's helpful.


----------



## paolo (Jul 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> shit. i've only just realised what it does suggest.


 
I've read it and read it and still don't understand.

NoW hacked the phone to read the messages?
NoW *sent* the messages?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

Coulsen/Hayman/De Menezies. Do read.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 14, 2011)

Alan Rusbridger's tame ex-_Sun_ hack Marina Hyde is saying that the website of Outside Organisation, the PR firm Neil Wallis works at these days has downgraded his role from MD to "freelance consultant" between 9am and 11:30am.

Companies House documents (last amended: 20 June) only show one director, mind - Alan Edwards - plus showbiz lawyer Alexis Grower as company secretary, so this may just be a red herring.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I've read it and read it and still don't understand.
> 
> NoW hacked the phone to read the messages?
> NoW *sent* the messages?


 
thats the implication I drew- it sounds like fantasy land stuff, or would do if the bodies didn't keep coming up on a daily basis.

at the least it compromises key evidence in a murder conviction. At most, we'll what would you charge a hack who did that with?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> Will you just stop this ridiculous sniping. She is right. The Sun and Sunday Times sold way less than usual. Murdoch gave away free advertising to charities and donated all proceeds to charity and a lot of people fell for that, or wanted a souvenir, or bought in bulk to sell on for a profit. I was tempted just to have a copy of NotW advertising LGBT aoption services. D)
> 
> Just stop this shit, yeah? It's not getting you anywhere, but it does get your more salient points ignored.


 
erm, we sorted it out, it's ok


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'Will you just stop this ridiculous sniping. She is right. The Sun and Sunday Times sold way less than usual. Murdoch gave away free advertising to charities and donated all proceeds to charity and a lot of people fell for that, or wanted a souvenir, or bought in bulk to sell on for a profit. I was tempted just to have a copy of NotW advertising LGBT aoption services. ()'
> 
> Just stop this shit, yeah? It's not getting you anywhere, but it does get your more salient points ignored.
> 
> ...


 
I misread which post you were responding to. I apologise. Doesn't change the point though. Why do you think people do that if they are not sick to the back teeth of you saying it?


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> erm, we sorted it out, it's ok


I know. Sorry. Had the page tabbed up for a while and didn't realise it had moved on.

I am speaking for myself here too though.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2011)

ITV BREAKING: Police cmmr Sir John Stevenson had 11 dinners with Neil Wallis.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> ITV BREAKING: Police cmmr Sir John Stevenson had 11 dinners with Neil Wallis.


 
who? the current met commissioner is sir paul stephenson, who succeeded ian blair, who succeeded john stevens. who do you mean?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 14, 2011)

Needs some clarification! Either the former or the latter


----------



## past caring (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Coulsen/Hayman/De Menezies. Do read.



_And_ make sure you read the comments, also - firm it up.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> I know. Sorry. Had the page tabbed up for a while and didn't realise it had moved on.
> 
> I am speaking for myself here too though.


 
OK


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 14, 2011)

past caring said:


> _And_ make sure you read the comments, also - firm it up.


 
Juicy!


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Coulsen/Hayman/De Menezies. Do read.


 
18 months old. Any post-Dowler stuff out there yet? Or is someone digging that post up the reason de Menezes is in the whispers today?

The services rendered to the Met by News Corp tabloids have been part of this scandal from the beginning of the first thread here, IIRC. They are were the unofficial propaganda mouthpiece for the police, the Met in particular.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

Any more shit on the Times? Or the wall-street journal for that matter?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> 18 months old. Any post-Dowler stuff out there yet? Or is someone digging that post up the reason de Menezes is in the whispers today?
> .


 The point is to re-read it bearing in mind what we now know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Could he be extradited or something?


 
Extraordinary rendition?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> 18 months old. Any post-Dowler stuff out there yet? Or is someone digging that post up the reason de Menezes is in the whispers today?
> 
> The services rendered to the Met by News Corp tabloids have been part of this scandal from the beginning of the first thread here, IIRC. They are were the unofficial propaganda mouthpiece for the police, the Met in particular.


 
These aren't whispers about JCDM btw, see the letter from his family today


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 14, 2011)

Kevin Blowe posted about the Met and its 'informal' secret briefings to journalists in relation to the Forest Gate raids yesterday. Along with the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting, it's a subject he's written about previously, worth searching his blog.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

From Carl Bernstein (in a larger piece about the impact on News Corp in the US):



> News International, the British arm of Murdoch’s media empire, “has always worked on the principle of omertà: ‘Do not say anything to anybody outside the family, and we will look after you,’ ” notes a former Murdoch editor who knows the system well. “Now they are hanging people out to dry. The moment you do that, the omertà is gone, and people are going to talk. It looks like a circular firing squad.”
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/10/murdoch-s-watergate.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

Here the Metropolitan Police Authority's members for any free diggers


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The point is to re-read it bearing in mind what we now know.


 
I had to ask because you just posted a link and told us to read it ... sorry.

Thanks for the letter link. Is what I was after.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Coulsen/Hayman/De Menezies. Do read.


 
Fascinating stuff, and a good argument for why conspiracy theories just aren't needed. 

I wonder if the Ian Tomlinson reporting suffered for similar reasons.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 14, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Alan Rusbridger's tame ex-_Sun_ hack Marina Hyde is saying that the website of Outside Organisation, the PR firm Neil Wallis works at these days has downgraded his role from MD to "freelance consultant" between 9am and 11:30am.
> 
> Companies House documents (last amended: 20 June) only show one director, mind - Alan Edwards - plus showbiz lawyer Alexis Grower as company secretary, so this may just be a red herring.


 
You can be managing director (or indeed, have the job title of director) without being a company director, which is a legal position. The companies house documentation will be correct. It is more than likely he has been relieved of his position as managing director.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I wonder if the Ian Tomlinson reporting suffered for similar reasons.


 i think there's more than one agenda at work. arguments about the reporting may note links between senior people, but there's also the culture of support for the police among the murdoch press (and of course other papers). in that context, friendships between editors and policemen may play a part, but i suggest that there'd also be a natural sympathy between the journalists and the  police given the ethos at ni. not only that, but links between senior policemen and senior ni staff were doubtless mirrored by links between more junior cops and journalists. working hand in glove at every level, really.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 14, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> You can be managing director (or indeed, have the job title of director) without being a company director, which is a legal position. The companies house documentation will be correct. It is more than likely he has been relieved of his position as managing director.


 
Ta for the clarification


----------



## contadino (Jul 14, 2011)

Reuters is reporting that Rupert Murdoch is has refused to go to Tuesday's parliamentary grilling. Silly sod. That's a pretty quick way to be branded 'not fit & proper.'  To me, it's looking increasingly like the old bastard's reached his tipping point and is now just running around like a headless chicken. 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/14/uk-newscorp-idUKTRE76A1OJ20110714


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 14, 2011)

Just seen this on the Graun live feed on all this: 



> 3.52pm: I just spoke to News International and they confirmed that James Murdoch is a dual UK/US citizen.



Can he then be compelled to attend as a UK citizen, in that case?


----------



## 8den (Jul 14, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Just seen this on the Graun live feed on all this:
> 
> 
> 
> Can he then be compelled to attend as a UK citizen, in that case?



According to the guardian's legal team



> The legal powers to compel anyone against their will to answer questions at a parliamentary select committee may have fallen into disuse and may no longer be enforceable, a leading constitutional expert has suggested. Trying to enforce such infrequently exercised regulations against a foreign national — in this case the Murdochs — is even less likely to be successful, according to Vernon Bogdanor, the former professor of government at Oxford University.



Apparently no one can be forced to attend a parliamentary select commitee. 

This is what you get for not bothering to write a constitution.


----------



## gosub (Jul 14, 2011)

failing to attend a Parlimentary committee into the actions of your company hardly says Fit & Proper person


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 14, 2011)

8den - thanks for that.  I've read the whole thing at the Graun site, and there seems to be two differing strands of opinion - I wonder who is actually 100% on the money? - see all here


----------



## contadino (Jul 14, 2011)

gosub said:


> failing to attend a Parlimentary committee into the actions of your company hardly says Fit & Proper person


 
Failing implies something like missing the bus, or his car breaking down on the way to Westminster. He's refusing.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 14, 2011)

Time front page (not sure if fake (current issue has a fish on its cover) or not, tho the story is definitely being covered by them)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 14, 2011)

Sky News reporting that Neil Wallis was consulting for the Met last year!

According to BBC News Scotland Yard confirms Chamy Media, owned by Neil Wallis, provided strategic communication advice & support to Met Police...


----------



## Voley (Jul 14, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Time front page. Hello America!


 
Ooh, nice.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

> Chamy Media was employed in 2009 and last year to "provide strategic communication advice and support" while the force's deputy director of public affairs was on sick leave, a spokesman confirmed.
> 
> The force said in a statement: "Three relevant companies were invited to provide costings for this service on the basis of two days per month.
> 
> "Chamy Media were appointed as they were significantly cheaper than the others. The contract ran from October 2009 until September 2010, when it was terminated by mutual consent."


Needs dirt from somewhere because that's not worth a wank.

Shrill, over-excited PMs aside, is it me or has it quietened down now the Murdoch's nuts are in a vice?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 14, 2011)

both the murdoch's will give evidence to next weeks parliamentary committee

what great tv that will be!


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> what great tv that will be!


Now the PI is in place, theatre is about all it is.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 14, 2011)

Now James et Papa will be there (says News Corp, via BBC ticker...)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Needs dirt from somewhere because that's not worth a wank.
> 
> Shrill, over-excited PMs aside, is it me or has it quietened down now the Murdoch's nuts are in a vice?


 
Can i thank you for your nothing's happening posts on this thread. You've been a joy to read.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Now the PI is in place, theatre is about all it is.


 
your faith in judge led public inquiries is heartwarming.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

_My_ faith? Thanks,  but I'm not sure the dogs have backed off because of me. What faith is it I have?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> _My_ faith? Thanks,  but I'm not sure the dogs have backed off because of me. What faith is it I have?


 
Where the fight will take place for starters.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Can i thank you for your nothing's happening posts on this thread. You've been a joy to read.


 I've been busy, who's today's  NI "mouthpiece of the day" ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I've been busy, who's today's  NI "mouthpiece of the day" ?


 
I really do not know why you bother.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> _My_ faith? Thanks,  but I'm not sure the dogs have backed off because of me. What faith is it I have?


 
who's backed off?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

What's the big breaking story of the day? Until now, we've had them every 3-4 hours.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 14, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How? I thought only UK subjects could be forced to attend.


actually, not even UK citizens can really be forced to attend any more. In theory, the Commons could fine or even imprison people who refuse to give evidence. In practice these powers are so long disused as to be unusable now. The most they can give is a rap on the knuckles - big deal.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

contadino said:


> Reuters is reporting that Rupert Murdoch is has refused to go to Tuesday's parliamentary grilling. Silly sod. That's a pretty quick way to be branded 'not fit & proper.'  To me, it's looking increasingly like the old bastard's reached his tipping point and is now just running around like a headless chicken.
> 
> http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/14/uk-newscorp-idUKTRE76A1OJ20110714


 
He's not coming back for BSkyB. No chance. He doesn't care about fit and proper, he cares about News Corp and the US end of the business.

And probably even more about staying out of prison now that the US has gone apeshit. Couldn't happen to a cuntier cunt.


----------



## 8den (Jul 14, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> 8den - thanks for that.  I've read the whole thing at the Graun site, and there seems to be two differing strands of opinion - I wonder who is actually 100% on the money? - see all here


 
Well as others have pointed out in the rather plummy version of English Parliamentary law, they can't jolly well enforce him to come, but the can tut and shake their heads and wonder if that's "fit and proper" behaviour for a potential owner of major TV station. 

The ambiguity swings both ways.


----------



## contadino (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> He's not coming back for BSkyB. No chance. He doesn't care about fit and proper, he cares about News Corp and the US end of the business.
> 
> And probably even more about staying out of prison now that the US has gone apeshit. Couldn't happen to a cuntier cunt.


 
Well, isn't it the case that if he's labelled as not fit & proper to own a publishing company in the UK, it would be pretty difficult for him not to be labelled 'not fit and proper' to run his outlets in the US?  It's a kind of implicit thing - he'd lose all his UK, US and Australian permits before other countries stopped scratching their chins.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

contadino said:


> Well, isn't it the case that if he's labelled as not fit & proper to own a publishing company in the UK, it would be pretty difficult for him not to be labelled 'not fit and proper' to run his outlets in the US?  It's a kind of implicit thing - he'd lose all his UK, US and Australian permits before other countries stopped scratching their chins.


 Has nothing to do with an 'owner'. OFCOM has nothing to do with the USA. Apart from that...


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

contadino said:


> Well, isn't it the case that if he's labelled as not fit & proper to own a publishing company in the UK, it would be pretty difficult for him not to be labelled 'not fit and proper' to run his outlets in the US?  It's a kind of implicit thing - he'd lose all his UK, US and Australian permits before other countries stopped scratching their chins.



Well yes, but events are running away with him. It's only just proper blown up in the US. He's been a step behind all the way. I think they've been trying to cut it off at the pass and they've consistently been behind the curve. There are reports that they've been planning this since the beginning of the year, but no one knew that the Milly Dowler story would come out, and Nick Davies is astonished at the effect it's had (he wrote it).

It's a perfect storm. People were already very upset at the way the family were treated in court, and hating the tabloids for it, and then this horrific story comes out ... the rather hefty straw that did for the camel's back. Murdoch has no idea what to do, because he runs his business like the mafia, but he's been dropping his own people in the shit and they are not obeying any agreements that may once have held. Half the News Corp board are briefing against him now. 

They do seem to be executing a pre-prepared plan, but it wasn't designed for this and they're still carrying on like anyone cares what they threaten any more. They don't. Anyone making a complaint about Murdoch right now will get taken very seriously indeed by anyone who wants to keep their nice cushy establishment job.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

You really could be Jeffrey Archer. Tell us about the pained expression on Murdoch's face when he learned of the latest setback?


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Has nothing to do with an 'owner'. OFCOM has nothing to do with the USA. Apart from that...


The point being made is very obvious. You'd look a fuck of a lot less stupid if you spent less time trying to look clever and more time thinking about it.

You're not here to provide content and you're not interested in the content that others are providing, so why are you bothering?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 14, 2011)

I imagine Brooks and Murdoch father and son will already be swotting up the answers they can give to the select committee on Tuesday with their legal team. 

If you were Keith Vaz, what questions would you ask Rupert Rebekah and James?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Needs dirt from somewhere because that's not worth a wank.


There IS dirt in there, automatically; The MPS giving a lucrative contract - with no proof of due diligence - to a company owned by an ex-NOTW man who had been known to be on close personal friendship terms with senior Met officers - eg 11 dinners together - and who has now been arrested. If anyone manages to disprove due diligence, that's YET ANOTHER met scandal


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 14, 2011)

8den said:


> Well as others have pointed out in the rather plummy version of English Parliamentary law, they can't jolly well enforce him to come, but the can tut and shake their heads and wonder if that's "fit and proper" behaviour for a potential owner of major TV station.
> 
> The ambiguity swings both ways.


actually, the 'fit and proper' threat is just about the biggest leverage the committee has, right now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

Wrong committee welt


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> There IS dirt in there, automatically; The MPS giving a lucrative contract - with no proof of due diligence - to a company owned by an ex-NOTW man who had been known to be on close personal friendship terms with senior Met officers - eg 11 dinners together - and who has now been arrested. If anyone manages to disprove due diligence, that's YET ANOTHER met scandal


The company was the cheapest bidder of three. If it went out to tender and the job was done properly....


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> The point being made is very obvious. You'd look a fuck of a lot less stupid if you spent less time trying to look clever and more time thinking about it.
> 
> You're not here to provide content and you're not interested in the content that others are providing, so why are you bothering?


 
*strikes Jeffrey off the Christmas card list*


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 14, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Ta for the clarification


 
No problem


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 14, 2011)

If I was Keith Vaz, what questions would I ask?

I'd maybe start off with a few simple ones like 'Do you know what 'telling the truth' means?'.

Start simple and work up to the difficult ones, I say.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 14, 2011)

To be fair, '11 dinners' hardly strikes me as a _longlasting_ close personal friendship. I wonder if the last dinner went something along the lines of 'look, it's not you, it's me. I just don't see a future in this...'


----------



## Weller (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> When Cameron was lying through his teeth about who told him what and when. He lied to Parliament. Miliband looked astonished, Clegg closed his eyes in quiet horror at the realisation that Cameron just brought his own government down so it's all been for nothing, and Osborne's already terrified visage took on an aura of total and uttter defeat.
> 
> It's beautiful. You have to watch it. Miliband was doing the horrified goldfish impression for a looooong time whilst Cameron lied and lied and lied.









has anyone got a link to the video where that gif came   from please Ive watched lots and cant find the actual moment , I dont want to have to watch all the speeches although its all so entertaining


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> If I was Keith Vaz, what questions would I ask?
> 
> I'd maybe start off with a few simple ones like 'Do you know what 'telling the truth' means?'.
> 
> Start simple and work up to the difficult ones, I say.


Keith Vaz is Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Com. Next week's hearing is in front of the Culture, Media, etc, Com: The circus moves on...


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Weller said:


> has anyone got a link to the video where that gif came from Ive watched lots and cant find the actual moment , I dont want to have to watch all the speeches although its all so entertaining


I can't work out if it is from the main footage shown either - it might be from when the director was focusing on Cameron, which is when Ed first went goldfish-like, and the camera eventually moved onto him.


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 14, 2011)

It was on the BBC site yesterday ---- dunno if it's still up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

weltweit said:


> If you were Keith Vaz, what questions would you ask Rupert Rebekah and James?


 
"Got any vacancies for a slimeball former MP?"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> *strikes Jeffrey off the Christmas card list*


 
Did seeing the truth in print on your screen hurt, or something?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> To be fair, '11 dinners' hardly strikes me as a _longlasting_ close personal friendship. I wonder if the last dinner went something along the lines of 'look, it's not you, it's me. I just don't see a future in this...'


 
Sounds more like a nick-name for Eric Pickles MP, to be fair.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2011)

big daddy pickles looks like the sort of trencherman who would do eleven dinners before breakfast tbf


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Did seeing the truth in print on your screen hurt, or something?


As ymu might say: "His furrowed brow alerted the watching throng to a deep discomfort. Meanwhile back on the mean streets of Penge, the Bored sharpened knives, plotting."


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 14, 2011)

_angel (aka swarthy lusty twat - the internet's global citizen without a passport) said:
			
		

> Read the Guardian


 
I already do. Well, selected journalism and comment pieces online anyway, as I do the Independent, the Mail, the Telegraph, The Morning Star and so on. Continue to pickle in the jouissance of self-loathing and other stimulants of choice you Sun reading thick tosser.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sounds more like a nick-name for Eric Pickles MP, to be fair.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The other NI titles all had large drops in sales over the weekend. You're simply wrong.



you sure?  its hardly a hot topic of conversation down this way - was for a bit, and if some of todays revelations are true then that might fire it up again - but this shit doesnt really impact on peoples lives and bent coppers and dodgy hacks is hardly earth shattering news


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> As ymu might say: "His furrowed brow alerted the watching throng to a deep discomfort. Meanwhile back on the mean streets of Penge, the Bored sharpened knives, plotting."


 
You honestly don't know how shit you are and how shit you look do you? Every day, over and over.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> you sure?  its hardly a hot topic of conversation down this way - was for a bit, and if some of todays revelations are true then that might fire it up again - but this shit doesnt really impact on peoples lives and bent coppers and dodgy hacks is hardly earth shattering news


 
Yep i'm sure.That's why i said it.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Got any vacancies for a slimeball former MP?"


 
Aye. Vaz is bent as a nine bob note.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

butchers - it's that bad I just don't know why you even bother to reply. Still, it's nice to see the old tag team back together.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> To be fair, '11 dinners' hardly strikes me as a _longlasting_ close personal friendship. I wonder if the last dinner went something along the lines of 'look, it's not you, it's me. I just don't see a future in this...'


It's corrupting. I'm not allowed to accept hospitality from a drug company without declaring it in any and every piblication and grant application that relates to their area of business. It's standard where there are potential conflicts of interest. So standard that it is illegal for an American journalist to accept hospitality. It's how proper countries do things. We just have a system of patronage that is only accessible by the rich.

Blatantly stolen from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/14/corrupt-power-cartel-civic-journalism


----------



## smokedout (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yep i'm sure.That's why i said it.


 
fair enough, not convinced myself, will liven up the silly season though i suppose


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> butchers - it's that bad I just don't know why you even bother to reply.


 
It's worth watching to see just how bad you fuck it up each day.


----------



## contadino (Jul 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> actually, the 'fit and proper' threat is just about the biggest leverage the committee has, right now.


 
I'd like to know who in the UK would need to deem the New Corp/NI board as 'not fit & proper' in order for the dominoes to start tumbling.  Is it OFCOM, or the Dept of Culture, Monopolies Commission, or who?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

It's one test OFCOM will apply. But there is the important matter of 3-4 years of related evidence to be assessed (by the PI) as well.... I haven't seen anyone yet discuss how the former can be determined while the latter is still taking evidence. Arguably, this is the first next election issue.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2011)

Sales down compared to this time last year? Summer newspaper sales are always poor. Especially July.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> fair enough, not convinced myself, will liven up the silly season though i suppose


 
what are you not convinced of? there's actual figures further up the thread. i think the sun was 250 thousand down on saturday...


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2011)

I didn't see the figures. Were they adjusted for season and for progressive yearly fall?


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 14, 2011)

LondonCalling - I was responding to weltweit's post which asked 'if you were keith vaz, which questions would you ask?'

Thank you for the clarification though.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

Listen to me and you won't go far wrong....


----------



## contadino (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Has nothing to do with an 'owner'. OFCOM has nothing to do with the USA. Apart from that...


 
Either your comprehension skills are poor, or you're stupid. Publishing licenses are required in pretty much all countries. They are granted by the individual countries regulators. If someone/the board of a company is deemed as 'not fit & proper' by one regulator, then it's pretty likely that will ripple to all other regulators.  So if OFCOM decide that the NI board is 'not fit & proper', then the US regulator will likely follow suit.  Of course in this situation (where Murdochs' businesses are huge US taxpayers, and they pay fuck all in the UK) it may not necessarily follow, but in theory the whole empire could tumble.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Listen to me and you won't go far wrong....


 
One word too many.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

contadino said:


> Either your comprehension skills are poor, or you're stupid. Publishing licenses are required in pretty much all countries. They are granted by the individual countries regulators. If someone/the board of a company is deemed as 'not fit & proper' by one regulator, then it's pretty likely that will ripple to all other regulators.  So if OFCOM decide that the NI board is 'not fit & proper', then the US regulator will likely follow suit.  Of course in this situation (where Murdochs' businesses are huge US taxpayers, and they pay fuck all in the UK) it may not necessarily follow, but in theory the whole empire could tumble.



The issue for OFCOM is whether he is a fit and proper person _to take ownership_ - not be  an (existing) owner. 

Well, it always was, the goalposts may  be in the process of moving all over the show.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I didn't see the figures. Were they adjusted for season and for progressive yearly fall?


 
ah you're right. 'unnofficial industry estimates'. it's all a bit wooly.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2011)

contadino said:


> If someone/the board of a company is deemed as 'not fit & proper' by one regulator, then it's pretty likely that will ripple to all other regulators.


 
Only if the story is big enough.


----------



## contadino (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> The issue for OFCOM is whether he is a fit and proper person _to take ownership_ - not be  an (existing) owner.


 
Oh cobblers. They're renewed every year. No different in essence to a pub license.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

Sort of like a TV license as well. I think we best leave it there.... how is Italy?


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's corrupting. I'm not allowed to accept hospitality from a drug company without declaring it in any and every piblication and grant application that relates to their area of business. It's standard where there are potential conflicts of interest. So standard that it is illegal for an American journalist to accept hospitality. It's how proper countries do things. We just have a system of patronage that is only accessible by the rich.
> 
> Blatantly stolen from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/14/corrupt-power-cartel-civic-journalism



I wasn't condoning having the 11 dinners by any means, just trying to point out that 11 dinners is hardly a friendship spanning a long period of time.

Having worked in companies where registers of interests are common, and being used to declaring any kind of gift (yes, even the box of chocolates I got from a supplier one christmas) I agree that taking 'free' hospitality in this manner compromises impartiality.

I was the one refusing the request of a senior member of staff when they 'suggested' that I should phone competitors and pretend to be a student to obtain confidential information about their products and business plans. I have integrity.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> what are you not convinced of? there's actual figures further up the thread. i think the sun was 250 thousand down on saturday...



im not arguing about the figures, but that's less than 10%, on a saturday when the sun wasnt carrying the biggest story in town - mirror and mail seemed to pick up the readers

and that was nearly a week ago


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> ah you're right. 'unnofficial industry estimates'. it's all a bit wooly.


 
It always is. The Sun can lose hundreds of thousands of readers as the resorts in malaga and magaluf fill up.

Circulation figures aren't worth the paper they're no longer printed on.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Listen to me and you won't go far wrong....



I tend to make up my own mind


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Rupert and James have agreed to appear on Tuesday, following summons being served. On TV now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> im not arguing about the figures, but that's less than 10%, on a saturday when the sun wasnt carrying the biggest story in town - mirror and mail seemed to pick up the readers
> 
> and that was nearly a week ago


Which shows what though? I'm not being obtuse or argumentative but i find the claim that 'real people' aren't interested in this absolutley amazing as it's simply not not my experience.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 14, 2011)

Using your personal experience to judge what millions of disparate people think is rarely a good idea.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Using your personal experience to judge what millions of disparate people think is rarely a good idea.


 
Bing-fucking -go.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> The issue for OFCOM is whether he is a fit and proper person _to take ownership_ - not be  an (existing) owner.
> 
> Well, it always was, the goalposts may  be in the process of moving all over the show.


 
No, They have an ongoing duty to monitor all owners of broadcast media. Not fit and proper applies to all their holdings in the UK. They would have to sell their existing stake in BSkyB if they were found not fit and proper.

If you spent more time stocking your brain, you wouldn't have to resort to pulling shit straight out of your arse.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

*cough*

New news people. 



ymu said:


> Rupert and James have agreed to appear on Tuesday, following summons being served. On TV now.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> No, They have an ongoing duty to monitor all owners of broadcast media. Not fit and proper applies to all their holdings in the UK. They would have to sell their existing stake in BSkyB if they were found not fit and proper.
> 
> If you spent more time stocking your brain, you wouldn't have to resort to pulling shit straight out of your arse.


 
The first sentence: Ofcom may not grant a licence to anyone unless they are satisfied that they are "fit and proper".

My arse thinks  'grant' would suggest a prospective buyer.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Using your personal experience to judge what millions of disparate people think is rarely a good idea.


 
Have you been following this story at all? Do you know how and why this is happening? Do you have any basis in what is actually happening for what you are saying, or is it just a generalised pearl of wisdom you are dropping whilst remaining clueless about the actual situation you are applying it to?


----------



## Dan U (Jul 14, 2011)

Notw to run full page adverts saying sorry and sounding out advertisers for 9th august for sun on Sunday launch.

On phone so can't link atm


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> The first sentence: Ofcom may not grant a licence to anyone unless they are satisfied that they are "fit and proper".


Can you read more than one sentence in a row? Cos the regulations are a fair bit more than one sentence and you will struggle if you can only hold one thought in your head at a time.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> The first sentence: Ofcom may not grant a licence to anyone unless they are satisfied that they are "fit and proper".
> 
> My arse thinks  'grant' would suggest a prospective buyer.


 
Does being granted a license mean that it's yours in perpetuity? You simply cannot help yourself can you? It's genius in a mad way.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

Before taking ownership, is the relevant issue here.


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> The first sentence: Ofcom may not grant a licence to anyone unless they are satisfied that they are "fit and proper".
> 
> My arse thinks  'grant' would suggest a prospective buyer.


 well your arse is as thick as your head then.  By your logic, no one who committed a foul and heinous crime after they'd passed the test once could be debarred from holding a lcence.  That is obviously nonsense.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

Ofcom,a body set up to monitor stuff who don't monitor stuff. They only judge who they can monitor. As i said, it's very funny this. More please london_calliing.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> No, They have an ongoing duty to monitor all owners of broadcast media. Not fit and proper applies to all their holdings in the UK. They would have to sell their existing stake in BSkyB if they were found not fit and proper.



Has anybody got any info on how a black mark against NewsCorp by Ofcom would play out in China,someone mentioned it would keep them out of the Chinese market for ten years but I can't find any info with google.Murdoch has already dropped the BBC news channel from Star TV to appease the Chinese government and I suspect the real damage to them would be done by the Chinese authorities if they become upset by their behaviour in Western countries.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Before taking ownership, is the relevant issue here.


Not if you're denying that it affects the rest of their stake in BSkyB it isn't.

You really don't know how stupid you are, do you? Willful ignorance has that effect.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ofcom,a body set up to monitor stuff who don't monitor stuff. They only judge who they can monitor. As i said, it's very funny this. More please london_calliing.


 
Here you go then:


> To my knowledge, the "fit and proper" provision has never yet been interpreted on the basis of whether or not someone in charge of a company which owns a broadcaster has or may have committed a criminal offence.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jul/06/news-corporation-mediabusiness


So, ownership and fit and proper has never been tested in this sense. Prospective ownership and fit and proper....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Here you go then:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jul/06/news-corporation-mediabusiness


 Thank you for linking to an article i read a week or so ago. Now, what's your point?


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> So, ownership and fit and proper has never been tested in this sense. Prospective ownership and fit and proper....


Which is very different to what you were saying mere moments ago.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

peterkro said:


> Has anybody got any info on how a black mark against NewsCorp by Ofcom would play out in China,someone mentioned it would keep them out of the Chinese market for ten years but I can't find any info with google.Murdoch has already dropped the BBC news channel from Star TV to appease the Chinese government and I suspect the real damage to them would be done by the Chinese authorities if they become upset by their behaviour in Western countries.


 
No idea. China has a very hands off policy on the internal politics of its client states. I doubt it extends to business interests though. They're more likely to confiscate his assets and run it themselves, I think. IIRC they did that to BP, but I may be misremembering.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 14, 2011)

BBC reporting FBI investigating News Corp?!


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

Oh dear, the first sign of the golden nectar taking hold for the evening...


----------



## smokedout (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Which shows what though? I'm not being obtuse or argumentative but i find the claim that 'real people' aren't interested in this absolutley amazing as it's simply not not my experience.


 
i think they were, the millie dowler thing and the screws being pulled for sure, but its just a bit of a saga now, not sure most people trust or even give a fuck about official enquiries and whats said in the house - doesnt mean its not significant because its part of a much larger disillusionment, but its just another story in the papers now

not explaining myself very well, its just got a bit, well boring i suppose - its not going to impact on peoples day to day lives at all and theres a lot of things happening in the background that will


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Can we just put the time-wasters on mass ignore.

The Murdochs are obeying the summonses they received today. More interesting shit to talk about than indulging pantomimers.


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Oh dear, the first sign of the golden nectar taking hold for the evening...


 
you're clearly pissed already.  Cant you just admit you were wrong?


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2011)

Can we keep this thread on topic please rather than have people fill it up with groundless speculation about the amount of alcohol contributors may or may not have imbibed?  Ta.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

There's nothing "groundless" about a daily event.


----------



## laptop (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> *cough*
> 
> New news people.


 
And here is James's letter confirming attendance, and Rupert's (PDF).

He seems to be reserving the option of not answering questions (on the grounds that they may prejudice prosecutions, he says).

Sorry, can't paste from it - in fact it's in the middle of crashing my browser.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

laptop said:


> And here is James's letter confirming attendance, and Rupert's (PDF).
> 
> He seems to be reserving the option of not answering questions (on the grounds that they may prejudice prosecutions, he says).
> 
> Sorry, can't paste from it - in fact it's in the middle of crashing my browser.


The same as rebekah, as i mentioned earlier.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Wrong committee welt


 
oh, ok, thanks.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 14, 2011)

So, next Tuesday for the next big thing in this story. The main protaganists, though I just saw an MP member of the committee on TV and she did not seem a very incisive type. 

Contacting hacking victims at a rate of 30 a week, the police enquiry has months or years to run. 30 a week, seems painfully slow to me. 

The FBI may, or may not have an investigation underway into the possibility that News International sought to hack 9/11 victims phones. They will neither confirm or deny the existance of the enquiry.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> The company was the cheapest bidder of three. If it went out to tender and the job was done properly....


precisely, which is why I said about 'due diligence'. prove there wasn't nd there's a VERY juicy corruption issue


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> not explaining myself very well, its just got a bit, well boring i suppose - its not going to impact on peoples day to day lives at all and theres a lot of things happening in the background that will



Yep ---- someone else , (VP ?) made the same point earlier ---- still agree.


----------



## paolo (Jul 14, 2011)

editor said:


> Can we keep this thread on topic please rather than have people fill it up with groundless speculation about the amount of alcohol contributors may or may not have imbibed?  Ta.


 
I'm not exactly known for lining up behind Editor, but yes, please... This thread is fucking *ace* when it's not degenerating.

Keep the focus people


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 14, 2011)

FBI launching an investigation into 9/11 hacking claims.


----------



## laptop (Jul 14, 2011)

weltweit said:


> So, next Tuesday for the next big thing in this story.



Barring early leaks from the FBI investigation, if it's on - the FBI told the BBC it was "credible"...

Or other unexpected news... Prince Charles wading in...



weltweit said:


> The main protaganists, though I just saw an MP member of the committee on TV and she did not seem a very incisive type.



It only takes two incisive questioners on the Select Committee, and I think I see more than three here:


Mr John Whittingdale MP (Chair)                                   
Ms Louise Bagshawe MP
Dr Thérèse Coffey MP
Damian Collins MP                                                 
Philip Davies MP
Paul Farrelly MP
Alan Keen MP
Mr Adrian Sanders MP
Jim Sheridan MP
Mr Tom Watson MP 	(Con)



weltweit said:


> Contacting hacking victims at a rate of 30 a week, the police enquiry has months or years to run. 30 a week, seems painfully slow to me.



Each spends most of a day with three or so detectives, according to the one I've spoken to. So 30 a week is tying up 15-20 plod...


----------



## Dan U (Jul 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> precisely, which is why I said about 'due diligence'. prove there wasn't nd there's a VERY juicy corruption issue



in local govt, if its under £70k you don't need to tender it


----------



## weltweit (Jul 14, 2011)

Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks wrote letters to the select committee, which then seemingly moments later were read out live on BBC News. 

Does that seem right? Strange though it may seem I think they might have expected their letters to have had some privacy  funny ..


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 14, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Sales down compared to this time last year? Summer newspaper sales are always poor. Especially July.


Their sales have NEVER gone down that much, that quickly - not even hillsborough did that, outside of Merseyside and sheffield


----------



## laptop (Jul 14, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks wrote letters to the select committee, which then seemingly moments later were read out live on BBC News.
> 
> Does that seem right? Strange though it may seem I think they might have expected their letters to have had some privacy  funny ..


 
Odds on _they_ released the letters to the Press Association. Saves dealing with requests... fits with the protestations of openness about crimes, so long as they're other people's...


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2011)

why?  i bet they released them themselves


----------



## pocketscience (Jul 14, 2011)

peterkro said:


> Has anybody got any info on how a black mark against NewsCorp by Ofcom would play out in China,someone mentioned it would keep them out of the Chinese market for ten years but I can't find any info with google.Murdoch has already dropped the BBC news channel from Star TV to appease the Chinese government and I suspect the real damage to them would be done by the Chinese authorities if they become upset by their behaviour in Western countries.



I wouldn't put it past digger to have been passing on politically sensitive information (gained through hacking politicians) to the Chinese government, just to gain favourable contract awards in the new land of plenty... Now that'd be really juicy.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 14, 2011)

Dan U said:


> in local govt, if its under £70k you don't need to tender it


fair enough, but I don't think it was, it was the Met, whose rules are different IIRC, and they _did_ put to tender, to 3 firms


----------



## weltweit (Jul 14, 2011)

laptop said:


> ...
> It only takes two incisive questioners on the Select Committee, and I think I see more than three here:
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry to admit, but I've never heard of any of them. 



laptop said:


> Each spends most of a day with three or so detectives, according to the one I've spoken to. So 30 a week is tying up 15-20 plod...


 
Just seems like a slow and laborious process. 
It is going to take a long long time.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

laptop said:


> Odds on _they_ released the letters to the Press Association. Saves dealing with requests... fits with the protestations of openness about crimes, so long as they're other people's...


 
The originaol CCs were in the letters on the guardian sites. They were for public consumption.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> fair enough, but I don't think it was, it was the Met, whose rules are different IIRC, and they _did_ put to tender, to 3 firms



yeah could well be different rules. it stinks regardless!


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

Someone sent me this on the relationship between Andy Coulson and Andy Hayman. It *may* explain the smearing of  Jean Charles de Menezes:



> – The article states as fact that Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing “a bulky winter coat despite the warm weather” (i.e. something conspicuous that might have hidden a bomb belt). He wasn’t.
> 
> – The article states as fact that the police shouted a challenge to Jean Charles de Menezes “screaming for him to stop”. They hadn’t.
> 
> ...



http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2010/12/andy-coulson-andy-hayman/


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> The first sentence: Ofcom may not grant a licence to anyone unless they are satisfied that they are "fit and proper".
> 
> My arse thinks  'grant' would suggest a prospective buyer.


No; Licences are renewed annually, and at that point, 'fit and proper' can be reviewed. Plus, Ofcom has the power to review 'fit and proper' status at any point, if they deem events have rendered it necessary - a part of their statutory powers given them SPECIFICALLY to deal with situations like this


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Someone sent me this on the relationship between Andy Coulson and Andy Hayman. It *may* explain the smearing of  Jean Charles de Menezes:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2010/12/andy-coulson-andy-hayman/



Or read the thread. Always an option.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 14, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Circulation figures aren't worth the paper they're no longer printed on.


rubbish; the media industry takes ABCs very seriously indeed; it's how you sell ads, for one thing.


----------



## Ranbay (Jul 14, 2011)




----------



## smokedout (Jul 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> rubbish; the media industry takes abcs very seriously indeed; it's how you sell ads, for one thing.


 
all the more reason for them not to be true


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

laptop said:


> Each spends most of a day with three or so detectives, according to the one I've spoken to. So 30 a week is tying up 15-20 plod...


Akers has 45 full-time.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> No; Licences are renewed annually, and at that point, 'fit and proper' can be reviewed. Plus, Ofcom has the power to review 'fit and proper' status at any point, if they deem events have rendered it necessary - a part of their statutory powers given them SPECIFICALLY to deal with situations like this


 Specifially, OFCOM invoked this test (last week) in relation to a_ prospective owner _of all of BSkyB. But yes, there is an on going test - but not one that has ever been tested in relation to criminal activity. Let alone, as yet, unproven criminal activity.

Had this gone ahead and _then_ criminal activity been proven, the Murdoch's could have stepped down from the Board - but News Corp would still have BSkyB.


----------



## laptop (Jul 14, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Sorry to admit, but I've never heard of any of them.


 
Tom Watson is the one who's been plugging away at this as in Parliament long as Nick Davies on the _Grauniad_ has been...


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Specifially, OFCOM invoked this test (last week) in relation to a_ prospective owner _of all of BSkyB. But yes, there is an on going test - but not one that has ever been tested in relation to criminal activity. Let alone, as yet, unproven criminal activity.
> 
> Had this gone ahead and _then_ criminal activity been proven, the Murdoch's could have stepped down from the Board - but News Corp would still have BSkyB.


different to what you were arguing though; the fact is, OFCOM and/or DCMS have that power


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> all the more reason for them not to be true


but they are, cos ad sellers and buyers rely on them; the ABC has ALWAYS been an independent, rigorous and respected body


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Sorry to admit, but I've never heard of any of them.


 
Sheridan is one of those rare Labour MPs who is acxtually working class.  Farrelly is an ex-journo.

Bagshawe is a talentless scumbag who wrote shitty chick lit


----------



## weltweit (Jul 14, 2011)

laptop said:


> Tom Watson is the one who's been plugging away at this as in Parliament long as Nick Davies on the _Grauniad_ has been...


 
I am sure Watson thinks all his Christmasses have come at once!!


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

The advertising boycotts of last week or so would be as nothing to what would happen if anyone were caught trying to tamper with the ABC...


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks wrote letters to the select committee, which then seemingly moments later were read out live on BBC News.
> 
> Does that seem right? Strange though it may seem I think they might have expected their letters to have had some privacy  funny ..


 
Murdoch has been leaking stuff via the BBC all week. You need to read the thread, welt. It helps with the following the story thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

belboid said:


> Sheridan is one of those rare Labour MPs who is acxtually working class.  Farrelly is an ex-journo.
> 
> Bagshawe is a talentless scumbag who wrote shitty chick lit


 
BBC love her, expect to see her over-fed middle brow face everywhere for a bit.


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Specifially, OFCOM invoked this test (last week) in relation to a_ prospective owner _of all of BSkyB. But yes, there is an on going test - but not one that has ever been tested in relation to criminal activity. Let alone, as yet, unproven criminal activity.
> 
> Had this gone ahead and _then_ criminal activity been proven, the Murdoch's could have stepped down from the Board - but News Corp would still have BSkyB.


 

Wrong again. The Murdochs failing the test would leadf to the exclusion of all of NI.  Ofcom aren't as gullible as you seem to be


----------



## weltweit (Jul 14, 2011)

I see the commons goes into recess on the 19th July.. 

Do the committees sit during recess?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> Murdoch has been leaking stuff via the BBC all week. You need to read the thread, welt. It helps with the following the story thing.


 
As it happens ymu I have read EVERY post !!


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Sorry. You need to _remember _what you've read.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I see the commons goes into recess on the 19th July..
> 
> Do the committees sit during recess?


 No, they do sit on Tuesday next though.


----------



## laptop (Jul 14, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Do the committees sit during recess?



Not usually, IIRC.

But I think they can empower themselves to do so - you want to sift through this search?


----------



## paolo (Jul 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> The advertising boycotts of last week or so would be as nothing to what would happen if anyone were caught trying to tamper with the ABC...


 
Sure, but looking ahead they could start trying to mask things by using bulks. Although that would only stretch so far.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

laptop said:


> Not usually, IIRC.
> 
> But I think they can empower themselves to do so - you want to sift through this search?


 They are an extension of the house, so the house must be sitting. 99.89% on that.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 14, 2011)

laptop said:


> Not usually, IIRC.
> 
> But I think they can empower themselves to do so - you want to sift through this search?


 
Interesting search.... 

So it seems the Murdochs might have been trying to take the heat off for the duration of the summer by not being present on Tuesday, unless the committee decided to sit in recess. Anyhow an irellevance as they have now been compelled to attend and will. 

Still, if they can get through Tuesday, there may be a let up in pressure while Parliament is not sittiing.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Sure, but looking ahead they could start trying to mask things by using bulks. Although that would only stretch so far.


 
Bulks are already declared.


----------



## laptop (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They are an extension of the house, so the house must be sitting. 99.89% on that.



Somewhere in that search there's a New Zealand Select Committee that did empower itself.

A way could be found, I'm sure. An extended session of Parliament but with no sittings in either House, apart from daily prayers, for example.

On the other hand, some of those MPs will have booked holidays


----------



## weltweit (Jul 14, 2011)

laptop said:


> ...
> On the other hand, some of those MPs will have booked holidays


 
hmm, perhaps Rupert Murdoch came back to Britain a couple of weeks too early!!


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

Any more on this danielle jones thing?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 14, 2011)

put money on Diana being hacked next.

the holy trinity of fail hacks  - Dead soldiers families , victims of peadophile killers and St Diana


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Jade Goody and family by the end of the weekend.

Cancer victim box ticked, with celeb angle.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Just ring up the Met and ask if X is on the list. They'd probably tell you.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Any more on this danielle jones thing?


 
Anyone?


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2011)

not-bono-ever said:


> put money on Diana being hacked next.
> 
> the holy trinity of fail hacks  - Dead soldiers families , victims of peadophile killers and St Diana


 
naah, she was dead before RIPA was brought in


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Anyone?


 
not yet, it appears


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

Ulrika-ka-ka!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Anyone?


 Patience


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2011)

Ugh. Just saw a clip of Clegg's Sixth Form Debating Society moral outrage play-acting. What a cunting dicksplash.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

clegg isn't going to get any traction from this is he? seems to me he's leapt in a few days too late...


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 14, 2011)

ymu said:


> Ulrika-ka-ka!



to be fair, and Im not excusing it- so dont start , but given her track record with courting the press over the years & her PR ,her number would be well known to the hacks anyway.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2011)

no worries, was just curious.


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> clegg isn't going to get any traction from this is he? seems to me he's leapt in a few days too late...


 
aha! it seems not.



> Latest YouGov/Sun results 14th July CON 36%, LAB 43%, LD 9%; APPROVAL -26


----------



## peterkro (Jul 14, 2011)

Incidentally and I assume most people know this.NewsCorp dropped £5 billion on it's stock value on Monday this on a corporation who's total value is £50 billion,it has however recovered in the last couple of days,what happened?NewsCorp is buying up it's own shares to try and put a brake on a share dive.Where has the cash come from?The fighting fund to get total control of BskyB that's where.Capitalism is essentially a huge confidence trick and when people get a glimpse of the internal workings they are in real trouble, I'm not saying NewsCorp is on its last legs but a huge exit of capital is looking more and more likely.


----------



## ymu (Jul 14, 2011)

not-bono-ever said:


> to be fair, and Im not excusing it- so dont start , but given her track record with courting the press over the years & her PR ,her number would be well known to the hacks anyway.


All troops welcome at the front.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 14, 2011)

Jesus fucking Christ, just catching up with the thread, London_Calling's been like some kind of an asteroid that keeps falling and falling down and just does't know to how to land. 

*STOP POLLUTING THE THREAD WITH SHIT COMMENTS.*

thank you in advance.


----------



## laptop (Jul 14, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Any more on this danielle jones thing?


 
No new news that I can find. But there will be, I am sure:



> *Danielle Jones murder case likely to be re-examined in light of phone-hacking scandal*
> 
> ...The conviction relied upon forensic authorship analysis of text messages sent on Danielle’s mobile phone.
> 
> 5 July: http://www.yourthurrock.com/2011/07...e-examined-in-light-of-phone-hacking-scandal/


----------



## laptop (Jul 14, 2011)

Hmmm...



> It also emerged Sara Payne, whose eight-year-old daughter Sarah was murdered by Roy Whiting in 2000, believes her phone messages were illegally accessed and plans to sue.
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...t-cases-probed-115875-23252845/#ixzz1S7MDTV3t



That'd be the Sara Payne on the back of whose tragedy Rebecca Thing constructed a circulation-building campaign...


----------



## laptop (Jul 14, 2011)

me said:
			
		

> 06-07-2011 11:04
> 
> It would, of course, be a terrible irony if it turned out that the NotW's activities rendered unsafe the convictions of child-murderers such as Ian Huntley, or the lesser-known uncle of Danielle Jones, wouldn't it?



Odds shortening rapidly...


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

laptop said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> 
> 
> That'd be the Sara Payne on the back of whose tragedy Rebecca Thing constructed a circulation-building campaign...


 
i guess there's that big story london calling was after. doesn't look like it's letting up to me...


----------



## smokedout (Jul 14, 2011)

not-bono-ever said:


> put money on Diana being hacked next.
> 
> the holy trinity of fail hacks  - Dead soldiers families , victims of peadophile killers and St Diana



dont you remember squidgygate - everyone loved phone hacking back then


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Oh dear, the first sign of the golden nectar taking hold for the evening...


 
Ah, your old fallback. Start accusing BA of being a pisshead.

Your problem is that he makes more good sense pissed than you do sober.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Someone sent me this on the relationship between Andy Coulson and Andy Hayman. It *may* explain the smearing of  Jean Charles de Menezes:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2010/12/andy-coulson-andy-hayman/


 
Some pisshead posted a link to the same information a couple of pages (at least) ago.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> but they are, cos ad sellers and buyers rely on them; the ABC has ALWAYS been an independent, rigorous and respected body


 
Independent, yes. Rigorous in a relaxed sort of way, but respected? They still include bulks in their figures for dailies sales, FFS!


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 14, 2011)

LC at least posted a link in relation to his post.


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2011)

laptop said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> That'd be the Sara Payne on the back of whose tragedy Rebecca Thing constructed a circulation-building campaign...


 
It is safest to assume that _anyone_ who was connected to a story, even second- or third-hand, that was covered by a tabloid during the past twelve years was the victim of one or other of these dark arts.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 14, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> LC at least posted a link in relation to his post.


 
Sort of like I did 10hours ago. Or not


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

peterkro said:


> Incidentally and I assume most people know this.NewsCorp dropped £5 billion on it's stock value on Monday this on a corporation who's total value is £50 billion,it has however recovered in the last couple of days,what happened?NewsCorp is buying up it's own shares to try and put a brake on a share dive.Where has the cash come from?The fighting fund to get total control of BskyB that's where.Capitalism is essentially a huge confidence trick and when people get a glimpse of the internal workings they are in real trouble, I'm not saying NewsCorp is on its last legs but a huge exit of capital is looking more and more likely.


 
It's probably not just a case of buying them up to put a brake on the share price drop, so much as also taking advantage of the fall to expand their holding cheaply (which would partially explain the price stabilising). They do, after all, have a considerable cash reserve.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> LC at least posted a link in relation to his post.


 
So did BA (for it was he!).


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 14, 2011)

agricola said:


> It is safest to assume that _anyone_ who was connected to a story, even second- or third-hand, that was covered by a tabloid during the past twelve years was the victim of one or other of these dark arts.


Anyone interviewed by the police with a phone number
 taken will be on a list for sale.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So did BA (for it was he!).


 I was talking about you, you bamboo eating chump.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> dont you remember squidgygate - everyone loved phone hacking back then


 
To be fair, you didn't need to hack analogue cell-phones, you just needed a scanner capable of scanning the necessary bands.  I bet the poor cunt who heard Chuckie fantasising about being Camilla's tampon dropped his!


----------



## rorymac (Jul 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, your old fallback. Start accusing BA of being a pisshead.
> 
> Your problem is that he makes more good sense pissed than you do sober.



He doesn't half know some serious stuff tbf .. same as lots of you guys. 
It's difficult sometimes for the working class to keep up especially when folks answer questions with more questions !!
It makes you feel like a right clown sometimes .. cos you know you're just not getting it and you can't pretend you do cos folks will only laugh at your posts.
Ha ha .. he's only trying to ask questions n all lol


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

when checking out tom watson's expenses record, was anyone else unsurprised to note that he'd claimed the full amount available for food each year?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 14, 2011)

Looks like the FBI are going to look into the 911 thingy.  And there may be some kind of shareholder class action thingy too against father and son.

Jesus.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> I was talking about you...



Why would I post a link to a link? Who knows where it would end? 



> you bamboo eating chump.


 
You calling me a fucking vegetarian, you cunt?   

When will you people get it through your heads that like every other ursine, we're omnivorous? We likes our steaks, our meat pies and our bacon sangers!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> when checking out tom watson's expenses record, was anyone else unsurprised to note that he'd claimed the full amount available for food each year?


 
Me. I'm unsurprised at any of them being grasping individuals.


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2011)

I think it was a fat joke.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why would I post a link to a link? Who knows where it would end?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I merely meant a link to ba's post.  And you're meant to eat all that stuff but don't.  That's why you're fat.

Anyway...more serious shit hits the fan....link  Britain's most senior plod hired ex-dep-ed of notw Neil Wallisas an advisor during the attempts to reopen the case 2009-10.


> Last night the Met was unable to say whether Sir Paul, who is ultimately responsible for the phone hacking investigation, had told deputy assistant commissioner Sue Akers, the officer leading the day-to-day inquiry of Mr Wallis’s professional relationship with the force.


----------



## gavman (Jul 14, 2011)

xenon said:


> We discussed with  his colleagues (not him personlly) Got his apparent permission by something he'd not said himself. What colleagues? One's leaking how his mental state might be effecting him? Loyal Brownites?
> 
> "On receipt of the information, The Sun approached Mr Brown and discussed with his colleagues how best to present it.
> 
> Those colleagues provided quotes which were used in the published piece which indicated his consent to it."


 
that's brilliant. if you say anything, that's considered consent


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 14, 2011)

That means...notw finds out everything the police are doing in a clear and precise manner, btw.   One single, easy line of communication during a difficult period for both.


----------



## gavman (Jul 14, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> The Sun suddenly develop an interest in the scandal after almost ignoring it since the whole saga broke


 
much like david cameron, then


----------



## rorymac (Jul 14, 2011)

killer b said:


> when checking out tom watson's expenses record, was anyone else unsurprised to note that he'd claimed the full amount available for food each year?



Was I surprised or unsurprised ? Well I wonder exactly how much one man needs to eat in one year ? Does a politician really need three full meals + snacks and that per day ? 
Maybe folks would like to think about that ?


----------



## killer b (Jul 14, 2011)

it was, as santino so helpfully pointed out, and attempt at a fat joke. i guess it is a bit laboured though - carry on.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 14, 2011)

From BBC:

Murdoch defends handling of hacking crisi: 'NewsCorp handled the crisis extremely well' apparently

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14162268

He must be deluded, surely. If ever a crisis was handled extremely well, this was not it.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair, you didn't need to hack analogue cell-phones, you just needed a scanner capable of scanning the necessary bands.  I bet the poor cunt who heard Chuckie fantasising about being Camilla's tampon dropped his!


 
they were the days.  back to my earlier point (that most people are getting bored) is this the crux of it, phone hacking just isnt that bad - sure most people draw the line at hacking dead teenagers phones, but as corporate scandals go, this is hardly bhopal or enron or even the gulf spill, it was a bit naughty and a bit out of order, but no-one died

and where did this whole right to privacy bullshit come from anyway


----------



## agricola (Jul 14, 2011)

Fat or no, Tom Watson's anecdote about Cherie Blair is very good (apologies for using the Mail picture, but I cant find a quote online and cant be arsed to type it out):







edit: its from the second of the Chris Mullin diaries, btw


----------



## weltweit (Jul 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> they were the days.  back to my earlier point (that most people are getting bored) is this the crux of it, phone hacking just isnt that bad - sure most people draw the line at hacking dead teenagers phones, but as corporate scandals go, this is hardly bhopal or enron or even the gulf spill, it was a bit naughty and a bit out of order, but no-one died
> 
> and where did this whole right to privacy bullshit come from anyway


 
I think you misjudge the outrage.

Hacking Millie Dowlers phone during a missing person's hunt, deleting messages!

Hacking the phones of the families of war dead. 

Illegal and outrageous.. 

And what more will emerge from the 4,000 details, who knows!


----------



## gavman (Jul 14, 2011)

.


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2011)

smokedout said:


> but no-one died


 
Jennifer Elliott


----------



## gavman (Jul 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who is this *quisling*  on C4 saying that murdoch's ownership of the times indicates his commitment to the freedom of the press?


 
the editor of the jewish chronicle


----------



## gavman (Jul 14, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> apparently the "sergeant of arms" can arrest Rebecca Brooks and force her to attend the Parliamentary select committee if she fails to show up next week
> 
> what the fuck is the "sergeant of arms"? the beefeater from the tower of london?


 
a man wearing tights


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> and where did this whole right to privacy bullshit come from anyway


if you think the right to privacy's bullshit, why the fuck are you hiding behind an alias?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 15, 2011)

Thought Brown was fairly weak today, blaming others for no enquiry, saying various people blocked it at the time- He was PM ffs, he could have said something - just proved how weak he was tbh


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2011)

marty21 said:


> Thought Brown was fairly weak today, blaming others for no enquiry, saying various people blocked it at the time- He was PM ffs, he could have said something - just proved how weak he was tbh


 the big boys wouldn't let him have an enquiry


----------



## marty21 (Jul 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> the big boys wouldn't let him have an enquiry


 
poor bullied PM


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2011)

marty21 said:


> poor bullied PM


eh? which cunt's bullying me?  eh?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> they were the days.  back to my earlier point (that most people are getting bored) is this the crux of it, phone hacking just isnt that bad - sure most people draw the line at hacking dead teenagers phones, but as corporate scandals go, this is hardly bhopal or enron or even the gulf spill, it was a bit naughty and a bit out of order, but no-one died
> 
> and where did this whole right to privacy bullshit come from anyway


 
Its not just  'a bit of phone hacking'. Its a massive media organosation carrying out industrial scale surveilance on everyone of note. Aside from snooping on slebs and ordinary people in the news -  carried out with the aim of gleaning gossip for their rags  - they were  also keeping tabs on leading MPs, police officers and fuck knows who else (judges? business rivals?)  -  and using the information gathered to blackmail, destroy  or reward anyone who could help or hinder the cause of Rupert Murdoch. That makes him into a gangster.  Thats a vile cancer at the heart of our so called democracy. 

The man held (oh the joy of using the  past tense!) a huge amount of power that was utterly unaccountalbe and used purely for furthering his own self interest.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> eh? which cunt's bullying me?  eh?


 
we need an enquiry


----------



## gavman (Jul 15, 2011)

.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 15, 2011)

I have a question about the clearance the Prime Minister's personnel must have to work at Downing Street. 

I am asking because I still can't get my head around the fact that Cameron employed someone whose background check should have produced _funnies_, and we are talking about the Communications Director who, during his employment, must have had access to sensitive and/or classified information/documents whilst his background was questionable at best criminal at worst implicating the PM himself given that he had authorised the employment. 

Don't they have something like a Yankee White clearance the purpose of which is to, in the long run, proctect the President's office from potentially toxic people? 

This scandal just keeps giving and giving...


----------



## gavman (Jul 15, 2011)

big eejit said:


> According to this the goat was traditionally driven into the wilderness.
> 
> 'And the Goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a Land not inhabited.' (Leviticus XVI, 22)


 
leviticus is truly a source of wisdom


----------



## weltweit (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair, you didn't need to hack analogue cell-phones, you just needed a scanner capable of scanning the necessary bands.  .....


 
I heard (somewhere) that there is a device on the market for listening in to digital mobiles. It is illegal to use it and it is quite expensive, so not for everyone, but I understand it goes into a cell and replicates a mobile mast, somehow gaining the ability to listen in to anyone who is in the same cell. 

I have no idea who would want to use it but it is likely to exist, certainly the security services themselves would never (and did not) permit us a communications technology that they could not eavesdrop into, hence GSM phones are not as secure as would have been possible.


----------



## gavman (Jul 15, 2011)

treelover said:


> on Newsnight last night they had a panel of 'undecided voters' and quizzed them about murdoch, hacking, the politicians response, the mass media, etc, to say they were not engaged, animated by the issues, etc would be an understatement, Paxo looked very embarassed at the bored faces, either they are just apolitical people happy to be on TV, on any programme or the general public is not as exercised by the scandals as we and the media are...


 
another newsnight epic fail. don't inform us what the news is, but ask us instead


----------



## gavman (Jul 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How? I thought only UK subjects could be forced to attend.


 
parliament is a court, so if they are accused or law breaking in this country they can be compelled...in theory


----------



## moochedit (Jul 15, 2011)

Sorry if this has been covered as i've not read all the thread, but when the murdoch's and rebecca thingy give evidence to the parliamentary committee, is it under oath like in court ?
 in other words, can they get done for perjury if they lie  (and later get caught out) ?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 15, 2011)

Investors tell [James] Murdoch to quit as Sky chairman

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-murdoch-to-quit-as-sky-chairman-2313968.html



> Last year, Pirc questioned the independence of seven of the 16 directors on Sky's board. It added yesterday that News Corp also faced "considerable governance questions" and rated it in the worst 5 per cent of S&P 500 companies.
> 
> In the US, corporate governance campaigners are stepping up the pressure for reform of the News Corp board, which the Corporate Library, an activist group, grades at an F for corporate governance risk because too many directors are in thrall to Mr Murdoch.
> 
> ...



And elsewhere in the Independent ... "James Murdoch paid £100,000 to meet Pope"


----------



## gavman (Jul 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I imagine Brooks and Murdoch father and son will already be swotting up the answers they can give to the select committee on Tuesday with their legal team.
> 
> If you were Keith Vaz, what questions would you ask Rupert Rebekah and James?


 
'do you think my accent sounds contrived?'


----------



## teqniq (Jul 15, 2011)

Martin Rawson:


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> LC at least posted a link in relation to his post.


Sorry, but what exactly is is about _"Some pisshead posted a link to the same information a couple of pages (at least) ago. " _that you found hard to understand?


----------



## coltrane (Jul 15, 2011)

Murdoch Senior interview with Wall Street Journal - i'll bet that the journalist conducting him gave him a good grilling:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...4709284.html?mod=WSJEurope_hpp_LEFTTopStories




> "Mr. Murdoch said News Corp. has handled the crisis "extremely well in every way possible," making just "minor mistakes."



Uhuh.



> "People close to the company have said the company has considered a separation or sale of its newspaper assets. Mr. Murdoch, who is famously devoted to the newspaper business, called such reports "pure rubbish. Pure and total rubbish....give it the strongest possible denial you can give."



Like the last bit especially.



> Mr. Murdoch singled out former British Prime Minster Gordon Brown, who in recent days claimed his phone and other information had been obtained illicitly by reporters across News International, including not just News of the World but also the Sunday Times.
> 
> "He got it entirely wrong," Mr. Murdoch said, adding that "the Browns were always friends of ours" until the company's Sun tabloid withdrew its support for the Labour Party before the last election.
> 
> Mr. Murdoch said the new independent committee will be led by a "distinguished non-employee." In addition to looking at charges of impropriety against the company, it will also put together a "protocol for behavior" for new reporters across the company."



Think I see where his point of attack will be. The independent committee sounds really impressive too.


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's the monkey-rapist in a twee outfit who heads up the HoP's internal "police". Usually more usefully deployed finding out who flooded the khazi (usually Soames or Pickles, so I've heard).


 
Isn't the Sergeant *at* Arms still the woman on the right:







Or was Jill Pay fired over letting the cops in to raid Damian Green MP?

E2A: she's still in post. 

Interestingly, an image search for "sergeant at arms" site:.uk parliament comes up with pictures of James and Rupert Murdoch


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 15, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> From BBC:
> 
> Murdoch defends handling of hacking crisis: 'NewsCorp handled the crisis extremely well' apparently, so Rupes claims.
> 
> ...


 
This seemed to have gotten lost in the bickering earlier on in the thread - anybody got any comments on the blatant deludedness of the Murdochs?

My brain just kept going 'WTF???' when I was reading it. He can't be serious, surely?


----------



## gavman (Jul 15, 2011)

moochedit said:


> Sorry if this has been covered as i've not read all the thread, but when the murdoch's and rebecca thingy give evidence to the parliamentary committee, is it under oath like in court ?
> in other words, can they get done for perjury if they lie  (and later get caught out) ?


 
you can refuse to answer questions, but contempt of parliament is the same as contempt of court


----------



## teqniq (Jul 15, 2011)

laptop said:


>



That image should have the caption: "Look, I said I was sorry, there's no need to go off in a huff.."

/derail


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> This seemed to have gotten lost in the bickering earlier on in the thread - anybody got any comments on the blatant deludedness of the Murdochs?
> 
> My brain just kept going 'WTF???' when I was reading it. He can't be serious, surely?


 
I think he's trying to make the following claims true by printing them in his newspaper:



> He said: "We think it's important to absolutely establish our integrity in the eyes of the public... I felt that it's best just to be as transparent as possible."
> 
> But he insisted the damage to his company was "nothing that will not be recovered".
> 
> ...



...and thereby prop up the share price.


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2011)

Have I missed the confirmation that FBI to investigate News Corporation over 9/11 hacking allegations?

But:



> Even if the information contained in the Mirror article could be verified, there might be a problem with moving forward with an investigation because the events were so long ago. Several legal experts, including a former top lawyer for the FBI, said that prosecution under federal wiretapping laws is subject to a five-year statute of limitations.



So it'll have to be a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) prosecution


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 15, 2011)

gavman said:


> you can refuse to answer questions, but contempt of parliament is the same as contempt of court


 
Yep, though it will be the judicial inquiry whereby they would be under oath, Rupert will probably be deemed unfit by the time he is ever called for that.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 15, 2011)

Laptop: I think he's having a laugh. How stupid and gullible does he think people are? Does he really think that his statements will be believed? This kind of crap just damages his position further. How's the share price doing today? Any graphs?


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 15, 2011)

: reply to Little_Legs.     I don't really read newspapers but the issue that this man, you would presume, was given a very high level security clearance is a key part of questioning Camerons judgement/impartiality.  That he took a huge pay cut, as a corrupt dodgy mf, to work somewhere with access to highly sensitive info raises questions that need answering.


----------



## moochedit (Jul 15, 2011)

gavman said:


> you can refuse to answer questions, but contempt of parliament is the same as contempt of court


 
Sweet


----------



## moochedit (Jul 15, 2011)

> British lawmakers took the dramatic step Thursday of issuing a summons to the once all-powerful Murdochs after the father and son said they would not appear before Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Tuesday.
> 
> Within hours, the Murdochs made room in their schedules after all. It was another victory for politicians over the Murdochs -- something that would have been all but unthinkable just two weeks ago.





> For decades, British lawmakers lived in fear of the influence of Murdoch's media empire. With the revelation of widespread criminal hacking, and the public revulsion that followed, Parliament has been liberated, flexing its muscles in a display of freedom some are calling the "British Spring."



and that's in fox news


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> Laptop: I think he's having a laugh. How stupid and gullible does he think people are? Does he really think that his statements will be believed? This kind of crap just damages his position further.



Not, necessarily, in the weird world of share options, governed as it is by traders' percetptions of other traders' perceptions of their perceptions of [continue _ad nauseam_]...



equationgirl said:


> How's the share price doing today? Any graphs?



News Corp on NASDAQ in New York:


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> they were the days.  back to my earlier point (that most people are getting bored) is this the crux of it, phone hacking just isnt that bad - sure most people draw the line at hacking dead teenagers phones, but as corporate scandals go, this is hardly bhopal or enron or even the gulf spill, it was a bit naughty and a bit out of order, but no-one died
> 
> and where did this whole right to privacy bullshit come from anyway


You don't get it, do you. This isn't about hacking. It's about Murdoch wielding power over parliament and police force, using the methods of the mafia to intimidate people into silence and to buy favours, to spread police smears and the securuty agenda, to make five Prime Ministers (at least) and ten or more governments and parliaments accede to his political agenda.

And then he exported it to America in a new form. Fox News, with tabloidisation of their much better media in the planning.

It's not about hacking. Really.


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> This seemed to have gotten lost in the bickering earlier on in the thread - anybody got any comments on the blatant deludedness of the Murdochs?
> 
> My brain just kept going 'WTF???' when I was reading it. He can't be serious, surely?


I've posted that argument a dozen times, but the only response I ever got was L_C calling me Jeffrey for some unfathomable reason.

He doesn't know how to do business without an immense amount of power and intimidation coming into play. They're lost in a perfect storm, and they've thrown the chief witnesses to the wolves. Half the Sky board are leaking against the Murdoch 'family' insiders. It almost brings a tear to my eye, it's so beautiful to watch.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2011)




----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2011)




----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2011)




----------



## 2hats (Jul 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I heard (somewhere) that there is a device on the market for listening in to digital mobiles. It is illegal to use it and it is quite expensive, so not for everyone, but I understand it goes into a cell and replicates a mobile mast, somehow gaining the ability to listen in to anyone who is in the same cell.


 
Doubtless such equipment exists as GSM hacking is well within the reach of 'hobbyists' and this has already been demonstrated (Chaos Computer Club congress last year). Only just this week a real hack for intercepting/faking GSM traffic via femtocells (eg Vodafone Sure Signal) was published. But a security service with access to the main telco cores has little need to resort to these sort of activities. Trojaning a smartphone might also be a viable, indeed preferable option.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 15, 2011)

Thanks for the lovely downwards graph, laptop.


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

FBI. Murdoch. America. Prison. American Prison.

Let's hope they can't afford to go to luxury private jail by the time they go down.


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

Confiscation of assets for a compensation and reparations fund wouldn't be unreasonable, would it?


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

> It's like Harry Potter killed Voldemort. Miliband born to be Potter. Brooks born to be Bellatrix. Ulrika, Mrs Weasley. Cameron is Malfoy, obv


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 15, 2011)

Murdoch must have enemies in the states ,because it as spread to the states

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/nyregion/fbi-opens-inquiry-into-hacking-of-911-victims.html


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

I predict that their act will get increasingly humble as they wake up over the next few days. This could be interesting. Trying not to incriminate themselves whilst also trying to charm the pants off everyone with false contrition. I reckon.


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

Ever wondered howa powerful person looks when they know they're going down?

Example 1: Rupert Murdoch






Example 2: Bernard Madoff


----------



## rorymac (Jul 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> You don't get it, do you. This isn't about hacking. It's about Murdoch wielding power over parliament and police force, using the methods of the mafia to intimidate people into silence and to buy favours, to spread police smears and the securuty agenda, to make five Prime Ministers (at least) and ten or more governments and parliaments accede to his political agenda.
> 
> And then he exported it to America in a new form. Fox News, with tabloidisation of their much better media in the planning.
> 
> It's not about hacking. Really.



I blame the prime ministers and the fucking governments the fuckin useless bunch of clowns. 
And I kind of think it was based on a fallacy .. I don't think Murdoch stopped Kinnock getting into power. I think Kinnock fucked that up himself unwittingly enough tbf. And I don't think Tony Blair or David Cameron had to arse lick him to get elected either. 
Even if I'm wrong I don't reckon I'm as wrong as the likes of Blair or Cameron who ostensibly get elected as leaders of their country and not as fucking dithering idiots kowtowing to a poncy tabloid owner ! 
It's no wonder the likes of Murdoch feels invincible when he's dealing with halfwits for politicians and supposed leaders of a nation. 
Like he'd really have been worried if Ed Milliband became Prime Minister .. he'd laugh his arse off more like.
Fackin country is a joke .. two world wars one world cup and a bunch of dozy thick priviliged tossers !!


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

And for my final Canuck (where is he?), this bears reposting (thanks to whoever posted it earlier, I'd been wondering where Rowson'd been hiding!). He is a genius. This was published before the Murdoch's caved.






Copper with his pants down, shrivelled near naked Murdoch, Cameron with a bloody nose, James hidden behind Rebekah who is standing on a pile of unsold tabloids on top of a pile of shit. Tom Watson is taunting her with his phone.

And that's only half what's in there.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 15, 2011)

Steve bell and Martin rowson have been quite brilliant of late,that made me chuckle


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

OK, not final. Useful AP interview with Nick Davies and how he broke the story, from the Sydney Morning Herald.



> He broke the story that destroyed a 168-year-old newspaper, humiliated one of the world's most powerful media moguls and cast a spotlight on a phone hacking scandal that has embroiled politicians, police and journalists.
> 
> And he says there is more to come.
> 
> ...


----------



## two sheds (Jul 15, 2011)

> Rupert Murdoch has attacked Gordon Brown in a fierce defence of News Corporation's handling of the phone hacking scandal. Murdoch accused British MPs of lying about allegations of corrupt practices at his newspapers.
> ...
> "The Browns were always friends of ours" until the Sun withdrew its support for Labour before the last general election, he told the Wall Street Journal, his flagship US paper.
> 
> ...



Awww.  And awww at getting annoyed about the negative media coverage. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/15/rupert-murdoch-gordon-brown-interview

Well that's a good start to the hearings - accuse MPs of lying. It also suggests a sort of more hands-on approach. To accuse them of lying he's sort of saying he knew about the day-to-day running of the papers. And if he repeats that at the hearings and is proved wrong then he'll have lied to the hearing.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Ever wondered howa powerful person looks when they know they're going down?
> 
> Example 1: Rupert Murdoch
> 
> ...



Example 3 : Conrad Black.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Ever wondered howa powerful person looks when they know they're going down?
> 
> Example 1: Rupert Murdoch
> 
> ...


 


oooh its just like an episode of Lie to me 

If the 9/11 stuff turns out to be true then thats the point where I think the Murdoch empire will start to feel it. this stuff over here is like pissing in the wind


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 15, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> *Steve bell * and Martin rowson have been quite brilliant of late,that made me chuckle


Apols if this has been posted already but


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

Somewhere out there is a huge encrypted file containing all the damning emails that prove 9/11 victims had their cellphones hacked.

Only a matter of time before it ends up on Wikileaks, and then Assange can solidify his position as noble liberator of info with the American people.

The thought of Fox News going off-air and Bill O'Reilly losing his job is most arousing.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> if you think the right to privacy's bullshit, why the fuck are you hiding behind an alias?


 
because i can - i didnt say privacy is bullshit, i said the right to it - if someone said who i was on here i might have a whinge, and even grumble to a mod, i wouldnt call a lawyer


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 15, 2011)

Murdoch is the new Black


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 15, 2011)

#4


----------



## Badgers (Jul 15, 2011)

Can't follow this today


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> You don't get it, do you. This isn't about hacking. It's about Murdoch wielding power over parliament and police force, using the methods of the mafia to intimidate people into silence and to buy favours, to spread police smears and the securuty agenda, to make five Prime Ministers (at least) and ten or more governments and parliaments accede to his political agenda.



yeah, but we knew all that, all we're seeing is some (and only some) of the mechanics of how power operates

the only big shocks were millie and pulling the screws, they were last weeks story

i'm not saying its not important, just commenting on why this story appears to have gone off the boil a bit for most people (which in fairness, it might not have done, not everyone agrees it has)

i thought the newsnight focus group summed it up, everyone was like yeah its bad. no-one was sticking up for murdoch, but theres not much else to say, and beyond westminster and the media it doesnt look like much is going to happen that will actually have any impact on peoples lives


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 15, 2011)

Apols if anyone's posted this already - the Digger interviewed post NOTW-closure on all this here  .  Some of his comments border on...well.....check it out and see what ya reckon.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2011)

the newsnight focus group?  the group explicitly chosen from people who didnt have an opinion?  oh dear oh dear  Way to miss the point, smoky


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 15, 2011)

pk said:


> The thought of Fox News going off-air and Bill O'Reilly losing his job is most arousing.


 
Mr "athism is wrong because science cannot explain why there are tides..."


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 15, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I already do. Well, selected journalism and comment pieces online anyway, as I do the Independent, the Mail, the Telegraph, The Morning Star and so on. Continue to pickle in the jouissance of self-loathing and other stimulants of choice you Sun reading thick tosser.


 
 Have you been made up for entertainment purposes?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jul 15, 2011)

Is lusty reading the Sun this morning?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 15, 2011)

Shareholders to join lawsuits against Murdoch


> Jay Eisenhofer, a corporate governance lawyer representing shareholders bringing the lawsuit, told The Daily Telegraph: “Rupert and James are being sued directly for what they did. They have a direct legal obligation to shareholders and they neglected that. They are personally responsible.”


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2011)

Brooks has resigned according to Guardian.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2011)

Confirmed now.


----------



## Santino (Jul 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Confirmed now.


 
Tweeted by 'David Rose'.


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 15, 2011)

Reported on R4!!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2011)

Santino said:


> Tweeted by 'David Rose'.


 
The good one though, not the one who isn't Hari


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 15, 2011)

the wicked witch has gone!


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 15, 2011)

Eagerly awaiting tears-in-back-of-car shot.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 15, 2011)

Brooks' resignation:



> As chief executive of the company, I feel a deep sense of responsibility for the people we have hurt and I want to reiterate how sorry I am for what we now know to have taken place.
> 
> I have believed that the right and responsible action has been to lead us through the heat of the crisis. However my desire to remain on the bridge has made me a focal point of the debate.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2011)

Her statement is here



> I have believed that the right and responsible action has been to lead us through the heat of the crisis. However my desire to remain on the bridge has made me a focal point of the debate.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 15, 2011)




----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 15, 2011)

i hope the paparazzi keep hounding her 24 hours a day


----------



## Badgers (Jul 15, 2011)

She had gone


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2011)

Right, what do we know about Tom Mockridge  her replacement? Seems to have been in some battles with Berlusconi in Italy.


----------



## dylans (Jul 15, 2011)




----------



## marty21 (Jul 15, 2011)

seems there's a MAJOR BREAKING NEWS  in this story everyday - you'd think someone was managing it


----------



## Badgers (Jul 15, 2011)

No comment from Ross Kemp?


----------



## peterkro (Jul 15, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Brooks' resignation:


 


Translation,they've got clear evidence I knew the law was being broken on a daily basis,I'm off.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 15, 2011)

Badgers said:


> No comment from Ross Kemp?


 
Is that the sound of champagne corks being popped in Kemp Towers I hear?

(And is the brand of champers Chardonnay-Freude?)


----------



## revlon (Jul 15, 2011)

Badgers said:


> No comment from Ross Kemp?


 
he made his excuses and left


----------



## Badgers (Jul 15, 2011)

Ross Kemp doing the Ewok dance


----------



## Flavour (Jul 15, 2011)

what a cynical move! just so she won't be a standing exec when she answers the Qs on tuesday. no doubt her golden parachute is in the seven figure territory


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> they were the days.  back to my earlier point (that most people are getting bored) is this the crux of it, phone hacking just isnt that bad - sure most people draw the line at hacking dead teenagers phones, but as corporate scandals go, this is hardly bhopal or enron or even the gulf spill, it was a bit naughty and a bit out of order, but no-one died



I think that what's probably behind a lot of the shock/anger is that finding out that the media have done this to (insert number here) people pushes you into a situation where it seems logical to conclude "if they can do that, where do they actually stop?".



> and where did this whole right to privacy bullshit come from anyway



I think it's just developed. As we (as a society) become more an more saturated with technologies that have a potential for intrusiveness, people have come to assume (because that's all it really is) that they have a right to privacy.
Now, it's not a foolish assumption by any means, because we exist in a culture that's very focused on "rights", but legally and technically, we have very little real protection against determined snoops.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

laptop said:


> Isn't the Sergeant *at* Arms still the woman on the right:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It's "ser*j*eant", by the way.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 15, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Was I surprised or unsurprised ? Well I wonder exactly how much one man needs to eat in one year ? Does a politician really need three full meals + snacks and that per day ?
> Maybe folks would like to think about that ?


 
MP's expenses for food can include feeding their office staff when working odd hours, and also providing food for meetings. That's primarily what it's intended for and only covers what the MP actually eats whilst they are on parliamentary business. I would hope most MPs in poorer constituencies claim their full allowance for food and manage to come up with ways to spend it on feeding groups of their constituents whenever they can come up with an excuse.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 15, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Ross Kemp doing the Ewok dance


 
Always had him down more as a Chewbacca figure  ....do Wookies bust out the moves on Kayyshak?

(And if Kemp is Chewbacca, what would Brooks be?  I'm thinking currently of that main assistant to Jabba The Hutt in "Return of the Jedi"....or would she be the initial dancer lady for Murdoch The Hutt, who then gets gobbled up by the Rancor of truth, justice, public opinion etc?)


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that what's probably behind a lot of the shock/anger is that finding out that the media have done this to (insert number here) people pushes you into a situation where it seems logical to conclude "if they can do that, where do they actually stop?".



yeah i suppose so



> I think it's just developed. As we (as a society) become more an more saturated with technologies that have a potential for intrusiveness, people have come to assume (because that's all it really is) that they have a right to privacy.
> Now, it's not a foolish assumption by any means, because we exist in a culture that's very focused on "rights", but legally and technically, we have very little real protection against determined snoops.



agree again.  i'm not saying im in favour or against it really, i'm not sure.  just that this is something thats developed without any real discussion on what it means, and by and large it exists to serve the agenda of the rich and powerful.  squidgygate proves this kind of thing was routine only 20 years ago, pretty hard to avoid when conversations were flying through the air unprotected - as i recall the only real note of dissent was the fact it happened to charlie and di, not that it was going on

now weve got to the point where a public figure like mosley can keep what was arguably criminal activity out of the press just so his missus doesnt find out what he's really up to - what we're basically talking about it the right to keep secrets, keeping secrets is fine, but you have to be careful and if you really dont want to be found out then you dont do it - id say it was the individuals responsibility to keep their own secrets, not the responsibility of anyone who might have found out

(obv phone hacking is a bit of a greyish area)


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> they were the days.  back to my earlier point (that most people are getting bored) is this the crux of it, phone hacking just isnt that bad - sure most people draw the line at hacking dead teenagers phones, but as corporate scandals go, this is hardly bhopal or enron or even the gulf spill, it was a bit naughty and a bit out of order, but no-one died
> 
> and where did this whole right to privacy bullshit come from anyway


 
They didn't just hack Millie Dowler's voicemail. They deleted messages on it in the early days of the police investigation of her disappearance. It's far more than privacy. It's about the NotW assuming the right to interfere with a police investigation and to mislead the parents of a missing teenager in the hope that they might find a story... and then bribing and blackmailing people to cover it up afterwards.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 15, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Always had him down more as a Chewbacca figure  ....do Wookies bust out the moves on Kayyshak?



Kashyyyk.

(Sorry. Geek.)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

Szare said:


> what a cynical move! just so she won't be a standing exec when she answers the Qs on tuesday. no doubt her golden parachute is in the seven figure territory


 
She and the Murdochs are very likely hoping her resignation will draw some of the heat from any parliamentary or public enquiry.

I hope the exact opposite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Always had him down more as a Chewbacca figure  ....do Wookies bust out the moves on Kayyshak?
> 
> (And if Kemp is Chewbacca, what would Brooks be?  I'm thinking currently of that main assistant to Jabba The Hutt in "Return of the Jedi"....or would she be the initial dancer lady for Murdoch The Hutt, who then gets gobbled up by the Rancor of truth, justice, public opinion etc?)


 
You know what worries me? How pleased Chewbacca looks when he's among the Ewoks.  He has an expression akin to paedos walking past school gates.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You know what worries me? How pleased Chewbacca looks when he's among the Ewoks.  He has an expression akin to paedos walking past school gates.


 
chewbacca was a nonce, now thats a scoop


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> Just ring up the Met and ask if X is on the list. They'd probably tell you.


 
Can't afford to bribe police officers, apparently it's not something taken into consideration when they decide on how much income support I get.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 15, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Kashyyyk.
> 
> (Sorry. Geek.)


 
Yer right   (I did once sit through "Star Wars Holiday Special" which was set on said planet, and whose name was mentioned (or grunted, in the case of the Wookies) muchly).


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

Holloway Prison has a cell ready for Rebekah Brooks.

Let's hope she is able to spend time there soon.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> chewbacca was a nonce, now thats a scoop


 
Did someone hack the comms system of the Millenium Falcon? 

"Many people died to bring you this information".


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> squidgygate proves this kind of thing was routine only 20 years ago,


 
it was legal then, a bit cheeky, but nothing unlawful. you do understand the difference, dont you?


----------



## Santino (Jul 15, 2011)

Ha, just realised Brooks has gone when half the BBC news department is on strike.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

belboid said:


> it was legal then, a bit cheeky, but nothing unlawful. you do understand the difference, dont you?


 
of course do and companies arent supposed to break the law, neither are people but they do.  what happened with millie was obviously bang out of order, and i think most people would draw the line at hacking into phones of crime victims etc.  im not sure people feel the same about celebs and politicians, i dont think most people care - and as for browns intervention, whilst of course it must have been sad that it came out about his kid the way it did, but he was the fucking chancellor, doesnt it kind of come with the territory


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Did someone hack the comms system of the Millenium Falcon?
> 
> "Many people died to bring you this information".


 
chewbaccas lawyer just called and im not allowed to discuss it anymore, sorry


----------



## Santino (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> but he was the fucking chancellor, doesnt it kind of come with the territory


 
Why does it come with the territory?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> of course do and companies arent supposed to break the law, neither are people but they do.  what happened with millie was obviously bang out of order, and i think most people would draw the line at hacking into phones of crime victims etc.  im not sure people feel the same about celebs and politicians, i dont think most people care - and as for browns intervention, whilst of course it must have been sad that it came out about his kid the way it did, but he was the fucking chancellor, doesnt it kind of come with the territory



Dodgy mortgages?  Fair dos.  Dying kid?  Get to fuck.

Yes, everyone always knew this kinda thing went on. And it was accepted with a shrug and a 'what can you do?'  But now, people have found out that they can (maybe) do something, and boy, are they/we reveling in it.


----------



## 8den (Jul 15, 2011)

laptop said:


> Have I missed the confirmation that FBI to investigate News Corporation over 9/11 hacking allegations?
> 
> But:
> 
> ...




Well then we just need to bring the big guns to bear.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

Santino said:


> Why does it come with the territory?


 
because people are interested


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> squidgygate proves this kind of thing was routine only 20 years ago, pretty hard to avoid when conversations were flying through the air unprotected - as i recall the only real note of dissent was the fact it happened to charlie and di, not that it was going on



I don't think 'squidgygate' is very relevant, because whichever version of the story you believe, it wasn't a phone hack by the media.

Either - as first reported - it was recorded by an amateur radio ham who overheard the conversation by chance.  More recently it's been suggested - credibly - that the recording actually came from a landline tap by the security services, was edited to make it sound more like a mobile phone, and then deliberately broadcast where it was likely to be overheard in an attempt to smear Di.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> I don't think 'squidgygate' is very relevant, because whichever version of the story you believe, it wasn't a phone hack by the media.



neither was all this as such


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> neither was all this as such


 


'Hacking' isn't a completely accurate term, but this _is_ about journalists illegally accessing individuals' voicemails: squidgygate was not.


----------



## Santino (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> because people are interested


 
So bank accounts were broken into, phones hacked, computers hacked... because people are interested? Is that what you think?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> yeah i suppose so
> 
> 
> 
> agree again.  i'm not saying im in favour or against it really, i'm not sure.  just that this is something thats developed without any real discussion on what it means, and by and large it exists to serve the agenda of the rich and powerful.  squidgygate proves this kind of thing was routine only 20 years ago, pretty hard to avoid when conversations were flying through the air unprotected - as i recall the only real note of dissent was the fact it happened to charlie and di, not that it was going on



I think that part of the problem with a codified right to privacy would be that it would (at least going on current trends) be expensive to enforce, and therefore, like libel, available more to the rich than to "ordinary people".

As for "Squidgygate", the type of "hacking" then was very different: Mere interception of an unencrypted radio signal seems a bit more innocent nowadays than bribing or duping access codes from telecoms staff.



> now weve got to the point where a public figure like mosley can keep what was arguably criminal activity out of the press just so his missus doesnt find out what he's really up to - what we're basically talking about it the right to keep secrets, keeping secrets is fine, but you have to be careful and if you really dont want to be found out then you dont do it - id say it was the individuals responsibility to keep their own secrets, not the responsibility of anyone who might have found out
> 
> (obv phone hacking is a bit of a greyish area)


 
I can't say I disagree.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Kashyyyk.)


 
Gesundheit!


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

Santino said:


> Ha, just realised Brooks has gone when half the BBC news department is on strike.


 
Undoubtedly the very last act of spite against the BBC she will ever undertake.

Even if she didn't mean to. I'm sure BBC have already put together her obituary in case she decides to do herself in.

I can only imagine the anguish she is going through would be a mere fraction of what the evil cunt put the Dowlers through, or the McCanns, and countless other people whos emotional turmoil she decided to rape to please her cunt boss Murdoch.

David Cameron stayed at her house over Xmas, he should fuck off now too.

I won't be happy until Murdoch goes the way of the Maxwell, and James is jailed or in hiding after 9/11 victims vow to destroy him, and Fox News is forever tainted by this.

Fucking brilliant news. Guilt is all News Int have left.


----------



## gosub (Jul 15, 2011)

belboid said:


> Dodgy mortgages?  Fair dos.  Dying kid?  Get to fuck.
> 
> Yes, everyone always knew this kinda thing went on. And it was accepted with a shrug and a 'what can you do?'  But now, people have found out that they can (maybe) do something, and boy, are they/we reveling in it.



If they got there finger out of their arse and that murderer convicted on mobile phone evidence (subsequently come to light NI also had access to same phone) before Tues then this would go down this side of the Atlantic, politicians seem to be playing for party advantage, which gives Murdoch a chance of fire fighting with petrol, and leaves it up to the Americans


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

Santino said:


> So bank accounts were broken into, phones hacked, computers hacked... because people are interested? Is that what you think?


 
yes, i dont see any real political capital in hacking into abi titmus' phone, do you?

of course some of the information gleaned from MPs etc was used for political capital, thats how it works, the same thing would have happened however the information was gathered


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Gesundheit!


----------



## peterkro (Jul 15, 2011)

pk said:


> I won't be happy until Murdoch goes the way of the Maxwell,


  That brought to mind the joke doing the rounds at the time about the prostitute on Maxwells yacht,Maxwell walked up to her and asked for her to toss him off,so she did.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2011)

pk said:


> Guilt is all News Int have left.


 and the sun and the sunday times and the times and a fuck load of money.


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> and the sun and the sunday times and the times and a fuck load of money.


 
All tainted by the smell of dead children, and victims of terror attacks, as the share price reflects.

If you can't see an endgame here you must be as blind as you are lonely.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> and the sun and the sunday times and the times and a fuck load of money.


 
and capitalism remains as strong, if not stronger than ever


----------



## rorymac (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Gesundheit!


 ??

Hakeeesh ?? 

The common maaan is once again left floundering around on google


----------



## T & P (Jul 15, 2011)




----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> and capitalism remains as strong, if not stronger than ever


 
really?  You think this scandal has strengthened capital?  Do tell us how.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

belboid said:


> really?  You think this scandal has strengthened capital?  Do tell us how.


 
it certainly hasn't weakened it.  i don't know if it's strengthened it, but i suspect so - how, it creates the false dynamic of good/bad capitalists, look the evil capitalist has been removed (or might be), long live 'good' capitalism


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2011)

what a crock of crap.


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2011)

C'mon, "if not stronger" was just a rhetorical flourish. It's arguable, but not worth arguing


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 15, 2011)

rorymac said:


> ??
> 
> Hakeeesh ??
> 
> The common maaan is once again left floundering around on google


 
Gesundheit = Bless you in Deutsch


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 15, 2011)

Well Brooks had to go.

It's what happens longer term though that's really important - how much damage will it have inflicted/continue to inflict on the Murdoch organisation. I understand what smokedout is saying - I certainly don't think it will harm capitalism much. But it's certainly good to see Murdoch and his dirty fucking empire take knocks.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 15, 2011)

I wished we could start to take Dacre out aswell.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2011)

well, it certainly wont do any damage of we all took the attitude of 'yeah well, what do you expect?  so what?'

But, the reality, is that it has brought loads of questions about how the media work, and about who should be allowed to own what into the spotlight.  And, whilst capitalism will surely still be standing once those discussions have been had, it'll be slightly more uncomfortable doing so.


----------



## killer b (Jul 15, 2011)

stephj said:


> I wished we could start to take Dacre out aswell.


 
soon come, steph.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 15, 2011)

Prescott making a fairly good fist of putting the knife in Murdoch in the Lords,in spite of his eccentric delivery he's making some very good points.


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2011)

stephj said:


> I wished we could start to take Dacre out aswell.


 
I am reliably informed there is reason to hope that he'll at least get an uncomfortable grilling.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

laptop said:


> C'mon, "if not stronger" was just a rhetorical flourish. It's arguable, but not worth arguing



yeah you're probably right, but god loves a trier


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

belboid said:


> well, it certainly wont do any damage of we all took the attitude of 'yeah well, what do you expect?  so what?'



we didn't do this, we were just spectators


----------



## weltweit (Jul 15, 2011)

Is it just me, or does News International seem to get through a lot of editors?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> we didn't do this, we were just spectators


 
well, you are.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2011)

Ding dong the witch is gone.

One down, two to go.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 15, 2011)

Small update from the Graun live blog here on the US side of things - see here


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 15, 2011)

More Graun live stuff - this time, Murdoch's comments from a closed House of Lords session in 2007 - here

Here's what he says on Sky News:



> Murdoch also said that Sky News could be more popular if it emulated his US channel Fox News.
> 
> The committee's minutes said: "He believed that Sky News would be more popular if it were more like the Fox News channel.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> and capitalism remains as strong, if not stronger than ever


 what's your point, caller?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2011)

Latest _rumour_, Sunday Mirror editor (also on the PCC, more genius!) reported to met for hacking.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 15, 2011)

Apparently Rupert Murdoch will be running adverts in all papers tommorow to apologise for what has happenned.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 15, 2011)

More police investigations headaches for la Brooks c/o BBC News


----------



## weltweit (Jul 15, 2011)

So, we know I think that 4,000 people have probably been hacked. 

That is, had their privacy violated. 

Also "Hacked off" represents some of those who already know they have been hacked. Perhaps more and more people will flock to Hacked Off when it becomes clear that they have been hacked. There they can get advice on how much compensation they should be due. 

Various people like Hugh Grant and Max Clifford and Sienna Miller have already agreed compensation payouts with News International so it may be possible to estimate the total compensation costs for News International. 

I think I heard that Max Clifford received a payout of about a million.


----------



## Santino (Jul 15, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> More police investigations headaches for la Brooks c/o BBC News


 
Is it scabbing to click that link?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 15, 2011)

Santino said:


> Is it scabbing to click that link?


 
Yes, er no, er......

<rejoins picket with shifty look on face>

(I listened to R4 this morn too....oh noes!)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2011)

More on that rumour i mentioned earlier. This is either a total red herring or quite significant, it's from Max Keiser so i'm sceptical, gives no source for the Police stuff:



> Scotland Yard investigating U.S. citizen victim of Murdoch's phone hacking; named in complaint; BBC,* M.Freud, T. Weaver, R. Wade, P. Morgan*


 Here



> Sunday Mirror's Tina Weaver used phone hacked information for purposes of blackmail in 2002 and she told me @piersmorgan was aware of this.


 Here


EDIT: he claims that the source of the first claim is a copper in the met and that there's a copper named in the compliant as well, a DC White.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 15, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> They didn't just hack Millie Dowler's voicemail. They deleted messages on it in the early days of the police investigation of her disappearance. It's far more than privacy. It's about the NotW assuming the right to interfere with a police investigation and to mislead the parents of a missing teenager in the hope that they might find a story... and then bribing and blackmailing people to cover it up afterwards.


 
I think it's also very much about the evidently corrupt relationship the Murdoch press had with the Met ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2011)

There's also this in The Nation: Has Roger Ailes Hacked American Phones for Fox News?



> “Has Roger Ailes been keeping tabs on your phone calls?”
> 
> That’s how Portfolio.com began a post back in 2008, when a former Fox News executive charged that Ailes had outfitted a highly secured “brain room” in Fox’s New York headquarters for “counterintelligence” and may have used it to hack into private phone records.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Apparently Rupert Murdoch will be running adverts in all papers tommorow to apologise for what has happenned.


 
Are you _sure_ you're reading every post?


----------



## killer b (Jul 15, 2011)

i'd call welt's posts 'stream of consciousness drivel', but without the conscious bit.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> ...
> so it may be possible to estimate the total compensation costs for News International.
> ...


 
I wonder if NI have any business liability insurance that covers compensation?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 15, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> Are you _sure_ you're reading every post?


 
Yes, pretty sure. I didn't notice if it had already been posted if that is what you mean.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 15, 2011)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand I think that answers my question.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 15, 2011)

killer b said:


> i'd call welt's posts 'stream of consciousness drivel', but without the conscious bit.


 
I will have you know, I am fully conscious!!


----------



## weltweit (Jul 15, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> Aaaaaaaaaaaaand I think that answers my question.


 
I do rely on the NewPosts feature, I think it works... it better had ...


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 15, 2011)

Well you do repeat an awful lot of what's already been written, although tbf you're hardly the only one on such a fast moving thread. I'm only (just) keeping up because I've foregone sleep/child care/housework/leaving the house/life/all personal hygiene etc completely over the last week.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 15, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> Well you do repeat an awful lot of what's already been written, although tbf you're hardly the only one on such a fast moving thread. I'm only (just) keeping up because I've foregone sleep/child care/housework/leaving the house/life/all personal hygiene etc completely over the last week.


 
I know it is not a defence, but yesterday I posted something thinking mine was the first mention on that on the thread and I think two times after me people posted about the same thing ....


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 15, 2011)

According to the Graun here, the Daily Fail are planning a Sunday tabloid of their own.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 15, 2011)

I don't doubt it, welt! It's ANNOYING, isn't it!


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 15, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> Are you _sure_ you're reading every post?


 
Tbf, anyone who has read every post is clearly mad. And if they weren't already.. they are now.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 15, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Tbf, anyone who has read every post is clearly mad. And if they weren't already.. they are now.


 
I have! *giggle/sob*


----------



## weltweit (Jul 15, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> I don't doubt it, welt! It's ANNOYING, isn't it!


 
I don't really mind, as you said it has been a very fast moving story. 

I think, unless more comes out on the revelations buchersapron is mentioning on the other papers, it may quieten down a bit until Tuesday. Could be wrong though.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 15, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> I have! *giggle/sob*


 
#1847


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 15, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> #1847


 
Yes! I did a very long and loud LOL at that, Dave  - I just couldn't say so at the time cos I was too busy trying to fuckin catch up!  

I've got to go out now, GODDAMN IT! Could you all please kindly STFU for the next few hours.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 15, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> #1847


----------



## smokedout (Jul 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Also "Hacked off" represents some of those who already know they have been hacked. Perhaps more and more people will flock to Hacked Off when it becomes clear that they have been hacked. There they can get advice on how much compensation they should be due.



yes such heroes of truth and justice as lord falcolner (who campaigned to restrict the FOI act), thatcherite lord fowler, prozie shagger hugh grant, nazi mosley and election fiddler zac goldsmith


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> yeah, but we knew all that, all we're seeing is some (and only some) of the mechanics of how power operates
> 
> the only big shocks were millie and pulling the screws, they were last weeks story
> 
> ...


 
It's not about knowing it, it's about being able to do something about it. There'll be more Murdoch's, but managing to defeat this one is important, and it opens up a space for the powerless to exert influence on what happens next. Only a little one, but it's a lot more than we could have imagined 2 weeks ago.


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 15, 2011)

Have we seen the News of the World's planned Thatcher obit?

http://bit.ly/prPy3Q


----------



## Santino (Jul 15, 2011)

Twitter says Coulson was a guest at Chequers three months after he quit Downing Street. Cameron, you twat.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2011)

Here the apology to go in the papers:



> We are sorry.
> 
> The News of the World was in the business of holding others to account. It failed when it came to itself.
> 
> ...


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 15, 2011)

Fair enough, they sound remorceful, tally-ho.

Cameron should get rinsed over forgetting his hook ups at Chequers, Ed needs to go nuclear over that.


----------



## paolo (Jul 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here the apology to go in the papers:


 
It's an apology with boundaries. Limits himself to NoW, and as such doesn't include the bullying for power carried out as an NI practice.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 15, 2011)

BBC News: Ex-News of the World editor Andy Coulson stayed as a guest of Prime Minister David Cameron at Chequers in March, *several weeks after his resignation* as communications chief, the Press Association quoted a Downing Street source as saying.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's not about knowing it, it's about being able to do something about it. There'll be more Murdoch's, but managing to defeat this one is important, and it opens up a space for the powerless to exert influence on what happens next. Only a little one, but it's a lot more than we could have imagined 2 weeks ago.


 
When an enemy trips, it's not wise to claim it as a victory.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2011)

tacitus speaks


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 15, 2011)

I think adding 'sincerely' is taking things too far, to be honest. Mind you, will anyone really believe that apology anyway?


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> Well you do repeat an awful lot of what's already been written, although tbf you're hardly the only one on such a fast moving thread. I'm only (just) keeping up because I've foregone sleep/child care/housework/leaving the house/life/all personal hygiene etc completely over the last week.


You too?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> tacitus speaks


 
'they made a desert and called it peace' or words to that effect


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2011)

elevendayempire said:


> Have we seen the News of the World's planned Thatcher obit?
> 
> http://bit.ly/prPy3Q


if only. it would have been good if she'd died a week back and they'd been forced to include it in their farewell issue


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 15, 2011)

Ding Dong the wicked witch is gone


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Ding Dong the wicked witch is gone


 
sadly mht is still with us


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> When an enemy trips, it's not wise to claim it as a victory.


What has that got to do with my post? Can you not add something useful? Or are you just here to do the usual irritating little shit act?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's not about knowing it, it's about being able to do something about it. There'll be more Murdoch's, but managing to defeat this one is important, and it opens up a space for the powerless to exert influence on what happens next. Only a little one, but it's a lot more than we could have imagined 2 weeks ago.


it's difficult to see how there could be more murdochs (no grocer's apostrophe, it's disappointing to see that level of literacy from someone with such an august alma mater). but perhaps you could elaborate on how you see the powerless exerting influence on what happens next?


----------



## ymu (Jul 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it's difficult to see how there could be more murdochs (no grocer's apostrophe, it's disappointing to see that level of literacy from someone with such an august alma mater). but perhaps you could elaborate on how you see the powerless exerting influence on what happens next?


No. You're a time-wasting prick with some weird obsessions and I'm not interested in helping you ruin another thread. You can read my posts if you want to. Not interested in indulging your anticks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> No. You're a time-wasting prick with some weird obsessions and I'm not interested in helping you ruin another thread. You can read my posts if you want to. Not interested in indulging your anticks.


it's disappointing that you can't defend your stance. but it's no great surprise.


----------



## dylans (Jul 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it's disappointing that you can't defend your stance. but it's no great surprise.


 
still a wanker I see


----------



## elbows (Jul 15, 2011)

Fnarp:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/15/phone-hacking-met-police-guardian



> Scotland Yard's most senior officers tried to convince the Guardian during two private meetings that its coverage of phone hacking was exaggerated and incorrect without revealing they had hired Neil Wallis, the former deputy editor of the News of the World, as an adviser.
> 
> The first meeting in December 2009, which included the Metropolitan police commissioner Paul Stephenson, was two months after Wallis was employed by the Yard as a public relations consultant.


----------



## paolo (Jul 15, 2011)

elbows said:


> Fnarp:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/15/phone-hacking-met-police-guardian



The Graun have kept that in their back pocket.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2011)

dylans said:


> still a wanker I see


do you see how the powerless are going to exert influence on what happens next with the issue at hand or are you just here to help me ruin this thread?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> The Graun have kept that in their back pocket.


more like up their sleeve. they'll have a big fuck off wad of information about ni which will come out over the next few months - no point dumping everything on the market all at once.


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2011)

_Financial Times_ roundup - in the financially-powerful Companies and Markets section - has lawyer Gerard Shanash saying that if even a quarter of the 4000 victims sued the pot may need to be £500M - as against the £20M set aside.

 even if half that would go to lawyers!


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> It's not about knowing it, it's about being able to do something about it. There'll be more Murdoch's, but managing to defeat this one is important, and it opens up a space for the powerless to exert influence on what happens next. Only a little one, but it's a lot more than we could have imagined 2 weeks ago.



+ 1


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 15, 2011)

laptop said:


> _Financial Times_ roundup - in the financially-powerful Companies and Markets section - has lawyer Gerard Shanash saying that if even a quarter of the 4000 victims sued the pot may need to be £500M - as against the £20M set aside.
> 
> even if half that would go to lawyers!


 
ACE!


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 15, 2011)

From RB's statement: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14166627

'I leave with the happiest of memories and an abundance of friends.'

Deleting voicemails from the phones of dead children always leaves one with happy memories, does it?

And as for the abundance of friends, I can only assume she means Cameron et al.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 15, 2011)

Murdoch's apology is 100% to do with current goings-on in the USA.  He was backing up cruella up until a few days ago, smiling pictures, ringing endorsements - and now she's gone (as such).

Have we ever seen such a thing?

Regarding the police...I think they're fucked...however enough of this nonsense about how senior officers who lied/evaded during testimony should 'consider their positions' (not a specific quote just a reference to the general comments) these guys are the watchers, jail time I'm afraid.

And the victims should be suing the police for giving out phone numbers so mulcaire et al could hack them - that's complicity.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 15, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> ...And as for the abundance of friends, I can only assume she means Cameron et al.


Friends of abundance, I think.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 15, 2011)

ymu said:


> What has that got to do with my post? Can you not add something useful? Or are you just here to do the usual irritating little shit act?


 
Always with the 'irritating little shit' and 'why are you here?' stuff to anyone who you feel threatened by.

It's very sad to see your arrogance run away with you to the point where you truly believe you get to decide who should post and how they should do it.

It's clear that you make the common mistake of assuming that because you are massively impressed with the sound of your own words that everyone else must also be. They are not. I find your style of posting overblown, long winded and tiresome to trawl through. You ignore that which doesn't fit and repeat yourself to the point of tedium.

You are very good at tedious pursuits... the trawling of the net for minute bits of data or statistical analysis. And while I totally appreciate that people like that are useful in the grand scheme of society I am heartfully glad I'm not one of them. For while you might be good at getting data... you have absolutely no idea what to do with it.

This is why you can make the incredible proclamation that somehow you 'defeated' Murdoch.

You didn't say 'you'... you said the powerless... but it's fairly clear you meant you. In your own head.

So I posted a few simple words of caution. Suggesting you reign yourself and your proclamation in a little. You did nothing.... we did nothing. He just got caught.

I hope you found that useful.

Yours sincerely.

An irritating little shit. x.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 15, 2011)

Please do carry on... I'm not sure how the world would continue without you.


----------



## Santino (Jul 15, 2011)

Do cock off, there's a good chap.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 15, 2011)

I'm not a good chap. Not by your definition. Now can you remove your head from ymu's arse so you can hear me?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 15, 2011)

laptop said:


> _Financial Times_ roundup - in the financially-powerful Companies and Markets section - has lawyer Gerard Shanash saying that if even a quarter of the 4000 victims sued the pot may need to be £500M - as against the £20M set aside.
> 
> even if half that would go to lawyers!



I was wondering about the size of the eventual compensation pie a couple of pages back. 

I think with "Hacked Off" and the like, and some quite large compensations already agreed - Hugh Grant, Max Clifford, Sienna Miller, it is quite possible, likely even, that a lot more than 25% of the victims will sue for compensation, it could be a lot more.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2011)

Jude Law to sue _The Sun_ over alleged phone hacking in 2005 and 2006.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 15, 2011)

Why is everyone so sure the infromation traded was only ever sold to journalists?

Especially Yates who claimed someone tried to hack his phone. Why was he so blase about a group gathering infromation on senior police officers?


----------



## little_legs (Jul 15, 2011)




----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I was wondering about the size of the eventual compensation pie a couple of pages back.
> 
> I think with "Hacked Off" and the like, and some quite large compensations already agreed - Hugh Grant, Max Clifford, Sienna Miller, it is quite possible, likely even, that a lot more than 25% of the victims will sue for compensation, it could be a lot more.


 
Not to mention every lawsuit will be pretty much identical - I don't see how they can pay damages to Sienna or Clifford, then not ther gazillion others...Isn't the court case merely a exercise in judging how famous and frequent they were done?

I'd assume a couple of firms will lead the actions then approach people on The List reproduce the same services and arguments with them.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 15, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Always with the 'irritating little shit' and 'why are you here?' stuff to anyone who you feel threatened by.
> 
> It's very sad to see your arrogance run away with you to the point where you truly believe you get to decide who should post and how they should do it.
> 
> ...



There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of ymu that can be made, as there are of most of us (and some extra  )

but you have proven yourself to be one of the board divs many times.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 15, 2011)

little_legs said:


>



Murdochus Maximus lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Always with the 'irritating little shit' and 'why are you here?' stuff to anyone who you feel threatened by.
> 
> It's very sad to see your arrogance run away with you to the point where you truly believe you get to decide who should post and how they should do it.
> 
> ...


 
To be scrupulously fair, the above post is a bit overblown and long-winded.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of ymu that can be made, as there are of most of us (and some extra  )
> 
> but you have proven yourself to be one of the board divs many times.


 
I'm not here prove anything to anyone. 

I'm here to read some stuff that I may or may not know, have my say on subjects I wish too, defend my position if necessary, pass some time, crack a few funnies and flirt with some of the hotties now and again.

I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with some of you guys. But ultimately I really don't care.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be scrupulously fair, the above post is a bit overblown and long-winded.


 
I tried to be brief, but she went and called me names. Sorry. Won't happen again. Shoulda just called her a muppet.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 15, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm not here prove anything to anyone.
> 
> I'm here to read some stuff that I may or may not know, have my say on subjects I wish too, defend my position if necessary, pass some time, crack a few funnies and flirt with some of the hotties now and again.
> 
> I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with some of you guys. But ultimately I really don't care.



cool story bro


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I tried to be brief, but she went and called me names. Sorry. Won't happen again. Shoulda just called her a muppet.


 
Don't fall for the easy tricks, give as good as you get, and enjoy it.

All part of the rich fabric innit.

Back to the thread topic, perhaps, or you'll lose any casual readers who might be in agreement with you, then you're better off leaving it. Threads too important for rant spats.

So who's this Kiwi flown in from Italy, taking over from Red-Top Rebekah?

He's had an interesting run in with Al Gore, yanked his channel from whatever bit of TV media Berlusconi doesn't own.

And let's idly speculate on what relationship exists between Berlusconi and Murdoch, and can we at least liberate Italy before bedtime?

Anything's better than a 4 page spat that isn't even my fault.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2011)

Hinton resigned now


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

Not that Italy deserve liberating. Those cheeky scamps love it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 15, 2011)

pk said:


> Don't fall for the easy tricks, give as good as you get, and enjoy it.
> 
> All part of the rich fabric innit.
> 
> ...



haterz gonna hate innit, playaz gonna play


----------



## paolo (Jul 15, 2011)

I doubt there's much love between Berlusconi and Murdoch.

Sky Italia is the underdog challenger to Berlusconi's stranglehold on Italian TV.


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

The audaciousness of The Sun printing a front page apology today - not from itself to the people of the UK and beyond, no, the fact that the Guardian was slipped dodgy info, they took the bait, and were then forced to refute dodgy info by Murdochs legal attack dogs. Classic ambush, but for the Scum to champion an apology now, not theirs, that as some sort of desperate righteous claw reaching from the cesspool of evil they might attain victim status???

Fuck that. Stomp those bony claws back into the mire.


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> haterz gonna hate innit, playaz gonna play


 
What about those who swing both ways? AC-DC's?


----------



## Santino (Jul 15, 2011)

Les Hinton belongs in Coronation Street, surely.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 15, 2011)

pk said:


> What about those who swing both ways? AC-DC's?



Well I suppose they could go offski peeps or onski who knows?

Maybe they'll settle for firebombing random pubs...


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I doubt there's much love between Berlusconi and Murdoch.
> 
> Sky Italia is the underdog challenger to Berlusconi's stranglehold on Italian TV.


 
Which certainly provides for some very interesting meetings. Follow the money! 

Murdoch vs The Real Italian Mafia, there's a scrap that could get very ugly in a few months.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 15, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Have you been made up for entertainment purposes?


 
Being entertaining will only ever be a dream for you.


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Well I suppose they could go offski peeps or onski who knows?
> 
> Maybe they'll settle for firebombing random pubs...


 
Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Being entertaining will only ever be a dream for you.


 
Awww, don't be so nasty, she can't help it.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 15, 2011)

pk said:


> Awww, don't be so nasty, she can't help it.


 
It's a he.


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/15/us-newscorp-mockridge-idUSTRE76E3U720110715

This Mockridge guy is here to set up The Scum On Sunday.

That's his probable mission brief. Murdoch is pro-active, hence the ridiculous front page of the Scum today.

Who knows what they'll print tomorrow. It's almost poetic, the level of fail.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 15, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It's a he.



Really?!? 

Evidence?


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It's a he.


 
The login is hers. If it's the Prozac addled boyfriend you're on yer own there pal...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 15, 2011)

pk said:


> Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.



You love it more than you'll ever know


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 15, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Really?!?
> 
> Evidence?


 
On occasion her dim witted other half logs in under her name. You can tell from the stupidity and lack of content of the posts.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 15, 2011)

pk said:


> The login is hers. If it's the Prozac addled boyfriend you're on yer own there pal...


 
That's sad if he's on prozac, I suppose I should just leave him to it in the future...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 15, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> On occasion her dim witted other half logs in under her name. You can tell from the stupidity and lack of content of the posts.



paranoid schizophrenic


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2011)

_Only one left now._


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 15, 2011)

James must be clinging on by his fingernails as well.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> _Only one left now._


 
patience ...


----------



## little_legs (Jul 15, 2011)

little_legs said:


> I have a question about the clearance the Prime Minister's personnel must have to work at Downing Street.
> 
> I am asking because I still can't get my head around the fact that Cameron employed someone whose background check should have produced _funnies_, and we are talking about the Communications Director who, during his employment, must have had access to sensitive and/or classified information/documents whilst his background was questionable at best criminal at worst implicating the PM himself given that he had authorised the employment.
> 
> ...


 
Anyone familiar with the Downing Street clearance requirements?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 15, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> James must be clinging on by his fingernails as well.


 
His dad won't be happy with him thats for sure ...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 15, 2011)

So why has hinton resigned?

He's not been in the story much up till now.

Does he know there's more shit coming?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 15, 2011)

He was in charge of News International when all the phone hacking and more was going on


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 15, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> So why has hinton resigned?
> 
> He's not been in the story much up till now.
> 
> Does he know there's more shit coming?


Claimed he had no evidence it went beyond one reporter to a select comittee but he headed up the internal investigation by news international that turned up the evidence handed over to police, its rather implausable that he headed an investigation that found evidnence that it stretched beyond one reporter but did know about the evidence.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 15, 2011)

pk said:


> The audaciousness of The Sun printing a front page apology today - not from itself to the people of the UK and beyond, no, the fact that the Guardian was slipped dodgy info, they took the bait, and were then forced to refute dodgy info by Murdochs legal attack dogs. Classic ambush, but for the Scum to champion an apology now, not theirs, that as some sort of desperate righteous claw reaching from the cesspool of evil they might attain victim status???


 
Similarly, I was well fucking irritated listening to Harriet Harman castigating the tories for getting right in there with Murdoch for their own ends....and then suggesting that NL just did much the same because they were _scared_...AWWWWWWWWWW! 


Anyway....I keep meaning to ask about Newscorp's hold in the US but I'm not sure it's appropriate on this thread 

I know ymu mentioned that US journailsts are expressly forbidden from accepting hospitality - and also that the press is generally just much better regulated over there. 
Well I didn't know that until just recently and I only know (from this thread) that Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal (I think?) but presume he owns others too (and I know there's Fox, obv, and that this news has now started trickling through even there).

I'm not sure what I'm asking really  simple stuff, tbf  - is their press effectively regulated already, so just not open to this shite? 

So there most likely just wouldn't be anything similar coming from _US_ based Newscorp operations? 
So any bother there would almost certainly come from the UK press hacking (for eg) 9/11 victims/families - and the other stuff about journalists not being allowed to bribe international officials (which is big enough on it's own, I know!)......but also how much *influence* Murdoch would be likely to have had, politically, by way of his grip on the media there (which is rather more minimal - again because of set legal limitations)?

Soz for the waffle (am shit at formulating questions) but *out of interest* sort of thing...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 15, 2011)

But the investors are calling for mini rupe's head - not his.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 15, 2011)

Murdoch did'nt exactly play a blinder this week did he? one would expect decisive action and a crisp soundbite from an  allegedly smart and ruthless businessman,instead our image of him is of a frail,wizened,bewildered looking old man in a trackie and baseball cap with his personal trainer,looking more like a gaga patient with his nurse.


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Murdoch did'nt exactly play a blinder this week did he? one would expect decisive action and a crisp soundbite from an  allegedly smart and ruthless businessman,instead our image of him is of a frail,wizened,bewildered looking old man in a trackie and baseball cap with his personal trainer,looking more like a gaga patient with his nurse.


 
Guardian diary yesterday was asking whether News Corp might be providing photo opportunities of frail old man while discouraging pictures of thrusting young [criminal] son...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 15, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Murdoch did'nt exactly play a blinder this week did he? one would expect decisive action and a crisp soundbite,instead our image of him is of a frail,old man in a trackie and baseball cap with his personal trainer,looking more like a gaga patient with his nurse.



Yep - this is all alien to him. He is compltely unused to having to explain or defend himself - let alone apologise. Its usually its him on the attack. But he's being systematically and publiclly humiliated -  forced to close his most proftiable paper, forced into sacking his mates, forced to explain himself to MPs (oh that must smart), forced to print public apologies - and going to be seriously out of pocket by the time this is all over.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 15, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Yep - this is all alien to him. He is compltely unused to having to explain or defend himself - let alone apologise. Its usually its him on the attack. But he's being systematically and publiclly humiliated -  forced to close his most proftiable paper, forced into sacking his mates, forced to explain himself to MPs (oh that must smart), forced to print public apologies - and going to be seriously out of pocket by the time this is all over.


 Whats that german word?? begins with s


----------



## two sheds (Jul 15, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Whats that german word?? begins with s


 
scheisskopf?


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 15, 2011)

two sheds said:


> scheisskopf?


 Schadenfreude


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> _Only one left now._



They all look a bit shifty in that picture. James and RB most studiously NOT looking at each other.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 15, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Schadenfreude


 
Bless you.


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Schadenfreude


 
Santé!


----------



## laptop (Jul 15, 2011)

Oh look - the apology ad in the other papers tomorrow:



> In the coming days, as we take further concrete steps to resolve these issues and make amends for the damage they have caused, you will hear more from us.



What can this portend? Another inadequate compensation pot?

Even odder, if I try to copy & paste that I get:



> Ge san hkjgeb cfwx/ fx rn sfin d~}san} hkeh}nsn xsn|x sk }nxkotn sanxn gxx~nxfec jfin fjnecx dk} san cfjfbn sanw aftn hf~xnc/ wk~ rgoo anf} jk}n d}kj ~x



Yes! Rupert's secretly Klingon!


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 15, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> When an enemy trips, it's not wise to claim it as a victory.


 
No, but it's a great opportunity to really put the boot in.


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> No, but it's a great opportunity to really put the boot in.


 
And once again for the lawyers to clean up.

If News Int pays out as it should to every of the 4000 it allowed to be hacked - you can bet your sweet ass NYC's finest paralegal parasitical minds will be calling up every single 9/11 victim household on a no win no fee deal.

I smell dumped shares. I smell contamination of everything Murdoch ever touched. I smell _karma._


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 15, 2011)

smokedout said:


> of course do and companies arent supposed to break the law, neither are people but they do.  what happened with millie was obviously bang out of order, and i think most people would draw the line at hacking into phones of crime victims etc.  im not sure people feel the same about celebs and politicians, i dont think most people care - and as for browns intervention, whilst of course it must have been sad that it came out about his kid the way it did, but he was the fucking chancellor, doesnt it kind of come with the territory


 
No it bloody doesn't. It's basic morality. It's just plain wrong no matter whose sick child you use to make money off, it's just plain wrong. I wouldn't even condone it if it was the child of a NotW journalist.

Sorry, that should read "former NotW journalist".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 15, 2011)

pk said:


> I smell dumped shares. I smell contamination of everything Murdoch ever touched.


 
Yep. It is possible the damages issue could completely ruin his empire. Every last bit of it.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 15, 2011)

We're a long, long way from seeing the Murdoch empire crumble. 

This will be milked by people as much as it benefits themselves, no more.


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. It is possible the damages issue could completely ruin his empire. Every last bit of it.


 
I can't see shareholders lasting the distance on this one.

Once the pressure begins to push brokers away from stale News Corp stock, the house of cards will tumble as people crawl over each other to sell their stories for a quick buck.

A tenner says Rebekah Brooks will have a book out within 12 months, even if she's in exile.

"Red Top" it'll be called. Or something like that.

Her husband will ghost write it.

It'll sell too.


----------



## pk (Jul 15, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> We're a long, long way from seeing the Murdoch empire crumble.
> 
> This will be milked by people as much as it benefits themselves, no more.


 
A fortnight ago you might have said same about the NotW...


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 15, 2011)

pk said:


> A fortnight ago you might have said same about the NotW...


 
They were going to shut up shop regardless. Don't get me wrong I would dance a silly jig infront of the most discerning of audiences stark bollock naked on acid if his empire fell. But it won't.


----------



## paolo (Jul 16, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> We're a long, long way from seeing the Murdoch empire crumble.


 
I think you're right. Fox and BSkyB are both bigger and far more unshakeable than a few British newspapers.

People won't cut their Sky subs when they want the footie. He'd have to have his hand in Fifa bribery to provoke a subscription revolt from the football 'consumers'.

Maybe Fox would take a hit if the 9/11 thing gets legs, but even then I think that's stretchy.


----------



## pk (Jul 16, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> They were going to shut up shop regardless. Don't get me wrong I would dance a silly jig infront of the most discerning of audiences stark bollock naked on acid if his empire fell. But it won't.


 
I think they are going to shut up shop in the UK. Regardless.

And if the Mirror Group had any sense they'd launch a Sunday rag pronto, but they're up to their necks in the same shit, as are the Daily Fail/Associated.

Newspaper business globally is just piecemeal these days. 
And Murdoch's strategy has failed, the sudden vacuum of lost influence combined with a LOT of pissed off people with no intention of assisting any more of Murdoch's endeavours, added to the weak position and the cut-and-run ruthless ploy of sending hundreds of NotW people their P45's at once means he is fucked in the UK, and legal apparatus will strip the carcass like it was the Serengeti.

He has vast interests, but they are worthless if nobody is interested in dealing with him. He's fair game for phone-tapping in any country on Earth now. 
He has become the victim in precisely the same way the culture of his tabloids dealt with their victims. He doesn't stand a chance. Neither does James. Even Elizabeth is a non-starter now.


----------



## pk (Jul 16, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I think you're right. Fox and BSkyB are both bigger and far more unshakeable than a few British newspapers.
> 
> People won't cut their Sky subs when they want the footie. He'd have to have his hand in Fifa bribery to provoke a subscription revolt from the football 'consumers'.
> 
> Maybe Fox would take a hit if the 9/11 thing gets legs, but even then I think that's stretchy.


 
The footy aspect is the ONLY thing that concerns me, he could turn utterly spiteful. In which case there truly would be no Sky dishes allowed to remain fixed, I'm sure.


----------



## laptop (Jul 16, 2011)

pk said:


> And if the Mirror Group had any sense they'd launch a Sunday rag pronto


 
Why would they want three?


----------



## pk (Jul 16, 2011)

laptop said:


> Why would they want three?


 
Just one new one, obvious cash-in, duplicate the format just to put the boot in to the sales.

Sun readers aren't loyal.


----------



## pk (Jul 16, 2011)

They haven't got the bollocks, so the point was rather moot.

The Guardian could, for a laugh. It would be high art. Get the Chapmans in as editors.

Or Viz. Viz should launch a Sunday tabloid.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 16, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I think you're right. Fox and BSkyB are both bigger and far more unshakeable than a few British newspapers.
> 
> People won't cut their Sky subs when they want the footie. He'd have to have his hand in Fifa bribery to provoke a subscription revolt from the football 'consumers'.
> 
> Maybe Fox would take a hit if the 9/11 thing gets legs, but even then I think that's stretchy.



While your right about News International being only a smallish part of NewsCorp,the whole set up is a house of cards.The knock on effect of lack of confidence can spread like wildfire,the only reason NewsCorp shares haven't tanked is because they them selves are buying and selling them as fast as possible and they are losing on each transaction,this is burning up cash and even NewsCorp is limited as to how long they can continue this.The Saudi guy who's the second biggest shareholder is not pleased and could sell his stock at anytime. Murdochs hopes to expand the Chinese market is looking pretty ropey also.I wouldn't say they are teetering yet but it is possible the whole thing could go tits up.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 16, 2011)

To coin a famous Murdoch newspaper headline: will the last person to leave News Corporation turn off the lights?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

laptop said:


> Yes! Rupert's secretly Klingon!


 that's cthulhu, not klingon


----------



## Badgers (Jul 16, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> They were going to shut up shop regardless. Don't get me wrong I would dance a silly jig infront of the most discerning of audiences stark bollock naked on acid if his empire fell. But it won't.


 
Quoted just in case


----------



## Giles (Jul 16, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> They didn't just hack Millie Dowler's voicemail. They deleted messages on it in the early days of the police investigation of her disappearance. It's far more than privacy. It's about the NotW assuming the right to interfere with a police investigation and to mislead the parents of a missing teenager in the hope that they might find a story... and then bribing and blackmailing people to cover it up afterwards.


 
That was very bad. All I would say is that the police would have known the difference between her deleting messages from her own phone,  (which would suggest she was alive) and someone accessing voicemails from another number, Her poor parents probably wouldn't, though. And I am in no way at all taking NOTWs side. Just that they would get any data on her phone being on and where it was straight from the network provider.

 Giles..


----------



## Open Sauce (Jul 16, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> Fair enough, they sound remorceful, tally-ho.
> 
> Cameron should get rinsed over forgetting his hook ups at Chequers, Ed needs to go nuclear over that.



The S*n apologised to Liverpool, not unconditional of course, but whatever, even if accepted and no hard feelings (no chance of that) no reason to throw any cash their way, they are still a corporation


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 16, 2011)

It may not destroy the murdoch empire but it as certainly set back his plans ie full control of sky ,the news of the world ,the lose of many of his generals


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 16, 2011)

US resignations begin 

Les Hilton, chief executive of Dow Jones & Company and Wall Street Journal resigns over phone hacking scandel.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 16, 2011)

How is the share price looking?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 16, 2011)

Anyone else aroused by Rebekahkahkah?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 16, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> Anyone else aroused by Rebekahkahkah?


 
No

Am I missing something?


----------



## paolo (Jul 16, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> Anyone else aroused by Rebekahkahkah?


 
She probably looked okay a decade or so ago. Not sure about the Cruella incarnation though.

On Frank Skinner's radio show, cohort Emily Dean described her has having "hair too young for her face".


----------



## pk (Jul 16, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> Anyone else aroused by Rebekahkahkah?


 
Have you been eating crack??

Lord knows I love a redhead but that girl has had "nightmare" writ large upon her Gillian McKeith-esque face for years.

Nice hair though. I'll give her that.

One could compare the rest to Thatcher.

Guaranteed bone-drooper.


----------



## pk (Jul 16, 2011)

I'm editing this because I'm editing it


----------



## paolo (Jul 16, 2011)

If she goes to prison, will they cut it all off? *heh heh*


----------



## paolo (Jul 16, 2011)

pk said:


> Gillian McKeith


 
I see you used her full medical title.


----------



## pk (Jul 16, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> If she goes to prison, will they cut it all off? *heh heh*


 
It would be the ultimate punishment, worthy of the witchfinder generals in terms of uniquely cruel and unusual torture.

I would object, even though I detest the woman.


----------



## pk (Jul 16, 2011)

A series of crappy Photoshops exposing her bald head would be fair.

She approved that shit for years in the Sun/NotW.


----------



## paolo (Jul 16, 2011)

pk said:


> It would be the ultimate punishment, worthy of the witchfinder generals in terms of uniquely cruel and unusual torture.
> 
> I would object, even though I detest the woman.


 
Maybe one of the inmates would do it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 16, 2011)

Santino said:


> Les Hinton belongs in Coronation Street, surely.


 
Well he's going to be looking for a new job. Weatherfield must have a local paper surely?


----------



## gavman (Jul 16, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Murdoch did'nt exactly play a blinder this week did he? one would expect decisive action and a crisp soundbite from an  allegedly smart and ruthless businessman,instead our image of him is of a frail,wizened,bewildered looking old man in a trackie and baseball cap with his personal trainer,looking more like a gaga patient with his nurse.


 
who says that's not the image he wanted to project? a harmless old man, looking after the family biz during troubled times


----------



## gavman (Jul 16, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> I think you're right. Fox and BSkyB are both bigger and far more unshakeable than a few British newspapers.
> 
> People won't cut their Sky subs when they want the footie. He'd have to have his hand in Fifa bribery to provoke a subscription revolt from the football 'consumers'.
> 
> Maybe Fox would take a hit if the 9/11 thing gets legs, but even then I think that's stretchy.


 
bskyb has a near monopoly in several areas....sport and film to name two. personally i have to get sky if i want any tv, or broadband; no-one else covers my area. i resent this, and would like to see their monopoly broken up.

regarding fox news, they have made many powerful enemies among neutrals and democrats with their biased, right wing coverage. if the chance ever arises to give them a kicking, they will take it. and in modern north america, there is no bigger boot than 9-11


----------



## gavman (Jul 16, 2011)

pk said:


> He doesn't stand a chance. Neither does James. Even Elizabeth is a non-starter now.


 
the murdoch pr machine now getting behind elizabeth; she is being credited with the one who supplied the push to get rid of brooks, because 'she's ruined the family business'.


----------



## pk (Jul 16, 2011)

gavman said:


> the murdoch pr machine now getting behind elizabeth; she is being credited with the one who supplied the push to get rid of brooks, because 'she's ruined the family business'.


 
As I said. A non-starter.


----------



## gavman (Jul 16, 2011)

but isn't it great to be able to see the strings?
right we've tried this, now we try this...it's like being able to read the modern villain's playbook, when normally you have to squint and no-one else believes you.
'look, this is how news is managed'


----------



## weltweit (Jul 16, 2011)

gavman said:


> bskyb has a near monopoly in several areas....sport and film to name two. personally i have to get sky if i want any tv, or broadband; no-one else covers my area. i resent this, and would like to see their monopoly broken up.
> ...


 
If you have a sky dish, you can get FreeSat, which is on the same sattelite, is multichannel, and is free!


----------



## Voley (Jul 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Jude Law to sue _The Sun_ over alleged phone hacking in 2005 and 2006.


 
A telling response from The Sun:



> The actor Jude Law is suing The Sun newspaper for alleged phone hacking. He's launched legal proceedings over four articles published in 2005 and 2006. A spokesperson for News International called the news *"a deeply cynical and deliberately mischievous attempt to draw The Sun into the phone-hacking issue."*



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14170756

They're shitting it.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 16, 2011)

I'm just wondering if Brooks' replacement, Tom Mockridge is going to be seen as a good choice considering the Italian track record on media? Obviously I don't know anything about the Murdoc press in Italy but isn't media more corrupt down there than anywhere else???


----------



## paolo (Jul 16, 2011)

gavman said:


> the murdoch pr machine now getting behind elizabeth; she is being credited with the one who supplied the push to get rid of brooks, because 'she's ruined the family business'.



Not sure that story was seeded by NI... at the most, by Elisabeth.

AFAIK It was broken by the Telegraph (the phrase being "she's fucked the company"), describing it as "first breach in the show of solidarity" and in the same article they highlighted investor criticism of Murdoch 'using the company as a “family candy store”'.

Not exactly positive stuff... unless you've read a different spin on it, published before 6.45am yesterday.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 16, 2011)

NVP said:


> A telling response from The Sun:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
And they're clearly trying to limit all wrongdoing to the sacrificial lamb that is/was the NotW.

I found the Hinton quitting more significant than the Brroks one. He's been there 52 years and sounded like he simply didn't have the stomach for the carnage to come, whereas Brooks' was an obvious eventuality and got the feeling she can be back any timeshe wants,


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 16, 2011)

The lawyer of Milly Dowler's family just been on BBC News talking about their meeting with Ruoert Murdoch. He was quite critical of why James Murdoch wasn;t there (they had been told he might be), why it was arranged so quickly  and also of the police not being bothered to give the Dowler family any info about the hacking claims


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 16, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> She probably looked okay a decade or so ago. Not sure about the Cruella incarnation though.
> 
> On Frank Skinner's radio show, cohort Emily Dean described her has having "hair too young for her face".


 
Always use a woman to slag off other women's looks.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 16, 2011)

NVP said:


> A telling response from The Sun:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Jul 16, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Always use a woman to slag off other women's looks.


 
it does always come down to that doesn't it?

mind you, i was cracking fat jokes the other night, so i dunno if i've any right to moan.


----------



## paolo (Jul 16, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Always use a woman to slag off other women's looks.


 
Naah... if you heard it in context, you'd realise it was very much Emily Dean's words. She's a fashion editor with a sparkling line in comedy bitchiness (and a fair amount of self deprecation too). One of the funniest people on radio. The words weren't Skinner's doing, not his style at all.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 16, 2011)

Make it no better if a woman is doing the attacking over looks imo - the Fail has been in this market for years.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> No it bloody doesn't. It's basic morality.



says who, no-one got hurt, nothing got stolen

tbh, in the lights of brown's government attack on disabled claimants id say it was more than relevent


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 16, 2011)

elbows said:


> Fnarp:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/15/phone-hacking-met-police-guardian


 
Just been reading this... Met totally embroilled in it all too.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 16, 2011)

gavman said:


> bskyb has a near monopoly in several areas....sport and film to name two. personally i have to get sky if i want any tv, or broadband; no-one else covers my area. i resent this, and would like to see their monopoly broken up.
> 
> regarding fox news, they have made many powerful enemies among neutrals and democrats with their biased, right wing coverage. if the chance ever arises to give them a kicking, they will take it. and in modern north america, there is no bigger boot than 9-11


 
what about bbc etc?


----------



## paolo (Jul 16, 2011)

stephj said:


> Make it no better if a woman is doing the attacking over looks imo - the Fail has been in this market for years.


 
Perhaps a bit stupid of me to quote it out of context. I agree with you overall.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 16, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> On occasion her dim witted other half logs in under her name. You can tell from the stupidity and lack of content of the posts.


 
That's a bit rich coming from you!
Calling Myleene Klass a "nazi heiffer" obviously makes total sense.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> says who, no-one got hurt, nothing got stolen
> 
> tbh, in the lights of brown's government attack on disabled claimants id say it was more than relevent


 
Nobody got hurt? You are fucking kidding. All kinds of people have been hurt - including a young child in the Brown case.

You and a few others seem determined to split the world up into those who deserve to be treated decently and those who deserve whatever shit is thrown at them. That's a really shit attitude.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> says who, no-one got hurt, nothing got stolen
> 
> tbh, in the lights of brown's government attack on disabled claimants id say it was more than relevent


 
Nobody hurt? Murdochs strangle hold on politics for the past 30 years has helped promote exactly those sort of shitty policies. 
I suppose nobody was hurt by the Stasi's surveilance state either?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 16, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Nobody hurt? Murdochs strangle hold on politics for the past 30 years has helped promote exactly those sort of shitty policies.


 
Quite.


----------



## belboid (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> no-one got hurt


 
Jennifer Elliott.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 16, 2011)

Yes, and the discussion earlier about whether or not Sun and NotW readers actually believe the shit that's in the papers isn't the most important point, I don't think. 

The papers set the agenda - what people talk about and what MPs get frothy at the mouth about - and so what laws we've got, how the police behave at (for example) demos, and how benefit claimants are treated.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 16, 2011)

Nice one 2Sheds.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Whats that german word?? begins with s


 
In Murdoch's case?

Blatantly _scheissefotze_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> They were going to shut up shop regardless. Don't get me wrong I would dance a silly jig infront of the most discerning of audiences stark bollock naked on acid if his empire fell. But it won't.


 
With or without tit tassels?


----------



## pk (Jul 16, 2011)

Is anyone buying The Scum? What are the sales figures for the past week?


----------



## killer b (Jul 16, 2011)

'unofficial industry estimates' had them down a quarter of a million, but i don't think there's any definitive figures yet.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nobody got hurt? You are fucking kidding. All kinds of people have been hurt - including a young child in the Brown case.
> 
> You and a few others seem determined to split the world up into those who deserve to be treated decently and those who deserve whatever shit is thrown at them. That's a really shit attitude.



wind your neck in, i was talking specifically about the brown case


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Yes, and the discussion earlier about whether or not Sun and NotW readers actually believe the shit that's in the papers isn't the most important point, I don't think.
> 
> The papers set the agenda - what people talk about and what MPs get frothy at the mouth about - and so what laws we've got, how the police behave at (for example) demos, and how benefit claimants are treated.


 
And by setting the agenda, they also act, alongside the state and wider business interests to set the permissible boundaries of public discourse, which is why business, the media and the state make such a toxic triumvirate, especially if you're poor or in a minority.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2011)

killer b said:


> 'unofficial industry estimates' had them down a quarter of a million, but i don't think there's any definitive figures yet.


 
The official ABC figures for this period aren't due for another month or so, and the National Readership Survey seems to have given up. Lucky timing on the first one i think. They did publish figures for the period immediately before all this yesterday though.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You and a few others seem determined to split the world up into those who deserve to be treated decently and those who deserve whatever shit is thrown at them. That's a really shit attitude.



precisely, sometimes it is in the public interest to expose the private lives of the powerful


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

belboid said:


> Jennifer Elliott.


 
where have i defended coppers taking bribes and hit pieces being written about people not in a public position?


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 16, 2011)

gavman said:


> who says that's not the image he wanted to project? a harmless old man, looking after the family biz during troubled times


 
His biographer says "Right now the difficulty is that Rupert is incredibly old. He is an old 80, which makes him seem like 100. I just don't think he is up to it any more. I've spent a lot of time with him and it was weird. Often he's fine, but it was very hard for him to follow the track of the conversation. He's an old guy. You think, 'Oh my god, this guy is old'" and indicates that he'll be pretty poor in front of the Select Committee...


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> precisely, sometimes it is in the public interest to expose the private lives of the powerful


 
Precisely the problem underlying this whole situation.


----------



## belboid (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> where have i defended coppers taking bribes and hit pieces being written about people not in a public position?


 
you keep saying no one got hurt from any of this.  Which simply isn't true.


----------



## contadino (Jul 16, 2011)

spartacus mills said:


> His biographer says "Right now the difficulty is that Rupert is incredibly old. He is an old 80, which makes him seem like 100. I just don't think he is up to it any more. I've spent a lot of time with him and it was weird. Often he's fine, but it was very hard for him to follow the track of the conversation. He's an old guy. You think, 'Oh my god, this guy is old'" and indicates that he'll be pretty poor in front of the Select Committee...


 
Yeah, that's sort of what I was trying to convey a few pages back.  I think people have a personal stress ceiling, which generally lowers as you get older. The impression I get is that Murdoch is just overwhelmed by this whole affair, and can't cope.  I think he knows that James is not the brightest spark, which is why his successor was always going to be Rebekah Brooks. She was the only one on his radar who was calous and vindictive enough to take the reins. Now she's gone, of course he'll see his legacy crumbling.  It must be a slow-motion train crash for him.

Fucking brilliant.


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 16, 2011)

contadino said:


> Now she's gone, of course he'll see his legacy crumbling.  It must be a slow-motion train crash for him.



Oh dear, how sad, nevermind.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

belboid said:


> you keep saying no one got hurt from any of this.  Which simply isn't true.



i actually said no-one died - i dont agree at all what happened to her, she wasnt in the public eye - but, i think its dangerous to extrapolate the reasons for her suicide

what if jeffery archer had topped himself, would that be a journalists fault?


----------



## belboid (Jul 16, 2011)

Well, even McMullan thinks he played a very significant role in her death.  

And you said 'no one got hurt' in 5576


----------



## pk (Jul 16, 2011)

Tesco -  "we do not believe that it is appropriate to withdraw our advertising from News International publications at this point"


----------



## rorymac (Jul 16, 2011)

If he were to sincerely apologise I'd say let him bow out quietly. I get way more annoyed with those that are elected to know better than to allow all this stuff to get out of control. Fuckin idiots could have put a stop to it all 20 years ago or more if they had anything about them at all. Not saying they're all crap and I can imagine how hard it might have been for an MP trying to rustle a bit of support up to do exactly that when 99% of them wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
Fackin Tony Blair !


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 16, 2011)

pk said:


> Tesco -  "we do not believe that it is appropriate to withdraw our advertising from News International publications at this point"


 
The hacklash begins?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i actually said no-one died -[...] - but, i think its dangerous to extrapolate the reasons for her suicide


 from 'no one died' to 'she died' in one easy step


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

pk said:


> Tesco -  "we do not believe that it is appropriate to withdraw our advertising from News International publications at this point"


 
that is, there are still people who read ni pubs and shop with us and if we didn't advertise they'd go to waitrose (times / sunday times) or lidl or sainsbury's (sun)


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> says who, no-one got hurt, nothing got stolen
> 
> tbh, in the lights of brown's government attack on disabled claimants id say it was more than relevent


 
Are you trying to say that the only things that are morally wrong are theft and PHYSICALLY harming someone?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

belboid said:


> Well, even McMullan thinks he played a very significant role in her death.
> 
> And you said 'no one got hurt' in 5576


 
i already said i was referring to the brown case

mcmullan may well think that, he's been disarmingly frank.  but his guilty conscience doesnt change the fact that he wrote the piece in 1995 as far as i can tell, and it wasnt until 2003 that she killed herself.  fwiw, as i say i dont think it should have been published, and all the way through ive been consistant that people not in the public eye should not have to face this intrusion - and it should be far easier to get redress, which at the moment is virtually impossible except for the rich.  the fact the case also involved bribing a copper, whilst a side issue, is obviously criminal

but that has to be balanced against having a press which is free to examine, investigate and report on matters of public interest, and imo when it comes to celebs on matters the public are interested in, firstly because thats what they get paid so much for, secondly because legislating against that will always creep towards cases brought against reporting on the hypocrisy and misdeeds of the rich and powerful

whatever happens to NI, murdoch etc, when this dies down, privacy is going to be the central issue, because some of the pieces of human scum behind the hacked off campaign intend to make it so


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> from 'no one died' to 'she died' in one easy step


 
lets say you cunt someone off on these boards, 8 years later they top themselves, is that your fault?


----------



## rorymac (Jul 16, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> Similarly, I was well fucking irritated listening to Harriet Harman castigating the tories for getting right in there with Murdoch for their own ends....and then suggesting that NL just did much the same because they were _scared_...AWWWWWWWWWW!
> 
> 
> Anyway....I keep meaning to ask about Newscorp's hold in the US but I'm not sure it's appropriate on this thread
> ...


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 16, 2011)

pk said:


> Have you been eating crack??
> 
> Lord knows I love a redhead but that girl has had "nightmare" writ large upon her Gillian McKeith-esque face for years.
> 
> ...


 
Actually it's her hair that I find repellant. That and her morals of course.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> lets say you cunt someone off on these boards, 8 years later they top themselves, is that your fault?


 
if you're going to top yourself i hope i don't have to wait eight years.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Are you trying to say that the only things that are morally wrong are theft and PHYSICALLY harming someone?


 
no badly put, what im saying is that if you want to be fucking prime minister or chancellor then you have to expect your private life is in the public domain, if you dont want that dont be fucking prime minister


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Actually it's her hair that I find repellant. That and her morals of course.


 
and, i hope, her politics


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> no badly put, what im saying is that if you want to be fucking prime minister or chancellor then you have to expect your private life is in the public domain, if you dont want that dont be fucking prime minister


 why? what has the country done, that they should have cameron's private life inflicted on them?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> if you're going to top yourself i hope i don't have to wait eight years.


 
have you got anything to actually say about this


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 16, 2011)

Badgers said:


> No
> 
> Am I missing something?


 
Twenty years of enforced sexual abstinence I suspect.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> why? what has the country done, that they should have cameron's private life inflicted on them?


 
so if cameron is going out picking up prostitutes or shagging his secretary you think it should be a state secret protected by legislation?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> have you got anything to actually say about this


yes. if you top yourself it won't be my fault. but if you're going to, please don't leave it eight years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> so if cameron is going out picking up prostitutes or shagging his secretary you think it should be a state secret protected by legislation?


 
so you see someone picking up prostitutes and someone shagging their secretary as equivalent. why is this?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> so you see someone picking up prostitutes and someone shagging their secretary as equivalent.



says who?

of course not, just two examples of something a prime minister might be doing (perfectly legally) that is in the public interest to be reported


----------



## two sheds (Jul 16, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> And by setting the agenda, they also act, alongside the state and wider business interests to set the permissible boundaries of public discourse, which is why business, the media and the state make such a toxic triumvirate, especially if you're poor or in a minority.



I thought I remembered Our Noam saying that the 'left-wing' papers like Guardian are as much part of the propaganda model as the others because they set the limits of what can be said - this far and no further sort of thing. The only reference I can find though is for the US: 

"In Manufacturing Consent Herman and Chomsky describe the workings of flak within the US press. The so-called ‘liberal’ sectors of the US media, most prominently the New York Times, come under a near constant attack from flak producing institutions for their supposed left-wing extremism. In reality the criticism is largely farcical with the liberal media sticking extraordinarily closely to the cross-party consensus. The effect of flak is to sharply delineate the limits of reasonable debate and to de-legitimise views which are considered more extreme than those presented by the liberal media, the logic being that if the liberal media is indeed extremely leftist and hostile to the government then anything more extreme might reasonably be viewed as being literally insane. "

http://alexdoherty.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/the-bbc-and-the-propaganda-model/


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> says who?


 
you said that you thought we should be told if cameron was shagging his secretary or picking up prostitutes - the clear suggestion being both activities are equivalent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I thought I remembered Our Noam saying that the 'left-wing' papers like Guardian are as much part of the propaganda model as the others because they set the limits of what can be said - this far and no further sort of thing. The only reference I can find though is for the US:
> 
> "In Manufacturing Consent Herman and Chomsky describe the workings of flak within the US press. The so-called ‘liberal’ sectors of the US media, most prominently the New York Times, come under a near constant attack from flak producing institutions for their supposed left-wing extremism. In reality the criticism is largely farcical with the liberal media sticking extraordinarily closely to the cross-party consensus. The effect of flak is to sharply delineate the limits of reasonable debate and to de-legitimise views which are considered more extreme than those presented by the liberal media, the logic being that if the liberal media is indeed extremely leftist and hostile to the government then anything more extreme might reasonably be viewed as being literally insane. "
> 
> http://alexdoherty.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/the-bbc-and-the-propaganda-model/


 i thought the consensus was that the guardian was worse than the others because it can get away with so much more.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you said that you thought we should be told if cameron was shagging his secretary or picking up prostitutes - the clear suggestion being both activities are equivalent.


 
only in your head


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> only in your head


 
so which is 'worse' - shagging his secretary or picking up prostitutes?


----------



## laptop (Jul 16, 2011)

me said:
			
		

> Rupert Murdoch said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He repeated this, unless the Guardian's being naughty with quotes, on leaving his meeting with the Dowlers.

So: some announcement will be made either just before the Select Committee appearance on Tuesday, to sabotage it and change the question; or, if really desperate, during it, to show some respect (or give the appearance of it).

An expanded compensation fund - in the hope of avoiding court cases with the embarassing disclosure bit? 

$30M to Disco Dave's Big Society? 

What?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> so which is 'worse' - shagging his secretary or picking up prostitutes?


 
i think both would be in the public interest to be reported (im not interested in childish morality traps), but you appear to think it should be a secret


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 16, 2011)

on Tuesday News International hired Edelman PR company and now they have sacked two key hated figures (sorry, they resigned), the old man has personally apologised to the Dowler family and they have run full page apologies in all the national press


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i think both would be in the public interest to be reported (im not interested in childish morality traps), but you appear to think it should be a secret


 
if they're not equivalent - and you've said they're not - you clearly think one is worse than that other. which is it, is cameron shagging a secretary worse than cameron being driven round london picking up prostititutes?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> if they're not equivalent - and you've said they're not - you clearly think one is worse than that other. which is it, is cameron shagging a secretary worse than cameron being driven round london picking up prostititutes?


 
see youve already quantified it, it very much depends on the circumstances of each doesnt it - why dont you write out two examples of how each might happen and then i can give you an opinion

failing that you might want to comment on the issue actually being discussed


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I thought I remembered Our Noam saying that the 'left-wing' papers like Guardian are as much part of the propaganda model as the others because they set the limits of what can be said - this far and no further sort of thing. The only reference I can find though is for the US:
> 
> "In Manufacturing Consent Herman and Chomsky describe the workings of flak within the US press. The so-called ‘liberal’ sectors of the US media, most prominently the New York Times, come under a near constant attack from flak producing institutions for their supposed left-wing extremism. In reality the criticism is largely farcical with the liberal media sticking extraordinarily closely to the cross-party consensus. The effect of flak is to sharply delineate the limits of reasonable debate and to de-legitimise views which are considered more extreme than those presented by the liberal media, the logic being that if the liberal media is indeed extremely leftist and hostile to the government then anything more extreme might reasonably be viewed as being literally insane. "
> 
> http://alexdoherty.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/the-bbc-and-the-propaganda-model/


 
I think what you're referring to is in one of the later books of conversations with David Barsamian, where he's talking about Norman Podhoretz as a kind of exemplar of this phoney leftism, and then elucidates that far from the US "left" media being unique, the same _faux_-liberality and boundary-setting is present in every media, across the world.

I'll have a flip through later, see if I can find the exact quote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> see youve already quantified it, it very much depends on the circumstances of each doesnt it - why dont you write out two examples of how each might happen and then i can give you an opinion
> 
> failing that you might want to comment on the issue actually being discussed


i am commenting on the issue being discussed. i want to explore which of these peccadilloes you find more objectionable. i don't give a fuck about cameron fucking his secretary - they can have a fruity threesome with samantha while the royal family film it for all i care - nor do i fuss too much about cameron picking up prostitutes. which of them do you think should be reported, and why?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i am commenting on the issue being discussed. i want to explore which of these peccadilloes you find more objectionable. i don't give a fuck about cameron fucking his secretary - they can have a fruity threesome with samantha while the royal family film it for all i care - nor do i fuss too much about cameron picking up prostitutes. which of them do you think should be reported, and why?



i think all of them should be able to be reported and i cant fucking believe you dont


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i think all of them should be able to be reported and i cant fucking believe you dont


 
where did i say these things shouldn't be able to be reported? you're just making it up like the wanker you are.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

so whats your point


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> so whats your point


 
right now? you're a liar.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

why


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> why


 
because you say that i believe that these things shouldn't be able to be reported, which is not a position i have taken.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

so what is your position, other than you hope i kill myself


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> so what is your position, other than you hope i kill myself


 
no, you're wrong again. my position on that is that if you are going to top yourself i hope i don't have to wait eight years for it.

my position is these things should be able to be reported but i would hope that they weren't as the examples you pose aren't to my mind all that. you'll now bring up the case of the dpp who resigned when caught kerb crawling round kings x in the 1980s or early 1990s, but i do not want to read about something like that when there are so many other worse things they do which could be reported instead.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 16, 2011)

smokedout said:


> see youve already quantified it, it very much depends on the circumstances of each doesnt it - why dont you write out two examples of how each might happen and then i can give you an opinion
> 
> failing that you might want to comment on the issue actually being discussed



Dave's secretary drops a box of staples on the floor .. when she bends over to pick them Dave gets a semi on and drops his pen under his desk and from that position he can see up her skirt .. he asks her to look at a file he's been reading and as she stands beside him he can smell her scent and perfume and is dribbling into his slacks. He puts his hand on her arse, immediately apologises but she responds and he goes straight up it .. he brings her to a climax orally on his desk and goes back up it again. 

Dave goes to Foxylady in Vegas and pays 500 dollars for a night of passion with a blonde tanned beauty with fake boobs and no pubic hair. He feels strangely unsatisfied and phones his missus telling her he misses her and loves her so much. Well he does tbf


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> my position is these things should be able to be reported *but i would hope that they weren't* as the examples you pose aren't to my mind all that.



well i'm sure you're aesthetics will be born in mind next time someone catches a tory with his pants down,  its not much of a position is it



> you'll now bring up the case of the dpp who resigned when caught kerb crawling round kings x in the 1980s or early 1990s, but i do not want to read about something like that when there are so many other worse things they do which could be reported instead.



yet that's what ended his career.  its not en either/or thing, why cant both be reported


----------



## smokedout (Jul 16, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Dave's secretary drops a box of staples on the floor .. when she bends over to pick them Dave gets a semi on and drops his pen under his desk and from that position he can see up her skirt .. he asks her to look at a file he's been reading and as she stands beside him he can smell her scent and perfume and dribbling into his slacks. He puts his hand on her arse, immediately apologises but she responds and he goes straight up it .. he brings her to a climax orally on his desk and goes back up it again.
> 
> Dave goes to Foxylady in Vegas and pays 500 dollars for a night of passion with a blonde tanned beauty with fake boobs and no pubic hair. He feels strangely unsatisfied and phones his missu telling her he misses her and loves her so much. Well he does tbf



did you get a hard on writing that


----------



## strung out (Jul 16, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Dave's secretary drops a box of staples on the floor .. when she bends over to pick them Dave gets a semi on and drops his pen under his desk and from that position he can see up her skirt .. he asks her to look at a file he's been reading and as she stands beside him he can smell her scent and perfume and is dribbling into his slacks. He puts his hand on her arse, immediately apologises but she responds and he goes straight up it .. he brings her to a climax orally on his desk and goes back up it again.
> 
> Dave goes to Foxylady in Vegas and pays 500 dollars for a night of passion with a blonde tanned beauty with fake boobs and no pubic hair. He feels strangely unsatisfied and phones his missus telling her he misses her and loves her so much. Well he does tbf


----------



## Mitre10 (Jul 16, 2011)

pk said:


> Tesco -  "we do not believe that it is appropriate to withdraw our advertising from News International publications at this point"


 


Pickman's model said:


> that is, there are still people who read ni pubs and shop with us and if we didn't advertise they'd go to waitrose (times / sunday times) or lidl or sainsbury's (sun)


 

Having personally dealt with Tesco on various issues, the more likely situation is: NI are over a barrel, advertisers pulling out left right and centre. We can get the level of advertising we've had for years but now only pay 25% of the previous rate or we'll threaten to pull out as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

Mitre10 said:


> Having personally dealt with Tesco on various issues, the more likely situation is: NI are over a barrel, advertisers pulling out left right and centre. We can get the level of advertising we've had for years but now only pay 25% of the previous rate or we'll threaten to pull out as well.


 
good point well made


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 16, 2011)

News International having every leading political figure effectively under survilenace is not about 'protecting the public interest'. Its about gathering personal information with which to control those people for Murodchs' own ends. You can bet that most of the dirt they've got on ministers, leading civil servants etc is not in the public domain, but their on file in wapping in case its ever needed. 

The 'holding the powerful to account' argument is  a cynical fig leaf useed to conceal Murdochs malign hold on the body politic. Politicians are ultimately accountable to the eletrote, Murodch is accountable to no-one bar the shareholders who are only interested in NI making a profit.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 16, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Dave's secretary drops a box of staples on the floor .. when she bends over to pick them Dave gets a semi on and drops his pen under his desk and from that position he can see up her skirt .. he asks her to look at a file he's been reading and as she stands beside him he can smell her scent and perfume and is dribbling into his slacks. He puts his hand on her arse, immediately apologises but she responds and he goes straight up it .. he brings her to a climax orally on his desk and goes back up it again.
> 
> Dave goes to Foxylady in Vegas and pays 500 dollars for a night of passion with a blonde tanned beauty with fake boobs and no pubic hair. He feels strangely unsatisfied and phones his missus telling her he misses her and loves her so much. Well he does tbf


 
LOL


----------



## weltweit (Jul 16, 2011)

OK 

Many here are able to cope with the issue of what the editors Coulson and Brooks knew. 

Either - 1) they knew about the hacking in which case they were guilty

Or - 2) they didn't know in which case they were incompetant

The editors were close to the action, and James Murdoch to a great extent. 

But what about Rupert Murdoch, he was much more removed from the action. 

Do you think Rupert Murdoch knew about the hacking, when it was going on?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 16, 2011)

weltweit said:


> OK
> 
> Many here are able to cope with the issue of what the editors Coulson and Brooks knew.
> 
> ...


 
I would guess he looked the other way as they had 'scoops' and sold papers.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 16, 2011)

^^Personally I think Rupe didn't want to know,he was quite happy whatever ways were employed to sell papers, as long as it didn't involve him. Plausable deniability don't ya know.


----------



## belboid (Jul 16, 2011)

Elisabeth Murdoch: "James and Rebekah fucked the company."


----------



## laptop (Jul 16, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Do you think Rupert Murdoch knew about the hacking, when it was going on?


 

All the accounts are that he conducted business with his editors in late-night phone conversations.

There'd be _loads_ that he'd want not to put in writing.

It's _almost_ too much to hope that we get to hear recordings of those calls.

But perhaps one of these inquiries could ask the security services whether they alerted the government to evidence that a foreign national was hacking the phones of Her Majesty's Ministers - and if not, why not?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 16, 2011)

there's a four minute vid from Murdoch's biographer here which is worth watching: http://www.adweek.com/video/advertising-branding/michael-wolff-murdochalypse-133400


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 16, 2011)

> 3.58pm: There are rumours on Twitter that the New York Times may have a scoop on the allegations that News of the World journalists tried to hack the phones of 9/11 victims.
> 
> Michael Wolff has tweeted: "Rumor: New York Times has something juicy tomorrow on #NOTW. Could be 9/11 connection."
> 
> ...


Well well well

We shall see if they pan out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

weltweit said:


> But what about Rupert Murdoch, he was much more removed from the action.


this is based on what? do you mean that because he was higher up he didn't know that the news of the world was hacking the uk head of state's phone, that that sort of thing would be authorised by one of his minions?



> Do you think Rupert Murdoch knew about the hacking, when it was going on?


of course he fucking did.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 16, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Actually it's her hair that I find repellant. That and her morals of course.


 
I like her hair.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I like her hair.


 
(((_angel_)))


----------



## rorymac (Jul 16, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> there's a four minute vid from Murdoch's biographer here which is worth watching: http://www.adweek.com/video/advertising-branding/michael-wolff-murdochalypse-133400



Dead interesting that .. I noted his concern re whether the parliamentary people might grandstand which seems to so often be the name of the game and almost a way of life now .. from an outsiders limited enough point of view.


----------



## paolo (Jul 16, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I like her hair.


 
A few of us conceded this last night.

Good hair. Attached to something truly, wholly, awful. And I don't mean looks.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 16, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Dave's secretary drops a box of staples on the floor .. when she bends over to pick them Dave gets a semi on and drops his pen under his desk and from that position he can see up her skirt .. he asks her to look at a file he's been reading and as she stands beside him he can smell her scent and perfume and is dribbling into his slacks. He puts his hand on her arse, immediately apologises but she responds and he goes straight up it .. he brings her to a climax orally on his desk and goes back up it again.
> 
> Dave goes to Foxylady in Vegas and pays 500 dollars for a night of passion with a blonde tanned beauty with fake boobs and no pubic hair. He feels strangely unsatisfied and phones his missus telling her he misses her and loves her so much. Well he does tbf


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 16, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> That's a bit rich coming from you!
> Calling Myleene Klass a "nazi heiffer" obviously makes total sense.


 
She is a nazi heiffer. I stand by that.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 16, 2011)

*A historical curiosity*



Whilst looking through old _Private Eye_s I came across this curiosity in #1051 (18 April 2002):



> A tremendous scoop in the _News Of The World_ of 24 March: "Vile pop pedophile Jonathan King has been beaten up in prison and left with a broken nose, a fractured wrist and two black eyes." The attack took place "at London's tough Belmarsh prison… 10 days ago," and King has now been sent to Maidstone jail to have his nose re-set.
> 
> Yet, alas! King claims to have been transferred from Belmarsh to Maidstone several weeks earlier. "I didn't have black eyes or fractured wrists and, anyway, would never be rushed to Maidstone to 'reset my broken nose' since it's one of the few prisons in Britain without a hospital wing," the vile pop pedophile himself points out in a letter to Lord Gnome.
> 
> ...



King - who has been out of gaol for six years - has been skirting round the issue in recent posts on his website…



> I have to say - as long as it's legal, such things as hacking phones (we used to call it "tapping"), and paying police for tips are basic methods of journalistic practice and there's nothing wrong with them as long as a) they don't break the law (which they now do) and b) they don't encourage or back up a corrupt agenda.
> 
> …Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks just did what good editors are meant to do; but times have changed. They lied when they were caught out and will pay the price accordingly.


 (From his blog post My personal thoughts on Coulson, Wade, phone hacking, Murdoch…)

Aside from King's confusion over what is legal and what is not*, he seems to be suggesting that he was aware of these sorts of practices going on. Whether he is sitting on anything worth knowing is another matter.

Still, it could be fun if he actually lands some _Sun_ and _NOTW_ bods in the shit with some 'drugs orgies shocker' bean-spilling.

* On the confusion front, in his letter to the _Eye_ he says he worked for NI for five years; his website biography says his _Sun_ column ran for eight years; and in a blog post he says he "worked for ten happy years for News International and found them incredibly professional, decent and efficient." Make of that what you will.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 16, 2011)

Something that could only be described as a Freudian slip in today's _Grauniad_ liveblog on the NI shenanigans:



> Adding to the intrigue as to what Elisabeth Murdoch did or did not say is a fascinating piece buried deep inside the Telegraph about her family, writes Lisa O'Carroll.
> 
> It gives legs to the notion that Rupert is now preparing the ground for succession.
> 
> ...


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 16, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> She is a nazi heiffer. I stand by that.


 This is exactly why you come across as some kind of comedy viz leftie. She's vacuous and annoying. She is not a nazi heifer. You can't even get the hang of doing insults properly.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 16, 2011)

Ffor ffuck's sake everyone, there's only one eff in 'heifer' 

(Unless you're talking about Simon effing Heffer.)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> She is a nazi heiffer. I stand by that.


 
Heifer, you twonk!

E2A: Snap!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 16, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> This is exactly why you come across as some kind of comedy viz leftie. She's vacuous and annoying. She is not a nazi heifer. You can't even get the hang of doing insults properly.


 
Ms Klaas isn't broad enough in the beam to be a heifer, anyway.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 16, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> This is exactly why you come across as some kind of comedy viz leftie. She's vacuous and annoying. She is not a nazi heifer. You can't even get the hang of doing insults properly.


 
Well I liked it and it obviously had an impact on you, given that you remembered it  I was exaggerating for comic effect ofcourse, but I do think that individuals like Klass play incredibly malignant roles in society through using their celebrity to promote cosmetic surgery (which as far as I'm concerned is a close cousin of eugenics) and to give murderous tyrannies like Dubai the veneer of glitz and glamour. It is precisely through such seemingly benign mediums that ruling class values are transmitted in liberal democracies.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 16, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ms Klaas isn't broad enough in the beam to be a heifer, anyway.


 
Well, quite!




			
				 Jeff said:
			
		

> Well I liked it and it obviously had an impact on you, given that you remembered it  I was exaggerating for comic effect ofcourse, but I do think that individuals like Klass play incredibly malignant roles in society through using their celebrity to promote cosmetic surgery (which as far as I'm concerned is a close cousin of eugenics) and to give murderous tyrannies like Dubai the veneer of glitz and glamour. It is precisely through such seemingly benign mediums that ruling class values are transmitted in liberal democracies.


Yeah it's possible to think she's an idiot re:the Dubai thing esp as an unmarried mother, she could be jailed over there, without saying silly things.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 16, 2011)

She's not an idiot. She's doing it do get shit tonnes of cash. Duh.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 16, 2011)

NYT on the yard



> On Friday, The New York Times learned that the former editor, *Neil Wallis, was reporting back to News International *while he was working for the police on the hacking case.


He was working for his own company. 


> Yet the Metropolitan Police unit that deals with special crimes, which had more resources and time available, could have taken over the case, said four former senior investigators. One called the argument that the department did not have enough resources “utter nonsense.”
> 
> Another senior investigator said officials saw the inquiry as being in “safe hands” at the counterterrorism unit.





> A News International spokeswoman said the company was reviewing whether it had paid Mr. Wallis at the same time.





> “This is stunning,” a senior Scotland Yard official who retired within the past few years said when informed about Mr. Wallis’ secret dual role. “It appears to be collusion. It has left a terrible odor around the Yard.”





> The documents were seized on Aug. 8, 2006, from Mr. Mulcaire’s home in Cheam, south of London. Mr. Mulcaire, a 40-year-old former soccer player whose nickname was “*The *Trigger,” was nothing if not a meticulous note-keeper.


Hmmmm seems Only Fools and Horses got lost in the transatlantic culture gulf


> In the fall of 2006, Sir Ian Blair, then the police commissioner, had the option of assigning the case to the Specialist Crime Directorate, the division that handles homicides, robberies and the like. It had 3,500 detectives at its disposal and could have reviewed every document, several former officials said.
> 
> *The man leading the unit, Tarique Ghaffur,* was known among his colleagues for refusing to toe the line. Mr. Ghaffur had led an internal inquiry into the police harassment of a prominent black activist and concluded that the man had been the victim of “unreasonable targeting by police officers.”


Jesus the threads of this story keeps popping up every where.


----------



## 8den (Jul 16, 2011)

New York Times



> Scotland Yard’s new criminal inquiry, dubbed Operation Weeting, has led to the arrests of a total of nine reporters and editors, with more expected. And the police have opened another inquiry into allegations that some officers were paid for confidential information by reporters at News of the World and elsewhere.
> 
> The Metropolitan Police itself is now the subject of a judicial inquiry into what went wrong with their initial case, as well as into the ties between the department’s top officers and executives and reporters for News International.
> 
> ...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 16, 2011)

The whole thing repeatedly links into the anti terror operations and the good press coverage they were getting from NI.

"We are operating within the criminal justice system but that is difficult because we are right at the cutting edge of policing"

Id speculate that Haymans pressure on the Guardian to make the original Morgan murder investigation disappear (2000) when he was head of anti corruption in the Met was a big plus in him getting the anti terror job. That and his willingness to bend and break rules by spying on other cops illegally.

The irony is that the Morgan murder and Hayman and the press all resurface with these phone hacking allegations.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 16, 2011)

Daniel Morgan as the Mets Banquo


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 16, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> on Tuesday *News International hired Edelman PR company* and now they have sacked two key hated figures (sorry, they resigned), the old man has personally apologised to the Dowler family and they have run full page apologies in all the national press




I knew nothing on Edelman until today - they have "form" on various issues:



> In April 1998 the Los Angeles Times revealed that Edelman had drafted a campaign plan to ensure that a dozen state attorneys-general did not join anti-trust legal actions against Microsoft. Documents obtained by the LA Times revealed that the plan included generating supportive letters to the editor, opinion pieces and articles by freelance writers.[17] USA Today responded to the astroturfing saying, "the elaborate plan hinges on a number of unusual and some say unethical tactics, including the planting of articles, letters to the editor and opinion pieces to be commissioned by Microsoft's top media handlers but presented by local firms as spontaneous testimonials."


(from Wikipedia)



> The New York Times reported in March, 2006 that Edelman had sent information to bloggers, some of which was copied word for word on blogs, to try to help Wal-Mart in a public relations campaign. Edelman responded by saying that they were working with bloggers and Wal-Mart in a "transparent" manner.
> 
> Edelman is also infamous for having invented the "flog", or fake blog. Edelman execs created a fake blog called "Walmarting Across America". The blog was written by a former Washington Post employee who was allegedly paid by Edelman to write the blog.


(from Wikipedia)

See also Edelman's efforts (on behalf of some rather big-money organisations) to influence education policy in the States here


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2011)

Edelman specialise in selling access to tory MPs. Lib-dem thief David Laws was caught pimping them in Parliament (his partner is a director). They have also been found guilty of breaking lobbying rules by failing to declare clients they were working for.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 16, 2011)

Thanks for the info there, butchersapron.  So NI has chosen a PR firm with form w/MPs within our current government too....another Conservative - News Int link (and a Lib Dem one too - beautiful!).

I'm certainly late to the party on the Murdoch-Edelman hook-up, and there's a fair few comment pieces etc out there already - this one I found interesting from the PR angle side.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 16, 2011)

Stephensons health spa visit just cost him his job



> Sky has now learnt that Sir Paul spent time at a health farm where Mr Wallis was a consultant.


When _will _the resignation be official? Place your bets


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 16, 2011)

This has already been discussed in the thread but here is a link to the story



> In 2000, Gillard and Flynn were working on freelance contracts for The Guardian investigating alleged police corruption. On 2 August, Hayman sent a "strictly confidential" letter to Rusbridger claiming that the actions of the pair could undermine an important case the Met was working on.
> 
> Gillard and Flynn were not shown the letter, taken off the police corruption story and subsequently did not have their Guardian contracts renewed.


Link


----------



## gavman (Jul 16, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> what about bbc etc?


 
i live in a valley and don't get radio or normal telly


----------



## gavman (Jul 16, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> if you're going to top yourself i hope i don't have to wait eight years.


 
class


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 16, 2011)

Just got a link to tomorrow's Sunday Torygraph, where the following is being talked about:



> In a series of further developments, The Sunday Telegraph can also disclose today:
> 
> - James Murdoch’s position as chairman of BSkyB is under review after the board agreed a special session to discuss his future.
> 
> ...



Full article is here


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 16, 2011)

laptop said:


> But perhaps one of these inquiries could ask the security services whether they alerted the government to evidence that a foreign national was hacking the phones of Her Majesty's Ministers - and if not, why not?


 
Because the very ideas of "foreign national" and "Her Majesty's Ministers" no longer apply in contemporary realpolitik. Nations are irrelevant. What counts is whether you are part of the international wealthy elite or not. If you are you get to do what you want anywhere in the world, and if you aren't then you can settle for scraps unless you get in the way in which case you will be trampled. There is some vestigial awareness left that it's not supposed to be that way, but that's about it.


----------



## pk (Jul 16, 2011)

Mitre10 said:


> Having personally dealt with Tesco on various issues, the more likely situation is: NI are over a barrel, advertisers pulling out left right and centre. We can get the level of advertising we've had for years but now only pay 25% of the previous rate or we'll threaten to pull out as well.


 
At least it will be remembered where Tesco's loyalties lie - complicit it funding people who hack the phones of dead kids.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 16, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> and, i hope, her politics


 
There's a strand of repressive right wing reactionary politics that stems not from any belief that economic liberalism and conservatism will lead to a better world, but simply from a complete absence of any moral framework other than "other people shouldn't be allowed to get away with anything I can stop them getting away with". It's that I despise in Rebekah Brooks... and far too many others.

I can see somebody who genuinely believes that a genuine free market and/or a repressive government is simply mistaken. I can't see somebody like Brooks being anything other than a disgusting piece of slime dripping from the arsehole of humanity. However the politics could be identical.


----------



## laptop (Jul 16, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Because the very ideas of "foreign national" and "Her Majesty's Ministers" no longer apply in contemporary realpolitik.


 
My point was that they're *supposed* to and that gives grounds for Questions in the House.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 16, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Just got a link to tomorrow's Sunday Torygraph, where the following is being talked about:
> 
> 
> 
> Full article is here


Melly, I think Jude Law is suing the sun.  google search link

If the sun is involved (as is most likely duh) then that's pretty much the end of the murdoch association with the press in the UK.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 16, 2011)

Dexter TCN - you're right on the Sun/Jude Law thing.  If it does turn out that Law's phone was also hacked by the NOTW, could there then be a clear link in collusion between the NOTW and the Sun on this (remember, the spin is that both titles operated separately from each other and didn't share stories)?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 16, 2011)

they operated separately and didn't share stories


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 16, 2011)

pk said:


> And if the Mirror Group had any sense they'd launch a Sunday rag pronto, but they're up to their necks in the same shit, as are the Daily Fail/Associated.


 
Twitter rumour now that DM&GT will launch a Sunday redtop next week edited by Kelvin MacKenzie 

Hopefully it's just a Giles Coren windup, because if it's not, I'm sure it covers about 2/3 of the foreplay in Revelations.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 16, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Twitter rumour now that DM&GT will launch a Sunday redtop next week edited by Kelvin MacKenzie
> 
> Hopefully it's just a Giles Coren windup, because if it's not, I'm sure it covers about 2/3 of the foreplay in Revelations.


 
I think this was flagged by the Graun on Friday on their live feed thing...and if it is true, how on earth anyone would want to employ the utterly toxic McKenzie as a national newspaper editor in 2011 is beyond me....I can see the stories now - "Liverpool immigrant scum run welfare and prostitution racket at taxpayer's expense (oh, and they're filthy homosexuals too)"


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 16, 2011)

Any ideas on who would want to buy or have the money to buy the sun.the print media although not so profitable as it was but still holds some prestige


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 16, 2011)

So toxic not even the SE London villains settled into their Casa del Crimes along the Darent Valley wanted him in their golf club


----------



## pk (Jul 16, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Twitter rumour now that DM&GT will launch a Sunday redtop next week edited by Kelvin MacKenzie
> 
> Hopefully it's just a Giles Coren windup, because if it's not, I'm sure it covers about 2/3 of the foreplay in Revelations.


 
If it hurts the profits of NI it 's a useful strawman. Kelvin is a cunt, won't take much to dismantle him once he has exceeded his usefulness.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 16, 2011)

If James Murdoch goes to prison, a few lags are going to find themselves with a column in the son.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 16, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> If James Murdoch goes to prison, a few lags are going to find themselves with a column in the son.


 
Do you really think they will be that desperate?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 16, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> If James Murdoch goes to prison, a few lags are going to find themselves with a column in the son.


----------



## gavman (Jul 17, 2011)

top punage


----------



## binka (Jul 17, 2011)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nior-mps-secret-links-to-murdoch-2315111.html



> The MP who will lead the attack on Rebekah Brooks and Rupert and James Murdoch this week over their roles in the phone-hacking scandal has close links with the media empire, it is revealed today.
> 
> John Whittingdale, the Conservative chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport committee, admitted he was an old friend of Mr Murdoch's close aide, Les Hinton, and had been for dinner with Ms Brooks.



How many MPs do you think have never had dinner with someone from NI?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 17, 2011)

binka said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nior-mps-secret-links-to-murdoch-2315111.html
> 
> How many MPs do you think have never had dinner with someone from NI?



Well "no such thing as a free lunch"


----------



## elbows (Jul 17, 2011)

I enjoyed seeing the details of how many times Cameron met NI executives since becoming PM, and the Coulson Chequers visit months after resignation. Ho ho ho.

( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14173150 story is not so new now, Im just catching up with todays events )


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 17, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/30/rupert-murdoch-monopoly-news-corp?commentpage=8
Oh dear ,fucker's been keeping a very low profile over the last week or so,wonder what the chances of him being dragged into the scandal?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 17, 2011)

Gingerman - just read that McKenzie piece in the Graun, and it's borderline hilarious - I think my favourite bit is this:



> Why has Rupert a monopoly? Simple: nobody else had the guts, the nerve or the stunning management skill to take on the establishment. When he was losing literally hundreds of millions on Sky, his competitors were delighted. Now he has made the greatest television success in all our lifetimes, they scream foul.



Kelvin knows all about television successes  - after all, he gave us the wonderful and memorable Live TV (Topless Darts, anyone?), which we're all still fond of to this day.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

Culture chairman, who will this week quiz media moguls, is friends with Les Hinton and Elisabeth Murdoch, R Brooks



> The MP who will lead the attack on Rebekah Brooks and Rupert and James Murdoch this week over their roles in the phone-hacking scandal has close links with the media empire, it is revealed today.
> 
> 
> John Whittingdale, the Conservative chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport committee, admitted he was an old friend of Mr Murdoch's close aide, Les Hinton, and had been for dinner with Ms Brooks.
> ...


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 17, 2011)

Does it matter then, the Committee theatre this week?


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 17, 2011)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...BBC-Left-is-using-hacking-to-get-revenge.html
Another contender for the 'missing the point' award


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 17, 2011)

How many people get to have one to one meetings with the prime minister 26 times in 15 months? Thats a meeting every 2 or 3 weeks. 

I would think not many. Only Senior cabinet ministers and top civil servants. Does Nick Clegg enjoy that sort of of access? And only Cameron's personal advisors and closest allies would meet him more often then that. So thats pretty indicactive of how important News Interantional are in government - unofficial cabinet member at least.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

I was going to the miss the live Muppet Murdoch show on Tuesday afternoon, because I had an important meeting, which has taken bloody months to set-up, so I didn't want to bugger around with that.

I've just got an e-mail asking if he could re-arrange the meeting, because he doesn't want to miss the show - game on. 

I am so looking forward to it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 17, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> If James Murdoch goes to prison, a few lags are going to find themselves with a column in the son.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 17, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/30/rupert-murdoch-monopoly-news-corp?commentpage=8
> Oh dear ,fucker's been keeping a very low profile over the last week or so,wonder what the chances of him being dragged into the scandal?



I saw that a few days ago, i'd say the chances are pretty high ... and that's another one for the "shit the guardian says" thread


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 17, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Gingerman - just read that McKenzie piece in the Graun, and it's borderline hilarious - I think my favourite bit is this:
> 
> 
> 
> Kelvin knows all about television successes  - after all, he gave us the wonderful and memorable Live TV (Topless Darts, anyone?), which we're all still fond of to this day.


 
Live TV was basically a televised version of the sunday sport no?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 17, 2011)




----------



## laptop (Jul 17, 2011)

Guardian: The questions the select committee must ask Rebekah Brooks, James and Rupert Murdoch

Any missing?


----------



## laptop (Jul 17, 2011)

Meanwhile: Spot the invisible woman.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 17, 2011)

Nothing to back it up but I'm sure Wendy will be in or around China working on that market.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 17, 2011)

How is it there have been no Met casualties yet - heat should stay on Yates, Stephenson, Hayman et al


----------



## Voley (Jul 17, 2011)




----------



## paolo (Jul 17, 2011)

Verrrr good.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 17, 2011)

Has Ali Dizaei entered the fray yet? 

I'm sure that his own toe-to-toes with various high-ups at the Met, and the fracas with Mahmood Mazher and the _News Of The World_, might lend him an interesting perspective.


----------



## laptop (Jul 17, 2011)

articul8 said:


> How is it there have been no Met casualties yet - heat should stay on Yates, Stephenson, Hayman et al


 
You want it all at once? Split-screen/multi-stage frenzy?

Give the story some air, some room to develop so people can follow.

Murdoch, Met, _Mail_


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Well I liked it and it obviously had an impact on you, given that you remembered it  I was exaggerating for comic effect ofcourse, but I do think that individuals like Klass play incredibly malignant roles in society through using their celebrity to promote cosmetic surgery (which as far as I'm concerned is a close cousin of eugenics) and to give murderous tyrannies like Dubai the veneer of glitz and glamour. It is precisely through such seemingly benign mediums that ruling class values are transmitted in liberal democracies.


 
Jeff, cosmetic surgery has nothing to do with eugenics, but everything to do with people being sold that uniquely American idea that surface is all that matters. Eugenics, however twisted the idea became, at base attempted to "improve the herd", which cosmetic surgery doesn't. It merely provides the individual with a veneer that supposedly masks their flaws.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...BBC-Left-is-using-hacking-to-get-revenge.html
> Another contender for the 'missing the point' award


 
It's Janet Daly, who was originally a creature of Conrad Black. *Of course* she misses the point!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

Brooks arrested by 'appointment' earlier - possibly, it's a 42 year old woman, she's 43 according to wiki but hari probably edited that. edit: saying 43 now.


----------



## paolo (Jul 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Brooks arrested by 'appointment' earlier - possibly, it's a 42 year old woman, she's 43 according to wiki but hari probably edited that. edit: saying 43 now.


 
Whole big bags of "yay" 

So, Rbbbbkkkka, you were saying, how you were leading the investigation into yourself? Err, no. No you weren't.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

MET:



> The MPS has this afternoon, Sunday 17 July, arrested a female in connection with allegations of corruption and phone hacking. At approximately 12.00 hrs a 43-year-old woman was arrested by appointment at a London police station by officers from Operation Weeting together with officers from Operation Elveden. She is currently in custody.
> 
> She was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications, contrary to Section1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977 and on suspicion of corruption allegations contrary to Section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. The Operation Weeting team is conducting the new investigation into phone hacking. Operation Elveden is the investigation into allegations of inappropriate payments to police. This investigation is being supervised by the IPCC.
> 
> It would be inappropriate to discuss any further details regarding these cases at this time.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

Fair bit of heat taking off manouveres by the Met over next few days i expect.


----------



## paolo (Jul 17, 2011)

laptop said:


> You want it all at once? Split-screen/multi-stage frenzy?
> 
> Give the story some air, some room to develop so people can follow.
> 
> Murdoch, Met, _Mail_



The movie is *so* epic, they've already announced the sequels.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Brooks arrested by 'appointment' earlier -



Well that has cheered me up on an otherwise dull Sunday afternoon.

ETA: Does this give her more of a reason to refuse to answer questions from MPs on Tuesday?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Fair bit of heat taking off manouveres by the Met over next few days i expect.


 
Yes - but this is where the really explosive stuff is - systematic evidence of corrupt policing going right to the top, including failing to prosecute Coulson for perjury when they had evidence in their hands, perverting the course of justice themselves by refusing to extend the inquiry...

But who will police the police?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

articul8 said:


> Yes - but this is where the really explosive stuff is - systematic evidence of corrupt policing going right to the top, including failing to prosecute Coulson for perjury when they had evidence in their hands, perverting the course of justice themselves by refusing to extend the inquiry...
> 
> But who will police the police?


Yes, that was what i was suggesting. No need for the 'but'.


----------



## paolo (Jul 17, 2011)

So, all eyes must now be turning to "little Jimmy pay-off".


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Well that has cheered me up on an otherwise dull Sunday afternoon.
> 
> ETA: Does this give her more of a reason to refuse to answer questions from MPs on Tuesday?


 
I would think it gives her more leeway to say she can't answer due to ongoing police investigations yes. This was always her plan as she clearly indicated in her letter to the cmtte, but i think the range of stuff she can/will refuse to reply in a substantive manner has just been expanded.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 17, 2011)

I didn't know you could be arrested by appointment. Is that only for posh/rich people?


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 17, 2011)

The timing absolutely stinks, it suits the met (who are also under investigation) and Brooks to do this now instead of waiting until Wednesday, it just reeks of collusion between them to watch each others backs.


----------



## paolo (Jul 17, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Well that has cheered me up on an otherwise dull Sunday afternoon.
> 
> ETA: Does this give her more of a reason to refuse to answer questions from MPs on Tuesday?


 
Yes.

But it will be nice to watch her, her fucking so important self, having to tell everyone that. (That *she's* been arrested. No fucking flim flam about other people, poor standards, regretful, blah blah... *She's* been arrested).

Wonder if she'll have her hair done again?

_"We were all pulling together under the most traumatic and devastating circumstances and mustering all the dignity we could and *Rebekah was two floors down in the hairdressers getting her hair done. She had it opened especially.* That just says it all," said a senior executive._


----------



## laptop (Jul 17, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> ETA: Does this give her more of a reason to refuse to answer questions from MPs on Tuesday?


 
No idea - and I suspect that the line between a Select Committee and self-incrimination/prejudicing proceedings is rather blurry in our wonderful unwritten constitution.



> Committee members preparing to grill the trio are to be given legal advice on the morning of the hearing on how far they can push the News Corp boss and his son for answers. The committee's chairman, the Tory MP John Whittingdale, has asked for details of their lines of questioning to avoid duplication.
> 
> News Corp is understood to be concerned that the committee will set a trap by asking questions the Murdochs are unable to answer due to the continuing criminal investigations and are taking advice on how to avoid yet another public relations disaster as the company attempts to rebuild its reputation.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/16/rupert-murdoch-ed-miliband-phone-hacking


----------



## laptop (Jul 17, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> I didn't know you could be arrested by appointment. Is that only for posh/rich people?


 
When it happened to me, I was as poor as a church mouse.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I would think it gives her more leeway to say she can't answer due to ongoing police investigations yes. This was always her plan as she clearly indicated in her letter to the cmtte, but i think the range of stuff she can/will refuse to reply in a substantive manner has just been expanded.



Agreed, my thoughts exactly - well 30 seconds after the joy of hearing of her arrest. 



OneStrike said:


> The timing absolutely stinks, it suits the met (who are also under investigation) and Brooks to do this now instead of waiting until Wednesday, it just reeks of collusion between them to watch each others backs.



This too, very smelly indeed.


----------



## Voley (Jul 17, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14178051



> Officers from Operation Elveden were also involved with the arrest. They are investigating allegations of inappropriate payments to police, an inquiry which is being supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.



All getting very tangled now. Can these investigations really be truly separate?


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 17, 2011)

laptop said:


> When it happened to me, I was as poor as a church mouse.



So what is being arrested by appointment then? Do you just schedule a time to turn up and be arrested?


----------



## paolo (Jul 17, 2011)

NVP said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14178051
> 
> 
> 
> All getting very tangled now. Can these investigations really be truly separate?


 
Seperate teams, but swapping notes I would expect. And hope, tbf. Can't see any issue with that.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

NVP said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14178051
> 
> All getting very tangled now. Can these investigations really be truly separate?


 
Yes, and they should be, although, of course, there will be some overlap between the two.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> So what is being arrested by appointment then? Do you just schedule a time to turn up and be arrested?


 
Normally yes, sometimes it's scheduled for them to pick you up.


----------



## paolo (Jul 17, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> The timing absolutely stinks, it suits the met (who are also under investigation) and Brooks to do this now instead of waiting until Wednesday, it just reeks of collusion between them to watch each others backs.


 
Difficult to say I think.

We're in event-blizzard at the moment, and it's become very clear over the last week that nobody can play the story on their own terms. It's a circular firing squad.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

Max sentence under this corruption legislation is 7 years


----------



## weltweit (Jul 17, 2011)

laptop said:


> Guardian: The questions the select committee must ask Rebekah Brooks, James and Rupert Murdoch
> 
> Any missing?


 
I think there are plenty missing, and some of those that are there are not very strong. 

Question to all of them: 

Who authorised the hacking of Milly Dowlers phone? 
Who authorised the deleting of messages on Milly Dowlers phone? 

Who authorised payment of Glen Mulcaires invoices? 

Who knew payments were being made to police officers?
Which police officers were paid? 
Who authorised payments to police officers?

There are more ..


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 17, 2011)

Brooks has been arrested
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14178051


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

stephj said:


> Brooks has been arrested
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14178051


 
Little late there, stephj.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 17, 2011)

These apparently the people who featured in the Gillard Flynn book



> THE UNTOUCHABLES
> Paul Condon Commissioner (1993-2000)
> John Stevens Commissioner (2000-2005); Deputy Commissioner (1998-2000)
> Brian Hayes Deputy Commissioner (1993-1998)
> ...


Names that seem to crop up form time to time in the hacking.

I notice Bob Quick also in 'ghost squad' seems a very strong link between this squad the people who headed the anti terror police

Sorry for the long c&p


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 17, 2011)

A cynic might say that the Met have just made sure Rebekah Brooks is silenced in front of Parliament on Tuesday. They wouldn't do that would they?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 17, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Little late there, stephj.


 
Sorry, didn't read last page


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 17, 2011)

So why haven't news international's offices been raided - like a week ago?


----------



## laptop (Jul 17, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> So what is being arrested by appointment then? Do you just schedule a time to turn up and be arrested?


 
Yes - when they phoned one February, I pointed out that one of my co-defendants was on holiday, and mid-March would be convenient.

Basically, turning up, or being visted, by appointment is an option if you're not a flight risk: being posh does help there.


----------



## laptop (Jul 17, 2011)

skyscraper101 said:


> A cynic might say that the Met have just made sure Rebekah Brooks is silenced in front of Parliament on Tuesday. They wouldn't do that would they?


 
On the other hand, it gives MPs more time to question the actual Murdochs... Brook's fire-break is breached.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 17, 2011)

Gosh. I hope everything turned out ok for you laptop - and thanks for the information, 'tis amazing what you learn on the internet.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 17, 2011)

So, will James be arrested next, perhaps?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 17, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> So why haven't news international's offices been raided - like a week ago?


 
I think it is a good question. 

They would need quite a big team and some IT experts to secure all the possible evidence.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 17, 2011)

If they have disposed of all the evidence what would happen? 
Contempt of court?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 17, 2011)

So by the end of next week we could not only have Coulson and Brooks facing charges, but also James Murdoch and half the mets top brass resigning and Rupert flogging his remaining newspapers. 

Outside chance of Cameron going as well at this rate.  

This is all going very well indeed.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> So, will James be arrested next, perhaps?



Hopefully not before Tuesday, I don't want my afternoon's entertainment to get totally fucked.


----------



## Voley (Jul 17, 2011)

It's all gone much further than I expected it would. Most pleasing. I'd still be surprised if it ousts Cameron. Love to be proved wrong.


----------



## laptop (Jul 17, 2011)

miniGMgoit said:


> If they have disposed of all the evidence what would happen?
> Contempt of court?



Not unless there's a court order that I've missed.

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice


----------



## Open Sauce (Jul 17, 2011)

laptop said:


> Guardian: The questions the select committee must ask Rebekah Brooks, James and Rupert Murdoch
> 
> Any missing?


 
To Brooks...Do you think it was inappropriate accept a meal from the Metropolitan police on Sunday 17th July 2011 when they are investigating you?


e2a: My mistake, that was prison food


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 17, 2011)

> Barry Norman Detective superintendent (CIB3 Operation Helios)


This one spent £4 million investigating Ali Dizaei, got a payout for hurt feelings over the failure of the investigation and also when inspector (CO11?) in 1995 aparently set up FIT.

Yates Operation Russia was part of the mets inquiry in the Lawrence murder.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 17, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> These apparently the people who featured in the Gillard Flynn book
> 
> Names that seem to crop up form time to time in the hacking.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for posting that - where did you get that from (I'm assuming you don't have the book in front of you and that you didn't just type all that out manually!)?


----------



## Open Sauce (Jul 17, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> So why haven't news international's offices been raided - like a week ago?


 
NI are cooperating, so no need, just like 2006


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 17, 2011)

[derail] Just had to admonish someone on Facebook for posting stuff on my Wall from the Veterans Today site, claiming that Murdoch is Jewish, is part of "the world conspiracy", and helped cause 9/11.  Jesus wept.  You''d think that with the massive amount of genuine and legitimate evidence against Murdoch Corp, the conspiraloons and anti-Semites could give it a rest for once?[/derail]


----------



## pk (Jul 17, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Well that has cheered me up on an otherwise dull Sunday afternoon.
> 
> ETA: Does this give her more of a reason to refuse to answer questions from MPs on Tuesday?


 
If she spends the duration of the Tuesday grilling refusing to answer the MP's questions, it will only serve to increase the public's anger towards her by tenfold. Hiding behind legal proceedings will get her nowhere. She's already admitted paying cops for info, which got the ball rolling, there's no way out for her now unless she leaps from the top of the Wapping HQ.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> [derail] Just had to admonish someone on Facebook for posting stuff on my Wall from the Veterans Today site, claiming that Murdoch is Jewish, is part of "the world conspiracy", and helped cause 9/11.  Jesus wept.  You''d think that with the massive amount of genuine and legitimate evidence against Murdoch Corp, the conspiraloons and anti-Semites could give it a rest for once?[/derail]



You have Jazzz as a friend on Facebook?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 17, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> You have Jazzz as a friend on Facebook?


 
Ha ha ha ha!  Nah, tis someone else who posteth not here - normally a nice and reasonable person but obviously had an attack on the tinfoils today.  They did take down all that crap when I pointed it out and apologised profusely, so I'll leave 'em be for now.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2011)

metal milllinery isn't about what evidence you have it's about the evidence you don't have which always leads to the joos


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 17, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> metal milllinery isn't about what evidence you have it's about the evidence you don't have which always leads to the joos


 
Innit.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 17, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> These apparently the people who featured in the Gillard Flynn book
> 
> Names that seem to crop up form time to time in the hacking.
> 
> ...


 
Interesting point about a possible correlation with the anti-terror police. Wonder if it's significant and if so how it worked exactly? Unaccountability due to TWoT hysteria would be an obvious asset if you're going to go in for corruption ...


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 17, 2011)




----------



## OneStrike (Jul 17, 2011)

#Hackgate The Movie

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?deskto...youtu.be&feature=youtu.be&v=wFufrqhp0eE&gl=GB

Apols if its been done already.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 17, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Thanks for posting that - where did you get that from (I'm assuming you don't have the book in front of you and that you didn't just type all that out manually!)?


A troofer forum. I was googling around for "graeme mclagan ghost squad" to see what came up and one of them had taken the time to get it all together.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 17, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


>


 
Nice 

I love Prisoner Cell Block H. Hope RB does too...


----------



## weltweit (Jul 17, 2011)

Wondering why the select committee did not also invite Andy Coulson, but I suppose they are after higher than editors as Rebekah Brooks is a chief executive (former). But I imagine many of their questions to her may apply to her time as editor NotW.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Wondering why the select committee did not also invite Andy Coulson, but I suppose they are after higher than editors as Rebekah Brooks is a chief executive (former). But I imagine many of their questions to her may apply to her time as editor NotW.


yeh tho we'll wait to see when they talk to her - now she's been nicked it may be quite some time.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 17, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Interesting point about a possible correlation with the anti-terror police. Wonder if it's significant and if so how it worked exactly? Unaccountability due to TWoT hysteria would be an obvious asset if you're going to go in for corruption ...


That 'ghost squad' is the kind of place the Met is going to put its best people who are on the way up, just like the anti terror police were in the 2000s. The place for trustable people who could liase with the press. It also brought them into contact with the kind of corrupt copper the press are using for infromation. 

So the very pally and beneficial relationship between elements of the press and the anti terror police means the NI press are prepired to run smear stories from the likes of Hayman on de Menzes and the Forest Gate brothers while the police are feeding them information about the operations to give them scoops. A trade in kind. This trade then means they are prepared to go light on any naughtyness the NI press are caught up in. The royal household is hacked so someone has to pay but they make sure the investigation does not go further than that.

The techniques of those officers in that ghost squad 

Show up again in the anti terror policing of the 2000s


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2011)

More details from the Guardian:


> Rebekah Brooks has been arrested by police investigating allegations of phone hacking by the News of the World and allegations that police officers were bribed to leak sensitive information.
> 
> The Metropolitan police said a 43-year-old woman was arrested at noon on Sunday, by appointment at a London police station.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 17, 2011)

2nd time she's been arrested in the last few years,fucking criminal scum


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> 2nd time she's been arrested in the last few years,fucking criminal scum


 
being arrested doesn't by itself prove someone's a criminal. and as the guildford four, birmingham six and tottenham three cases have shown, you don't have to have committed a crime to be fucked over. so less of the association of arrest with criminality, and of criminality with being scum.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 17, 2011)

Will she be bailed?


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> being arrested doesn't by itself prove someone's a criminal. and as the guildford four, birmingham six and tottenham three cases have shown, you don't have to have committed a crime to be fucked over. so less of the association of arrest with criminality, and of criminality with being scum.


Except she openly admitted that they'd paid officers for information. That is against the law.


----------



## laptop (Jul 17, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> Will she be bailed?


 
Unless she announces to ossifers her intention to flee to Paraguay in the morning, yes...


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 17, 2011)

laptop said:


> Unless she announces to ossifers her intention to flee to Paraguay in the morning, yes...



Well, I wouldn't put it past her, to be honest...she does not appear to be very trustworthy recently.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> being arrested doesn't by itself prove someone's a criminal. and as the guildford four, birmingham six and tottenham three cases have shown, you don't have to have committed a crime to be fucked over. so less of the association of arrest with criminality, and of criminality with being scum.


 It was a fucking joke ffs ,Brookes was a great one for banging on about law and order when she was in charge of the Sun and NoTW.Shoe's on the other foot now


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 17, 2011)

editor said:


> Except she openly admitted that they'd paid officers for information. That is against the law.


 
But surely that is evidence/proof that a crime has been committed, not that she has been convicted of the crime. 

Which leads to my next question: to be a criminal does one have to have been convicted of a crime in a court of law, or just have participated in illegal activities?


----------



## laptop (Jul 17, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> to be a criminal does one have to have been convicted of a crime in a court of law, or just have participated in illegal activities?


 
That would be a matter for the libel court to decide, if the person you call "a criminal" can afford to go there and sue you.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> being arrested doesn't by itself prove someone's a criminal. and as the guildford four, birmingham six and tottenham three cases have shown, you don't have to have committed a crime to be fucked over. so less of the association of arrest with criminality, and of criminality with being scum.


 
And like she's not up to her fucking eyeballs in the shit that has gone on, in fact she has even admitted it [as the editor, the u75 one - lol, has pointed out], so why not cut the crap over those other cases?


----------



## laptop (Jul 17, 2011)

Nevertheless, the notion that an accused person has a right to a defence is worth preserving. 

Even for her.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 17, 2011)

plus, U75 can't afford a libel case. 

Innocent until PROVEN guilty is the cornerstone of our legal system. Even, as laptop points out, for the likes of RB et al.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2011)

editor said:


> Except she openly admitted that they'd paid officers for information. That is against the law.


 yes: but gingerman wasn't making that point, as i read it s/he was rather too eager for an arrest to mean conviction.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yes: but gingerman wasn't making that point, as i read it s/he was rather too eager for an arrest to mean conviction.


 
Not really,just thought it was ironic that someone who used to bang the law and order drum as a newspaper editor has been arrested twice in the last few years,granted she was released 1st time round without charge.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 17, 2011)

laptop said:


> Guardian: The questions the select committee must ask Rebekah Brooks, James and Rupert Murdoch
> 
> Any missing?


 
"In what way can we incorporate Piers Moron into the hacking affair?"


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 17, 2011)

Channel 4 news is reporting that the Serious Fraud Office is now involved in the investigation of News International


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

C4 news suggesting that "Serious Fraud Office now in preliminary investigation of News International"


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 17, 2011)

> The Sunday Mirror says a Press Association royal reporter arrested as part of the hacking investigation is set to be cleared of any wrongdoing. Laura Elston is the only journalist with no links to the News of the World to be arrested. Prince Charles' spokesman Paddy Harverson borrowed her phone to check


A small matter cleared up perhaps.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 17, 2011)

> Leaked documents obtained by the BBC show Mr Rees was paid by the Mirror for work in 1998 and 1999 researching information on figures including Peter Mandelson, Alistair Campbell, Will Carling, Bank of England governors and a production company owned by the Earl and Countess of Wessex.


link


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> C4 news suggesting that "Serious Fraud Office now in preliminary investigation of News International"


 
Private Eye calls the SFO the serious farce squad.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 17, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Not really,just thought it was ironic that someone who used to bang the law and order drum as a newspaper editor has been arrested twice in the last few years,granted she was released 1st time round without charge.



Yep. It's amazng how many of the right wing law and order types always seem to  have an abundance of skeletons screaming to be released from their own closets.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 17, 2011)

I thought i'd seen that Wade has backtracked on the admission that police had been paid and is now saying she believed it was true but had no actual experience or evidence of it.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 17, 2011)

...



> BLUNKETT, Rt. Hon. David (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough)
> 1. Remunerated directorships
> HADAW Productions and Investments Ltd; publishing, broadcast and print media; advisory
> services for overseas trade, and cyber and internet security advice; to which is payable income
> ...



http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/110706/110706.pdf#page=26


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

Lot of stuff about to happen it seems...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 17, 2011)

@arusbridger alan rusbridger
RT @jameschappers: BREAKING Sources tell me Sir Paul Stephenson is about to resign #hackgate


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

C4 news say he has resigned


----------



## Voley (Jul 17, 2011)

Stephenson resigning as we speak by the tone of his speech ...


----------



## Open Sauce (Jul 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> @arusbridger alan rusbridger
> RT @jameschappers: BREAKING Sources tell me Sir Paul Stephenson is about to resign #hackgate


 
Press conference now


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 17, 2011)

Live on the radio, he's gone.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 17, 2011)

Shaping up to be a very interesting Sunday!


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2011)

gosh, it's been a busy weekend - i wasn't expecting much until tomorrow morning.


----------



## Voley (Jul 17, 2011)

Oh God I hope Cameron's next.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 17, 2011)

.


----------



## pk (Jul 17, 2011)

One by one the cockroaches roll over and stick their legs in the air...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 17, 2011)

'my integrity is completely intact'  he said as he resigned


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 17, 2011)

Wow.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> 'my integrity is completely intact'  he said as he resigned


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 17, 2011)

'I have to go because of the olympics'  what a load of shit


----------



## Voley (Jul 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> 'my integrity is completely intact'  he said as he resigned


 
He's from the Andy Coulson school of integrity. He's so noble he's resigned twice despite doing nothing wrong.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> 'my integrity is completely intact'  he said as he resigned



Yes, of course Paul. Now fuck off.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 17, 2011)

I love a game of dominoes. Anyone for blues and twos?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 17, 2011)

Ivan lewis now making clear that in his opinion the select committee can't question Rebekah Brooks this week due to her arrest. Given the resignation of Step-henson that sounds a tad 'fortunate'?!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2011)

I'd rather the Seriously can't land a meaningful anti-corruption convictionsquad didn't stink up the already smelly air trailing skirt for more bribes.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> @arusbridger alan rusbridger
> RT @jameschappers: BREAKING Sources tell me Sir Paul Stephenson is about to resign #hackgate


 
Fuck me, I didn't see that coming, well at least not this early on, this story just keeps on giving.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 17, 2011)

Can't be long before Cameron goes...


----------



## Augie March (Jul 17, 2011)

Surely he will have to. If Stephenson goes because of hiring Wallis, then Cameron must go for hiring Coulson. 

*hopes


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

Stephenson was also to attend the Home Affairs Select Committee meeting on tuesday (diff one from brooks and murdochs) as well. Hmmm. Doesn't mean he's got out of it mind.


----------



## Voley (Jul 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Stephenson was also to attend the Home Affairs Select Committee meeting on tuesday (diff one from brooks and murdochs) as well. Hmmm. Doesn't mean he's got out of it mind.


 
Keith Vaz on BBC now saying he expects him to attend.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 17, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Yep. It's amazng how many of the right wing law and order types always seem to  have an abundance of skeletons screaming to be released from their own closets.


 
You see it in Berlusconi's Italy vividly: media barons, spooks/secret police organisations, the spookier end of the regular cops (where several of the cops in this case seem to have come from) and right-wing politicians all colluding around dirty money, dirty secrets and the corrupt possibilities of unchecked, unaccountable power.

I never expected to see that particular rock get turned over in the UK though ...


----------



## Open Sauce (Jul 17, 2011)

NVP said:


> Keith Vaz on BBC now saying he expects him to attend.


 
He's staying on until his successor is appointed so he should attend


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

From his statement - tell me that's not a dig:



> Secondly, once Mr Wallis’s name did become associated with Operation Weeting, I did not want to compromise the Prime Minister in any way by revealing or discussing a potential suspect who clearly had a close relationship with Mr Coulson. I am aware of the many political exchanges in relation to Mr Coulson’s previous employment - I believe it would have been extraordinarily clumsy of me to have exposed the Prime Minister, or by association the Home Secretary, to any accusation, however unfair, as a consequence of them being in possession of operational information in this regard.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> Can't be long before Cameron goes...



Dream on, that's not going to happen.

My £50 donation to the server fund, if he does, stands.

I note no one has matched that, if he doesn't, a clear sign of certain posters not putting their money where their mouths are.


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> From his statement - tell me that's not a dig:


 
i can't find the full statement, but on the bbc they were saying he'd also said something like 'unlike coulson, wallis had not resigned from news international' or suchlike. definitely some digs in there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

killer b said:


> i can't find the full statement, but on the bbc they were saying he'd also said something like 'unlike coulson, wallis had not resigned from news international' or suchlike. definitely some digs in there.


 
Here


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 17, 2011)

As some famous chinese bloke who's name I cant remember once said " We live in interesting times"


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 17, 2011)

So, about that £12,000 of *hospitality* from Neil Wallis, Commissioner: How do you define 'intact integrity'?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 17, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> You see it in Berlusconi's Italy vividly: media barons, spooks/secret police organisations, the spookier end of the regular cops (where several of the cops in this case seem to have come from) and right-wing politicians all colluding around dirty money, dirty secrets and the corrupt possibilities of unchecked, unaccountable power.
> 
> I never expected to see that particular rock get turned over in the UK though ...



Although eventually it always reaches this juncture. Because the laws they write are for us and not them. But it is both beautifl and surprising that they have fucked up in this magnitude. They can get away quite literally with murder. Power corrupts absolute.


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here


 
hm, yes. the whole thing looks pretty fucking diggy tbh.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 17, 2011)

Geoffrey Robinson QC on BBC News: "We have the stupidest police in the developed world". It's a fair cop, guv.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 17, 2011)

london_calling: If you mean the Champney's stuff, I think he said he was very pleased with it


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Geoffrey Robinson QC on BBC News: "We have the stupidest police in the developed world". It's a fair cop, guv.


 
Geoffrey Robinson is a fucking twat, fact.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 17, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> So, about that £12,000 of *hospitality* from Neil Wallis, Commissioner: How do you define 'intact integrity'?


 
Did it involve a happy ending?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 17, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> london_calling: If you mean the Champney's stuff, I think he said he was very pleased with it


 Well, that's nice. He and his wife have got even longer to enjoy  it now.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 17, 2011)

Is Cameron hiding in South Africa or am I misinformed?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 17, 2011)

Stephenson has an inkling of how far the met is drowning in shit.  Yates is next..


----------



## Balbi (Jul 17, 2011)

Stephenson going is akin to Jack Warner going, 'integrity intact'.

The difference is Stephenson can still get accused and judged of wrongdoing.

Whoever called Daniel Morgan as Banquo is spot on.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 17, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Is Cameron hiding in South Africa or am I misinformed?


 
Ha.  Wonder if Disco's packed his "Hang Nelson Mandela" t-shirt (a vintage one bought off Ebay from "Commons_Speaker_Bercy")?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 17, 2011)

"my full confidence" loooool. I love how Kieth vaz kept repeating "integrity intact" over and over ...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 17, 2011)




----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 17, 2011)

duplicate..


----------



## treelover (Jul 17, 2011)

'Ha. Wonder if Disco's packed his "Hang Nelson Mandela" t-shirt (a vintage one bought off Ebay from "Commons_Speaker_Bercy")?' 

people change, don't they?

Bercow, that is, not Cameron


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 17, 2011)

[derail]  Just found this on YouTube which I guess is relevant to current events:



[/derail]


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 17, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> "my full confidence" loooool. I love how Kieth vaz kept repeating "integrity intact" over and over ...





> In 2002 Vaz was suspended from the House of Commons for one month after a Committee on Standards and Privileges inquiry found that he had made false allegations against Eileen Eggington, a former policewoman. The committee concluded that "Mr Vaz recklessly made a damaging allegation against Miss Eggington to the Commissioner, which was not true, and which could have intimidated Miss Eggington or undermined her credibility".[14]





> Vaz’s backing for the 42 day terrorist detention without charge “was seen as crucial by the Government.”[19] During the debate the day before the key vote, Vaz was asked in Parliament whether he had been offered an honour for his support. He said: “No, it was certainly not offered—but I do not know; there is still time.”[19] The Daily Telegraph printed a hand written letter to Vaz, written the day after the vote, Geoff Hoon wrote:
> 
> “Dear Keith... Just a quick note to thank you for all your help during the period leading up to last Wednesday’s vote. I wanted you to know how much I appreciated all your help. I trust that it will be appropriately rewarded!... With thanks and best wishes, Geoff.”[19]


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 17, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> [derail]  Just found this on YouTube which I guess is relevant to current events:
> 
> 
> 
> [/derail]




Classic


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 17, 2011)

Regarding Cameron resigning.....

he has no buffer, if the revelations get worse there's no-one he can place up for sacrifice, the links between him and murdoch, him and brooks, him and coulson...is a direct line - his own actions and judgements every time


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 17, 2011)

Yep, but no one has anything on him except a bad judgement, a bad judgement shared by a number of others. His defence is he was misled and gave the man a second chance.

They have to find more.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 17, 2011)

Will Mark T be meeting with Cameron while hes out there? Son of a former PM surely they should have a meeting.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 17, 2011)

editor said:


> Except she openly admitted that they'd paid officers for information. That is against the law.


 
She didn't admit she had done that, only that it had been done. When, is the obvious question.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 17, 2011)

Does he run a paper or a health club?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 17, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> .........she does not appear to be very trustworthy recently.


 
What a strange thing to say!


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 17, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> Can't be long before Cameron goes...


 
I see, as it stands, no chance of that happening at all.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 17, 2011)

smokedout said:


> precisely, sometimes it is in the public interest to expose the private lives of the powerful


yes, but how does that apply in this instnce? We- the public - do NOT have the right to know EVERYTHING about celebs, and EVERYONE has a right to privacy. 
And violating someone's privacy IS hurting them - how would *you* feel if your privacy had been violated?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 17, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Will Mark T be meeting with Cameron while hes out there? Son of a former PM surely they should have a meeting.


 
Knowing the Boy Thatcher's great successes in political and international affairs - I do hope so


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 17, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> What a strange thing to say!



I am very suspicious by nature, I'm sure deep down she is a wonderful person, kind to kittens etc.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 17, 2011)

smokedout said:


> so if cameron is going out picking up prostitutes or shagging his secretary you think it should be a state secret protected by legislation?


The latter, certainly. it's no-one's business but the Camerons


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Regarding Cameron resigning.....
> 
> he has no buffer, if the revelations get worse there's no-one he can place up for sacrifice, the links between him and murdoch, him and brooks, him and coulson...is a direct line - his own actions and judgements every time



Are you going to put £50 on the table?


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2011)

iannucci must be tearing his hair out - he must be on the 15th rewrite since last tuesday...


----------



## Balbi (Jul 17, 2011)

There's a line here that Milliband will pick up on.

Lots of talking heads saying 'Stephenson has done the right thing, question marks over the organisation and his role as leader'  i.e - by employing Wallis, the procedural stuff over the original case, the lack of communication of concerns from his subordinates etc he has to go.

The lack of communication from Hilton, Llewellyn over Coulson, his clear close relationship with Brooks, Coulson, Murdoch et al - there's more than a few question marks over Cameron now.

It's christmas at Labour HQ right now.


----------



## Augie March (Jul 17, 2011)

Isn't Parliament buggering off for their holibobs next week though?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 17, 2011)

Augie March said:


> Isn't Parliament buggering off for their holibobs next week though?


 
Yes, Ivan Lewis was saying earlier on BBC News that the recess should be postponed until a later date.


----------



## Augie March (Jul 17, 2011)

killer b said:


> iannucci must be tearing his hair out - he must be on the 15th rewrite since last tuesday...



With the collation and now this, he must have enough material to keep The Thick Of It going for years.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 17, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Knowing the Boy Thatcher's great successes in political and international affairs - I do hope so


Was being mischievious  

Camerons people wont let him within a mile


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Regarding Cameron resigning.....
> 
> he has no buffer, if the revelations get worse there's no-one he can place up for sacrifice, the links between him and murdoch, him and brooks, him and coulson...is a direct line - his own actions and judgements every time


 
_If_ there's any evidence among the revelations that Cameron has lied about what he knew and when then he might be at risk, but for now all anyone can pin on him is an error of judgement that he himself has owned up to.  It's politically damaging, but far from fatal as it stands.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 17, 2011)

Yes I agree with Roadkill atm. Unfortunately. The Old Etonian's too bloody slippery (and posh  ) to be caught .... yet.


----------



## cointreauman (Jul 17, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> _If_ there's any evidence among the revelations that Cameron has lied about what he knew and when then he might be at risk, but for now all anyone can pin on him is an error of judgement that he himself has owned up to.  It's politically damaging, but far from fatal as it stands.


 
Stephenson admitted error of judgement basically as his point of departure - time Cameron stopped hiding and packed his bags....

C


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 17, 2011)

cointreauman said:


> Stephenson admitted error of judgement basically as his point of departure - time Cameron stopped hiding and packed his bags....
> 
> C


 
I'd love to see it happen, but as things stand it isn't going to be soon...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 17, 2011)

Cameron is a PR cockroach though, can't see him having any sense of shame.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 17, 2011)

Even Tory blogger Dale reckons it's not _impossible_ that it could swallow Cameron too. Can't see it myself tbh, although I live in hope!


----------



## gavman (Jul 17, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> I didn't know you could be arrested by appointment. Is that only for posh/rich people?


 
i've been arrested by appointment. they tell you to come to a nick at such and such a time, say nothing about arrest, then they arrest you as soon as you get there. fairly standard, it's just that powerful people are used to setting the agenda so they make a fuss


----------



## cybertect (Jul 17, 2011)

killer b said:


> iannucci must be tearing his hair out - he must be on the 15th rewrite since last tuesday...


 
You're not wrong 




			
				Aiannuci on twitter said:
			
		

> Honestly, I try to have a quiet Sunday and a woman is arrested by a man who resigns after arresting her. I'm going back on the codeine.


----------



## gavman (Jul 17, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> The timing absolutely stinks, it suits the met (who are also under investigation) and Brooks to do this now instead of waiting until Wednesday, it just reeks of collusion between them to watch each others backs.


 
more than a bit whiffy, i agree


----------



## cointreauman (Jul 17, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> I'd love to see it happen, but as things stand it isn't going to be soon...


 
I know - it will need a smoking gun that shows he knew more than is being bandied around.... if a breach in that eggshell of virginity he portrays then there may be enough worry in the tory party to push him out - the party is bigger then the leader.

Either that or Clegg grows a pair of balls and breaks the coalition.....

C


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2011)

cointreauman said:


> Either that or Clegg grows a pair of balls and breaks the coalition.....



Yeah.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 17, 2011)

Bring back Spitting Image, I say.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

Here's some crackers

*July 13th, 2009*, Guido Fawkes who has gone mental over this story - almost putting himself at the centre of it, offers the Guardian some sage advice

Guardian Get Over It



> Hell, forlornly looking for Tory division, they have even roped in ConservativeHome’s Tim Montgomerie for a piece.  Seven articles today about Coulson not being destroyed by a Guardian scoop?  Isn’t that overkill? The scoop, such as it was, really boils down to the payouts which happened long after Coulson’s tenure.  It wasn’t news that voicemail hacking and worse happened on Coulson’s watch.  That is after all why he resigned last time.



*July 9th, 2009* - here he makes a very confident prediction:
“Coulson, Coulson, Coulson”



> Coulson won’t be in any danger of having to resign unless evidence emerges linking him directly to phone hacking – and you can safely bet there won’t be a smoking gun memo or email.   When Coulson won the Press Gazette Newspaper of the Year award in 2005 he said “The News of the World doesn’t pretend to do anything other than reveal big stories and titillate and entertain the public, while exposing crime and hypocrisy”. Guido suspects that the newspapers that will be wringing their hands over illegal hacking won’t include the Telegraph, Mirror or the Mail.  Now that would be hypocritical…



To top that, he had a lucky escape when Coulsen failed to turn up _for dinner_ with him on *December 15th, 2009*

And Tim Montgomerie, editor of Conservativehome, with some biting analysis on *12 July 2009*



> I do not wish to defend every action of the News International empire, but Rupert Murdoch has been an overwhelming force for good in this country's life and politics...Tory high command always expected that Coulson would face an onslaught at some point. His links with Murdoch and the phone hacking episode were too juicy for the Conservative party's enemies to resist. There will be some relief that the onslaught has come now and not closer to the election. There'll be even more relief that it has blown over so very quickly.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 17, 2011)

I wonder if Labour want cameron to resign,they would proablly prefer a wounded PM like major began


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2011)

like so much else in life, timing is everything


----------



## Kippa (Jul 17, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> Bring back Spitting Image, I say.


 
I strongly agree.    Who is the best political comedian at the moment?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> I wonder if Labour want cameron to resign,they would proablly prefer a wounded PM like major began


i think most of us would quite like to see a wounded cameron, blood dripping from gaping holes and perhaps missing an extremity or three.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2011)

Kippa said:


> I strongly agree.    Who is the best political comedian at the moment?


ed miliband


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 17, 2011)

Kippa said:


> I strongly agree.    Who is the best political comedian at the moment?


 
Clegg. Total comedy.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 17, 2011)

butchersapron - just thinking aloud here, as it were, but how much does/did Guido Fawkes/Paul Whatsiface really know about Coulson/Cameron/Phone Hacking links etc?  If his (oft made) claims to contacts in "high places" are 100% true, I find it very, very hard to believe he was blissfully ignorant as to what was going on behind the scenes in all this...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> butchersapron - just thinking aloud here, as it were, but how much does/did Guido Fawkes/Paul Whatsiface really know about Coulson/Cameron/Phone Hacking links etc?  If his (oft made) claims to contacts in "high places" are 100% true, I find it very, very hard to believe he was blissfully ignorant as to what was going on behind the scenes in all this...


 
just because someone knows something doesn't mean they're going to share it with the entire english-speaking world


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> butchersapron - just thinking aloud here, as it were, but how much does/did Guido Fawkes/Paul Whatsiface really know about Coulson/Cameron/Phone Hacking links etc?  If his (oft made) claims to contacts in "high places" are 100% true, I find it very, very hard to believe he was blissfully ignorant as to what was going on behind the scenes in all this...


 Well quite, he's been urging everyone to shoot each other whilst hinting at long having evidence of the crimes people have been up to - why didn't he say anything? Why didn't he go to the police? Does he think bullets won't hurt him?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2011)

most like because it's all bollocks


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> just because someone knows something doesn't mean they're going to share it with the entire english-speaking world


 
Well, that of course is true.  My own take on it (which ain't gospel, of course) is that Guido (whose site I followed for quite a while during the G Brown years) would be very candid about his knowledge/links/contacts (and to give him his due, he did offhand help to do some damage to Brown's premiership c/o leaks etc) whilst Brown was PM....did he have a sudden attack of amnesia when Cameron took power (I mean, he must have heard a load of stuff from anti-Cameron Tories)?


----------



## cybertect (Jul 17, 2011)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...ecutive:-Americans-Phones-Were-Hacked?via=tag




			
				dailykos.com said:
			
		

> *Fmr. Fox News Executive: Americans' Phones Were Hacked*
> 
> Former Fox News executive Dan Cooper has claimed that a special bunker, requiring security clearance for access was created at the company's headquarters to conduct “counterintelligence” including snooping on phone records:
> 
> ...


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 17, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i think most of us would quite like to see a wounded cameron, blood dripping from gaping holes and perhaps missing an extremity or three.


 
I doubt "most of us". I'd be perfectly happy with a resignation.


----------



## agricola (Jul 17, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> butchersapron - just thinking aloud here, as it were, but how much does/did Guido Fawkes/Paul Whatsiface really know about Coulson/Cameron/Phone Hacking links etc?  If his (oft made) claims to contacts in "high places" are 100% true, I find it very, very hard to believe he was blissfully ignorant as to what was going on behind the scenes in all this...


 
TBF its not as if this was a great trade secret - for the vast majority of Guido's posts on this you could learn exactly the same information from reading _Flat Earth News_.... though his older posts on the Hilton / Coulson conflict at CCHQ might suggest a reason why Hilton wouldnt necessarily forward on everything of what Rusbridger told him about Coulson to Cameron.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 17, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> _If_ there's any evidence among the revelations that Cameron has lied about what he knew and when then he might be at risk, but for now all anyone can pin on him is an error of judgement that he himself has owned up to.  It's politically damaging, but far from fatal as it stands.


 
Oh yes I agree, I wasn't implying anything immediate.

I'm just saying, none of the normal buffers are in place.   The 'system' these people have been using of casual, private meetings, social occasions, mutual employment transfers and so on...has become a very sharp double-edged sword in these most interesting times.

Certainly the most interesting times for me, this is awesome.   All my christmases at once.

I wonder if there'll be anything about the bankers.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 17, 2011)

Camerons on a plane . apparently .. I feel a global statesman like visit coming on ........ straight out of the Blair brown dummies guide for political dummies  ..._when things turn to shit at home , pull a foreign visit _ 

So if _8 hours_ Yates of the yard is now considered unsound ..does that mean his investigation into cash for peerages was also pants ? ..it should be reopened


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2011)

he's been essentially absent for two weeks now. hoping to make it to recess without the focus turning fully onto him?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 17, 2011)

Tankus said:


> Camerons on a plane . apparently .. I feel a global statesman like visit coming on .


Hard to appear the stateman when the head of the met just resigned on a scandal your up to your neck in.


Easy to be seen as running away


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 17, 2011)

I don't think the recess is going to have much effect.

The plod resignation may be the police starting to take action to cover/protect/fix themselves (along the line of starting to get serious like motherfuckers inside and out).   Probably not, most likely damage limitation but who knows.   Stranger things have happened.   Pipe dream.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 17, 2011)

It should be an interesting week, to say the least...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 17, 2011)

Danield Morgan you will have your revenge on those who covered up your murder.

Its shaking the roots of the British establishment


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 17, 2011)

tbh I think so far we're only scratching the surface wrt what these evil cunts (not just NI) have been up to. This shit's been in the post for time...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> tbh I think so far we're only scratching the surface wrt what these evil cunts (not just NI) have been up to. This shit's been in the post for time...


 
yeh and it's bloody reeking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> I doubt "most of us". I'd be perfectly happy with a resignation.


 
you seem to be 'the only one'


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 17, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> tbh I think so far we're only scratching the surface wrt what these evil cunts (not just NI) have been up to. This shit's been in the post for time...


Whats needed to make a case for blackmail?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Whats needed to make a case for blackmail?


 
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/blackmail.htm


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 17, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Whats needed to make a case for blackmail?



eh? Not sure what you mean exactly, please elaborate a bit. Ta


----------



## smokedout (Jul 17, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> The latter, certainly. it's no-one's business but the Camerons



what bollocks.  so he can stand there preaching about family values whilst doing the exact opposite, what about someone who preaches hellfire and brimstone on lgbt folk whilst secretly loving the cock themselves, or MPs expenses, or even the man ultimately in charge of jailing sex workers whilst picking them up on the street (as in the case of the DPP bloke)

if we have to put up with being ruled by cunts the very least we should expect is to be able to hold them to account on the way they live and expose their hypocrisy



> And violating someone's privacy IS hurting them - how would *you* feel if your privacy had been violated?



it happens to people everyday, it can be every thing from a bit embarrassing to family destroying

but, most people when they do something they want to keep secret make a decision, and ultimately if they really dont want friends.colleagues/their partner to know then they dont fucking do it or are very careful

what they dont do is go running to lawyers if they get caught, as i said before, its the individuals responsibility to keep their own secrets, not the responsibility of anyone who happens to find out


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> eh? Not sure what you mean exactly, please elaborate a bit. Ta


 
i think he means 'what needs to be proved to secure a conviction for blackmail'.


----------



## pk (Jul 18, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> I don't think the recess is going to have much effect.
> 
> The plod resignation may be the police starting to take action to cover/protect/fix themselves (along the line of starting to get serious like motherfuckers inside and out).   Probably not, most likely damage limitation but who knows.   Stranger things have happened.   Pipe dream.


 
The recess is amost possibly perfect timing.

All the super-rich grace & favour holidays, "guest" houses for the world's leaders being filled up.

Public perception is of all the pigs in the Murdoch trough, pun intended.

The public want blood, and in light of not too distant events the tide of people vs powerbrokers has in my opinion already turned, with ferocious undercurrents, and the demand for transparency is non-negotiable.

Nobody gives a fuck what the MPs or the police want to do - they were all in on it, this will all out one way or another.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 18, 2011)

^^ @smokedout


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 18, 2011)

pk said:


> The recess is amost possibly perfect timing.
> 
> All the super-rich grace & favour holidays, "guest" houses for the world's leaders being filled up.
> 
> ...



Oooh you're right...we'll be watching where they go.  Nice one.

Army bod on radio 5 just now saying good leaders don't resign when things get tough.

He's an author of a book on leadership


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 18, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/blackmail.htm


Cheers, going to have taken some arrogance by NI to have had people so explicit as to be able to make a case.


Still arrogance they had in abundance


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 18, 2011)

Just heard on BBC News that Rebekah Brooks has been released on bail.  Will see if I can find any further info.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 18, 2011)

I have a confession to make. I bought a Sunday Times. I gave Murdoch £2.20.... Do I need to repent of my sins?

eta: Who else has been topping up Muckmurdoch's piggy bank other than me? Own up!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 18, 2011)

twentythreedom said:


> I have a confession to make. I bought a Sunday Times. I gave Murdoch £2.20.... Do I need to repent of my sins?


 
Nah - just watch this 100 times and then go watch a Ray Dennis Steckler film:



Rx Dr Melly


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 18, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Just heard on BBC News that Rebekah Brooks has been released on bail.  Will see if I can find any further info.


 
They would have to find a good reason to not bail her over.I wonder if she spent any time in a cell ,that would have been nice


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 18, 2011)

RE: Cameron - is it just my wishful thinking, or does anyone else get the feeling that he's acting worried - like he fears (or knows)  that other shit will be coming out? He almost reminds me of William H Macy in Fargo.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 18, 2011)

Boris was looking nervous earlier


----------



## little_legs (Jul 18, 2011)

did I hear correctly on radio 4 that BBC understands that James Murdoch will be arrested today?


----------



## laptop (Jul 18, 2011)

little_legs said:


> did I hear correctly on radio 4 that BBC understands that James Murdoch will be arrested today?


 
Since it's not made it onto the website in the last 50 minutes, maybe not - or was it someone floating a vague notion, rather than The BBC Itself understing that?


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 18, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Just heard on BBC News that Rebekah Brooks has been released on bail.  Will see if I can find any further info.


 
your correct

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/17/rebekah-brooks-arrest-phone-hacking


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 18, 2011)

Good, that means that she will have to appear before the Commons Select Committee on Tuesday. I hope the police have got and retained her passport.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

Interesting weekend on this fun little scandal. 

Brooks on Tuesday? 
James Murdoch to be arrested? 
Where is low profile Prime Minister?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Good, that means that she will have to appear before the Commons Select Committee on Tuesday. I hope the police have got and retained her passport.



BUT from that Guardian article: 



> "The police might have thought that for operational reasons it was important that she didn't speak on Tuesday," he said.
> 
> The Labour MP Chris Bryant said: "It is unusual to arrest by appointment on a Sunday and that just makes me wonder whether this is some ruse to avoid answering questions properly on Tuesday in the Commons committee."



How will being arrested stop her from answering the Commons committee properly?

e2a: Mrs Magpie answered this on another thread - something called 'subjudice' and not prejudicing the police enquiry


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> RE: Cameron - is it just my wishful thinking, or does anyone else get the feeling that he's acting worried - like he fears (or knows)  that other shit will be coming out? He almost reminds me of William H Macy in Fargo.


 
not wishful thinking. his obvious discomfort if one of the most entertaining (and encouraging) things about the whole affair.

someone was going on upthread about him being a 'PR man'. if he is, he's fucking rubbish at it.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 18, 2011)

killer b said:


> someone was going on upthread about him being a 'PR man'. if he is, he's fucking rubbish at it.


 
It is amusing to see so many PR nobbers getting caught nuts deep in this shit:

Coulson
Cameron
Phil Hall
Stuart Higgins
Neil Wallis


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 18, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> RE: Cameron..almost reminds me of William H Macy in Fargo.


 
LIKE.

Come to think of it, has anyone seen Sam Cam lately? We should check the bathroom for clues.


----------



## dylans (Jul 18, 2011)

Charlie Brooker 



> A few weeks ago, Murdoch, or rather the more savage tendencies of the press as a whole, represented God. Fear of God isn't always a bad thing in itself, if it keeps you on the straight and narrow – but politicians behaved like medieval villagers who didn't just believe in Him, but quaked at the mere suggestion of a glimmer of a whisper of His name. You must never anger God. God wields immense power. God can hear everything you say. You must worship God, and please Him, or He will destroy you. For God controls the sun, which may shine upon you, or singe you to a Kinnock. Soon he will control the entire sky.
> 
> Furthermore, like all mere humans, you are weak. And God knows you have sinned. Chances are he even has long-lens photographs to prove it. But even as he chooses to smite you, God is merciful. You can do this the easy way or the hard way. Confess your sins in an exclusive double-page interview, or face the torments of hell. Have you seen what happens in hell? It isn't pretty. Rows of the damned having buckets of molten shit poured over their heads by someone who looks a bit like Kelvin MacKenzie, for eternity.
> 
> But then suddenly everything changed. The revelations over the hacking of grieving relatives' voicemails were the equivalent of a tornado ripping through an orphanage. "What kind of God would allow such a thing?" asked the villagers, wading through the aftermath. And they started to suspect He didn't exist.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/17/charlie-brooker-rupert-murdoch


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 18, 2011)

Excellent, lolol


----------



## Balbi (Jul 18, 2011)

My decidedly unpolitically active housemate started a conversation with me this morning like this...

"I woke up this morning, and was thinking about how rotten this whole thing is - the police are bent, the media are bent and I reckon even Cameron's going to get fucked over through this"


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> It is amusing to see so many PR nobbers getting caught nuts deep in this shit:


 
cameron isn't a PR nobber though - he's a politician, always has been. his tenure at carlton is a distraction.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

Radio4 live link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/bbc_radio_fourfm


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

As mentioned on the other thread if NI were happy to hack the phones/voicemails of the Dowler family then what about the McCanns?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 18, 2011)

killer b said:


> cameron isn't a PR nobber though - he's a politician, always has been. his tenure at carlton is a distraction.


 
For the purposes of gloating at the misfortunes of coke-addled PR nobbers of course he is a coke-addled PR nobber.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

Blustering Boris on R4 now, playing the whole thing down, avoiding questions asked to him and generally being rather supercilious


----------



## Open Sauce (Jul 18, 2011)

Ken: six reasons Boris Johnson is not speaking for London 

http://www.kenlivingstone.com/briefing-six-reasons


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 18, 2011)

I like to think that in times of crisis, a little voice in Boris' head asks the question, "What would Darius do?"


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 18, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> For the purposes of gloating at the misfortunes of coke-addled PR nobbers of course he is a coke-addled PR nobber.


 
... and to be fair, if you look at what he did for the Tories in most of his pre-Carlton career, it was pretty clearly spin-doctor stuff ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 18, 2011)

Open Sauce said:


> Ken: six reasons Boris Johnson is not speaking for London
> 
> http://www.kenlivingstone.com/briefing-six-reasons


 
I wonder just how tainted Boris actually is by this? 

Would be funny if it turned out he was instrumental in hiring Neil Wallis for example, and not at all impossible to imagine ...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

Judging by his blundering responses on Radio 4 today - 'unfair', 'disappointing' - I'd say he was in it up to his neck.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 18, 2011)

A couple of blundering but charming appearances on Have I got news for you and the public will forgive him.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

> Analysts say the events of the past few days have caused major damage to the company, as 19% of its total value has evaporated.
> 
> "You're now looking at [about] $10bn wiped off the value since the peak," said Stephen Mayne, director of the Australian Shareholders' Association.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14181119


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

News from America: ''_Fox News here gently trying to get ppl to "move on" from hacking; nothing to see here folks; like Sun strategy 10 days ago_'' (Paul Mason: http://twitter.com/#!/paulmasonnews)


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/blackmail.htm



Interesting stuff PM: 



> In order to prove the criminal offence of blackmail it must be shown that the defendant has done the following things:
> 
> That the defendant made a demand (f a demand is implied this may be enough to prove blackmail under the Theft Act)
> With menaces (forms of menaces such as a threat to expose some form of secret will be deemed enough to constitute blackmail for the purposes of the Theft Act. )
> ...



'some form of secret' eh, I wonder whether that would ever have applied ...


----------



## smokedout (Jul 18, 2011)

Badgers said:


> As mentioned on the other thread if NI were happy to hack the phones/voicemails of the Dowler family then what about the McCanns?



murdochs got maddie!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

It's not a joking matter, smokedout. Maddie's parents could be tortured right now with untold fears, such as 'whether any attempts to hold her hostage/ransom her were deleted by a hack', as could a whole host of other victims' families who are unwillingly subjected to this dark scandal.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 18, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> It's not a joking matter, smokedout. Maddie's parents could be tortured right now with untold fears, such as 'whether any attempts to hold her hostage/ransom her were deleted by a hack', as could a whole host of other victims' families who are unwillingly subjected to this dark scandal.


 
Which they would doubtlessly tell to any reputable newspaper for a nominal donation to the Maddie finding fund (NEXT YEAR IN THE SEYCHELLES!)


----------



## pk (Jul 18, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Which they would doubtlessly tell to any reputable newspaper for a nominal donation to the Maddie finding fund (NEXT YEAR IN THE SEYCHELLES!)


 
This sort of cynicism toward the McCann family regarding their efforts to find their daughter is normally the sort of thing the NotW would indulge in...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

The media/PR strategy in the US appears to be very different than over here. Here it's oh so humble apologies. Over there the WSJ today publishes an editorial claiming the journalism that uncovered all this is the equivalent of the wikileaks embassy stuff i.e t_hey're trying to kill our boys_. Along with a host of other aggressive attacks they'd not dare print over here. Plan to poison the atmosphere against people who attack Murdoch before any real US revelations come out.


----------



## pk (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The media/PR strategy in the US appears to be very different than over here. Here it's oh so humble apologies. Over there the WSJ today publishes an editorial claiming the journalism that uncovered all this is the equivalent of the wikileaks embassy stuff i.e t_hey're trying to kill our boys_. Along with a host of other aggressive attacks they'd not dare print over here. Plan to poison the atmosphere against people who attack Murdoch before any real US revelations come out.



I can see that strategy working temporarily on the type of fuckwit that watches Fox News and thinks GW Bush was a good president, but once the jailings begin here and the whistleblowers start whistling, it'll be game over. People formally employed by Fox will be eager to tell their stories once the threats from the Murdoch mafia become toothless.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

pk said:


> This sort of cynicism toward the McCann family regarding their efforts to find their daughter is normally the sort of thing the NotW would indulge in...


That's a tad misleading, since all the tabloids indulge in that _sort of thing_ (i.e. unsubstantiated gossip and innuendo)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2008/jan/31/themccannsdebatefrombanali
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4350087.ece


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The media/PR strategy in the US appears to be very different than over here. Here it's oh so humble apologies. Over there the WSJ today publishes an Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial claiming the journalism that uncovered all this is the equivalent of the wikileaks embassy stuff i.e t_hey're trying to kill our boys_. Along with a host of other aggressive attacks they'd not dare print over here. Plan to poison the atmosphere against people who attack Murdoch before any real US revelations come out.


 News Corp purchase The Wall Street Journal: ''The US$5 billion sale added The Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch's news empire, which already included Fox News Channel, financial network unit and London's The Times, and locally within New York, the New York Post, along with Fox flagship station WNYW (Channel 5) and MyNetworkTV flagship WWOR (Channel 9).''[23]


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wal...Corp._purchase



Yes i know News Corp own the WSJ thanks - that was my point.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

Driving. Point. Home.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 18, 2011)

BBC News reporting that it was John Yates who did the appointing/due diligence over the appointment of Wallis.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 18, 2011)

The Home Affairs Select Committee have now 'invited' John Yates to their meeting tomorrow, the same one Stephenson is attending....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

That's handy, as there's a Met statement about/by him at 12.30 today. First time as tragedy...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

The March 2011 follow-up interview after allegations that Yates had misled the 2009 committee in previous investigation (Press Standards, Privacy and Libel) is available to view here: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8061


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 18, 2011)

So is Yates for the chop today then?


----------



## cantsin (Jul 18, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Judging by his blundering responses on Radio 4 today - 'unfair', 'disappointing' - I'd say he was in it up to his neck.



bearing in mind how likely Bozza's extra curricular activities -incl. fathering sprogs  all over the shop etc - were to have attracted NOTW hacks - his pro Murodoch / pro Met stance looks like more than simple toadying , hopefully there's more going on there than meets the eye.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

(((six-week recess)))


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Cameron has even fucked that up, he could be announcing that he's decided to support a vote to suspend the planed recess - make out look like he's showing some leadership -  but he's let miliband make all the running.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

cantsin said:


> bearing in mind how likely Bozza's extra curricular activities -incl. fathering sprogs  all over the shop etc - were to have attracted NOTW hacks - his pro Murodoch / pro Met stance looks like more than simple toadying , hopefully there's more going on there than meets the eye.


 
Is that when he was with teh Sextator?


----------



## treelover (Jul 18, 2011)

'The danger now is that the villagers, shorn of their belief in God, might abandon their fear of divine retribution altogether, muzzle the churches, and grow hopelessly decadent. I realise as I type this that I don't fully understand my own metaphor any more. So here's a new one: the ceaseless parade of MPs openly disparaging everything they used to slavishly revere has left recent news coverage resembling the finale of the science-fiction movie They Live, in which a perception-altering alien transmitter is destroyed and humankind suddenly awakens from a decades-long trance. '

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/17/charlie-brooker-rupert-murdoch



I agree with Charlie Booker, watching the apostates attack their former Sun King is pretty amazing and in some ways disconcerting, the hypocrisy, etc


----------



## treelover (Jul 18, 2011)

either that or it was a very dangerous version of 'The Emperors New Clothes'


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 18, 2011)

Yates suspended.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Brook is going to committee - according to Peston, and he should know. Prepare the Trebuchet.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Anyone got anymore on one of the times political writers saying that 'Downing Street reveal there are 'omissions' from list of contacts between PM and media execs released Friday'?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

John Yates suspended is pretty big news.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

> "There will be a few updates because there are omissions", a spokeswoman said. But she added that there were unlikely to be "any great surprises" given press speculation over the weekend. This would cover proprietors, editors and senior executives.



so basically, they're changing the list 'cause they got caught out. that's pretty brazen.


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2011)

killer b said:


> so basically, they're changing the list 'cause they got caught out. that's pretty brazen.


 
I'd go with general incompetence on this one I think.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 18, 2011)

Yates of the Back Yard. Couldn't happen to a nicer fella.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

killer b said:


> so basically, they're changing the list 'cause they got caught out. that's pretty brazen.


 
Doesn't even pretend to explain _why_ there were omissions does she? Brazen is the word. 

_Why did you leave some out? 

Well we're updating it as we left some out. Next question._


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 18, 2011)

Badgers said:


> John Yates suspended is pretty big news.


 
Nothing on the BBC site yet.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

he hasn't been suspended yet, but the telegraph are reporting it's planned.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

Santino said:


> I'd go with general incompetence on this one I think.


 
not sure whether it really matters which it is tbh, although i'm normally happy to credit incompetence over deceit.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 18, 2011)

Commisioner resigns - Brooks arrested - Cameron swans off on a trade jolly to South Africa  Yates may be suspended - getting closer and closer to Cameron 

If Cameron is felled - odds on for a General Election - Lib Dems would be foolish not to withdraw support for the coalition - they are the least tainted of the 3 parties - Cable's reputation has been enhanced of late -


----------



## gabi (Jul 18, 2011)

Who actually leaves voicemail anyway? maybe in a business context but yeh - i very rarely leave or get left voicemail with mates.


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2011)

gabi said:


> Who actually leaves voicemail anyway? maybe in a business context but yeh - i very rarely leave or get left voicemail with mates.


 
Did it take you 5990 posts to think of that?


----------



## gabi (Jul 18, 2011)

er, no - i havent been reading this 240 page thread, sadly


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2011)

150


----------



## gabi (Jul 18, 2011)

u really need to get out more


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2011)

gabi said:


> Who actually leaves voicemail anyway? maybe in a business context but yeh - i very rarely leave or get left voicemail with mates.


Perhaps if your daughter went missing you'd find a use for it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 18, 2011)

gabi said:


> er, no - i havent been reading this 240 page thread, sadly


 
Sadly there are some righteous overly inflated types who believe one cannot comment on a topic of the moment if you haven't read the entire thread...


----------



## cybertect (Jul 18, 2011)

Robert Peston's blogged that James Murdoch may be asked to step down as NI chairman, at least temporarily so he can deal with everything else that's going on.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14183505


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 18, 2011)

marty21 said:


> Commisioner resigns - Brooks arrested - Cameron swans off on a trade jolly to South Africa  Yates may be suspended - getting closer and closer to Cameron
> 
> If Cameron is felled - odds on for a General Election - Lib Dems would be foolish not to withdraw support for the coalition - they are the least tainted of the 3 parties - Cable's reputation has been enhanced of late -



Have you been out of the country for most of this year?


----------



## treelover (Jul 18, 2011)

'If Cameron is felled - odds on for a General Election - Lib Dems would be foolish not to withdraw support for the coalition - they are the least tainted of the 3 parties - Cable's reputation has been enhanced of late - '


How will Labour be different, genuine question, on welfare/benefit cuts, they want to go faster, slower but just as deep austerity cuts, they would have more academies, , tougher on crime than the condems,, etc?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 18, 2011)

Just watched Millibands speech oln the hacking affair, fuck my old boots what a disgrace... Talking about 'responsibility' and yet his first 'change' would be to attack welfare. FFS we're living at a time when the utter corruption of the powerful and wealthy is being exposed tiny bit by tiny bit and he wants to 'reform' welfare in his campaign for 'responsibility'. To call him an utterly cowardly wanker wouold be a slight on cowardly wankers.


----------



## treelover (Jul 18, 2011)

yes, an open goal and he attacks not the powerful but the weakest...

Apparently, labour are determined to leapfrog the Tories on welfare, they heard bad things about 'scroungers' on the doorstep, you see...


----------



## marty21 (Jul 18, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Have you been out of the country for most of this year?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 18, 2011)

> 12.31pm: Another Guardian colleague tells me that he has heard from a source who is normally reliable that John Yates will resign later today. I'm sorry I can't tell you any more. This is not confirmation that he will definitely go, but - knowing a bit more about where this is coming from than I'm in a position to disclose - I'm taking it very seriously.


----------



## gabi (Jul 18, 2011)

marty21 said:


>



i think what he means is that the lib dems are utterly finished as a party


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Brooks is now accusing the met of arresting her to turn the heat off them. (or they've both come up with some bullshit like this as a joint strategy).


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

From the BBC updates: 



> Former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott says Assistant Commissioner John Yates must resign. "That man's feet shouldn't touch the ground."
> Lord Prescott says Mr Yates misled him and other MPs and "does not have the right or morality to remain in that job".



Prescott is not mincing his words on this is he.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Brook's lawyer



> "The position of Rebekah Brooks can be simply stated. She is not guilty of any criminal offence. The position of the Metropolitan Police is less easy to understand. Despite arresting her yesterday and conducting an interview process lasting 9 hours, they put no allegations to her, and showed her no documents connecting her with any crime. They will in due course have to give an account of their actions, and in particular their decision to arrest her, with the enormous reputational damage that this has involved.
> 
> 
> In the meantime, Mrs Brooks has an appointment with the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee tomorrow. She remains willing to attend and to answer questions. It is a matter for Parliament to decide what issues to put to her and whether her appointment should place at a later date."


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 18, 2011)

I like the phrase 'reputational damage' - who are they kidding?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 18, 2011)

Yes, because her reputation was sparkling before the rozzers collared her 

I reckon Prescott's trying to get himself clear of the inevitable New Labour clusterfuck that's going to happen when relationships between former ministers and N.I/


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

are they showing tomorrow's grilling on telly in full does anyone know?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 18, 2011)

treelover said:


> yes, an open goal and he attacks not the powerful but the weakest...
> 
> Apparently, labour are determined to leapfrog the Tories on welfare, they heard bad things about 'scroungers' on the doorstep, you see...



And there was me thinking, what an ideal opportunity to go after corporate tax avoidance. Silly me.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

killer b said:


> are they showing tomorrow's grilling on telly in full does anyone know?


 
Something we can all enjoy


----------



## gabi (Jul 18, 2011)

my schadenfreude levels are already maxed. i might explode if i watch that shit.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Something we can all enjoy


 
i was considering persuading a pub-owning friend to show it on his big screen...


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2011)

Hopefully all this means that all the throwaway lines that appear about in Private Eye about shady deals done during free lunches will become potential headlines in the other papers. Tax deals done with Vodafone for example, or Goldman Sachs .... 



> Eye readers will recall that late last year HMRC tax boss Dave Hartnett unlawfully let Goldman Sachs off a £20m interest bill on an offshore tax avoidance scheme for its bankers’ bonuses.
> 
> The agreement came soon after Hartnett had dined with the “great vampire squid” of international capitalism. And in March this year, Labour treasury select committee member Chuka Umunna raised the deal, asking the innocuous question “whether the internal [HMRC] procedures were met in relation to the Goldman’s settlement”. Now the MP has received an answer, or rather the claim from HMRC that it “cannot give any information, for reasons of taxpayer confidentiality”.
> 
> This non-reply doesn’t stack up. Last year HMRC chief executive Dame Lesley Strathie was able to tell a parliamentary committee – inaccurately – that “the proper processes took place here” in relation to the dodgy Vodafone deal. No taxpayer confidentiality worries there.



.. that would be nice  .


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

killer b said:


> i was considering persuading a pub-owning friend to show it on his big screen...


 
What time will it be? 
I might do a little sex wee


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

Badgers said:


> What time will it be?
> I might do a little sex wee


 
murdochs at 2.30, brooks at 3.30


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Brooks' lawyers previous:



> Selected matters in which Stephen has acted:
> Advised the Prime Minster, Tony Blair, and all the No 10 and Cabinet Office witnesses in the Hutton Inquiry
> Advised former Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major and former Deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine in the BSE Inquiry
> Advised a key witness in the Iraq Inquiry
> ...



( From David Allen Green)


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 18, 2011)

I wonder if those who were guilty of hacking mobile phones, are at the moment hacking again so as to find out just how much evidence there is against them, and what people are saying. 

Miliband and the PLP are really wasting an opportunity to attack here. They should be drawing up alternative Labour policies to the ones the now have. They need to put some 'red water' - even if it be blood coloured, between Labour and the Tories and between the old Blairite NewLabour and what should be an alternative. It won't happen though. So the biggest cracks in the Establishment, the Media the Tories, the Police to occur for a lifetime will be enabled to be patched up so that Business As Usual can return. Where is our revolution?


----------



## gosub (Jul 18, 2011)

was in Dublin for the weekend, so only had an Irish edition of the SUnday Times to see how NI are firefighting: was quite entertaining: a couple of foot on how much of a cunt Brown is, a couple of foot on the American media breaking there own standards on spreading the 9/11 bit due to it coming from an unattributed source and about a yard on the need for loose media regulation and blagging. Most useful bit though was in the busniess section NI BOARD MEETING 28th JULY. UK papers make up 5% of their asset base and the scandal has wiped more off the price than that


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 18, 2011)

and see she is using PR company Bell Pottinger


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2011)

killer b said:


> are they showing tomorrow's grilling on telly in full does anyone know?


 
probably on bbc parliament and bbc news


----------



## laptop (Jul 18, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Prescott is not mincing his words on this is he.


 
Stir-frying, as always, but not mincing


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 18, 2011)

smokedout said:


> what bollocks.  so he can stand there preaching about family values whilst doing the exact opposite, what about someone who preaches hellfire and brimstone on lgbt folk whilst secretly loving the cock themselves, or MPs expenses, or even the man ultimately in charge of jailing sex workers whilst picking them up on the street (as in the case of the DPP bloke)
> 
> if we have to put up with being ruled by cunts the very least we should expect is to be able to hold them to account on the way they live and expose their hypocrisy
> 
> ...


You do realise that what you are saying is that NO-ONE in any position of authority or public prominence has a right to a private life, or any privacy whatsoever?
Do you really think that's sensible or even workable?


----------



## Kanda (Jul 18, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I wonder if those who were guilty of hacking mobile phones, are at the moment hacking again so as to find out just how much evidence there is against them, and what people are saying.


 
It's not really phone hacking. It's illicit access to voicemail messages. Wish they'd stop calling it fucking phone hacking!

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/07/08/how-phone-hacking-worked/


----------



## rhod (Jul 18, 2011)

pk said:


> once the jailings begin here and the whistleblowers start whistling, it'll be game over. People formally employed by Fox will be eager to tell their stories once the threats from the Murdoch mafia become toothless.



Fmr. Fox News Executive: *Americans' Phones Were Hacked*



> Deep in the bowels of 1211 Avenue of the Americas, News Corporation’s New York headquarters, was what Roger called the Brain Room. Most people thought it was simply the research department of Fox News. But unlike virtually everybody else, because I had to design and build the Brain Room, I knew it also housed a counterintelligence and black ops office. So accessing phone records was easy pie.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Brooks is now accusing the met of arresting her to turn the heat off them.


 
Goodoh


----------



## laptop (Jul 18, 2011)

rhod said:


> Fmr. Fox News Executive: *Americans' Phones Were Hacked*


 
Good lord... the actual _New York_ magazine article is on my to-read list, as a profile of Roger Ailes, creator of Fux News and tipped by some to succeed James Murdoch...


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 18, 2011)

gabi said:


> i think what he means is that the lib dems are utterly finished as a party


 
I too thought that a few weeks back, though dignified and vocal rebuttals, including reminders they took such a stance years ago AND comfort that they've never had the opportunity to be any use to NI (lol), may just be the thing that saves them.


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 18, 2011)

laptop said:


> Stir-frying, as always, but not mincing



and that's from a man who I am sure knows about mice meat 



rhod said:


> Fmr. Fox News Executive: *Americans' Phones Were Hacked*



I don't think anyone is surprised. It seems to be standard practice at NI/NC firms.

This must be what brooks meant by 'in a years time you will see why we did this'. I wonder what else is still to come out?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

laptop said:


> Good lord... the actual _New York_ magazine article is on my to-read list, as a profile of Roger Ailes, creator of Fux News and tipped by some to succeed James Murdoch...


 
I linked to that as re-awoken in the Nation 3 days ago - no movement since then as far as i can tell...


----------



## laptop (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I linked to that as re-awoken in the Nation 3 days ago - no movement since then as far as i can tell...


 
Out of 6031 posts, I have to miss that one...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

This is _potentially_ interesting from Michael Crick:



> Gordon Brown was so keen on judicial inquiry into hacking that it was even an item in May 2010 Lab Lib Dem Coalition negotiations



Anyone got the book that covered this - can't recall name right now.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 18, 2011)

Any idea how long it would take to read the whole thread?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This is _potentially_ interesting from Michael Crick:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Does it look more significant than it is, though? After all, didn't Nulabor deliberately throw the fight when negotiating with the LDs?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

I want to see what the _we're so pure _ lib-dems reaction was, not interested in the labour side Idris.

edit: and on the last bit, whilst OT no, i don't think they did.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 18, 2011)

I hear ya. . .


----------



## veracity (Jul 18, 2011)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Any idea how long it would take to read the whole thread?


 It's taken me from since the story first broke 2 weeks ago until yesterday evening to finally get up to date with it, fast moving stuff!


----------



## cybertect (Jul 18, 2011)

laptop said:


> Out of 6031 posts, I have to miss that one...


 
It's OK. You could have missed this one that I posted last night with that piece on dailykos.com about US phone hacking by Fox too.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 18, 2011)




----------



## marty21 (Jul 18, 2011)

gabi said:


> i think what he means is that the lib dems are utterly finished as a party


 
a fortnight ago, I would have agreed with this - now I'm not so sure


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Yates gone.


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yates gone.


 
Are you carving a little notch into your keyboard each time you're the first to mention a new development in the story?

Because I am.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Santino said:


> Are you carving a little notch into your keyboard each time you're the first to mention a new development in the story?
> 
> Because I am.


 
I've got a whole list of people with the words 'gone after them' open in a window and i have the latest suspect stuck in my clipboard ready to go. Pro-tip that.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 18, 2011)

Who's next then?

Edit: 
Edit: nope, misread the statement, forgeddit


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

BBC stream  

Statement from the Met Police: Assistant Commissioner John Yates has indicated his intention to resign to the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority. This has been accepted.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 18, 2011)

Fantastic stuff, it's the gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Yates to turn on Cameron more openly than Stephenson dared?


----------



## yardbird (Jul 18, 2011)

John Yates  has (at last) resigned
Boris really doesn't get it, spending his time praising him and 'Paul'


----------



## 1%er (Jul 18, 2011)

Dick to take over from Yates


----------



## articul8 (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yates gone.


 
Knew that was coming  (wonder if it's any coincidence that the Fortnum and Mason verdict came in around the same time?)


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2011)

1%er said:


> Dick to take over from Yates


 
That goes without saying. But which one?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 18, 2011)

1%er said:


> Dick to take over from Yates


 I think that's a possibility.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

Santino said:


> That goes without saying. But which one?


 
Could be a clunge as well. Equal opportunity bastards.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 18, 2011)

Santino said:


> That goes without saying. But which one?


 
The Dick without a dick


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2011)

Pandora's box  just keeps giving


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 18, 2011)

Cunt to take over from dick?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 18, 2011)

So the water reaches Boris and Dave. And can someone please drag Paul Dacre into this?
Other than that, I think we're running out of potential resignations.


----------



## dylans (Jul 18, 2011)

Cameron should be in the cross hairs now. He did exactly the same thing that Stephenson has resigned over ie hiring former NOTW execs. If Milliband had any balls at all he should be calling for his resignation.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 18, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Cunt to take over from dick?


 
all these cunts and dicks just ensure everyone is fucked


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

dylans said:


> Cameron should be in the cross hairs now. He did exactly the same thing that Stephenson has resigned over ie hiring former NOTW execs. If Milliband had any balls at all he should be calling for his resignation.


 
he doesn't have any balls, so he's just hinting at it...


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

1%er said:


> all these cunts and dicks just ensure everyone is fucked


 
Needs more arseholes then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Johnson said Cameron resigning is a matter for Cameron, not a simple no.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 18, 2011)

Johnson and Cameron have no love lost, Johnson is the 1922's leading candidate for a right-wing takeover, if Cameron gets pushed overboard.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

Boris is surely next in line for some serious flak. After all he rode in on a horse and banner proclaiming the rebirth of the Met. He's liable for what's happened as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Boris is surely next in line for some serious flak. After all he rode in on a horse and banner proclaiming the rebirth of the Met. He's liable for what's happened as well.


 
He also called the hacking stuff a "a Labour witch-hunt".


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2011)

probably try to but ken it off.


----------



## big eejit (Jul 18, 2011)

Johnson is geting some serious flak at a news conference on BBC at the moment. He is da bumbler down city hall.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Johnson said Cameron resigning is a matter for Cameron, not a simple no.


 
Very telling, and not unexpected. Every commentator has always assumed BJ as the PM-elect obviously - I bet DC's not too pleased, tho he's never been able to influnce the blond juggernaut as yet.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 18, 2011)

From Borrie's press conference (c/o The Graun):



> 2.42pm: Here's a fuller quote from Johnson on the two police resignations:
> 
> I believe that both decisions are regrettable but I would say that in both cases the right call has been made. There is absolutely nothing that has been proven against the probity or the professionalism of either man.
> 
> *But in both cases we have to recognise that the nexus of questions about the relationship between the Met and the News of the World was likely to be distracting to both officers in the run-up to the Olympic games.*



FFS


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Very telling, and not unexpected. Every commentator has always assumed BJ as the PM-elect obviously - I bet DC's not too pleased, tho he's never been able to influnce the blond juggernaut as yet.


 
I honestly don't think that every commentator has johnson as that at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

> He later said: “Labour politicians have had five years to discover their principles about this and get outraged about what may or may not have happened.”



How many you had?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I honestly don't think that every commentator has johnson as that at all.


 
I don't think so either, what a fucking nightmare that would be.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

Didn't Boris get hacked as well a few years back?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Didn't Boris get hacked as well a few years back?


 
He said that he didn't give as fuck if he was. No need for further investigation. _Let's leave it at that._


----------



## marty21 (Jul 18, 2011)

big eejit said:


> Johnson is geting some serious flak at a news conference on BBC at the moment. He is da bumbler down city hall.



to lose one senior cop is unfortunate, 2 is more serious, if more go, Bojo is in serious trouble - and his position as PM-in-waiting seriously damaged


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

It pisses me off that the hacking scandal is receiving more news than the reforms to the NHS:
12th July - talking about who's going to monitor the mergers: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/health/110712/pm/110712s01.htm


----------



## 1%er (Jul 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Didn't Boris get hacked as well a few years back?


 
he was told by the police in 2006 that his phone had been hacked.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 18, 2011)

Boris is completely out of his depth as London Mayor. He is a maverick and would be a disaster as PM. In any case it would require a by-election as he is no longer an MP, - an existing Tory would need to resign from a safe seat to let Boris in. Tories don't do acts of self-sacrifice. I suppose the chosen victim could be given a peerage though.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2011)

I think this is all a bit unfair against St. Boris of the People. Chickenfeed really.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> It pisses me off that the hacking scandal is receiving more news than the reforms to the NHS:
> 12th July - talking about who's going to monitor the mergers: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/health/110712/pm/110712s01.htm


 
If this scandal goes further, it could mean that those reforms would be put on hold ... at the very fucking least ... but yep.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Cameron - just resign and let Clegg take over. Listen to the voice of the people.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Cameron - just resign and let Clegg take over. Listen to the voice of the people.


 
No no no - it's gotta be Osborne.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

dylans said:


> Cameron should be in the cross hairs now. He did exactly the same thing that Stephenson has resigned over ie hiring former NOTW execs. If Milliband had any balls at all he should be calling for his resignation.


 
Perhaps, though that might (finally) draw attention to his hiring of a former NI hack, despite being warned, knowing what News International were up to etc etc.

As for Yates - it was probably inevitable after Stevenson went, but if I am being honest there is something distasteful about this.  In essence Yates has gone because he failed to open an immense can of worms and then defended that decision, wheras major political figures in both big parties  - who lets not forget were (and are) far more compromised in terms of their links with Murdoch - continue merrily on.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)

or cable.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> No no no - it's gotta be Osborne.


 
No it _has_ to be Clegg for at least a period.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 18, 2011)

Surely Yates job as a copper is to open that can of worms, regardless of whose head the shit might fall on 

@ agricola BTW


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No it _has_ to be Clegg for at least a period.


 
Ya I know, would've been funnier if it was Gideon who took the helm though.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 18, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> or cable.


 
Or Simon Hughes - the "straight choice for Bermondsey" (cough, cough, ahem) who never did anything dodgy to get elected (cough cough splutter etc)


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

I bet people are writing film scripts right now.


----------



## big eejit (Jul 18, 2011)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though that might (finally) draw attention to his hiring of a former NI hack, despite being warned, knowing what News International were up to etc etc.
> 
> As for Yates - it was probably inevitable after Stevenson went, but if I am being honest there is something distasteful about this.  In essence Yates has gone because he failed to open an immense can of worms and then defended that decision, wheras major political figures in both big parties  - who lets not forget were (and are) far more compromised in terms of their links with Murdoch - continue merrily on.


 
Indeed the turd who is asst mayor of London said that Yates' resignation was "One of the downsides of employing someone with personal integrity." Which would explain why no politicians have resigned! (if it were true)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though that might (finally) draw attention to his hiring of a former NI hack, despite being warned, knowing what News International were up to etc etc.
> 
> As for Yates - it was probably inevitable after Stevenson went, but if I am being honest there is something distasteful about this.  In essence Yates has gone because he failed to open an immense can of worms and then defended that decision, wheras major political figures in both big parties  - who lets not forget were (and are) far more compromised in terms of their links with Murdoch - continue merrily on.


 

That's not distasteful, you have to open the small ones first, to get at the big ones. And if it is the end of the _process_ - which there is no sign of - then it's not distasteful it's just unfair.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Or Simon Hughes - the "straight choice for Bermondsey" (cough, cough, ahem) who never did anything dodgy to get elected (cough cough splutter etc)


 
Mark Oaten


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 18, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Boris is completely out of his depth as London Mayor.


 
To be fair Boris would be completely out of depth on most parish councils.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 18, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Mark Oaten


 
David Laws?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jul 18, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Cunt to take over from dick?


 They can't ALL done the same job!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 18, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> To be fair Boris would be completely out of depth on most parish councils.


 
He was out of his depth trying to chair Have I Got News For You!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 18, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Boris is completely out of his depth as London Mayor. He is a maverick and would be a disaster as PM. In any case it would require a by-election as he is no longer an MP, - an existing Tory would need to resign from a safe seat to let Boris in. Tories don't do acts of self-sacrifice. I suppose the chosen victim could be given a peerage though.


 
If I understand the BBC site correctly, Yates is resigning because he was about to be suspended. 

The BBC also seems to imply that this is the result of pressure from Boris, who is presumably thrashing around looking for ways to pretend that he's acting in the public interest, before it turns out he'd been up to naughty stuff too, like ... oh I don't know, snorting coke from the Met evidence locker at Chequers with Rebekah and Disco Dave while telling each other benefit-scrounger jokes, or whatever it is these members of the unnaccountable elite all get up to in private to relax from the strain of taking the people of this country for mugs ...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 18, 2011)

Grundian



> Michael Wolff, Rupert Murdoch's biographer, has given an interview to ITV saying that he thinks Murdoch will perform very badly when he gives evidence to the Commons culture committee tomorrow.
> 
> He will handle it very poorly. This is something that Rupert doesn't know how to do, has never done, has resisted doing and frankly can't do. Rupert is – on top of everything else - an incredibly shy man and he is also a very inarticulate man and he is also a man who, I don't think he is going to know what to do with the fact that he will be confronted here. It is very likely he will get angry. He will say things that people should not say in public. I know they are drilling him and rehearsing him over and over and over and over again and they are saying to him 'do not say anything, just answer the questions in as few words as possible'. Whether he absorbs that lesson or not…actually I can't imagine that he will or that he has


----------



## marty21 (Jul 18, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I bet people are writing film scripts right now.



Murdoch has to be played by Geoffrey Rush

not sure who should play Hugh Grant or Steve Coogan


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Cameron - just resign and let Clegg take over. Listen to the voice of the people.


 
Comedian


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2011)

agricola said:


> As for Yates - it was probably inevitable after Stevenson went, but if I am being honest there is something distasteful about this.  In essence Yates has gone because he failed to open an immense can of worms and then defended that decision, wheras major political figures in both big parties  - who lets not forget were (and are) far more compromised in terms of their links with Murdoch - continue merrily on.


 
True, although it is surely another lever. 

I keep thinking that this all comes during the era of 'zero tolerance' (which police commander was it introduced that again - i'll swear I remember a report where he was accused of fiddling expenses and he replied that it was all trifling amounts well  ). If these people agree with zero tolerance for the rest of us then .... awwwwww.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Comedian


 
It's not a joke. Clegg becomes PM whilst the tories have an internal election.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's not a joke. Clegg becomes PM whilst the tories have an internal election.


 
Wouldn't a new election have to be called?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's not a joke. Clegg becomes PM whilst the tories have an internal election.


 
which would stop him pulling out of the coalition I guess, at least while he is acting PM


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Wouldn't a new election have to be called?


 
Nope, no reason at all.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Wouldn't a new election have to be called?



no


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 18, 2011)

laptop said:


> Stir-frying, as always, but not mincing


 
John Prescott does NOT stir-fry his words. He coats them in batter and deep fries them. That's why it takes him so long to say anything.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's not a joke. Clegg becomes PM whilst the tories have an internal election.


 
As a long time liberal-democrat voter (as apologised for elsewhere) and in view of his actions since the election, I find that deeply disturbing.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, no reason at all.


 


marty21 said:


> no


 
Just goes to show my ignorance of election law then!


----------



## cybertect (Jul 18, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> In any case it would require a by-election as he is no longer an MP, - an existing Tory would need to resign from a safe seat to let Boris in. Tories don't do acts of self-sacrifice.


 
Alban Gibbs resigned his City of London seat so that former Tory PM Arthur Balfour could re-enter the Commons after the 1906 Liberal landslide cost him his Manchester East constituency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_by-election,_February_1906

Dunno about anything more recent than that though


----------



## magneze (Jul 18, 2011)

Osborne first recommended Coulson didn't he? Could Cameron jettison him?


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's not distasteful, you have to open the small ones first, to get at the big ones. And if it is the end of the _process_ - which there is no sign of - then it's not distasteful it's just unfair.


 
Recent political history suggests that wont happen - after all, no political figure went over Baby P, no political figure went over the Mid Staffordshire deaths... and even when someone is forced out (as in the Jo Moore "a good day to bury bad news" thing) they usually take a civil servant with them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

So Cressida Dick who 'directed' the shooting of JCDM - and whose family were a victim of the 'hacking' takes over the body who were in control of the investigations into what her predecessor has resigned over. Have i that right?


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So Cressida Dick who 'directed' the shooting of JCDM - and whose family were a victim of the 'hacking' takes over the body who were in control of the investigations into what her predecessor has resigned over. Have i that right?


 
Yes, it is that fucked up.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

cybertect said:


> Alban Gibbs resigned his City of London seat so that former Tory PM Arthur Balfour could re-enter the Commons after the 1906 Liberal landslide cost him his Manchester East constituency.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_by-election,_February_1906
> 
> Dunno about anything more recent than that though



You're old enough to remember Hume surely?


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 18, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'If Cameron is felled - odds on for a General Election - Lib Dems would be foolish not to withdraw support for the coalition - they are the least tainted of the 3 parties - Cable's reputation has been enhanced of late - '
> 
> 
> How will Labour be different, genuine question, on welfare/benefit cuts, they want to go faster, slower but just as deep austerity cuts, they would have more academies, , tougher on crime than the condems,, etc?


 
None of the main parties will be any different, unless we all vote for the candidates they can least rely on. Personally I think that everyone should vote against sitting MPs unless they have rebelled against the party whip several times, and vote for the non-fash candidates with the least political experience pretty much regardless of their party (though I accept that many of us will not be able to stomach voting Tory under any circumstances).

It's time we stopped settling for a choice between three near identical neo-liberal socially regressive parties, and voted in absolutely anyone we can find who isn't part of the current stinking festering shitheap.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> If this scandal goes further, it could mean that those reforms would be put on hold ... at the very fucking least ... but yep.


Where have you got that idea from? 






			
				12th July said:
			
		

> More fundamentally, just as we asked about why the OFT has a role at all, why should the Competition Commission have any role in assessing how competition is developing in the NHS? The Minister claims that the Government have changed the Bill to make it clear that they do not want to promote competition as an end in itself, but the clause shows that that is simply not the case. The Government have tabled no amendments to this crucial clause. If they really wanted to say that competition was not an end in itself, they would not give the Competition Commission a role.
> 
> Owen Smith:  Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to hear from the Minister whether a financial threshold will also be applied in respect of the Competition Commission? I do not know how many millions that might be, but given that we now know that the size of a hospital’s turnover—I was not aware that hospitals had turnovers—will be the determining factor as to whether the OFT intervenes, will the same apply to intervention by the Competition Commission?
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2011)

Interesting piece in Newsweek

How We Broke the Murdoch Scandal
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger on his dogged reporter, a U.S. ally—and a gamble that finally paid off.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/17/how-the-guardian-broke-the-news-of-the-world-hacking-scandal.html


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 18, 2011)

QUOTE=butchersapron;11943025]So Cressida Dick who 'directed' the shooting of JCDM - and whose family were a victim of the 'hacking' takes over the body who were in control of the investigations into what her predecessor has resigned over. Have i that right?[/QUOTE]

That will upset a lot of the potential male candidates for the position. She will find it hard to control them once in office. Things will get nasty in the Met. So situation normal then.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 18, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> I like to think that in times of crisis, a little voice in Boris' head asks the question, "What would Darius do?"


 
If only. I suspect what it actually says is "goo goo ga ga".


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Where have you got that idea from?


 
if cameron goes surely the nhs reforms etc will be put on hold ... or at least be a lot more difficult to push fwd ...


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 18, 2011)

Full Commons debate to be held on Weds. Cameron has bowed to pressure, and will not just be taking questions now.


----------



## cointreauman (Jul 18, 2011)

May is speaking now....


----------



## marty21 (Jul 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Just goes to show my ignorance of election law then!



there will be a lot of pressure to call an election though - and possibly a vote of no confidence - which if they tories lost, they wouold basically be morally compelled to call an election, and the lib dems might feel that they could gain from the crisis by leaving the coalition government, although I'm not sure how iron-clad the coalition agreement is


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> That will upset a lot of the potential male candidates for the position. She will find it hard to control them once in office. Things will get nasty in the Met. So situation normal then.


 
I doubt that.  If anything, being awarded this most poisoned of chalices will probably cause her rivals (if there are any) to rub their hands in glee, they will be off to some county force for a few years as Chief Constable / swan about as some ACPO spokesperson, whilst she has to deal with a historically large pile of grief and fend off small army of politicians who are desperate not to let it land on them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

One year ago, Boris Johnson, who i believe has some influence on the Met:



> "a load of codswallop cooked up by the Labour Party" which was
> "patently politically motivated" and
> "a politically motivated put up job" and
> "completely spurious and political" and
> ...


----------



## cybertect (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're old enough to remember Hume surely?


 
Good call. Probably should have but it was _slightly_ before my time by half a decade.

British political history that I studied in depth at school went from 1832 to 1945.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

lol @ Elizabeth Filkin getting involved in the inquiries into this, and the reaction to it from various sides of the House.


----------



## laptop (Jul 18, 2011)

agricola said:


> If anything, being awarded this most poisoned of chalices will probably cause her rivals (if there are any) to rub their hands in glee, they will be off to some county force for a few years as Chief Constable / swan about as some ACPO spokesperson, whilst she has to deal with a historically large pile of grief and fend off small army of politicians who are desperate not to let it land on them.


 
Sounds deeply plausible.

There's some kind of weak justice in there.

But can someone arrange for her to get on the Tube dressed as an electrician?


----------



## cointreauman (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> One year ago, Boris Johnson, who i believe has some influence on the Met:


 
Was watching Bosis bluster through that when he was called on that! Totall blustering wankpot

Just listened to May wrap her statement in the shooting of a police officer in Croydon as a wrap to the bollix of a non statement...... In other words let's talk about brave coppers not the guilty and divert the conversation on Cameron/Coulson
Cooper strikes back
From me - let me hang them all in Parliament Square
C


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 18, 2011)

marty21 said:


> there will be a lot of pressure to call an election though - and possibly a vote of no confidence - which if they tories lost, they wouold basically be morally compelled to call an election, and the lib dems might feel that they could gain from the crisis by leaving the coalition government, although I'm not sure how iron-clad the coalition agreement is



The Coalition agreement ends with the calling of a new election. The LibDems have already stated that they will be fighting the next election as a party in its own right.

There will not be much taste for an election in the country. There are no politicians that anyone wants to vote for. It would be another low turnout result and another botched coalition.


----------



## Augie March (Jul 18, 2011)

Unless I dreamt it, I'm sure Boris was on the news last night talking up how the enquiry should be lifting up every rock and finding out what is under enough them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> There will not be much taste for an election in the country. There are no politicians that anyone wants to vote for. It would be another low turnout result and another botched coalition.


 
It may be another botched coalition, but at least it wouldn't be this botched coalition. Anything is better than this botched coalition.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So Cressida Dick who 'directed' the shooting of JCDM - and whose family were a victim of the 'hacking' takes over the body who were in control of the investigations into what her predecessor has resigned over. Have i that right?


 
I nearly understood that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The Coalition agreement ends with the calling of a new election. The LibDems have already stated that they will be fighting the next election as a party in its own right.
> 
> There will not be much taste for an election in the country. There are no politicians that anyone wants to vote for. It would be another low turnout result and another botched coalition.


 
No it wouldn't, it would be a labour or tory outright victory. OT though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> I like the phrase 'reputational damage' - who are they kidding?


 
Just establishing the basis for a claim of defamation against the Met, probably.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So Cressida Dick who 'directed' the shooting of JCDM - and whose family were a victim of the 'hacking' takes over the body who were in control of the investigations into what her predecessor has resigned over. Have i that right?


 
You have.

The Met have a big problem. There are some excellent police officers, some quite senior, and some excellent departments in the Met Police. Unfortunately largely those involved in the sort of "glamourous" stuff that leads to rapid promotion tend towards the crap end of the spectrum. You get noticed by paying off criminals in order to arrest somebody else in a high profile case. You get noticed by running a heavy handed operation in which people get hurt or killed. These are things that make the newspapers and make a police officer a reputation. Running a neighbourhood team that makes excellent links with the community and dramatically reduces crime simply means you get stuck in that job.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Who'd have guessed *three inquires* eh? Only a *mad man * would suggest such a thing. Eh roman?

Or five!


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 18, 2011)

According to the Graun, that's 10 enquiries now set up into various aspects of this.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 18, 2011)

i find it extraordinary Dick still has a job (and a promotion!) since JCDM

let alone being put in charge of this shit storm...


----------



## marty21 (Jul 18, 2011)

I keep thinking of the Harold MacMillan quote 





> 'Events, my dear boy, events


 Cameron was having a relatively easy ride - getting others to take the stick - Clegg, Clarke, Hunt, Cable, etc etc 

and now this thing comes along


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 18, 2011)

Theresa May (according to the Graun just now) is also opening an investigation into the IPCC.  This is the body whose deputy head has been caught on tape stating how toothless said organisation is in dealing with deaths in police custody.  Hmm.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 18, 2011)

Isn't Andy Hayman next in line for the chop?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Is one of the media meeting missed off cameron a meeting with brooks? I don't trust who this is coming from.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

> Ladbrokes have further tightened the price on Cameron being the next cabinet member to 12/1. Just ten days ago you could have got 100/1 with the firm. Stan James, meanwhile, offer 7/1 against Cameron not lasting the year.
> 
> In other betting REBEKAH BROOKS is 1/5 with Ladbrokes to say ’sorry’ whilst in front of the DCMS Select Committee.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Isn't Andy Hayman next in line for the chop?


 What chop though Tim. He's been chopped.


----------



## magneze (Jul 18, 2011)

Roy Greenslade in the Guardian is calling for Clegg to instigate a vote of no confidence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/18/phone-hacking-nick-clegg-lib-dems-david-cameron

TBH, I don't think it necessarily has to be Clegg. A vote of no-confidence seems to becoming a real possibility though.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

Just got an email from a client in the USA who closed with this question: 



> Is it really a big deal about Murdoch over there or is it hype?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

> Roy Greenslade in the Guardian is calling for Clegg to instigate a vote of no confidence.



_Sting singing on the roof of the barbican._


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

magneze said:


> Roy Greenslade in the Guardian is calling for Clegg to instigate a vote of no confidence.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/18/phone-hacking-nick-clegg-lib-dems-david-cameron
> 
> TBH, I don't think it necessarily has to be Clegg. A vote of no-confidence seems to becoming a real possibility though.



There is zero chance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

temper_tantrum said:


> Johnson and Cameron have no love lost, Johnson is the 1922's leading candidate for a right-wing takeover, if Cameron gets pushed overboard.


 
Which merely points up the dearth of credible replacements for Cameron, and the cretinism of the 1922, to be fair.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What chop though Tim. He's been chopped.



 Ah yes - wiki says



> Hayman resigned from the Service on 4 December 2007, following allegations about expense claims and alleged improper conduct with a female member of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and a female Sergeant



Must have missed that. Have we run out of bent coppers with heads on the block then? (for now anyhow)


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which merely points up the dearth of credible replacements for Cameron, and the cretinism of the 1922, to be fair.


 
Very true!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> David Laws?


 
Mornington Crescent!


----------



## magneze (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There is zero chance.


He'll struggle on until the recess and hope it blows over by the time parliament are back then?


----------



## belboid (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There is zero chance.


 
and right on cue, Cleggy gices a rather more robust defense of Cameron than Bojo managed.

"it's crucial people also know the police will continue to do their very important work to keep us safe."

Who's 'us' in this context Nick?  And isn't that half the problem?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 18, 2011)

No way is clegg going to back a no confidence vote. 

It would end the coalition and that would be an end to the lib dems noble, self sacrificing work in saving the country from economic disaster.

If (and its still a pretty big if) Cameron's position becomes untenable, the tories will force him to resign. Hauge, Davies or Boris will replace him and we'll be back where we were. My bet would be on Davies as he can play the 'new broom' card.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

magneze said:


> He'll struggle on until the recess and hope it blows over by the time parliament are back then?


 
There will not be a vote of no confidence tabled. He can do what he wants, handle it shitly or greatly  hope it blows over et -  but there will not be a vote of confidence in the next two days.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

BBC stream at 16:37



> Downing Street adds to the list of David Cameron's contacts with senior media figures. It says the list now includes a sixth meeting with Rebekah Brooks and a lunch with the BBC.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Isn't Andy Hayman next in line for the chop?


 
Hasn't Hayman already left the Met?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mornington Crescent!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hasn't Hayman already left the Met?


 
It's FISH tonight, Lily.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 18, 2011)

In yet another U-Turn, Cameron is cutting his Africa trip short and is now coming back to the UK tomorrow. He only landed in S.Africa this morning


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 18, 2011)

marty21 said:


> there will be a lot of pressure to call an election though - and possibly a vote of no confidence - which if they tories lost, they wouold basically be morally compelled to call an election, and the lib dems might feel that they could gain from the crisis by leaving the coalition government, although I'm not sure how iron-clad the coalition agreement is


 
lol, I don't know what drugs you are on marty, but can I have some?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 18, 2011)

More live Graun coverage (full whatnots of today's events here):



> 4.38pm: My colleague Vikram Dodd tells me that the home affairs committee has Lord Macdonald, director of public prosecutions at at the time of the first phone hacking prosecution in 2007, to appear before it tomorrow in a special session. Macdonald has been criticised because he has subsequently agreed to do some work for News International.


----------



## laptop (Jul 18, 2011)

magneze said:


> He'll struggle on until the recess and hope it blows over by the time parliament are back then?


 
Certainly MPs will want a lot longer than two days to see which way the wind's blowing - in effect to find out whether it does in fact blow over over the recess.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2011)

skyscraper101 said:


> In yet another U-Turn, Cameron is cutting his Africa trip short and is now coming back to the UK tomorrow. He only landed in S.Africa this morning


 

hangs up the pith helmet before it even got an airing


----------



## magneze (Jul 18, 2011)

laptop said:


> Certainly MPs will want a lot longer than two days to see which way the wind's blowing - in effect to find out whether it does in fact blow over over the recess.


Dang, I was getting so used to people resigning or being pushed out.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 18, 2011)

skyscraper101 said:


> In yet another U-Turn, Cameron is cutting his Africa trip short and is now coming back to the UK tomorrow. He only landed in S.Africa this morning



Let's hope he gets detained by Customs and Excise as he re-enters the country. Can't the police arrest him on suspicion of something or other? Running the country while under the influence of NI should be the initial charge.


----------



## magneze (Jul 18, 2011)

Dodgy Disco Dave Dropped

I hope this is a headline we can look forward to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> _Sting singing on the roof of the barbican._


 
I'd prefer 15 minutes of mantra-filled _oompah_, to be fair.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hasn't Hayman already left the Met?


 
Yes, for News International.

During Hayman's recent visit to the stocks, he was ''pilloried as a Dodgy Geezer''. 

Also: 





> Mr Hayman was reminded of a live radio broadcast in which he told Lord Prescott that there was no evidence his phone had been hacked.
> Mr Hayman, the MPs reminded him, said he would “eat his words” if he was proved incorrect.
> The Labour MP Steve McCabe asked Mr Hayman if he felt he owed Lord Prescott an apology. “Yeah,” he replied. “Of course I do.”
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Andy-Hayman-pilloried-as-a-dodgy-geezer.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Who is the mate?

_IPCC asked to investigate conduct of Yates, over reviewing hacking inquiry & allegedly inappropriately securing job for friend's daughter_


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The media/PR strategy in the US appears to be very different than over here. Here it's oh so humble apologies. Over there the WSJ today publishes an editorial claiming the journalism that uncovered all this is the equivalent of the wikileaks embassy stuff i.e t_hey're trying to kill our boys_. Along with a host of other aggressive attacks they'd not dare print over here. Plan to poison the atmosphere against people who attack Murdoch before any real US revelations come out.


fortunately, they can't go too OTT with using the WSJ as their attack dog; given the prestige of the WSJ - and who reads it - it would damage/cheapen the brand too much in it's readership's eyes


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2011)

Courtesy of B3ta...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> fortunately, they can't go too OTT with using the WSJ as their attack dog; given the prestige of the WSJ - and who reads it - it would damage/cheapen the brand too much in it's readership's eyes


 
They just did.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who is the mate?
> 
> _IPCC asked to investigate conduct of Yates, over reviewing hacking inquiry & allegedly inappropriately securing job for friend's daughter_


 
Neil Wallis, according to the BBC (edit: and the Guardian now).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Sweet


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 18, 2011)

Balbi said:


> I reckon Prescott's trying to get himself clear of the inevitable New Labour clusterfuck that's going to happen when relationships between former ministers and N.I/


tbh, why should he care? His rep - good or bad - is what it is - and he knows full well he's had his time at the centre of power. I think this is just a joyous revenge on an old enemy, that he's always secretly dreamt of, as have probably most Labour politicians who were there in the 80s


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 18, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's FISH tonight, Lily.


 
Is it _Thursday_?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 18, 2011)

I would like to take this opportunity to announce that I too have done nothing wrong.

Therefore I resign


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Sean Hore found dead



> Sean Hoare, the former News of the World showbiz reporter who was the first named journalist to allege Andy Coulson was aware of phone hacking by his staff, has been found dead, the Guardian has learned.





> Death of Sean Hoare – who was first named journalist to allege Andy Coulson knew of hacking – not being treated as suspicious





> Speaking a Guardian reporter last week, Hoare repeatedly expressed the hope that the hacking scandal would lead to journalism in general being cleaned up and said he had decided to blow the whistle on the activities of some of his former News of the World colleagues with that aim in mind.
> 
> He also said he has been injured at a party the previous weekend while taking down a marquee erected for a children's party. He said he had broken his nose and badly injured his foot when a relative accidentally struck him with a heavy pole from the marquee.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Here they all go


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 18, 2011)

wow, it's getting all Oliver Stone


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> wow, it's getting all Oliver Stone


 
Indeed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Who doesn't consider it suspicious? The Met? Who does watford?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)

Would that be tvp?


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who doesn't consider it suspicious? The Met? Who does watford?


 
Herts, IIRC


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

Bit murky but I can't imagine foul play.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I've got a whole list of people with the words 'gone after them' open in a window and i have the latest suspect stuck in my clipboard ready to go. Pro-tip that.



how about a bit of Gilbert and Sulivan?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Bit murky but I can't imagine foul play.


 
Why not?


----------



## little_legs (Jul 18, 2011)

This is how Murdoch's Sunday Times describes the Cameron/Coulsen debacle: 



> But Cameron is finding it hard to regain the freshness the voters identified in him in the first years of his leadership. He is also paying a price for hiring Andy Coulson. You could see his temptation back then - he was accused of being cocooned by his privileged background; the former tabloid editor was an Essex state schoolboy. You can see his dilemma now when asked to denounce a friend who has been arrested but not charged - *the PM has the values of a good-hearted public schoolboy*. His mistake was not to say from the outset how angry he would be if he found out that Coulson had lied to him about his past.



How fucked up is Martin Ivens, the author of this shit?!?!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

What NUJ support did sean hoare get? Any members know?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why not?


 
Sorry, badly worded. I could see foul play but he was not the healthiest chap and unless he knew something else that was really ugly who would have bumped him?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who is the mate?
> 
> _IPCC asked to investigate conduct of Yates, over reviewing hacking inquiry & allegedly inappropriately securing job for friend's daughter_


 
It's Neil Wallis daughter.


----------



## laptop (Jul 18, 2011)

agricola said:


> Herts, IIRC


 
Correct.

Under the circumstances, an immediate "death is currently being treated as unexplained, but not thought to be suspicious" statement would be _extremely_ stupid unless it was a very obvious suicide - body in room locked from the inside and so on.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> It's Neil Wallis daughter.


 
Sweeter


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who doesn't consider it suspicious? The Met? Who does watford?



This is getting. . . heavy.

It's just about possible he could have had a blow to his head that left untreated could have done for him. But . . .


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 18, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> It's Neil Wallis daughter.


 
But hes done nothing wrong. He accidently dropped the investigation and then slipped and accidently gave a job to his corrupt mates daughter. Easy to say it was wrong in hindsight etc but his integrity is completely intact. Oh yes.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 18, 2011)

This just gets wackier.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 18, 2011)

dead bodies now, notw whistle blower found deaded


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 18, 2011)

Guardian makes the point he had "drink and drugs problems". I'm sure the Police autopsy will sort things out just fine.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Suspect?



> It also emerged today that Sean Hoare, a former News of the World journalist who told the New York Times and the BBC about hacking at the paper under Coulson, has been interviewed by police under caution. Lawyers said this indicated he was being treated by police as a suspect. "An interview under caution would follow someone being arrested as a suspect, except in the most exceptional circumstances," said Peter Lodder QC, a criminal barrister.



_14 September 2010_


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who does watford?


 


agricola said:


> Herts, IIRC



yup its hertfordshire police


----------



## rikwakefield (Jul 18, 2011)

Where the fuck is Dr Freddy Patel when you need him?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 18, 2011)

If this were a film id be complaining it's too predictable. What haven't we had happen yet?


----------



## Augie March (Jul 18, 2011)

BBC news just said something about Hoare telling a friend that he was 'seriously ill'.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What NUJ support did sean hoare get? Any members know?


 
As a Sun / NOTW journalist, wouldnt he have had to not been an NUJ member?  Or is their "staff association" thing a myth?


----------



## belboid (Jul 18, 2011)

agricola said:


> As a Sun / NOTW journalist, wouldnt he have had to not been an NUJ member?  Or is their "staff association" thing a myth?


 
Can't stop hm joining, it's just not recognised by NI


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

agricola said:


> As a Sun / NOTW journalist, wouldnt he have had to not been an NUJ member?  Or is their "staff association" thing a myth?


 
He may have been a member before/after - and after 97 there was nothing they could do anyway.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 18, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> <snip> I'm sure the Police autopsy will sort things out just fine.


 
Sure ...


----------



## teqniq (Jul 18, 2011)

rikwakefield said:


> Where the fuck is Dr Freddy Patel when you need him?



oh dearie me 

the cynicism on this thread is reaching new levels previously undreamt of.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

laptop said:


> Correct.
> 
> Under the circumstances, an immediate "death is currently being treated as unexplained, but not thought to be suspicious" statement would be _extremely_ stupid unless it was a very obvious suicide - body in room locked from the inside and so on.


 
Not really.  The statement they put out seems quite reasonable:



> "At 10.40am today [Monday 18 July] police were called to Langley Road, Watford, following the concerns for the welfare of a man who lives at an address on the street. Upon police and ambulance arrival at a property, the body of a man was found. The man was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after.
> 
> "The death is currently being treated as unexplained, but not thought to be suspicious. Police investigations into this incident are ongoing."



It reads more as if it is being treated as a normal sudden death, ie: there will be a report made by the officers who went there, the coroner will open an inquest and there will be an autopsy to try and determine the cause of death.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 18, 2011)

I feel very alarmed by all this London-centric corruption. The Met, the Mayor, the Murdoch Newspapers & Tv, and the two main political parties and their head honchos. 

And still no-one is giving deserved prominence to the rushed health reform bill that will allow the privatisation of the NHS! 


> *Around 60 campaigners assembled in a park in Hackney before marching to the local Homerton Hospital to speak out against the NHS reforms.*
> 
> Hackney GP Dr Jonathon Tomlinson said a key message was that the government could not be trusted with the NHS and that the reforms posed a ‘serious threat’ to the viability of local hospitals and other services.
> 
> ...



Nary a mention on the news.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Fuck off on to the thread about it then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's FISH tonight, Lily.


 
You're my wife now, Dave.


----------



## magneze (Jul 18, 2011)

"His death is not being treated as suspicious." There's probably over 59 million people here that would probably not agree with that.


----------



## rikwakefield (Jul 18, 2011)

teqniq said:


> oh dearie me
> 
> the cynicism on this thread is reaching new levels previously undreamt of.


 
I am cynical, no denying that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

rikwakefield said:


> I am cynical, no denying that.


 
You are the opposite of cynical rik. OT


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)

Anyone see channel 4 just now?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

magneze said:


> "His death is not being treated as suspicious..."



They forgot to include "...by the police" in the press release, didn't they?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 18, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Anyone see channel 4 just now?


 
No, something about that police bird on Crimewatch or something?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> No, something about that police bird on Crimewatch or something?


 Bird? Don't be one of them.


----------



## magneze (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> They forgot to include "...by the police" in the press release, didn't they?




The police don't think it is suspicious that the first person to go on record about the phone hacking scandal that exposed massive corruption in the police has been found dead just before a number of other people are about to go on record.

Fucking hell. Unbelievable.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Bird? Don't be one of them.


 
Dont start old boy, not in the mood.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 18, 2011)

Does anyone reckon this will bring down Dave?. Is it better to keep him in his job while this plays out?.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Brooks arrested!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

I did not see or hear the Channel 4 thing?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Does anyone reckon this will bring down Dave?. Is it better to keep him in his job while this plays out?.


 
For who? Who is making the decision?


----------



## magneze (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Brooks arrested!


What for this time?


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

that was fast

that's not been knocked off in a couple of hours - looks like it's been in reserve. perhaps it isn't so suspicious after all...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Brooks arrested!


 
Again? . Her lawyer was making a big deal of no allegations being put to her in nine hours.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 18, 2011)

magneze said:


> The police don't think it is suspicious that the first person to go on record about the phone hacking scandal that exposed massive corruption in the police has been found dead just before a number of other people are about to go on record.
> 
> Fucking hell. Unbelievable.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Brooks arrested!


 
Again?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

apols to all. i was craply parodying people who post stuff on the thread very late.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> For who? Who is making the decision?


 
Better for the opposition to keep him and the bad press in there?. I get the feeling if Milliband really pushes the Coulson angle it could start to get very uncomfortable for him.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 18, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Does anyone reckon this will bring down Dave?. Is it better to keep him in his job while this plays out?.


 
HopeSoHopeSoHopeSo


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Better for the opposition to keep him and the bad press in there?. I get the feeling if Milliband really pushes the Coulson angle it could start to get very uncomfortable for him.


They can't remove him one way or the other. It's not a choice thing.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

killer b said:


> that was fast
> 
> that's not been knocked off in a couple of hours - looks like it's been in reserve. perhaps it isn't so suspicious after all...


 
I do wish Nick Davies would stop making this particular point:



> He was equally offended when Scotland Yard's former assistant commissioner, John Yates, assigned officers to interview him, not as a witness but as a suspect. They told him anything he said could be used against him, and, to his credit, he refused to have anything to do with them.



The officers *had* to caution him in that regard - he was after all admitting to breaking the law, on many occasions.  Davies should know this.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> No, something about that police bird on Crimewatch or something?


 
Jackie hames who was followed by the news of the world, while her husband was investigating the john morgan murder. Actually followed as in surveillance outside the house etc ..


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

agricola said:


> I do wish Nick Davies would stop making this particular point:
> 
> 
> 
> The officers *had* to caution him in that regard - he was after all admitting to breaking the law, on many occasions.  Davies should know this.



Roman, what is the function of 'under caution'?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> Does anyone reckon this will bring down Dave?. Is it better to keep him in his job while this plays out?.


 
No, and frankly, no.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

agricola said:


> The officers *had* to caution him in that regard - he was after all admitting to breaking the law, on many occasions.  Davies should know this.


it serves his story better to act all huffy about it, i reckon.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 18, 2011)

rikwakefield said:


> I am cynical, no denying that.



Well whether you are or no, I award this thread a comedy gold for dark humour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They can't remove him one way or the other. It's not a choice thing.


 
AFAICR, he can't even be de-selected by his constituency association, the only way he can be made to go as PM is for someone to stand against him in a party election, and even that's far more difficult since the rules were changed over and over again post-Thatcher by party leaders trying to make their own ousting harder.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Roman, what is the function of 'under caution'?


 
In this instance it would solely to have reminded Hoare of his rights, and what police could have done with the information he had come out with - he wasnt (IIRC from press reports) under arrest at the time, but they would still have had to reminded him (given that - as Davies himself states - he was admitting to committing offences) of the caution, that he wasnt under arrest, that he was free to leave at any time and possibly his right to legal advice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

agricola said:


> I do wish Nick Davies would stop making this particular point:
> 
> 
> 
> The officers *had* to caution him in that regard - he was after all admitting to breaking the law, on many occasions.  Davies should know this.


 
Seems to me that Davies is merely indicating that the bloke exercised his right to silence.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

agricola said:


> In this instance it would solely to have reminded Hoare of his rights, and what police could have done with the information he had come out with - he wasnt (IIRC from press reports) under arrest at the time, but they would still have had to reminded him (given that - as Davies himself states - he was admitting to committing offences) of the caution, that he wasnt under arrest, that he was free to leave at any time and possibly his right to legal advice.


Ta


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2011)

I really need to rename this thread considering how things have moved on. Any suggestions for a suitably succinct title?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2011)

prop will eat itself


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

editor said:


> I really need to rename this thread considering how things have moved on. Any suggestions for a suitably succinct title?


 
leave as is


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2011)

editor said:


> I really need to rename this thread considering how things have moved on. Any suggestions for a suitably succinct title?


 
The decline and fall of Western civilisation?


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Seems to me that Davies is merely indicating that the bloke exercised his right to silence.


 
Not really - Davies appears to be suggesting that Hoare refused to speak to Police, once they pointed out (again, as they have to) that they might use his own admissions that he had committed criminal offences against him, and that Yates was wrong to do this.  Yates - and the officers - had no choice but to speak to Hoare in that manner because Hoare was, after all, admitting that he had broken the law.


----------



## elbows (Jul 18, 2011)

killer b said:


> that was fast
> 
> that's not been knocked off in a couple of hours - looks like it's been in reserve. perhaps it isn't so suspicious after all...


 
I would not be too surprised if his death was somewhat expected, and although its stupid of me to speculate before any detail comes out, he may have spoken out in the first place because he didn't think he had too many years left in him.

As far as the shitstorm goes, the actual reality may not be very important, the timing is the detail that counts.

That article you linked to has a nice line in it:



> When he spoke out about the voicemail hacking, some Conservative MPs were quick to smear him, spreading tales of his drug use as though that meant he was dishonest.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 18, 2011)

editor said:


> I really need to rename this thread considering how things have moved on. Any suggestions for a suitably succinct title?


 
Sky really was the limit


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)

http://tradingaswdr.blogspot.com/

Anyone know of the reliablity (or otherwise) of this blog?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 18, 2011)

editor said:


> I really need to rename this thread considering how things have moved on. Any suggestions for a suitably succinct title?


 
Power, corruption and lies. Do's and don'ts, a handy guide.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2011)

editor said:


> I really need to rename this thread considering how things have moved on. Any suggestions for a suitably succinct title?


 
Murdochalypse Now


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

****


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Who was after Dacre?



> Mr. Dacre confronted Ms. Brooks over breakfast at the plush Brown’s hotel. “You are trying to tear down the entire industry,” Mr. Dacre told her, according to an account he relayed to his management team.



Does anyone read any links on here?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Milly Dowler's voicemail 'hacked' by News of the World


 
It's never as funny the second time around. hth.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Murdochalypse Now


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's never as funny the second time around. hth.


 
True. You're fucked then. Now what for other peoples opinions?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

This is wind up material:

Police examine bag found in bin near Rebekah Brooks's home



> Detectives are examining a computer, paperwork and a phone found in a bin near the riverside London home of Rebekah Brooks, the former chief executive of News International.
> 
> The Guardian has learned that a bag containing the items was found in an underground car park in the Design Centre at the exclusive Chelsea Harbour development on Monday afternoon.
> 
> ...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 18, 2011)

Murdogeddon


----------



## elbows (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who was after Dacre?
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone read any links on here?


 
Fun stuff 



> Ms. Brooks, whose tenacity is legendary, was not deterred. At a dinner party, Lady Claudia Rothermere, the wife of the billionaire owner of The Daily Mail, overheard Ms. Brooks saying that The Mail was just as culpable as The News of the World. “We didn’t break the law,” Lady Rothermere said, according to two sources with knowledge of the exchange. Ms. Brooks asked who Lady Rothermere thought she was, “Mother Teresa?”


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 18, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Murdochalypse Now


 
This


----------



## magneze (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> They forgot to include "...by the police" in the press release, didn't they?


This has now been added to the Guardian story.


----------



## dylans (Jul 18, 2011)

editor said:


> I really need to rename this thread considering how things have moved on. Any suggestions for a suitably succinct title?


 
 phone hacking scandal?

(boring I know but to the point)


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 18, 2011)

I doubt phone hacking is going to cover it in a while.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)

this already goes way beyond phone-hacking ...


----------



## paolo (Jul 18, 2011)

magneze said:


> This has now been added to the Guardian story.


 
BBC ticker saying police declaring death "unexplained".


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

Murdoch Meltdown


----------



## paolo (Jul 18, 2011)

And after Murdochalypse, we can have News Corpse.


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

hello

whoops. i see butch beat me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2011)

print and be damned


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 18, 2011)

I've got it bad for this ginger cunt.


----------



## dylans (Jul 18, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> this already goes way beyond phone-hacking ...


 
It does indeed. The real killer blow would be if it was shown that NI hacked Labour phones and used that info to aid the Tories. That would be Watergate level stuff and that would bring down the government. Let's hope So. 



> Cameron has admitted meeting Murdoch executives 26 times in 15 months – but it emerges there were more occasions, many other walks and rides. Labour asks if he ever discussed the BSkyB deal with James Murdoch or Rebekah Brooks? "No," would be an improbable reply. The cabinet secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell has taken an unusually long time to answer Labour MP Ivan Lewis's letter asking if he was informed of private warnings not to employ Coulson. The wobbly, dilatory response to a growing list of questions breeds new rumours: surely it can't be true that News International friends hacked or otherwise stole Labour secrets before the election and passed useful information to the Tories? No, no; that was Watergate.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/18/news-international-ed-miliband


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 18, 2011)

News International crisis


----------



## pk (Jul 18, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Murdochalypse Now


 
WIN!


----------



## dylans (Jul 18, 2011)

dylans said:


> It does indeed. The real killer blow would be if it was shown that NI hacked Labour phones and used that info to aid the Tories. That would be Watergate level stuff and that would bring down the government. Let's hope So.
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/18/news-international-ed-miliband



So with that in mind maybe the thread should be called Murdochgate


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 18, 2011)

Tilda Swinton needs to play Rebekah in the straight to DVD movie.


----------



## dylans (Jul 18, 2011)

God. This is getting close to Cameron.



> The Mail on Sunday reported that Cameron intended to hire the BBC's Guto Harri as his press secretary. So close, apparently, was the appointment that the Harri family visited the Camerons one weekend in 2007 at Chipping Norton to discuss it, but the job went to Andy Coulson after *Rebekah Brooks "is said to have told Mr Cameron that the post should go to Mr Coulson to strengthen links between the Tories and News International"*.Is this true? Reviewing the papers on the Andrew Marr programme on Sunday, I pointed out this story and said Harri was well-known in the BBC as a straight-as-a-die, honest man. I was pleased to get a text from Harri just after the show saying "Thanks". Does that mean it is true?* I called Harri, who now works for Boris Johnson, to check. Yes, he said he'd heard tell that his name was not acceptable to News International*. "I heard it as gossip on the grapevine – but I have no idea whether or not it's true. Yes, I did talk to David Cameron about taking the job – but whilst I lingered they'd clearly approached Andy Coulson." He had a good idea who the source from the Sun was for the story. How Cameron must wish he had given Harri the job. The idea that News International planted their man in the heart of Downing Street is truly shocking.



So Brookes and NI  decided who Cameron should or shouldn't have hired! Wow.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/18/news-international-ed-miliband


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 18, 2011)

Get a fucking twitter RingDing!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

dylans said:


> God. This is getting close to Cameron.
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/18/news-international-ed-miliband


u2dylnas


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

dylans said:


> God. This is getting close to Cameron.
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/18/news-international-ed-miliband


 
My, but I like the sound of that.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> u2dylnas


 
The Welsh U2?


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 18, 2011)

dylans said:


> God. This is getting close to Cameron.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You're implicated, Cam.


----------



## paolo (Jul 18, 2011)

Interesting article in the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/world/europe/19tactics.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

Although most of it is a recap of stuff we already know, there's a few things that haven't been given any focus so far - particularly NI trying to spread the grief.

"Over the last several months, Ms. Brooks spearheaded a strategy that seemed designed to spread the blame across Fleet Street, interviews show. Several former News of the World journalists said that she asked them to dig up evidence of hacking. One said in an interview that Ms. Brooks’s target was not her own newspapers, but her rivals."

Dacre, in particular, seems to be getting on this. Whilst the editor of the fail is unlikely to win any fans here - least of all me - he does seem quite confident of his/The Mail's position.

'Mr. Dacre, The Daily Mail editor, told his senior managers that he had received several reports from businesspeople, soccer stars and public relations agencies that the News International executives Will Lewis and Simon Greenberg had encouraged them to investigate whether their phones had been hacked by Daily Mail newspapers . “They thought it was unfair that all the focus was on The News of the World,” said one News International official with knowledge of the effort. The two men have told colleagues they did not make such calls, but two company officials disputed that.'

Who knows which way all that will go, but at the very least it's a going to be an entertaining spat.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 18, 2011)

/Cameron immediately flies back to Africa.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> leave as is


 
Seconded. Let's remember where this all started.


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

dylans said:


> It does indeed. The real killer blow would be if it was shown that NI hacked Labour phones and used that info to aid the Tories. That would be Watergate level stuff and that would bring down the government. Let's hope So.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/18/news-international-ed-miliband



Maybe, though it would perhaps be worthwhile to point out that (a) the only safe assumption to make is that everyones phones were hacked at some stage; and (b) it would make sense for NI and the Tories to work very closely together once the NI papers decided to back the Tories, because that is what happened when NI and Labour were an item, after Murdoch backed Blair (to the extent of leaking the election date, leaking Hutton, co-ordinating policy announcements, protecting NI from fallout from its more mindless campaigns* and so on).

* the paedo riots of 2000


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 18, 2011)

stephj said:


> Get a fucking twitter RingDing!


 
Is that the polite way of saying _get the fuck off this thread_?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> Is that the polite way of saying _get the fuck off this thread_?


 
Or offer something.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 18, 2011)

This thread's fine as it is I think.

Looking forward to seeing the committee on telly tomorrow!


----------



## paolo (Jul 18, 2011)

dylans said:


> God. This is getting close to Cameron.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Jeeez... if that gets *any* traction, surely Cameron is now moving, fully, into the danger zone.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 18, 2011)

dylans said:


> <snip> Brookes and NI  decided who Cameron should or shouldn't have hired! <snip> ]



If true that's got to be grounds for him to 'consider his position' ...


----------



## dylans (Jul 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> u2dylnas



 What the fuck are you on about now? I have just posted the most interested stuff on this thread for pages, so shut it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 18, 2011)

agricola said:


> Maybe, though it would perhaps be worthwhile to point out that (a) the only safe assumption to make is that everyones phones were hacked at some stage; and (b) it would make sense for NI and the Tories to work very closely together once the NI papers decided to back the Tories, because that is what happened when NI and Labour were an item, after Murdoch backed Blair (to the extent of leaking the election date, leaking Hutton, co-ordinating policy announcements, protecting NI from fallout from its more mindless campaigns* and so on).
> 
> * the paedo riots of 2000


 
Yep, it looks like they had this nasty little racket running with successive governments. It just happens that they've been caught at it under a tory one ...


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)

Another vote for leave it as it is ... although i do like Murdochalypse Now


----------



## agricola (Jul 18, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Yep, it looks like they had this nasty little racket running with successive governments. It just happens that they've been caught at it under a tory one ...


 
Yes, but it is one of many rackets.  For instance, I especially liked Miliband's speech on this issue - plus the banking crisis, and  MPs expenses scandals - today, which was delivered forcefully, but without a hint of any irony at all:




			
				Miliband said:
			
		

> ''All are about the irresponsibility of the powerful. People who believed they were untouchable,'' he will say.
> 
> ''My argument is that throughout our society we need a new culture, rules and structure, which encourages people to act with responsibility.
> 
> ''We need to address this responsibility deficit we see in our society.''



the speech was delivered at the offices of KPMG.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 18, 2011)

agricola said:


> Yes, but it is one of many rackets.  For instance, I especially liked Miliband's speech on this issue - plus the banking crisis, and  MPs expenses scandals - today, which was delivered forcefully, but without a hint of any irony at all:
> 
> 
> 
> the speech was delivered at the offices of KPMG.


 
The spirit of irony which gave Henry Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize lives on ...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 18, 2011)

This whole issue, the over-powerful influence of News International goes back to Thatcher. She was the one who by granting Murdoch the Sky channel licence, gave Murdoch control over a massive portion of the media. She did it with the knowledge and in the intention of getting the Murdoch Empire in line with the Tory party. This mutual back scratching served both the Murdochs and the Tories until Blair did his own brown nosing up to Murdoch. Brown lost it again leading back to the Tories cuddling up once more up to Murdoch under in the Reign of Cameron. How much longer will he rein though? Cameron has no leadership qualities that I can see.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2011)

It's interesting how the whole story is starting to gain traction in the States, but not quite in the way I think a lot of us expected.  We reckoned the US press would get hold of the allegations about 9/11 victims being hacked and the whole thing would go nuclear, but that's not what's happened.  The American press definitely have picked up on it - I've just looked at the New York Times, Washington Post and a couple of other big US titles and they're mainly leading with it, even over the debt crisis - but it's not 9/11 they're talking about.  Firstly they covered it largely in business terms; now they've got the same sort of headlines as we have, about resignations, police corruption, pressure on Cameron, and so on.  Be interesting to watch how the story develops that side of the Atlantic...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 18, 2011)

> It is understood the bag was handed into security at around 3pm and that shortly afterwards, Brooks's husband, Charlie, arrived and tried to reclaim it. He was unable to prove the bag was his and the security guard refused to release it.




If that was an attempt to dispose of evidence then what a fucking muppet


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 18, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> <snip> Cameron has no leadership qualities that I can see.


 I don't think he was supposed to need them though, not with Rebekah to tell him who his chief spin doctor should be ...


----------



## cybertect (Jul 18, 2011)

So, if you go to http://www.thesun.co.uk, do you see something like this?



e2a: http://twitter.com/#!/anonymouSabu/status/93062692327264256


----------



## pk (Jul 18, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> The spirit of irony which gave Henry Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize lives on ...


 
Aye, and Kissinger is one other of the "masters of the universe" who is long overdue the justified public rage that Murdoch is currently being subjected to. That motherfucker is fair game too.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 18, 2011)

cybertect said:


> So, if you go to http://www.thesun.co.uk, do you see something like this?
> 
> View attachment 16428
> 
> e2a: http://twitter.com/#!/anonymouSabu/status/93062692327264256


fucking


----------



## teqniq (Jul 18, 2011)

cybertect said:


> So, if you go to http://www.thesun.co.uk, do you see something like this?



yup 

seems to be a webpage redirect?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)

No.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2011)

cybertect said:


> So, if you go to http://www.thesun.co.uk, do you see something like this?
> 
> View attachment 16428
> 
> e2a: http://twitter.com/#!/anonymouSabu/status/93062692327264256


 
Yes!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 18, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> It's interesting how the whole story is starting to gain traction in the States, but not quite in the way I think a lot of us expected.  We reckoned the US press would get hold of the allegations about 9/11 victims being hacked and the whole thing would go nuclear, but that's not what's happened.  The American press definitely have picked up on it - I've just looked at the New York Times, Washington Post and a couple of other big US titles and they're mainly leading with it, even over the debt crisis - but it's not 9/11 they're talking about.  Firstly they covered it largely in business terms; now they've got the same sort of headlines as we have, about resignations, police corruption, pressure on Cameron, and so on.  Be interesting to watch how the story develops that side of the Atlantic...



BBC have links to a variety of US perspectives: 



> “There were people you were not supposed to mess with,” says the former reporter for the gossipy Page Six, if they were “friends” of executives at the Post or its parent company, News Corp. At the same time, “word would come down through your editor, ‘This is someone we should get, should go after.’ The people high up had people they just didn’t like.”



http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2011/07/us_view_how_a_uk_scandal_affec.html


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> BBC have links to a variety of US perspectives:
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2011/07/us_view_how_a_uk_scandal_affec.html


 
Cheers - hadn't spotted that.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jul 18, 2011)

cybertect said:


> So, if you go to http://www.thesun.co.uk, do you see something like this?
> 
> View attachment 16428
> 
> e2a: http://twitter.com/#!/anonymouSabu/status/93062692327264256


 
Mint LOL


----------



## laptop (Jul 18, 2011)

teqniq said:


> yup
> 
> seems to be a webpage redirect?


 
It does seem so.

Further down the page, a clue:


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 18, 2011)

cybertect said:


> So, if you go to http://www.thesun.co.uk, do you see something like this?
> 
> View attachment 16428
> 
> e2a: http://twitter.com/#!/anonymouSabu/status/93062692327264256


 

LOL!


----------



## teqniq (Jul 18, 2011)

Cheers laptop hadn't bothered to look all the way down, lol


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2011)

> The Sun's website appears to have hacked. 'Media moguls body discovered' reads the 'new' front page.



Guardian.  

It's stopped working for me now, though...


----------



## cybertect (Jul 18, 2011)

teqniq said:


> yup
> 
> seems to be a webpage redirect?


 
I had a poke about - Javascript parent.location change in the breaking news feed :lol:


----------



## ddraig (Jul 18, 2011)

tweet deserves quoting too!



			
				http://twitter.com/#!/anonymouSabu said:
			
		

> Sun/News of the world OWNED. We're sitting on their emails. Press release tomorrow. In the meantime check: http://t.co/qhqSjdT #antisec


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

there's not going to be much of interest in their emails atm, surely? there's the chance of a raid at any moment i'd expect, so they'll be keeping things as bland as possible...


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 18, 2011)

Nick Boles (edit: neu-Tory darling) manages to ritually disembowel himself on live TV. Can this get any better? 
Can we please have a list of people who haven't yet managed to get themselves fucked by this. It's a rapidly narrowing group.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 18, 2011)




----------



## Flavour (Jul 18, 2011)

sun website now redirects to the LulzSec twitter


----------



## gabi (Jul 18, 2011)

actual lulz at that one


----------



## laptop (Jul 18, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> BBC ticker saying police declaring death "unexplained".


 
Oh fuck. Here come the metal millinery brigade. I've already met one who on hearing the news that Sean us dead came back with "and what was the connection of the man who was murdered to Murdoch?".


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 18, 2011)

cybertect said:


> I had a poke about - Javascript parent.location change in the breaking news feed :lol:


 
I managed to get a screenshot of the hacked sun site before it went:


----------



## killer b (Jul 18, 2011)

that lulsec twitter feed seems to be gathering followers at the rate of a thousand every few seconds... what's that irc link they have up lead to?


----------



## teqniq (Jul 18, 2011)

absolute class.


----------



## binka (Jul 18, 2011)

killer b said:


> that lulsec twitter feed seems to be gathering followers at the rate of a thousand every few seconds... what's that irc link they have up lead to?


 
dont know but i wouldnt connect to it without a decent proxy


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jul 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jeff, cosmetic surgery has nothing to do with eugenics, but everything to do with people being sold that uniquely American idea that surface is all that matters. Eugenics, however twisted the idea became, at base attempted to "improve the herd", which cosmetic surgery doesn't. It merely provides the individual with a veneer that supposedly masks their flaws.


 
I said they were close cousins, meaning that they draw on similar, though not exactly the same, mentalities. True, the object of eugenics is "population" whereas cosmetic surgery has the individual as its target (though population is merely considered as the aggregate of individual energies within neo-liberal discourse anyhow) but they are both ultimately concerned with reshaping human beings to conform to an idealised norm. Furthermore, the notion of cosmetic surgery extends beyond "a veneer that supposedly masks flaws". Cosmetic surgery is about reshaping peoples' physical appearance so that they feel more confident about themselves, boost their self esteem and become better people on the inside aswell. This way, cosmetic surgery collapses the distinction between the inner and outer self - those who are further away from the idealised norm body type (this, it should be noted, is deeply gendered) are lesser moral beings.


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 19, 2011)

"LulzSec also claimed to be "sitting on their [the Sun's] emails" and that they would release the emails on Tuesday. They tweeted what they claimed was Rebekah Brooks's email address at the Sun, and said they knew her password combination"

Guardian

With all the corruption, death of a whistle-blower and a fast-moving convoluted story I was beginning to think this scandal was beginning to feel a bit Stieg Larrson but in even more need of editing... and now geeky cyber nerds enter the story too...


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

spartacus mills said:


> With all the corruption, death of a whistle-blower and a fast-moving convoluted story I was beginning to think this scandal was beginning to feel a bit Stieg Larrson but in even more need of editing... and now geeky cyber nerds enter the story too...


 
It just keeps on giving.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

killer b said:


> that lulsec twitter feed seems to be gathering followers at the rate of a thousand every few seconds... what's that irc link they have up lead to?


 
Fuck all. we against naughty  people.fuck off.glory hunting geeks


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck all. we against naughty  people.fuck off.glory hunting geeks


 
oh come on ya miserable sod!  Does it not at least raise a smile?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck all. we against naughty  people.fuck off.glory hunting geeks


 
I saw a girl kiss a teacher


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck all. we against naughty  people.fuck off.glory hunting geeks


 
well yeah. still a bit funny though.

where's pk? he should be here making some bullshit pronouncements about spotty hackers bringing down the berlin wall by now...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> oh come on ya miserable sod!  Does it not at least raise a smile?


 
A load of made up bollocks?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A load of made up bollocks?


 
miserable sod!


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

Cheer up BA tis a cracking week.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Great  a link isn't now to somewhere else. Bring it's on


----------



## smokedout (Jul 19, 2011)

spartacus mills said:


> "LulzSec also claimed to be "sitting on their [the Sun's] emails" and that they would release the emails on Tuesday. They tweeted what they claimed was Rebekah Brooks's email address at the Sun, and said they knew her password combination"



yay, i knew it wouldnt take long for hacking into peoples personal details to get popular again


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

It's our 36


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

social media, social activism

all a means to an end, imo


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's our 36


 
It's a bit of bloody fun.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2011)

although the end is rather ill-defined at the moment. i'd say they're just a means.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

They cant get on their site 777. Proper situation


----------



## binka (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They cant get on their site 777. Proper situation


 
no one thinks this is important its just an entertaining distraction. the websites will be back online tomorrow and they probably didnt steal any incriminating emails but its still quite funny


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Just do it then you big fannies.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Bollocks, I can't go on the sun website like I do. Like people do


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

fear of people, fear of politics, this kiddy door knocking its the end result


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

I got into your site last night. Yeah ?I printed 4 million papers. Fuck off kid


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

_politicians hide themselves away...._


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I got into your site last night. Yeah ?I printed 4 million papers. Fuck off kid


 
don't cheer the same targets as me, you just ain't savvy enough. And so on.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

my cynicism is so more acid than yours that I've actually stopped caring a whit about this whole thing


----------



## weltweit (Jul 19, 2011)

Anyone know the best channel and time to watch the select committee? 

I have just checked the BBC Parliament channel but they seem to be scheduling something else all afternoon. 

I did hear that it may be on BBC1 or BBC2, does anyone know?


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 19, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Anyone know the best channel and time to watch the select committee?
> 
> I have just checked the BBC Parliament channel but they seem to be scheduling something else all afternoon.
> 
> I did hear that it may be on BBC1 or BBC2, does anyone know?




It will be on all main UK news channels, even Sky showed the Police chiefs getting grilled and i know for a fact there are media stages set up outside parliament already.  I have to escape a motorbike exhibition to try and get back for 2.30 at the latest.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Anyone know the best channel and time to watch the select committee?
> 
> I have just checked the BBC Parliament channel but they seem to be scheduling something else all afternoon.
> 
> I did hear that it may be on BBC1 or BBC2, does anyone know?


It's on the the Daily Politics Special
Tuesday 19 July
2:00pm - 4:30pm
BBC2


----------



## cybertect (Jul 19, 2011)

Sky News are broadcasting tomorrow's committee hearings live online


----------



## weltweit (Jul 19, 2011)

thanks ....


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

cybertect said:


> Sky News are broadcasting tomorrow's committee hearings live online


I'd feel dirty watching it on Sky.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

'Louise'


----------



## cybertect (Jul 19, 2011)

editor said:


> 'Louise'


 


We both posted that on different threads at the exact same moment, didn't we


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

cybertect said:


> We both posted that on different threads at the exact same moment, didn't we


Yep! You posted it on the right thread, but I fancy mine was the most topical seeing as the previous post was about Sky News!


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> It's not a joking matter, smokedout. Maddie's parents could be tortured right now with untold fears, such as 'whether any attempts to hold her hostage/ransom her were deleted by a hack', as could a whole host of other victims' families who are unwillingly subjected to this dark scandal.


 
maddie's parents aren't whiter than white though, as far as much of the public are concerned they are potential suspects and deserve to be investigated


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Which they would doubtlessly tell to any reputable newspaper for a nominal donation to the Maddie finding fund (NEXT YEAR IN THE SEYCHELLES!)


 
you see?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 19, 2011)

so who's going to resign today then?


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 19, 2011)

It's important enough for abc in australia to be presenting it live from westminster


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> I like the phrase 'reputational damage' - who are they kidding?


 
it shows she is existing in a parallel universe, insulated from reality. much like most of the leads in this story. yates' statement was also a fucking disgrace, resplendent in the standard issue police uniform of self righteousness. cunt


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> It's important enough for abc in australia to be presenting it live from westminster


 
Ah thanks. I was wondering how I was going to watch this. 11:30 tonight though  late night for me then.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

Go to bed early and miss more stuff.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

Oooh.
Lots of talk about RM's replacement. Looks like he's going to get the boot soonish.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Go to bed early and miss more stuff.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

miniGMgoit said:


> Oooh.
> Lots of talk about RM's replacement. Looks like he's going to get the boot soonish.


 
Shareholders talking?


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Shareholders talking?


 
You'd think so. 
However while the ABC on TV were reporting this, they have a story on their website stating that "the board" haven't had any such talks .

ABC now said rumors that he will be asked to leave if he doesn't preform well this afternoon.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

More Gilbert & Sullivan lols


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

miniGMgoit said:


> You'd think so.
> However while the ABC on TV were reporting this, they have a story on their website stating that "the board" haven't had any such talks .
> 
> ABC now said rumors that he will be asked to leave if he doesn't preform well this afternoon.


 
Curious eh? I do wonder how they will fair today. Seems that the committee should pick holes in them but you still don't know what else is going to be said. I hope I can watch it or at least some of it today at work.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm guessing that due to the fact they don't "have" to say anything today, they won't. However the old hag, knitting in hand, that exists within me has to watch just on the off chance he looses his rag after being put under pressure.
I'm also waiting to see what if any, repercussions this might have down here. He's got a rather ridiculous strangle hold on media down here. There was talk last week in parliament as to whether Australia needed it's own inquiry put the PM said no, which is surprising considering how badly she is being fisted by the media over the carbon tax debate currently going on.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

It is really hard to call... 

The bag found near Brooks flat is an odd one. Possibly a non-story but equally could be a big thing. Sounds so suspect how a bag containing a laptop was found in a bin? Planted by someone or just an unusual chain of events?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 19, 2011)

The Guardian have an interesting piece today on a guy whose name has been coming up a lot, the Met's chief spin-doctor Dick Fedorcio



> One source recalls him sitting in with the July Review Group dealing with the aftermath of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, and effectively chairing a meeting, even though he had no operational standing.
> 
> Those who have worked closely with Fedorcio all agree he is particularly close to Rebekah Brooks, who was editor of the News of the World and then of the Sun; and to Lucy Panton, the News of the World's crime correspondent. They say Fedorcio sometimes has caused friction with his press officers by providing the News of the World with information in preference to other newspapers.
> 
> ...


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

killer b said:


> well yeah. still a bit funny though.
> 
> where's pk? he should be here making some bullshit pronouncements about spotty hackers bringing down the berlin wall by now...


 
Oh I'm still here, enjoying every minute.

The Lulzsec thing is funny but I'm sure the Murdoch mafia's emails in the US will make interesting reading even to the most irrelevant anarchist... funny how kids today don't want to be Marxists anymore innit...


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

It would be the ultimate anarchic statement to dress as Ewoks and dance outside the Commons media committee. 

That would show them


----------



## teqniq (Jul 19, 2011)

Breakfast laughs from Steve Bell:


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

From the BBC and probably not far wrong: 



> Lawyer David Corker, who advised the sons of the late Daily Mirror owner Robert Maxwell's when they appeared before a parliamentary committee in 1992, after being issued with a summons, tells the BBC that the Murdochs will be told by their legal team to say very little.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> This whole issue, the over-powerful influence of News International goes back to Thatcher. She was the one who by granting Murdoch the Sky channel licence, gave Murdoch control over a massive portion of the media. She did it with the knowledge and in the intention of getting the Murdoch Empire in line with the Tory party. This mutual back scratching served both the Murdochs and the Tories until Blair did his own brown nosing up to Murdoch. Brown lost it again leading back to the Tories cuddling up once more up to Murdoch under in the Reign of Cameron. How much longer will he rein though? Cameron has no leadership qualities that I can see.


 
Slight point of order here, Thatcher never granted any licence to Murdoch for Sky, in fact the Independent Broadcasting Authority refused Murdoch permission to bid for the official UK satellite TV licence and awarded it to 'British Satellite Broadcasting' in 1986. For all the faults of the IBA it was a fuck sake better than OFCOM has ever been.

A single 'Sky Channel' had already been transmitting since Jan '84, after Murdoch took over SATV that had itself been transmitting since 1979, Murdoch expanded this into a multi-channel offering over a year before BSB was able to launch, using the Luxembourg owned & operated Astra satellite system - Sky was widely considered to be a pirate broadcaster.

In theory when the merger happened between Sky & BSB in November 1990, the month Thatcher resigned, Murdoch had a 50% stake in the UK satellite TV licence granted by the IBA, but as the new BSkyB focused on the Astra system, which was not subject to the IBA licence, and the original BSB's Marcopolo satellites were withdrawn and eventually sold, there was fuck all the IBA could do about it.

It was suggested that action against Sky could have been taken under the Marine (etc) Broadcasting Offences Act 1967 (the 'etc' included transmissions from 'aircraft'), which was brought in to scupper the offshore pirate stations of the 60s. However, it was a bit more complex as in theory Sky was at that time a pan-European service and operated from a satellite licenced by Luxembourg, although it was transmitting on frequencies cleared internationally for telecommunications not TV.

Basically, it was a right mess, Murdoch pulled off a blinder, things moved very quickly, BSB only lasted a few months* before the merger, and the government and regulators were caught with their trousers down.

ETA 

* Although BSB was granted the licence in 1986, it had to commission its own satellites and therefore didn't launch until March 1990, merging with Sky in November 1990.

* Sky's programmes were regulated by the 'Cable Authority', as it was carried by cable networks, but not licenced by the CA, as they only licenced the cable networks not the channels they chose to offer their customers, which gave Sky some respectability and caused further confusion over Sky's legal status.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

On the committee stuff, despite how it's been sold recently in the media they do have the power to compel people to answer questions - they won't though. Anyone saying sub judice is offering a red herring too. Unless the witness has been charged or summonsed it means nothing in the commons or bodies with its powers.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

Interesting, last line is most odd 



> In the latest bizarre twist in the phone hacking story it emerged that Alex Marunchak, an executive editor on the Sunday tabloid, worked for the force between 1980 and 2000 translating for Ukrainian suspects.
> 
> The revelations will do nothing to dampen suggestions that the newspaper enjoyed a cosy relationship with the Yard.
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/8646307/News-of-the-World-executive-worked-as-police-translator.html


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Claphamboy is spot on. Another twist is the relatively recent dirty business involving ITV Digital, the old OnDigital terrestrial set top boxes being hacked with simple EPROM card configurations after a piece of software allowing cards to be reprogrammed to give unlimited movies & porn emerged.

Allegedly the system was cracked in a laboratory in Haifa, Israel belonging to one R. Murdoch.

ITV Digital service died on it's arse as a result of nobody paying for premium services on account of everyone having dodgy set-top cards...


----------



## two sheds (Jul 19, 2011)

Badgers said:


> From the BBC and probably not far wrong:


 


> Lawyer David Corker, who advised the sons of the late Daily Mirror owner Robert Maxwell's when they appeared before a parliamentary committee in 1992, after being issued with a summons, tells the BBC that the Murdochs will be told by their legal team to say very little.



But, surely, if they've done nothing wrong then they've nothing to hide ...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

pk said:


> Claphamboy is spot on. Another twist is the relatively recent dirty business involving ITV Digital, the old OnDigital terrestrial set top boxes being hacked with simple EPROM card configurations after a piece of software allowing cards to be reprogrammed to give unlimited movies & porn emerged.
> 
> Allegedly the system was cracked in a laboratory in Haifa, Israel belonging to one R. Murdoch.
> 
> ITV Digital service died on it's arse as a result of nobody paying for premium services on account of everyone having dodgy set-top cards...


 
I hadn't heard that one before.

That's particularly interesting because Murdoch tracked down Chris Carey, former Radio Caroline DJ from the 70s that went on to launch the highly successful super-pirate called Radio Nova in Dublin during the 80s, which after it's closure ironically re-launched on the Astra satellite system, in Australia & had him arrested, bought back to the UK tried & imprisoned for the offence for selling pirate Sky cards from Ireland!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 19, 2011)

editor said:


> I'd feel dirty watching it on Sky.




12pm HoC Home Affairs Committee - Grimond Room
*Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications*
_Witnesses_
Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police
Dick Fedorcio OBE, Director of Public Affairs and Internal Communication, Metropolitan Police
Assistant Commissioner John Yates, Specialist Operations, Metropolitan Police
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8917

2.30pm - HoC Culture, Media and Sport Committee - Wilson Room
*Phone-hacking*
_Witnesses_
Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, News Corporation, and James Murdoch, Deputy Chief Operating Officer and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, International News Corporation
Rebekah Brooks, former Chief Executive Officer, News International Ltd
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8910


*Today is also the Final Evidence Session on PUBLIC HEALTH (Live @10:45 http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8909)
http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...lth-committee/news/11-07-15-publichealth-ev5/*


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm not expecting much from the Murdoch 'grilling' - stone walling from the terrible trio and MPs grandstanding.

Best we can hope for is James Murdoch losing it - (he has form).

Still - good to see the nasty shits humiliated.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

Guardian: 



> Speculation that Rupert Murdoch could be replaced as chief executive of News Corporation have sent shares in the company rallying in Australia on Tuesday, bouncing back from a two-year low.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

I hope the falangist Jose María Aznar gets the job if he has to step down.


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> I'm not expecting much from the Murdoch 'grilling' - stone walling from the terrible trio and MPs grandstanding.
> 
> Best we can hope for is James Murdoch losing it


 
It seems News Corp shareholders will be deciding the fate of James Murdoch with regard to any future management position held based upon his performance today.

i.e. one fuck-up and he's toast.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blo...ng-rupert-murdoch-rebekah-brooks-mps#block-10



> Chris Bryant, the Labour MP who has been campaigning on phone hacking for ages, has just dropped an intriguing hint about "more to come" in an interview on BBC News.
> 
> The theatre of [today's appearance] is irrelevant. In the end we've got to get to the bottom of what is a very murky pool. And I tell you Rebekah Brooks was right. We're only half way into that pool at the moment. There's stuff about Surrey police as well and other things that are still to come out.
> 
> When pressed, Bryant refused to say any more.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 19, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Best we can hope for is James Murdoch losing it - (he has form).
> 
> .


 
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01472/james-murdoch_1472522c.jpg
Murdoch's spawn losing it,hope he behaves like this today,all shouty and finger pointing and looking like a loon


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 19, 2011)

Deleted because of idiocracy on behalf of the poster after having used one's reading skills!


----------



## cybertect (Jul 19, 2011)

Schmetterling said:


> Deleted because of idiocracy on behalf of the poster after having used one's reading skills!


 
See invisibleplanet's post just above.

e2a: Reply now redundant


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who was after Dacre?
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone read any links on here?


 
I do. 

Not sure I believe about Dacre "confronting Brooks, tbh. He has a long history of bottling confrontation unless he's got his goons (deputies) with him.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> I'm not expecting much from the Murdoch 'grilling' - stone walling from the terrible trio and MPs grandstanding.
> 
> Best we can hope for is James Murdoch losing it - (he has form).
> 
> Still - good to see the nasty shits humiliated.



Indeed, I think we can expect them just to keep on message and reiterate the same few points to whatever questions are asked.

Fuck all will come of today.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

The very large image on the front page of The Times is proper dirty.

"Look he's smoking thus was always going to die early"


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blo...ng-rupert-murdoch-rebekah-brooks-mps#block-10


 
I saw this interview.  

He basically said there is a lot more which I know but I'm not going to say because I can't prove 100% and NI would sue me.  He made a point of mentioning the importance of parliamentary priviledge which implies he expects the commitee to raise it this afternoon.  So that could be very interesting even if we get the expected 'no comment' from the Murdochs and Brooks.


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2011)

I think the main danger for the Murdochs today would be to be confronted by fresh allegations for which they don't have a defence. If they deny knowledge of something that then turns out to be real, their whole narrative of cleaning house after a period of 'poor decisions' would come apart.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Santino said:


> I think the main danger for the Murdochs today would be to be confronted by fresh allegations for which they don't have a defence. If they deny knowledge of something that then turns out to be real, their whole narrative of cleaning house after a period of 'poor decisions' would come apart.


 
Spot on. The known stuff is all prepared for. If Bryant is right (link above) i expect Watson has the same info, and Watson _will_ use it at some point.


----------



## T & P (Jul 19, 2011)

Anyone else looking forward to the new issue of Private Eye tomorrow?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> those who are further away from the idealised norm body type (this, it should be noted, is deeply gendered) are lesser moral beings.



I knew there was a reason for my lack of morality and moral fibre!!


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I knew there was a reason for my lack of morality and moral fibre!!


 
You can get moral fibre by eating moral all-bran, moral brown rice and even moral potatoes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2011)

Badgers said:


> It is really hard to call...
> 
> The bag found near Brooks flat is an odd one. Possibly a non-story but equally could be a big thing. Sounds so suspect how a bag containing a laptop was found in a bin? Planted by someone or just an unusual chain of events?


 
Why would Mr. Brooks try to retrieve the bag if it was planted?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why would Mr. Brooks try to retrieve the bag if it was planted?


 
I guess


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why would Mr. Brooks try to retrieve the bag if it was planted?


 
If someone texted him: "Bag you left for me not there! Saw security finding it and I ran off."


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

Should have had a tenner on when it was 100/1 

BBC: 



> Bookmakers William Hill are offering odds of 16/1 about "under pressure" PM David Cameron being out of office by the weekend.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2011)

Santino said:


> If someone texted him: "Bag you left for me not there! Saw security finding it and I ran off."


 
Never took you as a wearer of Faraday cage flat caps.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 19, 2011)

the solicitor for the dowlers seems to have been everywhere over the last week

i reckon that by the time they receive their payout from news international they'll have about a tenner left after legal costs are subtracted


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Never took you as a wearer of Faraday cage flat caps.


 
Just playing Devil's Advocate, VP.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

Grundian



> Last night Labour MP Cathy Jamieson should have been elected unopposed to the DCMS Select Committee, replacing the recently deceased David Cairns ahead of today's showdown with Rebekah Brooks and the Murdochs. And yet Tory MP Nick De Bois decided to shout "object", which meant that Jamieson has yet to be elected to the committee, and won't be able to question the News International trio today.



Nick De Bois - Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/nickdebois


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2011)




----------



## Fedayn (Jul 19, 2011)

The met Director of Public Affairs Dick Fedioricio has also been referred to the IPCC.....


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> The met Director of Public Affairs Dick Fedioricio has also been referred to the IPCC.....


 
How on earth can anyone trust the police to investigate themselves in an issue that is by definition, incriminating them?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

Santino said:


>


 
Fnar.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 19, 2011)

Santino said:


> I think the main danger for the Murdochs today would be to be confronted by fresh allegations for which they don't have a defence. If they deny knowledge of something that then turns out to be real, their whole narrative of cleaning house after a period of 'poor decisions' would come apart.


 
*rubs hands*


(What time's kick off, btw?  )


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

Gaurdian



> A Labour MP has written to Sir Gus O'Donnell asking for an investigation into the allegation that David Cameron broke the ministerial code, the Daily Telegraph reports. John Mann has suggested that, in having dinner with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks on 23 December last year (when the government was still considering News Corporation's bid for BSkyB), Cameron broke the section of the code saying that "ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests".
> 
> Number 10 has an independent adviser on ministerial interests who can investigate complaints of this kind. But, as the Telegraph points it, it is the prime minister himself who decides if a complaint merits investigation. Cameron will have to rule on himself. I think we can predict what he will say.


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

does anyone know what time the select committee hearing starts this afternoon as i want to watch on the bbc democracy site. thanks.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

Starts at 2pm BBC2: 
Andrew Neil presents live coverage of Rupert Murdoch, his son James, and Rebekah Brooks giving evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on phone hacking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012zw12


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 19, 2011)

Andrew Neil? _Andrew fucking Neil?_


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> *rubs hands*
> 
> (What time's kick off, btw?  )


 
Thing get underway with Stephenson up at 12:00 but the 'headline acts' are Murdochs at 14:30 and Brooks at 15:30


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 19, 2011)

Starts at 12noon -- all the mix in one go without any selective editing:



invisibleplanet said:


> 12pm HoC Home Affairs Committee - Grimond Room
> *Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications*
> _Witnesses_
> Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police
> ...


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Andrew Neil? _Andrew fucking Neil?_


 
Innit.

Even if new evidence comes out they will just avoid the topic and give a stock response.

I'd be amazed if they were tripped up.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 19, 2011)

They passed into appalling vista territory some days ago. . . and they won't have any incentive to ask the really hard questions, or to make a genuine effort at cleaning house.

Which is ironic, because those would be the only things that could save them from suffering real, genuine, and permanent damage to the legitimacy of their roles and their institutions.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

"Next Cabinet Member to Leave" David Cameron has gone from 20/1 to 6/1 on Ladbrokes since the weekend.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

lol, from CiF



> So Moriarty, we have a dead person
> 
> ...Yes.
> 
> ...


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

I think 5live are also broadcasting the whole thing from midday.


----------



## rhod (Jul 19, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Andrew Neil? _Andrew fucking Neil?_








(In happier times..)


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blo...och-rebekah-brooks-mps?commentpage=2#block-24



> Is there any similarity between the phone hacking affair and the death of Diana? In a provocative article for Spiked Online, Brendan O'Neill says: "This is now something akin to a 'Diana moment', except we are implored to shelve our critical faculties in the name of collectively hating a mogul rather than collectively loving a princess."
> 
> O'Neill argues the commentators who are celebrating the phone hacking affair because it will weaken the power of the Murdoch empire are missing the point.
> 
> "Which brings us to the present day and the harebrained idea that loosening Murdoch's alleged grip will liberate and re-populate with principle the British political sphere. Whatever you think of Murdoch - I am not a fan, and I believe that the phone-hacking antics at the News of the World were deplorable and indefensible - this is clearly nonsense. Because it was the already existing disarray of the British political sphere that empowered Murdoch in the first place. The respectable commentariat has effectively declared war on a man who was merely the beneficiary of historic political fallout, not the orchestrator of it. Remove him from the picture and those various profound problems - the emptying out of both left and right ideologies, the aloofness of the political class, the transformation of politics into a purely elite pastime - will still exist. Our politicians will still have nothing of substance to say, just fewer tabloids in which not to say it."


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

> Because it was the already existing disarray of the British political sphere that empowered Murdoch in the first place.



Spot on, these hypocrites who try to pretend that he's sullied _our_ pure political sphere are as big ratfuckers as he is.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 19, 2011)

rhod said:


> (In happier times..)


 
'It was the eighties'.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 19, 2011)

They're a tad late starting in the Grimond Room 
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8917

e2a: they're all seated now.

Also, another committee meeting has been added at 5:30pm http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-affairs-committee/news/110718-phone-hacking/ with the solicitor for the Dowler family present.


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 19, 2011)

Started


----------



## laptop (Jul 19, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Also, another committee meeting added at 5:30pm http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-affairs-committee/news/110718-phone-hacking/



Page cannot be found


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 19, 2011)

laptop said:


> Page cannot be found


 
Original link fixed. Here it is again for those viewing 40 posts per page 
http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-affairs-committee/news/110718-phone-hacking/


----------



## treelover (Jul 19, 2011)

'It must have scared the rest of Fleet Street when he started talking – he had bought, sold and snorted cocaine with some of the most powerful names in tabloid journalism. One retains a senior position on the Daily Mirror. "I last saw him in Little Havana," he recalled, "at three in the morning, on his hands and knees. He had lost his cocaine wrap. I said to him, 'This is not really the behaviour we expect of a senior journalist from a great Labour paper.' He said, 'Have you got any fucking drugs?'" And the voicemail hacking was all part of the great game. The idea that it was a secret, or the work of some "rogue reporter", had him rocking in his chair: "Everyone was doing it. Everybody got a bit carried away with this power that they had. No one came close to catching us." He would hack messages and delete them so the competition could not hear them, or hack messages and swap them with mates on other papers.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/sean-hoare-news-of-the-world


Read this to get a sense of how powerful Fleet St felt in the 80's to now, that they were untouchable, now they get whats coming to them...

and this is just about the entertainment side, the politics will be much more destructive..


----------



## two sheds (Jul 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why would Mr. Brooks try to retrieve the bag if it was planted?


 
Think I read that he claimed it was his bag and puter that someone was supposed to be returning to him but left in the wrong part of the car park.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 19, 2011)

I find that difficult to believe.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Why would Mr. Brooks try to retrieve the bag if it was planted?



Because he's a chinless, upper class coward who lost his nerve whilst disposing of evidence.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 19, 2011)

> "at three in the morning, on his hands and knees. He had lost his cocaine wrap. I said to him, 'This is not really the behaviour we expect of a senior journalist from a great Labour paper.' He said, 'Have you got any fucking drugs?'"



I like him


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

ive got no sound but he looks quite defensive - arms crossed, waving of the hand in an attempted dismissive manner....

1500/1 on his head exploding over Keith Vaz


----------



## teqniq (Jul 19, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> I find that difficult to believe.


Nigh on impossible imo. Who leaves laptops in car parks for someone to pick up? Apart from someone in a spy novel or something....


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

Stephenson says no reason to suspect Wallis on any connection with hacking, yet Wallis was senior executive at NoTW in May 2009, leaving shortly later, the Guardian published further phone-hacking allegations in July 2009 and Wallis started working as PR consultant for Met in October 2009 - what kind of references were taken up and what level of intellectual paucity is there in recruitment at the Metropolitan Police if no-one made those obvious connections and possible problems arising from them.

Unless, of course, Stephenson's recall of events is somewhat less than the truth perhaps?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Stephenson says no reason to suspect Wallis on any connection with hacking, yet Wallis was senior executive at NoTW in May 2009, leaving shortly later, the Guardian published further phone-hacking allegations in July 2009 and Wallis started working as PR consultant for Met in October 2009 - what kind of references were taken up and what level of intellectual paucity is there in recruitment at the Metropolitan Police if no-one made those obvious connections and possible problems arising from them.
> 
> Unless, of course, Stephenson's recall of events is somewhat less than the truth perhaps?


Well, he can't even recall which day he was told brooks was to be arrested. And that's in the midst of shitstorm that he's a major player in  that happened under a week ago.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well, he can't even recall which day he was told brooks was to be arrested. And that's in the midst of shitstorm that he's a major player in  that happened under a week ago.


It's really quite poor stuff all round to be frank. When he was pushed over why checks weren't made before accepting the champney's break, he simply resorted to talking about being determined to get back to work etc etc. Pushed back at him again and he says he can't speak for what other people did or didn't do.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

New? Just as expected?

Hacking suspect was police 'informer' while working as crime reporter for NoW



> A key phone-hacking suspect worked for senior detectives while he was chief crime reporter of the News of the World, the Standard reveals today.
> 
> The activities of Neville Thurlbeck, which date back to 1995, trigger new fears of collusion between the Met and the press.
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2011)

I wonder how much information of value Thurlbeck was able to supply to the security services when his typical _NOTW_ sting was, for example, to go undercover at a nudist bed & breakfast and get caught on camera wanking over the landlady?


----------



## laptop (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> New? Just as expected?
> 
> Hacking suspect was police 'informer' while working as crime reporter for NoW


 
News International timing a leak nicely to change the subject for this afternoon, I'm guessing.

Note how the story drifts toward NI being _given_ information _officially_ by the Met.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

laptop said:


> News International timing a leak nicely to change the subject for this afternoon, I'm guessing.
> 
> Note how the story drifts toward NI being _given_ information _officially_ by the Met.


 
Yes. I'm increasingly thinking this guns pointing at each other is a bit of a pre-planned strategy.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2011)

PS Thurlbeck definitely angling to get played by Tom Hardy in the movie


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

Funny how he didn't know much about the 'phone hacking', said it wasn't worth persuing, but then told the Guardian 'to lay off the story'.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

stephenson dumping yates in the shit essentially now.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm waiting for Stephenson to play his Joker: "My gammy leg has affected my memory"


----------



## weltweit (Jul 19, 2011)

Do you think it will be revealed to the public just whose laptop and papers they were and what specifically was contained on the laptop?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

He's really rattled.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

One feels he's being somewhat economical with the truth maybe?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Top plod in the country, knows nothing about anything to do with the police or their actions. That's why he got the big bucks.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Top plod in the country, knows nothing about anything to do with the police or their actions. That's why he got the big bucks.


 
If nothing else its showing the met up to be shambolically run.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

He's given the guardina huge bone there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> If nothing else its showing the met up to be shambolically run.


 
They should get Alan Sugar in.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Can committees get the info about Neville Thurlbeck? There was some discussion on this earlier, i think they can now get twitter and that. Directly relevant to the current witness.


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> He's given the guardina huge bone there.


 
There's two readings of that post.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

The stream is really bad on the BBC website for me. 
Just me or are a lot of people watching the wriggling?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Santino said:


> There's two readings of that post.


 
Both great.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

watching on bbc news channel on tv, no probs mate. maybe on-line is due to number of people trying to watch?


----------



## magneze (Jul 19, 2011)

Yates absolutely dropped in it. That will be an interesting session.


----------



## magneze (Jul 19, 2011)

Great question from Vaz. Stephenson refuses to say that Yates "is a man of great integrity".


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 19, 2011)

Santino said:


> There's two readings of that post.



Only one reading for me


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

He's coming across as very agitated and somewhat arrogant. 
Probably never been questioned about anything in his entire life.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> New? Just as expected?
> 
> Hacking suspect was police 'informer' while working as crime reporter for NoW


 


laptop said:


> News International timing a leak nicely to change the subject for this afternoon, I'm guessing.
> an
> Note how the story drifts toward NI being _given_ information _officially_ by the Met.



The Evening Standard is not a News International publication. It is owned by that Russki fellow and was previously part of Associated News. NI would not leak to a rival.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Course they would. They can't do it themselves or it'd be too obvious.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

5 minutes to wrap this up and get Yates on the stand!!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

If he's not guilty as charged, he's innept as fuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2011)

miniGMgoit said:


> He's coming across as very agitated and somewhat arrogant.
> Probably never been questioned about anything in his entire life.


 
perhaps he should get used to it


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> If he's not guilty as charged, he's innept as fuck.


 
the two are not mutually exclusive


----------



## laptop (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The Evening Standard is not a News International publication. It is owned by that Russki fellow and was previously part of Associated News. NI would not leak to a rival.


 
I do know that 

But last week it appeared that NI had leaked information (about payments to plod for royal contact books) to the _Standard_).

If you were going to leak to distract attention from yourself, you'd do it to the competition, not in your own paper, wouldn't you?


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

did he just say 10 ex NOTW staff worked in the METS PR dept, out of a total of 45??


----------



## Augie March (Jul 19, 2011)

It does seem rather high...


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> If he's not guilty as charged, he's innept as fuck.


 
I'm going to go with the latter, bad leadership by people who have no business running such a large body.  Coppers make rubbish managers it would appear.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

if its at the same time, that is a very high amounth...


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

Dan U said:


> did he just say 10 ex NOTW staff worked in the METS PR dept, out of a total of 45??


 
Yes he did. Furthermore he didn't know that until he read it out right then.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

Dan U said:


> did he just say 10 ex NOTW staff worked in the METS PR dept, out of a total of 45??



Yes I heard that listening Radio 5. It is a bit of an eyeopener to get at the end of the interview.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Oh, he's fallen on his sword.  A true hero.

*wipes tear*


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 19, 2011)

He's leaving _because_ he's a leader, apparently.

What a guy


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Santino said:


>


 
Incorporating News of the World - lol.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Yes I heard that listening Radio 5. It is a bit of an eyeopener to get at the end of the interview.



Head of PR now on, so could be a good question for him...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Oh, he's fallen on his sword.  A true hero.
> 
> *wipes tear*


 
_Fallen down his stairs._


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

They will need to be on good form to catch out a professional PR man. Already he is stating that he has not had time to get independent legal advice - squirm squirm.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 19, 2011)

He's a slippery fuck, like hell you haven't talked to a lawyer yet mate!


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Fedorcio blaming Yates now.  Getting funnier.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

The Octagon said:


> He's a slippery fuck...



Is that how they spell liar now? What a pointless lie. Even that small thing demonstrates why they're all fucked.


----------



## Augie March (Jul 19, 2011)

Everyone is blaming Yates.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

He must have asked Wallis himself, he's a dodgy fuck.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

Is there anything on right now? We've switched too regular news??


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

He seems to be pushing off the questions to blame Yates for not finding out if Wallis was implicated in phone hacking. Yates was in the frame during lots of the questioning of Stepenson as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Maybe they're trying to blame Yates?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

miniGMgoit said:


> Is there anything on right now? We've switched too regular news??


 
Radio 5 Live.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

miniGMgoit said:


> Is there anything on right now? We've switched too regular news??


 
Yes, BBC news channel has another squirm inducing session right now.


----------



## Augie March (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm betting Yates himself is going to come out and make out Wallis has being some kind of master-mind, who duped him and his no doubt extensive and widely probing due care of diligence efforts.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

Does anyone know what Rupert Murdoch had for lunch?

Cheers


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

John Yates, earlier today..


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe they're trying to blame Yates?



Ho ho, more likely they are making sure everything gets thrown at Yates sure in the knowledge that Yates is a hard man and can handle it.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

No one in the met appears to make decisions, its all on the advise of someone else.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Who is Yates going to blame? Did the met us e ahead hunting thing to employ wallis? What/who was the contact?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Badgers said:


> The stream is really bad on the BBC website for me.
> Just me or are a lot of people watching the wriggling?



If you are still having problems, try via TV Catch-up - http://tvcatchup.com - they live stream BBC News, BBC Parliament and Sky News amongst loads of other channels and often perform better when the BBC's servers are under pressure. 

You need to register, but they don't spam you.


----------



## laptop (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe they're trying to blame Yates?


 
* looks forward to video of Yates drawing the short straw *

* Drafts PQ about his pension arrangements *


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Ho ho, more likely they are making sure everything gets thrown at Yates sure in the knowledge that Yates is fucked already


 *corrected for you*


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Did the met us e ahead hunting thing to employ wallis? What/who was the contact?


 
That is a really good question.  Sadly no one seems to be able to remember how his name came to be mentioned.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

From the BBC stream: 



> *1026*: BBC deputy political editor James Landale, who is in Nigeria with David Cameron, says the prime minister's media team is calling for some "perspective" on the hacking scandal, which comes at a time of great concern over the global economy and a growing humanitarian disaster in the Horn of Africa.





> *1342*: David Cameron, who is in Nigeria, describes the death of the former News of the World journalist Sean Hoare as "a tragedy".


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> That is a really good question.  Sadly no one seems to be able to remember how his name came to be mentioned.



contract with IPCC apparently and tender documents.

it would be dead easy to make sure Wallis 'won', just tell him everyone else charges £1250 a day, you charge £1000, job done.


----------



## magneze (Jul 19, 2011)

Badgers said:


> From the BBC stream:


LOL. Cameron needs to get some perspective quickly otherwise those betting odds are going to get a lot shorter.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Dan U said:


> contract with IPCC apparently and tender documents.
> 
> it would be dead easy to make sure Wallis 'won', just tell him everyone else charges £1250 a day, you charge £1000, job done.


 
Cheers for that dan.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Jul 19, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Does anyone know what Rupert Murdoch had for lunch?
> 
> Cheers


 
I bet his has his cheese _underneath!_ *spits*


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Yates did the due dilligiance on Wallis?  His close friend Wallis?

At best a shambles, more likely a proper fucking inside job.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Cheers for that dan.



being asked who 'recommended' him to Dick. He 'cant recall' who suggested Wallis to him..

fortunate that.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

magneze said:


> LOL. Cameron needs to get some perspective quickly otherwise those betting odds are going to get a lot shorter.


 
Comments like that are a pollution of a scandal that needs better perspective in order to not become a tragedy (caused by the previous government)


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

"Cannot recall".

Cannot recall.

I've had the filth use that line against me in court.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

He keeps repeating that he didn't doubt Yates's integrity because he was a senior police officer. Those same words were used by Stephenson as well. It seems that just by virtue of rank a police officer is automatically a person of integrity.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

sheothebudworths said:


> I bet his has his cheese _underneath!_ *spits*


 
He is the sort of tax dodging, cheese on top mutherfucker that I hate


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2011)

"Mr wallis didn't have any involvement with phone-hacking, because he told me so" 

wtf???


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> He keeps repeating that he didn't doubt Yates's integrity because he was a senior police officer. Those same words were used by Stephenson as well. It seems that just by virtue of rank a police officer is automatically a person of integrity.



worked for Dr Harold Shipman


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

So hilarious it's not funny, all these top cops and none of them have the slightest clue about what is going on.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2011)

Fedocio looking flustered as fuck right now


----------



## cybertect (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Yates did the due dilligiance on Wallis?  His close friend Wallis?


 
  and 

Unbelievable.

He's relying Yates' integrity, but Nicola Blackwood rightly pointed out that even with Yates' good integrity, it could have put him in an awkward position.

Leaves a question for Yates later why he didn't excuse himself from the due diligence because of a conflict of interest.

Yates is going to squirm.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

Badgers said:


> He is the sort of tax dodging, cheese on top mutherfucker that I hate



_Cheese on top_?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2011)

I reckon Fedorocio is much more involved than anyone thinks ...


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I reckon Fedorocio is much more involved than anyone thinks ...


 
he stinks. he is the official 'gatekeeper' of the press to the Met. I fail to see how he is not up to his neck in it.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

When do the Freemasons come into this?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> When do the Freemasons come into this?


 
It would be interesting to see who's in with who.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Here comes Yates, this'll be funny.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 19, 2011)

"Thanks for coming in, I'm not sure we're any clearer"

lol


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

Vax very scathing about Fedorcio's evidence, no clearer now than when we started.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

Dan U said:


> he stinks. he is the official 'gatekeeper' of the press to the Met. I fail to see how he is not up to his neck in it.


 
40 years in PR and he knew fuck all. 

Let's see how little Yates knew.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

Vaz is a creepy scumbag.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> 40 years in PR and he knew fuck all.
> 
> Let's see how little Yates knew.


 
I reckon he knew nothing.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon he knew nothing.


 
And his memory may have the odd gap in it?


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Dan U said:


> worked for Dr Harold Shipman


 
Did he? The bastard...


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon he knew nothing.


 
Excellently researched and evidenced post.


----------



## Ivana Nap (Jul 19, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> When do the Freemasons come into this?


 
When the want a people friendly remix


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 19, 2011)

The Met Police said:
			
		

> The MPS can confirm that this morning, Tuesday 19 July, it has referred Dick Fedorcio, Director of Public Affairs, to the IPCC.
> 
> The context of this referral is in connection with the ongoing high level public interest in the relationship between News International and the MPS and, in particular, the relationship between Neil Wallis and Mr Fedorcio and the circumstances under which the contract was awarded to Chamy Media.
> http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/Bur19/page02.htm


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Excellently researched and evidenced post.


 
Oh god are you going to do it on this thread as well? Does us all a favour. Don't.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> And his memory may have the odd gap in it?


 
Inability to recall. Aging gents. Nothing to laugh about.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon he knew nothing.


His understanding will be incomplete, I imagine.

_"Not due diligence in a due diligence sense"_ wtf "didn't have a scintilla of concern"


----------



## Augie March (Jul 19, 2011)

Ah, I see Yates is using the age old "I was a postbox" defence.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Inability to recall. Aging gents. Nothing to laugh about.


 
Oh god are you going to do it on this thread as well? Does us all a favour. Don't.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

Yates denies that he was doing a 'due diligence' on Wallis, but only asked Wallis if there was anything that could cause embarrassment. He categorically denies that he got Wallis's daughter a job. "I was simply a post box".

Denies being a close friend of Wallis but "only met him a few times a year mostly sport related". "He is a friend."


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Oh god are you going to do it on this thread as well? Does us all a favour. Don't.


 
Don't be a fucking child.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

Yates says he was "completely equivocal" about employing Wallis's daughter

_e·quiv·o·cal  (-kwv-kl)
adj.
1. Open to two or more interpretations and often intended to mislead; ambiguous. See Synonyms at ambiguous.
2. Of uncertain significance.
3. Of a doubtful or uncertain nature._

very much like his evidence


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

> equivocal



Genius.

well spotted PT.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2011)

equivocal lol.


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2011)

'Seeking assurances' is a big thing at the moment.






I have sought assurances from Herr Hitler...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Yes, another good spot. It's a field day (for the sundays).


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

Murdoch in the house apparently..


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Ed Llewellyn? Any info?


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

Eton, nuff said.

eta - worked for Chris Patten in HK, then Paddy Ashdown in Bosnia, then Chief of Staff for Cameron

according to wiki anyway


----------



## Augie March (Jul 19, 2011)

I thought Yates was about to burst into song for a moment then...

_And if I knew then what I know now
I`d have found the way
To make things work out somehow
I`d have held you tight
I`d have treated you right
If I knew then what I know now._


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ed Llewellyn? Any info?


yep, Guido on this a few days back http://order-order.com/2011/07/15/axe-murder-steve-hilton-v-ed-lewellyn/


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 19, 2011)

Will the committees be running concurrently?


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

Schmetterling said:


> Will the committees be running concurrently?


 
if they do, you can be sure the media will switch to Murdoch


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Yes they will

Pt: notice the Ax murder  Some people didn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Schmetterling said:


> Will the committees be running concurrently?


 
As will the sentences i expect.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

head of terrorism doesn't think his phone being hacked is a "very big deal" - wtf???


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 19, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Does anyone know what Rupert Murdoch had for lunch?
> 
> Cheers


 
Crow?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

The Murdoch interview was scheduled for 2:00 pm - perhaps they are delaying it until Yates is finished.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> head of terrorism doesn't think his phone being hacked is a "very big deal" - wtf???


 
"i ain't got nothing important on there"


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 19, 2011)

Dan U said:


> if they do, you can be sure the media will switch to Murdoch


 
Ah; thanks! Watching on the link given above so will need to change over


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The Murdoch interview was scheduled for 2:00 pm - perhaps they are delaying it until Yates is finished.


 2.30


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> As will the sentences i expect.


 
That was going my through my head as I was typing!


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 19, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> I'm waiting for Stephenson to play his Joker: "My gammy leg has affected my memory"


 
Due to the problems with my leg I have difficulty saying some things when I'm talking out of my arse.

It might just work.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

according to the guardian the two hearings might run over each other


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Grr, going to use my cycling bandwidth up to watch this.


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

how do they pick the bods for these committees? i ask because there is one of the north east mps on there who is a proper newbie to parliament (b.phillipson).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Rusbridger claims it was Ed Llewellyn who didn't pass on his warnings. We have the next one.


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 19, 2011)

Player is up.  I find that announcement strangely mezmerising.  Portcullis!  One of my favourite words in English.  Nearly on par with Lothian.  Sorry; I digress


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

krink said:


> how do they pick the bods for these committees? i ask because there is one of the north east mps on there who is a proper newbie to parliament (b.phillipson).


 
The parties elect them in line with their size - 40% of seats - 40% on committee. Stars get on the big ones.


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

cheers buthchers. she must be tipped for big things...


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

krink said:


> how do they pick the bods for these committees? i ask because there is one of the north east mps on there who is a proper newbie to parliament (b.phillipson).


 
Julian Huppert, the MP for Cambridge is there. He's a plonker.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 19, 2011)

bbc online coverage is all over the shop
fliting between stephenson and yates and repeating bits


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

and now to the main event!!!


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

Murdoch's on!!!!


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 19, 2011)

It's on!!!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

people being removed for "holding up notices"!!!!


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

The dirtbags are on. Is that the Diggers missus?


----------



## laptop (Jul 19, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> Julian Huppert, the MP for Cambridge is there. He's a plonker.


 
"The sort of Liberal who believes seat-belts should be illegal" says a colleague _from his own party_.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

The live transmission from Radio 5 live has faded out Yates and they are now going over to the Murdoch enquiry. I hope the commentators don't talk over the replies.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 19, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> The dirtbags are on. Is that the Diggers missus?


 
Sure is. Quite stunning.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 19, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> Julian Huppert, the MP for Cambridge is there. He's a plonker.



Yup.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Humble


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

WTF?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

urrgh


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 19, 2011)

fucker getting his statement in


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

sick bucket please!


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 19, 2011)

"this is the most humble day of my life"

that was soooo badly coached


----------



## TruXta (Jul 19, 2011)

Rupert humble? HAHAH!


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 19, 2011)

So far Rupert.

The most humble day of your life so far.


----------



## coltrane (Jul 19, 2011)

Digger interjects to say "I would just like to say, this is the most humble day of my life"

Vomits


----------



## Limejuice (Jul 19, 2011)

"Most humble day of my life...

Is "most" synonymous with "only"?


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

They're a bit like the Adam's family. Only a family full of Lurch's


----------



## rhod (Jul 19, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> "this is the most humble day of my life"
> 
> that was soooo badly coached



Yeah - had a touch of "Little Britain" about it!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Simple periodisation defence. Didn't know at _this_ point, at _that_ point.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

Mr Burns and Smithers more like


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)




----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Murdoch jnr speaks way better then the coppers.  The professional bull shiters are in now, lets see what the mps are made of.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 19, 2011)

Speak into the mike, you cock Whittingdale!


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 19, 2011)

miniGMgoit said:


> They're a bit like the Adam's family. Only a family full of Lurch's


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Mr Burns and Smithers more like


 
 Perfect...


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

James Murdoch could play a good white collar rapist in a made for TV movie.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Mr Burns and Smithers more like


 
The resemblance is staggering


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

The legal team behind them look very worried.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> James Murdoch could play a good white collar rapist in a made for TV movie.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

He not saying anything at all, its like watching Blair.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> He not saying anything at all, its like watching Blair.


 
If he says, "I'm a, y'know, straightforward kind of guy", I'll bung a tenner into the server fund.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

erm ah umm of of of erm ah


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

"I'm aware now" what a fucking shitbag!


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

The Digger is now waving his willy and playing the silly old man.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 19, 2011)

Rupert doing a lot of thumping.... not a good sign that.


----------



## Voley (Jul 19, 2011)

He looks weak.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

Is the Digger doing a "I'm confused and bewildered, me" act? (Sorry, can't see the proceedings here, and following on Graun live feed)


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 19, 2011)

Rupert channeling the spirit of Ernie Saunders?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

he's hearing an awful lot of things about controversial issues that he hasn't heard about before?!


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jul 19, 2011)

Murdoch Senior looks like some mafia don on trial, playing the "I'm just a senile old codger" card to get sympathy. 
Fuck him, hope he has a heart attack live on tele.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

He's utterly clueless.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Is the Digger doing a "I'm confused and bewildered, me" act? (Sorry, can't see the proceedings here, and following on Graun live feed)



He's laying it on thick.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> He's laying it on thick.


 
 

As spartacus mills says, it's Ernest Saunders Part 2, by the sounds of it.


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

He's looking like a proper slippery fucker...


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

He didn't know Taylor and Max Clifford got paid off???

BOLLOCKS


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

The emperor has no clothes


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Off JM, get back to RM. Cmmitte directs its question where it likes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

thanks for that image


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

they both look like rabbits caught in car headlights. old man murdoch appears not in full possession of his faculties.
 james must be one of the least charismatic individuals to ever wear a tie


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

[long silence] "I forget"

it's embarrassing! his act is so transparent he's making a complete tool of himself.


----------



## magneze (Jul 19, 2011)

Remember, most of our elected officials were scared of this lot.


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

gavman said:


> old man murdoch clearly not in full possession of his faculties.


 
He's playing the "poor old man" act. I don't buy it.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 19, 2011)

'collective amnesia'


----------



## Voley (Jul 19, 2011)

He forgets a lot doesn't he?


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

magneze said:


> Remember, most of our elected officials were scared of this lot.


 
Their time will come.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

"Mr Murdoch, at what point did you discover that hacking was endemic at News of the World. Long silence.


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

they just don't seem that bright. yates looked like a genius compared to these two

hang on, digger's getting grumpy


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

Did they forget to tell you about the collective amnesia??


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

James _desperate_ to deflect attention from daddy...


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

pk said:


> He's playing the "poor old man" act. I don't buy it.


 
i genuinely think he's struggling


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Watson needs to get RM annoyed. Not let JM take over.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

krink said:


> [long silence] "I forget"
> 
> it's embarrassing! his act is so transparent he's making a complete tool of himself.


i thought he'd fallen asleep


----------



## Voley (Jul 19, 2011)

Ooh, James got a right slapping-down then.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2011)

|I know!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

gavman said:


> i genuinely think he's struggling


 
That's why news corp have allowed him to daily direct them.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Watson needs to get RM annoyed. Not let JM take over.


 
Watson is going further then I expected, you hoping for a 'a few good men' moment?


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

gavman said:


> i genuinely think he's struggling


 
I'm sure it can't be easy, but he's not as fuckwitted as he's pretending to be.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Watson is going further then I expected, you hoping for a 'a few good men' moment?


 
Never seen the film, expect nothing other than watson having his day in the sun. Gen expect he something up sleeve.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 19, 2011)

That's it, keep coming back to Murdoch Sr, don't let James protect daddy.


----------



## Voley (Jul 19, 2011)

I was impressed by Watson's refusal to let Murdoch Jr dictate terms.


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2011)

Tom Watson checking his iPhone.


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Cameron asking Murdoch to enter via the tradesman's...


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

Sticking the knife in Dave a bit


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

pk said:


> Cameron asking Murdoch to enter via the tradesman's...


 

just following orders


----------



## Ivana Nap (Jul 19, 2011)

So which thread has the better commentary, this one or the 2pm one? (no live feed)


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 19, 2011)

Bit of bumming humour


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

Thought Tom Watson played it pretty well


----------



## skitr (Jul 19, 2011)

I laughed at backdoor.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 19, 2011)

'back door' people laughing, oh dear


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

pk said:


> I'm sure it can't be easy, but he's not as fuckwitted as he's pretending to be.


 
he has a lot to lose by appearing a fuckwit though. it might help him in front of the committee, but it will lead to a boardroom coup


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

gavman said:


> he has a lot to lose by appearing a fuckwit though. it might help him in front of the committee, but it will lead to a boardroom coup


 
He's finished. This is all about saving James a seat on the board now.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 19, 2011)

Strongly denying any 9/11 hacking, one eye on the US audience?


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

pk said:


> He's finished. This is all about saving Smithers a seat on the board now.



Corrected for you


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

Just seen this on the Beeb live feed:



> 1508: Iain Watson Political correspondent, BBC News News just in - the regular press briefing for lobby journalists from the prime minister's spokesman has been cancelled.



Disco panicking here, or is he going to wait to return to to do his "statesman" (ahem) bit?


----------



## Limejuice (Jul 19, 2011)

Junior's been allowed to slide into speech mode.


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Just seen this on the Beeb live feed:
> 
> 
> 
> Disco panicking here, or is he going to wait to return to to do his "statesman" (ahem) bit?


 
He's on the toilet watching the live feed and filling the bowl...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Shit question


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Or is it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 19, 2011)

Woah he's calling it hysteria - Sheridan should have asked "do you think the dowlings are hysterical?" Where's ymu?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

No it's not.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or is it?


 
 They certainly weren't expecting


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Wait for it...


----------



## two sheds (Jul 19, 2011)

Good question on whether illegal payments were declared for tax. Have we got yet to who approved the payments within NI?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

here we are, tommy territory


----------



## Limejuice (Jul 19, 2011)

Love the two suits behind Junior wearing near identical lilac ties.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

Limejuice said:


> Love the two suits behind Junior wearing near identical lilac ties.



Not peach then


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

i'm more impressed by the fit asian lawy no no no will not be shallow


----------



## skitr (Jul 19, 2011)

Neither of them seem to know anything.


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Here come the cops payment questions...


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

gavman said:


> i'm more impressed by the fit asian lawy no no no will not be shallow


 
Murdoch snr's wife.

Odd thing money.


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

gavman said:


> i'm more impressed by the fit asian lawy no no no will not be shallow


 
Ugh no way ... she looks like Lucy Liu's mum..


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

going in front of a committee is nowhere near as hard as being in court or in front of an inquiry, is it?
the questions are confused, there's little intelligence behind the follow ups, and the witness can just say 'i don't know', 'i didn't deal with that' or 'i can't remember'


----------



## Limejuice (Jul 19, 2011)

miniGMgoit said:


> Not peach then


 
I'm pretty sure it's a sort of lilac. But I defer to younger eyes and better screens.


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

pk said:


> Ugh no way ... she looks like Lucy Liu's mum..


 
 that's a bad thing?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

spare me your piety james


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Good question on whether illegal payments were declared for tax. Have we got yet to who approved the payments within NI?



It is a completely dumb question. Murdoch has not admitted to making illegal payments. Also if anyone who is not on the staff gets paid then it is up to the recipient to declare it for tax. You can be sure that NI will declare the payments out because they are part of their own expenses so if the recipient doesn't mention it then the tax people will be paying them a visit. This is a side issue which will please the Murdochs because it strays away from the phone hacking.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

The Graun have just stuck up the full statement that the Digger was hoping to give before the committe: Digger statement


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

JM is doing a good job from the company perspective.  Nice straight bat.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

"no immediate plans" for a Sunday title.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

"3.28pm: Therese Coffey is still questioning JM."

Wasn't she one of the drummers in prime-era Butthole Surfers?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It is a completely dumb question. Murdoch has not admitted to making illegal payments. Also if anyone who is not on the staff gets paid then it is up to the recipient to declare it for tax. You can be sure that NI will declare the payments out because they are part of their own expenses so if the recipient doesn't mention it then the tax people will be paying them a visit. This is a side issue which will please the Murdochs because it strays away from the phone hacking.



The point was to draw out who was on retainer. You missed it.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 19, 2011)

No immediate plans to release a NI Sunday title, apparently.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 19, 2011)

JM sounding like the very worst (or best) business-speak person, 100 words and nothing of value said.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> No immediate plans to release a NI Sunday title, apparently.


 
Define immediate.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

Apparently the Digger is banging the table again.  Has he engaged Richard Nixon mode?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 19, 2011)

Sun On Sunday launching August 21st, I've heard. 'Immediate' = 'within the next 4 weeks' presumably.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 19, 2011)

miniGMgoit said:


> Define immediate.


 
After the noise from the hacking scandal dies down.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> "3.28pm: Therese Coffey is still questioning JM."
> 
> Wasn't she one of the drummers in prime-era Butthole Surfers?


 He's a bloke.


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> After the noise from the hacking scandal dies down.


 
Which is why it cannot be allowed to die down.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

The Moron at it again (c/o Beeb live feed):



> 1533: TV presenter and ex-NoW editor Piers Morgan tweets: Good pertinent questions from @tom_watson - rest of the MPs hopeless so far. #Murdoch



Has the Moron begun to hedge his bets now?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

The chair is not doing his job here.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> He's a bloke.


 
Damn, foiled again!  (Sorry, don't have TV feed here).


----------



## two sheds (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It is a completely dumb question.


 
Payments made to police, for example, would hardly have been declared for tax ("payment to PC Plod, £5000 for juicy tidbits on MP"). If the Murdochs say they were declared for tax it could show they are lying. If they weren't declared it also opens up tax prosecutions.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They just did.


erm, I meant a lot more OTT than that! (i.e. Soopah Soaraway _Sun_ stylee)


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Payments made to police, for example, would hardly have been declared for tax ("payment to PC Plod, £5000 for juicy tidbits on MP"). If the Murdochs say they were declared for tax it could show they are lying. If they weren't declared it also opens up tax prosecutions.


 
This.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Damn, foiled again!  (Sorry, don't have TV feed here).


 
He was previously in the BHS though.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 19, 2011)

News Corp shares up on rumours of Murdoch replacement as chief exec.


----------



## laptop (Jul 19, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Payments made to police, for example, would hardly have been declared for tax ("payment to PC Plod, £5000 for juicy tidbits on MP"). If the Murdochs say they were declared for tax it could show they are lying. If they weren't declared it also opens up tax prosecutions.


 
It was a sarcastic reference to Al Capone?


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Invoking Enron... beautiful...


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

fuck me. did the questioner just imply that coulson was still being paid by ni while at no10?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 19, 2011)

Are you familiar with the term ''Willful Blindness'?

JM: eh?

It's a legal term

JM: err ...

RM: No, we've never done that.


----------



## magneze (Jul 19, 2011)

gavman said:


> fuck me. did the questioner just imply that coulson was still being paid by ni while at no10?


Yes, I think so.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 19, 2011)

Ooh that's just screwed the WSJ's remaining shreds of integrity, after that shonky editorial the other day.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

_10-12 hour day_, you're not getting away with this act then pal.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

DJ Squelch said:


> Murdoch Senior looks like some mafia don on trial, *playing the "I'm just a senile old codger" card to get sympathy*.
> Fuck him, hope he has a heart attack live on tele.



Indeed.



miniGMgoit said:


> He's utterly clueless.



He's not, he knows exactly what game he's playing.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> _10-12 hour day_, you're not getting away with this act then pal.



Exactly what I thought.
Luckily he got more animated and now it's getting tough again.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2011)

Btw sorry things have moved on really fast but who was that so-called "official" yates and Fedocio were trying to imply was behind it all? Or were they making stuff up?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

Rupert: "The News of the World I lost sight of because it was so small in respect of our operations". He was denying that he would have known about the payments to Max Clifford and Gordon Taylor of more than a million pounds.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2011)

Any ideas?


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2011)

ed llewellyn

(@ froggie)


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

gavman said:


> fuck me. did the questioner just imply that coulson was still being paid by ni while at no10?


 
Q: Did News International subsidise Andy Coulson's salary after he left the company. (There have been claims that the company topped up Coulson's salary when he was working in Downing Street.)

JM says he has no knowledge of this.


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Btw sorry things have moved on really fast but who was that so-called "official" yates and Fedocio were trying to imply was behind it all? Or were they making stuff up?


 
someone in no10 or the cabinet office. a civil servant


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> He was previously in the BHS though.


 
Psychic...Powerless...Another Murdoch's Sac?

(Sorry, I'll get me coat etc)


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

belboid said:


> Q: Did News International subsidise Andy Coulson's salary after he left the company. (There have been claims that the company topped up Coulson's salary when he was working in Downing Street.)
> 
> JM says he has no knowledge of this.


 
this is a new allegation to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Answer the question. Yes they paid GM legal fees.

If you've "asked the question" what was the answer?

A yes, a clear yes. I'll talk to you outside as well.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

Following the Beeb feed, is the Digger trying to make out that the NOTW was a "trifling" thing in comparison w/the Sunday Times?:



> 1546: Rupert Murdoch says he spoke to the News of the World's editor "very seldom", but he rings the Sunday Times almost every Saturday



(or that he could trust the News Of The Screws to do their thing as they pretty much followed his agenda?)


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> _10-12 hour day_, you're not getting away with this act then pal.


 
Indeed, you don't work 10-12 hours a day running one of the biggest media companies in the world and pretend to be a senile old fool at the same time, d'oh.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Right got him. GM fees paid by NI


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> He's not, he knows exactly what game he's playing.


 

Yes, shortly after I posted that I realized it was all an act. I stand very much corrected.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

James is as shit as his oul feller, he just takes longer.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

Gold dirt. James admits that he 'found out' that NI had paid legal expenses to Mulcair and Co after their conviction. He was not working for NI at the time of the payments.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

he's not playing the one line response game, his fuck ups are amid waffle.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

The old man is looking increasingly angry, surely one of the fuckers is going to go off on one soon?


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Hush money accusations??


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Gold dirt. James admits that he 'found out' that NI had paid legal expenses to Mulcair and Co after their conviction. He was not working for NI at the time of the payments.


 
That is not what the original question, though - that was about payments to Goodman and Mulcaire after their conviction - something which definately happened, and it was not "legal expenses".


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

Les Hinton £?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

agricola said:


> That is not what the original question, though - that was about payments to Goodman and Mulcaire after their conviction - something which definately happened, and it was not "legal expenses".



As i flagged up days ago.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 19, 2011)

stream much better than beeb here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blo...ng-rupert-murdoch-rebekah-brooks-mps#block-96


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

James is remaining fairly cool, talking shit and left to keep repeating the same old bollocks over and over again.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Oh, James under pressure now over GM's legal fees.


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> As i flagged up days ago.


 
Yes, but the original question has still not been answered... and in any case these legal fees questions are daft anyway, of course a big company accused of malpractice committed by ex-employees whilst they were employees is going to ensure that they have some control over that persons legal position.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 19, 2011)

I think James is coming across as very nice, polite young man, and ol' Rupes is a lovable bumbly Grandpa.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 19, 2011)

editor said:


> I really need to rename this thread considering how things have moved on. Any suggestions for a suitably succinct title?


"News International phone hacking disgusts the entire coun try?" or the NOTW memorial thread?


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 19, 2011)

agricola said:


> Yes, but the original question has still not been answered... and in any case these legal fees questions are daft anyway, of course a big company accused of malpractice committed by ex-employees whilst they were employees is going to ensure that they have some control over that persons legal position.


 

I think it is more about establishing what the 'knew' and what they did not 'know'; i.e. them claiming that they had no knowledge of _this _yet have knowledge of _that_.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Here comes the wall


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

ruperts missus did a sharon stone there!


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> I think James is coming across as very nice, polite young man, and ol' Rupes is a lovable bumbly Grandpa.


 
you think so?


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

I saw that too but didn't want to lower the tone


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

agricola said:


> Yes, but the original question has still not been answered... and in any case these legal fees questions are daft anyway, of course a big company accused of malpractice committed by ex-employees whilst they were employees is going to ensure that they have some control over that persons legal position.


 
Is their path worthwhile or not?


----------



## gavman (Jul 19, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> I think James is coming across as very nice, polite young man, and ol' Rupes is a lovable bumbly Grandpa.


 
i've got a timeshare that's right up your street


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

agricola said:


> Yes, but the original question has still not been answered... and in any case these legal fees questions are daft anyway, of course a big company accused of malpractice committed by ex-employees whilst they were employees is going to ensure that they have some control over that persons legal position.





> some control over that persons legal position.



Or...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

"_if I/you knew now what I/you knew then_" - phrase of the day, or at least top 3 with "_i have no understanding of_" and "_i blame yates_"


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

Robert Peston's Twitter feed (c/o Beeb):



> 1613: BBC's Robert Peston: Rupert Murdoch does not deny that Les HInton will receive many millions of dollars in compensation following resignation



Wonder how much compensation NI are hoping to offer each of the victims of the phone whatnots?  More than Hinton, or substantially less?


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is their path worthwhile or not?


 
Do you mean "is that line of questioning" worthwhile?  If so, no -  they would be better to focus on why Goodman and Mulcaire were paid off, and what relationship that payoff had to the payoffs recieved (if any) by other employees who had been found guilty of criminal offences and imprisoned.

edit:  and here we go


----------



## TruXta (Jul 19, 2011)

Opinions on MPs performances so far? Weak/strong, relevant/irrelevant?


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Robert Peston's Twitter feed (c/o Beeb):
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder how much compensation NI are hoping to offer the victims of the phone whatnots?  More than Hinton, or substantially less?


 
Fuck their "hopes". A million quid each. Four billion. Lovely. And that's just the UK...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

You _did_ know _then_, that's _why_ you set up layers so you could claim that you didn't. And it's all burning.


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Opinions on MPs performances so far? Weak/strong, relevant/irrelevant?


 
Much better than the Vaz committee.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> I think James is coming across as very nice, polite young man, and ol' Rupes is a lovable bumbly Grandpa.


 
Take off the rose-tinted specs.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

agricola said:


> Do you mean "is that line of questioning" worthwhile?  If so, no -  they would be better to focus on why Goodman and Mulcaire were paid off, and what relationship that payoff had to the payoffs recieved (if any) by other employees who had been found guilty of criminal offences and imprisoned.


 
As far as i can see they were prep questions for what you finger as important. (if you're interested my own post reflect that, i thought it was something esle). It was an MPs set up.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 19, 2011)

Squirm Bitch!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

Disco Inc spin dept off their marks? (c/o Beeb):



> 1619: Tory Press HQ tweets: Alistair Campbell Diaries: 'TB left for a memorial service and came back for lunch with Murdoch. We got him through the back door...'



(Having said that, boy, I bet the Digger must've been highly familiar with that entrance/exit.  Did the Grey Galactian (Major) and Die Eisenfrau do likewise?)


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It was an MPs set up.


 
That seems clear now, at least judging by James Murdochs increased level of evasion.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

gavman said:


> i've got a timeshare that's right up your street







TruXta said:


> Opinions on MPs performances so far? Weak/strong, relevant/irrelevant?



Not great, but nowhere as bad as I expected TBH.

Brooks will be on soon, everyone sitting comfortably?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

Brooks gonna be seen?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

_Why not?_


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jul 19, 2011)

text of the Murdoch's prepared statement to the committee 

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/rupert-murdoch-s-full-statement-to-select-committee/s2/a545237/




> News Corporation has issued a statement prepared by chairman Rupert Murdoch in advance of his appearance before the culture, media and sport select committee this afternoon.
> 
> Here is the statement in full:
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Not great, but nowhere as bad as I expected TBH.
> 
> Brooks will be on soon, everyone sitting comfortably?


 

brooks should be a good spectacle. Fiver says she loses it.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> brooks should be a good spectacle. Fiver says she loses it.


 
Throw in a question about hubby's "binned" computer as a warm-up?


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

Number 10 have released the email exchange between Yates and Llwelyn

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/19/phone-hacking-rupert-murdoch-rebekah-brooks-mps



> 10 September 2010: John Yates to Ed Llewellyn:
> 
> Ed,
> 
> ...


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> brooks should be a good spectacle. Fiver says she loses it.



I hope so, but I was expecting at least one of the Murdochs to do so.



MellySingsDoom said:


> Throw in a question about hubby's "binned" computer as a warm-up?



That would be great.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

I don't know what brooks is like, i do know that last time she was here coulsen took the lead. Quite forcefully.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 19, 2011)

I'd have liked to have heard a question like: 'Surely it is not credible that this endemic level of lawbreaking and illegal payments went on and you as a senior executive were unaware of it. Do you recognise that this if not showing illegality shows staggering incompetence and failure of duty of care to your shareholders?'


----------



## TruXta (Jul 19, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I'd have liked to have heard a question like: 'Surely it is not credible that this endemic level of lawbreaking and illegal payments went on and you as a senior executive were unaware of it. Do you recognise that this if not showing illegality shows staggering incompetence and failure of duty of care to your shareholders?'


 
When did you stop beating your wife?


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Rebekah Brooks is a nasty person, and the chickens have now come home to roost and I expect to see salty tears before bedtime. Also - she's going up in front of now pissed off MPs.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

She can always play the 'sub judice card'. The Murdochs did that a little bit of that in the later parts of in the questioning today.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I don't know what brooks is like, i do know that last time she was here coulsen took the lead. Quite forcefully.


 
Yeah, but this time she is on her own.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> When did you stop beating your wife?


 
We stopped in 2005.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Top plod in the country, knows nothing about anything to do with the police or their actions. That's why he got the big bucks.


 
Probably suffering about of Saundersism.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> We stopped in 2005.


 
Didn't know you were polyamorous, BA


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Throw in a question about hubby's "binned" computer as a warm-up?



Or about finding Grant Mitchell in bed with another man.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I'd have liked to have heard a question like: 'Surely it is not credible that this endemic level of lawbreaking and illegal payments went on and you as a senior executive were unaware of it. Do you recognise that this if not showing illegality shows staggering incompetence and failure of duty of care to your shareholders?'


i'm almost certain that the committee's report will indeed contain a statement of exactly that kind of sentiment.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> When did you stop beating your wife?



I'm not married


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I don't know what brooks is like, i do know that last time she was here coulsen took the lead. Quite forcefully.


 
Proper Mills and Boon stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Didn't know you were polyamorous, BA


 
You see why the leading question doesn't fit here though?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Yeah, but this time she is on her own.


 
Is she on today?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You see why the leading question doesn't fit here though?


 
Indeed, that was my point.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

known uknowns, the rumsfeld school of total fucking bollocks


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Indeed, that was my point.


 
Well done then


----------



## TruXta (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well done then


 
Not exactly an achievement, but thanks anyway!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Another _matter of regret._ This time 'deep'

What happened in the cycling?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Is she on today?


 
fivelive says shes up after smithers and the old man- wether thats today or tomorrow they haven't said


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Banging the table as i type


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

Dan U said:


> The Met have released the email exchange between Yates and Llwelyn
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/19/phone-hacking-rupert-murdoch-rebekah-brooks-mps


 
Thats actually from No.10, and not the Met.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 19, 2011)

Rupe's fucked Myler. Clearly he didn't like his staff's show of loyalty a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

I am getting fed up with the prolonged hesitant questioning that is happening now. The Murdochs are just wasting time with their answers and are being invited to make discursive rhetorical statements.

Let's hear from Brooks.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

agricola said:


> Thats actually from No.10, and not the Met.



ah, whoops my mistake. will edit


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

what was that laughing about? i was working.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Another _matter of regret._ This time 'deep'
> 
> What happened in the cycling?


 
Hushovd 1, Boassen Hagen 2, some other twat 3rd.


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2011)

krink said:


> what was that laughing about? i was working.


 
rupe said MPs should be paid a million dollars a year to stop them fiddling their expenses.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2011)

krink said:


> what was that laughing about? i was working.


 
Murdoch snr suggested that all government ministers should be paid a million each, like in Singapore, then they wouldn't fiddle expenses.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Hushovd 1, Boassen Hagen 2, some other twat 3rd.


 
Thank you


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

Murdoch trying to introduce the topic of the Telegraph getting hold of stolen documents in the context of MPs expenses. I suspect that Brooks may try to go on a similar line, bringing in mention of other news media and their own alleged dodgy practices.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 19, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Murdoch snr suggested that all government ministers should be paid a million each, like in Singapore, then they wouldn't fiddle expenses.



LOL


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)




----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2011)

wtf???


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

Piers M contradicting Rupes' earlier comments on how often he contacted the NoW editor:

Rupert called me every week for 18ms on News of the World - rarely asked about anything but what stories we had that week.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

Murdoch saying complimentary things about Gordon Brown, and his wife. Pass the bucket.


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

belboid said:


> Piers M contradicting Rupes' earlier comments on how often he contacted the NoW editor:
> 
> Rupert called me every week for 18ms on News of the World - rarely asked about anything but what stories we had that week.


 
He was probably asking for share tips.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who is Yates going to blame? Did the met us e ahead hunting thing to employ wallis? What/who was the contact?


Nope, put a PR consultancy contract out to tender and Yates's firm were cheapest. However, due diligence on the tender process as yet unproven.
e2a; Yates showed Due Diligence to have been a complete joke!


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Hushovd 1, Boassen Hagen 2, some other twat 3rd.



 i've been avoiding finding that out till the highlights later.

thought this thread would be safe


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Is she on today?



I think she was due on at 3.30pm, but things are over running.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

More Moron Twitter c/o Beeb:



> 1644: Television presenter and ex-NoW editor Piers Morgan tweets: Rupert called me every week for 18ms on News of the World - rarely asked about anything but what stories we had that week. #Murdoch



Hang on, didn't the Digger say he only called the Sunday Times every week, and not NOTW?  (And why the sudden candour from the Moron -  surely he's meant to be cheerleading for the Digger?)

e2a:  belboid got there first (sorry all)


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

Any FM radio station running this live?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 19, 2011)

And he has a stab at Gordon Brown as well. If he's going down, they're all coming with him. Interesting that he's steering clear of Mr Tony, who has been notable by his absence throughout this controversy.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Murdoch saying complimentary things about Gordon Brown, and his wife. Pass the bucket.


 
"Our kids played together all the time."  Suddenly, I has visions of James being sent off to play with Brown's sprogs whilst Daddy talked business


----------



## TruXta (Jul 19, 2011)

Dan U said:


> i've been avoiding finding that out till the highlights later.
> 
> thought this thread would be safe


 
 Blame butchers.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Banging the table as i type



I have this vision of you always doing that TBH.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Any FM radio station running this live?



Radio 5 live as I said earlier.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 19, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Any FM radio station running this live?


 
Does radio 5 live count?


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

fightings!


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

holy shit!


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Nope, put a PR consultancy contract out to tender and Yates's firm were cheapest. However, due diligencve on the tender process as yet unproven.


 
It doesn't actually sound like it really was put out to tender. They just asked around for three quotes and chose the cheapest. in fact, they probably got the quote from Wallis and then asked a couple of other companies they knew'd be more expensive


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 19, 2011)

Drama!


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

WTF!!

Did someone just go for Murdoch?


----------



## Limejuice (Jul 19, 2011)

What happened?


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

what the fuck


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

pitch invasion!


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

I missed that, WTF happened?


----------



## magneze (Jul 19, 2011)

Whoa, someone just attacked Murdoch.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

WTF happened there?

I was just on the phone.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 19, 2011)

What the fuck happened there?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

What happened there????


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 19, 2011)

Woah! What happened?! Had another window open, just heard kerfuffle and then saw someone flying across screen


----------



## skitr (Jul 19, 2011)

Hahaahha.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

a bit of a kerfuffle there. say bbc, some bloke been handcuffed


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 19, 2011)

Wtf happened there?!


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 19, 2011)

Vaguely saw (I think) Mrs M getting involved and I think lunging back!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 19, 2011)

Did they land a punch?


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

radio5live says someone tried to attack mrs rupert!

*now saying went to attack rupert and james and mrs  intervened


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 19, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Vaguely saw (I think) Mrs M getting involved and I think lunging back!


Definitely thought I saw a woman get involved, wearing pink?


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

what on earth has that bloke got on his face?  tippex?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Vaguely saw (I think) Mrs M getting involved and I think lunging back!


 
Yeah she got a shot in on someone.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2011)

I was listening on the radio, can anyone watching shed any light on what happened?


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

beeb reports: 'some kind of disturbance'

You were fucking there!  You should be able to tell us what kind of bleeding disturbance it was


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

krink said:


> radio5live says someone tried to attack mrs rupert!


 
mrs rupert attacked the person!


----------



## magneze (Jul 19, 2011)

Guardian: "Someone has just tried to attack Rupert Murdoch. His wife Wendi seemed to slap the person."


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2011)

Did someone try and custard pie Murdoch?


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

murdochs car backing in to portcullis house on Sky


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2011)

agricola said:


> what on earth has that bloke got on his face?  tippex?


 
Custard pie?


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Vaguely saw (I think) Mrs M getting involved and I think lunging back!


 
how did our beloved moderator manage to get a seat at the proceedings???


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Vaguely saw (I think) *Mrs M* getting involved and I think lunging back!



Mrs Magpie's there?


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 19, 2011)

paint attack?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

agricola said:


> what on earth has that bloke got on his face?  tippex?


whitewash? as a symbolic protest perhaps?


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

slow mo on sky now


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

They think it's all over followed by a pitch invasion.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

Is Mrs Rupert the attractive oriental chic in the pink? 

She dived over Murdoch and gave someone a right-hander!


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Did someone try and custard pie Murdoch?


 

Probably,

Pictures now that the coppers have got hold of a guy with pie on his face.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 19, 2011)

mental!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

Dan U said:


> mrs rupert attacked the person!


she got a fucking impressive right-hander in there!!!


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 19, 2011)

Got done with Custard Pie according to Nick Robinson who was a few metres away


----------



## sunny jim (Jul 19, 2011)

maybe she is lucy lui's mum!


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

copper with paint on his face too


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Do them a favour


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

Awesome stuff


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

That has messed up the committee. And now we won't be getting any more information from the Murdochs.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 19, 2011)

Gwan Wendi! Fair play to her!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

twitter 

Jon Snow

    Custard pie on Rupert's right shoulder and face with custard pie or foam..wendi sprang at him and I could here the sound of a slap..


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

One of the coppers is walking around with a big blob of white stuff on his nose!!! 

Pure comedy


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

Dan U said:


> copper with paint on his face too



ahh not paiint, custard pie type stuff


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 19, 2011)

"BBC political editor Nick Robinson says Rupert Murdoch was apparently hit in the face with a plate of shaving foam by a man shouting: "Greedy.""


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 19, 2011)

I'm guessing Brooks won't be on now


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> That has messed up the committee. And now we won't be getting any more information from the Murdochs.


 
This, too. Sadly.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

she properly nailed him more than his useless son did anyway


----------



## magneze (Jul 19, 2011)

What a twat. Pointless. Lets see if the media get distracted by this. Wonder if the last questioner had something good to ask?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

No pasaran


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

some twat on 5live crying over murdochs treatment by the mps


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

http://twitter.com/#!/JonnieMarbles this bloke allegedly


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

From the Graun live feed:



> 4.59pm: Reports claim the assailant is a UK Uncut activist.



Here we fucking go...


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> That has messed up the committee. And now we won't be getting any more information from the Murdochs.


 
yep


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

ukuncut got a good name now, How them trials going you dick?


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 19, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> some twat on 5live crying over murdochs treatment by the mps


 
Yep, Peter Allen, talking a load of shite. Completely taken in by Murdoch's fluffy bunny act.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> Did they land a punch?



No, a plate of foam!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Probably,
> 
> Pictures now that the coppers have got hold of a guy with pie on his face.



What flavour?


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)




----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Fucking idiot's fucked it up now.


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> http://twitter.com/#!/JonnieMarbles this bloke allegedly


 
The wonders of this interconnected age.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 19, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> http://twitter.com/#!/JonnieMarbles this bloke allegedly






			
				JonnieMarbles said:
			
		

> It is a far better thing that I do now than I have ever done before #splat



Fair play to Mrs. M, she proper launched herself at the guy


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> One of the coppers is walking around with a big blob of white stuff on his nose!!!
> 
> Pure comedy


 
Coke?


----------



## skitr (Jul 19, 2011)

Remember he might say he takes part in Uncut actions, doesn't mean his actions are backed by Uncut. In fact Uncut have said it's not an action by them.


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Fucking idiot's fucked it up now.


 
doubt it, tbh.  How will they look if they let Rupes go just cos he's got a bit of shaving foam in his jacket?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

"It is a far better thing that I do now than I have ever done before #splat" so he said


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

agricola said:


> The wonders of this interconnected age.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> ukuncut got a good name now, How them trials going you dick?


 
this ... what a fucking idiot


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

How on earth did Johnnie Pieman get his stuff into the Commons in the first place?  Don't Parliament Plod frisk people, check bags and all that?


----------



## Mitre10 (Jul 19, 2011)

How the fuck did they let someone get in there with a paper plate and a can of foam in the first place for fucks sake


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

Anyone listening to the commentators on the BBC stream?

"Like watching bloodsport"


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> "It is a far better thing that I do now than I have ever done before #splat" so he said


 
martyr lol


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> Fair play to Mrs. M, she proper launched herself at the guy


 
Totally. She absolutely nailed the cunt!

Hope she's got long fingernails.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

Dan U said:


>



He wasn't with Chris Tarrant and Lenny Henry was he?


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

who said earlier they hope murdoch has a heart attack and dies on telly? just heard he's getting medical attention so you never know...


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


>


 
Thats definately a picture of Louise Bagshawe that is going to get photoshopped.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

Mitre10 said:


> How the fuck did they let someone get in there with a paper plate and a can of foam in the first place for fucks sake


it's going to be even more of a fucking nightmare getting in and out of portcullis house than it was before


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

belboid said:


> doubt it, tbh.  How will they look if they let Rupes go just cos he's got a bit of shaving foam in his jacket?


 
After 2 hours of playing the senile old fool, some young guy 'attacks' him, the victim card is all there.

Fucking twat.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> this ... what a fucking idiot


 
A fucking idiot indeed, but funny as fuck all the same.

It's left the Met with even more egg foam on their faces, what a classic security failure.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

agricola said:


> Thats definately a picture of Louise Bagshawe that is going to get photoshopped.


innit


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

Its back on!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

dp


----------



## laptop (Jul 19, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> How on earth did Johnnie Pieman get his stuff into the Commons in the first place?  Don't Parliament Plod frisk people, check bags and all that?


 
What I'm wondering. Even Peers have to go through a metal detector.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 19, 2011)

"It shows immense guts to continue to answer questions"

Feck off!


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

And Murdoch is back in the house.


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

we're off again.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

He did it inside then??? How on earth? I had not been watching and assumed they were leaving!!


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

laptop said:


> What I'm wondering. Even Peers have to go through a metal detector.


 
a tin of shaving foam combined with one of Tom Watson's empties, probably.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 19, 2011)

agricola said:


> Thats definately a picture of Louise Bagshawe that is going to get photoshopped.




You're a bad, bad person.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

Headlines for tomorrow: "Deng Donged Dickhead?"


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> A fucking idiot indeed, but funny as fuck all the same.
> 
> It's left the Met with even more egg foam on their faces, what a classic security failure.


i'm hearing that the pieman is currently being held in custardy!! 

*boom tish*


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

^^^"That man has got political pie all over his face"


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

UKuncut

    The Murdoch stunt was not a UK Uncut action - but check out http://t.co/BbloqNs for what's happening near you


----------



## cantsin (Jul 19, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Totally. She absolutely nailed the cunt!
> 
> Hope she's got long fingernails.



why ? 

you think Murdoch wasting everyone's time playing the old idiot for two hours deserved better than a pie in the face ? seems like a proportionate response to me


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

I love the response to the 9/11 accussation.

They are fucked.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 19, 2011)

JM basically saying that they don't know whether they hacked 9/11 victims' phones or not.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i'm hearing that the pieman is currently being held in custardy!!
> 
> *boom tish*


 


MellySingsDoom said:


> ^^^"That man has got political pie all over his face"



*groans*


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 19, 2011)

Humble Pie! (nicked off someone on Twitter).


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

most humiliating day in his life! lol


----------



## ddraig (Jul 19, 2011)

krink said:


> most humiliating day in his life! lol


 
brilliant mishear that


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Banging the table as i type


 
Careful you don't get splinters in your old fella.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Shes beginning to piss me off now.


----------



## 8den (Jul 19, 2011)

I've always maintained those stupid idiots who pie Politicians are utter attention seeking morons. 

It's  nice to have your prejudices confirmed right.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

cantsin said:


> why ?
> 
> you think Murdoch wasting everyone's time playing the old idiot for two hours deserved better than a pie in the face ? seems like a proportionate response to me


 
I'm more interested in him answering the questions put to him than watching some wanker trying to grab the headlines by assaulting an 80 year old geezer, no matter who he is. 

Fuck the little tosser, I hope she hurt him. 

Mate of yours by any chance?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

My god, now Mensch is trying to give them a get out.   

How much is she a brown noser for the murdochs.  'Please give me a job in the US'!  Disgraceful.


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 19, 2011)

Mensch (aka that bloody Bagshawe) is as confused as Rupert, she's all over the place.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 19, 2011)

8den said:


> I've always maintained those stupid idiots who pie Politicians are utter attention seeking morons.
> 
> It's  nice to have your prejudices confirmed right.


 
Indeedy, spoils the focus of the day, doesn't it?


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

when did she become 'Mensch'?  That quite confused me for a moment or three


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 19, 2011)

"Dear American friends, This is what British socialists do, violently attack 80 year-old men for being rich. Think before you vote Democrat." Guido!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> My god, now Mensch is trying to give them a get out.
> 
> How much is she a brown noser for the murdochs.  'Please give me a job in the US'!  Disgraceful.



I don't agree, she's just done them nicely.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

8den said:


> I've always maintained those stupid idiots who pie Politicians are utter attention seeking morons.
> 
> It's  nice to have your prejudices confirmed right.


 
Apparently he's from Croydon too


----------



## cantsin (Jul 19, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> I'm more interested in him answering the questions put to him than watching some wanker trying to grab the headlines by assaulting an 80 year old geezer, no matter who he is.
> 
> Fuck the little tosser, I hope she hurt him.
> 
> Mate of yours by any chance?



After 2 +  hours, you may have noticed that Murdoch has been totally ( predictably )  evasive , so what's your point ?


----------



## cantsin (Jul 19, 2011)

Ponyutd said:


> "Dear American friends, This is what British socialists do, violently attack 80 year-old men for being rich. Think before you vote Democrat." Guido!



Staines is a prize twat, but even by his standards that's feeble.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I don't agree, she's just done them nicely.


 
You'll have to enlighten me. I must have missed it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

cantsin said:


> After 2 +  hours, you may have noticed that Murdoch has been totally ( predictably )  evasive , so what's your point ?


 
I've made it. Now fuck off, you prick.


----------



## skitr (Jul 19, 2011)

belboid said:


> when did she become 'Mensch'?  That quite confused me for a moment or three


 
She married the manager of Metallica earlier this year, which is where she took Mensch from.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

"Immense courage"

A custard fucking pie you sycophantic cunt.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

foam hacking


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 19, 2011)

Dan U said:


> foam hacking


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 19, 2011)

Watson back on form


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

It wasn't a left hook.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 19, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


>



i can't take the credit, sadly..


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

need god save the queen playing in the background here...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 19, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> It wasn't a left hook.


I was thinking that. Which is what we need to take away from today.


----------



## cantsin (Jul 19, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> I've made it. Now fuck off, you prick.



same old, same old you feeble little clown


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

I want to hear


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

skitr said:


> She married the manager of Metallica earlier this year, which is where she took Mensch from.


 
she gets odder n odder.  But never 'better'


----------



## Balbi (Jul 19, 2011)

Empty statement. Empty empty empty.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

belboid said:


> she gets odder n odder.  But never 'better'


 
She was oddly good today.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Dan U said:


> foam hacking



A genuine fucking lol moment.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 19, 2011)

Myler has completely contradicted the Murdochs' version of events: 'no part in commissioning, meeting with or reviewing Harbottle and Lewis'.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

Murdoch has just read out his opening statement again in the guise of a closing statement.


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> She was oddly good today.


 
those bits cant be on the beb summation then, cos everything she says on there is bland toss


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

cantsin said:


> same old, same old you feeble little clown


 
He's not little.


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

the 'incident' - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/video/2011/jul/19/rupert-murdoch-jamesmurdoch


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

belboid said:


> those bits cant be on the beb summation then, cos everything she says on there is bland toss


 
They're on the live thing. Come on b, ffs,. whose summing up?


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

I've just had to order a take-away for delivery, because I can't miss any of this circus.


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Fucking hell, LOL! Bloke looks like a nobber who did it though...


----------



## ddraig (Jul 19, 2011)

belboid said:


> the 'incident' - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/video/2011/jul/19/rupert-murdoch-jamesmurdoch


 
 love the slo mo


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 19, 2011)

Is Brooks still on today? Need to know if I've got time to shoot home?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Is Brooks still on today? Need to know if I've got time to shoot home?


 
Yes, he is


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

the pie dude gets his 15 minutes of fame. what a tool.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 19, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> I've just had to order a take-away for delivery, because I can't miss any of this circus.


 
If I was still smoking, I'd be laying in the Marlboros in about now (and booze, naturally).


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

Is that it then?

No Rebekkahhhhh today?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

So neither of them really knew / know anything.  Thats mu summing up anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Tooooooooooooooooooool


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> So neither of them really knew / know anything.  Thats mu summing up anyway.


 
No, they claim to of known nothing.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 19, 2011)

The confidentiality clause. That is a very interesting closing question from T Watson.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

Gawd these Radio 5 Live 'journalists' doing a summing up are so amateurish and childlike.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Is that it then?
> 
> No Rebekkahhhhh today?


 
No she's on next, they're just setting up the squirting flower in the lapel gag.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 19, 2011)

5 live this week. "I think Edinburgh is the greatest city in the U.k."
Co presenter.."Dublin is a close second"

That's 5 live for you.


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> No she's on next, they're just setting up the squirting flower in the lapel gag.


 
Banana skins on the floor?


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> No she's on next, they're just setting up the squirting flower in the lapel gag.


 


banana skin on the floor accompanied by slide whistle


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 19, 2011)

Ponyutd said:


> 5 live this week. "I think Edinburgh is the greatest city in the U.k."
> Co presenter.."Dublin is a close second"
> 
> That's 5 live for you.


 
Jesus shitting christ, you're kidding me


----------



## dylans (Jul 19, 2011)

Someone pied Murdoch? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Excellent


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Good thing about the Phantom Flan Flinger is no doubt the incident will increase the pressure on Brooks. She must be whiter than normal under all that hair now.

And there she is... let's go!!


----------



## Ponyutd (Jul 19, 2011)

The Murdoch car doors just all fell off, at the same time a huge back fire went off.


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

Colin Myler has apparently just trashed those parts of the Murdoch's testimony that applied to him, according to BBC News 24.


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

second half starting...


----------



## cantsin (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> So neither of them really knew / know anything.  Thats mu summing up anyway.



no,  according to Chris Bryant / Slimemaster, we missed crucial answers due to evil flanner.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

She has just started speaking.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

i love her


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 19, 2011)

I've been on fucking trains and in meetings most of the day  Sounds like plenty to catch up with when I get in!


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 19, 2011)

dylans said:


> Someone pied Murdoch? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Excellent


 
Nah, they got stopped and ended up getting the pie themselves and a twat from murdoch's wife.  It was stupid and he is a fuckwit.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

To sum up, no one knew nothing. It was those pesky workers that done it!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

cantsin said:


> no,  according to Chris Bryant / Slimemaster, we missed crucial answers due to evil flanner.


 
Go fuck yourself, you grubby sex case.


----------



## skitr (Jul 19, 2011)

Criminal proceedings pass off number 1...


----------



## dylans (Jul 19, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Nah, they got stopped and ended up getting the pie themselves and a twat from murdoch's wife.  It was stupid and he is a fuckwit.


 
Just watched it. Bit of a feeble effort really. They should have thrown coloured flour bombs


----------



## cantsin (Jul 19, 2011)

get back to your wannabee fox hunting / 'soccer-footy' stuff, you sound like even more of div than usual on these types of threads.


----------



## elbows (Jul 19, 2011)

Wooo the Tories are in deeper shit now - Wallis advised Coulson informally when he was working for the Tories.


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Wallis was advising Coulson during his time with Cameron.

Tories in the shit. Statement to come!!!


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

Laura Kuenssberg is lovely, but that background shot of the interior of Portcullis House just demonstrates why MPs shouldnt be allowed to do anything.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 19, 2011)

pk said:


> Wallis was advising Coulson during his time with Cameron.
> 
> Tories in the shit. Statement to come!!!


 
Ooh yussss


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

pk said:


> Wallis was advising Coulson during his time with Cameron.
> 
> Tories in the shit. Statement to come!!!



Its a very weaselly statement though - no money changed hands, "informal advice" only, and Cameron will still be able to blame (along with everyone else) Coulson.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2011)

Cameron now 4/1 to go!

http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/Politics/British-PoliticsPolitics/British-Politics-t210004281


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

Did Brooks just admit to using Whittamore to get the details of (including addresses) of paedophiles that featured in their Sarah's Law series of articles?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 19, 2011)

She loves to mention the guardian.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> She can always play the 'sub judice card'. The Murdochs did that a little bit of that in the later parts of in the questioning today.


yes and the MPs were stupid to not challenge that more forcefully. Everything a witness says in a parliamentary procedure carries immunity from prosecution. Nothing in the current ongoing legal/police/judicial proceedings can stop them from giving full and frank answers to the select committee


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Cameron now 4/1 to go!
> 
> http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/Politics/British-PoliticsPolitics/British-Politics-t210004281


 
That's just 4/1 that he's the next cabinet member to leave!
Paddy power cut him from 6/1 to 3/1 to leave before the end of the year apparently.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 19, 2011)

Carefully timed that announcment by the tories - dosen't give 6pm news anytime to investigate and they are hoping it will be overshadowed by the commoms hearings. 
But will do them fuck all good though.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

Brooks: Denied ever meeting Glen Mulcair. First heard his name in 2006 when he was arrested. Other private investigators she did know about before then know. "I know quite an extensive amount now - Glen Mulcair worked for NoW since the 1990s". 

Brooks: "Jonathon Rees worked for many newpapers in 1990s working as a Private Investigator." She doesn't know what Rees did after being re-hired by NoW. Her use of Private Investigators purely in the Sarah's Law campaign at the Sun.

Q Do you have any regrets? A Yes the fact of the Millie Dowler phone hacking is abhorrent to her as to anyone else.

Brooks: "I have never paid a policeman myself and I have never authorised payments to police."

She is playing very cool and calm and must have prepared herself very well.


----------



## agricola (Jul 19, 2011)

Bagshawe has clearly got instructions to widen the scope of this.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 19, 2011)

agricola said:


> Bagshawe has clearly got instructions to widen the scope of this.



I think you might be right, she's like a dog with a bone.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

repartition of the very same attack angle she took with ruperts and co wrt payments


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

ooh!  Bagshawe seems to have made a decent point!


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

i can't understand that scottish bloke.


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

krink said:


> i can't understand that scottish bloke.


 
neither can Brooks, it appears


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

she understood that last one right enough


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

Who's the MP in the white jacket, said he worked for The Observer?


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

Paul Farrelly


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

Ta.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Cameron now 4/1 to go!
> 
> http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/Politics/British-PoliticsPolitics/British-Politics-t210004281



My £50 bet against Cameron resigning over this is, admittedly, looking a little more shaky.

Still, it's the server fund that wins if he does.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

"unauthoriSed by professional journalists" - odd


----------



## Flavour (Jul 19, 2011)

'i'm sorry that's just the way it is' ... she is so transparent!

"that's all i can tell you"


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

The way Collins is asking his questions is fucking confusing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> "unauthoriSed by professional journalists" - odd


 
This will be in the transcript but did anyone else hear this?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 19, 2011)

@gavinesler Gavin Esler
@bbcnews Great lineup for #Newsnight: Earl Spencer brother of Princess Diana; Carl Bernstein @arusbridger Tom Watson Paul McMullen
10 minutes ago via web


----------



## Callie (Jul 19, 2011)

Brooks doesnt seem to have known what the fuck was going on at NOTW apart from saving the world from paedos. You werent doing you job then were you? Capability? Responsibility? dodging the lot. if she wanted to hunt paedophiles she should have joined the police.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

pk said:


> Wallis was advising Coulson during his time with Cameron.
> 
> Tories in the shit. Statement to come!!!


 
Only just turned this on. 
Is Dave in the shit? 

She is scripted and lying carefully it seems to me but they are not breaking her here.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 19, 2011)

They should have started off with a question like "Chris Bryant MP alleges that you said to him, 'Oh, Mr Bryant, it's after dark -- shouldn't you be on Clapham Common?' What did you mean by that? And is it true that your husband at the time said 'Shut up, you homophobic cow'."

Sort of place exactly the sort of person we're dealing with here.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Callie said:


> Brooks doesnt seem to have known what the fuck was going on at NOTW apart from saving the world from paedos. You werent doing you job then were you? Capability? Responsibility? dodging the lot. if she wanted to hunt paedophiles she should have joined the police.


 
Rather than just paying them?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

Callie said:


> Brooks doesnt seem to have known what the fuck was going on at NOTW apart from saving the world from paedos. You werent doing you job then were you? Capability? Responsibility? dodging the lot. if she wanted to hunt paedophiles she should have joined the police.


 
All those in a position of responsibility and power claim to have known jack shit. They're happy to take the plaudits but all the bad stuff....


----------



## Augie March (Jul 19, 2011)

All these nasty people trying to burn her at the stake, don't you know she defeated the evil paedo threat? For shame, the woman is a damned saint!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

_It wasn't a myth, it was what everyone believed._

What school was she?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 19, 2011)

two sheds said:


> They should have started off with a question like "Chris Bryant MP alleges that you said to him, 'Oh, Mr Bryant, it's after dark -- shouldn't you be on Clapham Common?' What did you mean by that? And is it true that your husband at the time said 'Shut up, you homophobic cow'.
> 
> 
> Sort of place exactly the sort of person we're dealing with here.


That is now two good things Ross Kemp has done in his life.

(Extras.)


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

Damn commentator on R5 cutting across Brooks's reply to a hard question about her role in NoW.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

Augie March said:


> All these nasty people trying to burn her at the stake, don't you know she defeated the evil paedo threat? For shame, the woman is a damned saint!


----------



## Callie (Jul 19, 2011)

Augie March said:


> All these nasty people trying to burn her at the stake, don't you know she defeated the evil paedo threat? For shame, the woman is a damned saint!


 
Wheres that shit superhero thread gone? I have something to add to it.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

Twitterings



> Brooks says first she knew Milly Dowler phone was hacked was when Guardian published it. But Watson raised it at DCMS committee in March


----------



## ddraig (Jul 19, 2011)

not very good at this is she


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

ddraig said:


> not very good at this is she


 
She is like an intern at a corporate explaining a fuck up. 
Like a well spoken posh kid unaware of her surroundings.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 19, 2011)

Callie said:


> Wheres that shit superhero thread gone? I have something to add to it.


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

Farrelly (after waffle from Brooks):  "Well, I didn't ask that question, but it would have been a good one to ask, so thank you."

She is just pulling out more n more rope for herself.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

Idiot villains of the world unite?


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

i keep expecting her to say 'sweetie' like on ab fab.


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

aargh why do radio5 keep talking over questions!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

Brooks is too cool by half. Nothing phases her.  Damned commentator talking over the interview again.


----------



## Augie March (Jul 19, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


>



I see Murdoch in that picture too. In his old man disguise on the bottom left and in his actual body on the right.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 19, 2011)

more like


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Brooks is too cool by half. Nothing phases her.  Damned commentator talking over the interview again.


 
She is not cool, she is stammering and lying in my opinion.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

Badgers said:


> She is not cool, she is stammering and lying in my opinion.



she hasn't managed the polish of James yet, and he was on the ropes himself once or twice. Regardless of content it isn't a polished performance


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

More regular visitor to Downing Street under Labour than the Conservative.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

saviour of Our Boys ffs


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

Badgers said:


> More regular visitor to Downing Street under Labour than the Conservative.


 
no need for her to go all the way to Downing Street to meet with Davey


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

Osborne + Cameron


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

flat denial of discussing coulsons employment with cameron


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

belboid said:


> no need for her to go all the way to Downing Street to meet with Davey


 
I know, just seemed to be grinding an axe. 

An axe of distraction.


----------



## Starflesh (Jul 19, 2011)

It is odd to think of all the stuff she must really know, all the conversations she must have had with the lawyers and the Murdochs about the way to handle things, and how straight-forward and helpful she is seemingly being.  Makes you want to puke really.  She is a very clear thinker though.  Doesn´t get flustered.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 19, 2011)

"James, would you like a cup of tea?" "I have no direct knowledge of liking tea, but I'm happy to find out if I do and get back to you."


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 19, 2011)

So it was George Osborne's idea that Cameron should employ Andy Coulson and not as alleged elsewhere Rebekah Brooks. This is what she says. She denies NI subsidising Andy Coulson's salary after leaving them to work for Cameraon as suggested in some news outlets.

On the closeness between Police and News International she denies that this is the case.

Cheeky woman has asked to be invited back to the committee when the police investigation is over.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

It's astonishing, it's just vigorous re-assertion.


----------



## Starflesh (Jul 19, 2011)

I didn´t do anything, I didn´t know anything, I didn´t sanction anything --  I would like to give an unreserved apology.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 19, 2011)

nice non apology and veiled threat at the end!


----------



## Flavour (Jul 19, 2011)

cameron must feel like a mug on his plane back from SA


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

PR ending


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

ddraig said:


> nice non apology and veiled threat at the end!



may I appear before you again? after legal procedings etc 


she's mugged off osbourne as well.


----------



## krink (Jul 19, 2011)

well, for me the best person on the committee was Phil Jupitus.


----------



## Augie March (Jul 19, 2011)

Nick Frost you mean? He tweeted earlier that he is looking forward to play Watson in the film.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

Watson for PM


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

I have never said the word bollocks so many times in a day before.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 19, 2011)

Turns out I know the pie chuckers family, the daft bastard


----------



## TruXta (Jul 19, 2011)

I missed Brooks - quick recap anyone?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jul 19, 2011)

They did a pretty good job of shielding News Corp from the NI contagion.


----------



## elbows (Jul 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I missed Brooks - quick recap anyone?


 
It was tedious. I don't think I learnt anything new about any details related to the phone hacking itself, so anything she said in that regard has blended invisibly in my mind with stuff thats been said for weeks now.

In terms of political ramifications, there were a few things. She was keen to point out how her relationship with those in the corridors of power was stronger under Labour than Camerons regime. And she was keen to point out that it was George Osborne who first started exploring the possibility of Coulson going to work for the Tories once his newspaper job was over.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 19, 2011)

elbows said:


> It was tedious. I don't think I learnt anything new about any details related to the phone hacking itself, so anything she said in that regard has blended invisibly in my mind with stuff thats been said for weeks now.
> 
> In terms of political ramifications, there were a few things. She was keen to point out how her relationship with those in the corridors of power was stronger under Labour than Camerons regime. And she was keen to point out that it was George Osborne who first started exploring the possibility of Coulson going to work for the Tories once his newspaper job was over.


 
So all about deflecting blame from herself and Cameron?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I missed Brooks - quick recap anyone?


 

She had no conversation with cameron about coulson

she fobbed payments off to a procedural matter which she was not involved in

She saved the world from nonces and supports Our Boys

Osbourne booted (she suggests he is responsible for coulsons hiring by cameron)

I'll tell you more once some things become sub judice
g remotely connected to illegal activities but she is well sorry all the same
She knew fuckall about anything relating to illegal activities

the gaurdian


----------



## killer b (Jul 19, 2011)

is anything subjudice in a commons committee?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 19, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> She had no conversation with cameron about coulson
> 
> she fobbed payments off to a procedural matter which she was not involved in
> 
> ...


 
Cheers, Carmine.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2011)

killer b said:


> is anything subjudice in a commons committee?


 
Lots of of things are, but they need the witness to be charged or summonsed to appear to make the area sub judice.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 19, 2011)

> Harbottle & Lewis said in a statement issued this evening:
> 
> News International representatives referred to our advice in their statements today before the Parliamentary Select Committee, both as a result of questioning and on their own account.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/19/rebekah-brooks-mps

Sounds interesting  Great regret that they are unable to respond to inaccurate statements.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

killer b said:


> is anything subjudice in a commons committee?


Apparently not, but both her and the mu rdochs used it- not that they said the phrase but alluded to 'ongoing cases' etc.

Why they weren't pulled on it is anyones guess


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

one of the tories withdrew a quetion as it would have been sub judice too.

I think it's the case that technically they can ask anything, and no one can be prosecuted for anything said in parliament, _but_ it would still be prejudicial to any trial, and so could undermine any such trial.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Apparently not, but both her and the mu rdochs used it- not that they said the phrase but alluded to 'ongoing cases' etc.
> 
> Why they weren't pulled on it is anyones guess


i think they should have tried the traditional ducking test.

_"she floats, she's a witch, burn her, burn her!!!!"_


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 19, 2011)

belboid said:


> one of the tories withdrew a quetion as it would have been sub judice too.
> 
> I think it's the case that technically they can ask anything, and no one can be prosecuted for anything said in parliament, _but_ it would still be prejudicial to any trial, and so could undermine any such trial.


 
You are correct.

Did anyone seriously expect the MPs to push on questions that could cause problems in forthcoming court cases, when half the fucking country was watching the circus?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 19, 2011)

belboid said:


> one of the tories withdrew a quetion as it would have been sub judice too.
> 
> I think it's the case that technically they can ask anything, and no one can be prosecuted for anything said in parliament, _but_ it would still be prejudicial to any trial, and so could undermine any such trial.


ahhh....that's the point of what things can't be said. I assumed that as there is immunity for everyhting said in parliament, then you can't use infogained  there for anything beyond parliament, but of course you can.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 19, 2011)

it makes more sense now- although you'd think they'd have voted themselves power to clear observers/recorders before now.


----------



## belboid (Jul 19, 2011)

info can be given _ in camera_ for such matters.  how much good it would have done them here... dunno.

Meanwhile, in the other committee hearings...

"Former Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald says evidence of criminalty was "blindingly obvious" in the Harbottle & Lewis file "

oops


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 19, 2011)

Oh YES! (re Harbottle and Lewis). They're getting deeper and deeper in the shit by the second


----------



## weltweit (Jul 19, 2011)

Just back from the tv... 

Against Rupert and James - the MPs did not really impress imho, despite there being lots of them they all seemed to fail to land a bodyblow to either of the two Murdochs. Dissapointing. 

Of course in collating that evidence with that of others, details may emerge which could yet catch them out.  

James came across as fairly in control of his brief. However, Rupert came across as quite old, partly for his habit of pausing for a noticeable period before answering a question. His apparent "80 ish ness" may prompt his shareholders to call for him to make way for new blood. 

The incident, first it was a right hook from Rupert's wife (not as mentioned by the committee chairman a left hook - that total and complete innacuracy seems to accurately encapsulate the weak questionning of him and a number of the other MPs. How could one mistake a right arm for a left arm? incredible) but she (RM's wife) was not the first to react, the first to Rupert's defence was the black haired woman in a grey trouser suit sitting to Mrs Murdoch's left who was up and engaged with the assailant long before anyone else and before Rupert's wife had got up to swing her right hand. 

Brooks - I was expecting her to be caught out, particularly about admitting to paying police officers (even though she claimed it was "in the past") however she sailed through all that and seemed teflon coated. WRT Brooks, I wonder if there is any truth in the laptop in the bin story.  However, if she is as teflon coated as she seemed, why did she resign?


----------



## paolo (Jul 19, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> it makes more sense now- although you'd think they'd have voted themselves power to clear observers/recorders before now.


 
Except that would rightfully lead to speculation about cover ups etc.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 19, 2011)

Watching The Wire to feel better about the world


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

nick robinson reports this stuff so much better than robert peston.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 19, 2011)

So basically what we have is a load of people saying "I knew nothing, it was all somebody else's fault". Eventually they hope that when enough people have resigned they can stop blaming each other at random and start dumping it all on the mugginses who have already fallen on their swords.

I gather this is what is called "leadership" and "integrity".


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 19, 2011)

> Lewis also told MPs that he had been threatened by lawyers acting for John Yates, the former assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan police, because of comments he had made about phone hacking.
> 
> "I have copies of a letter from Carter Ruck [solicitors] threatening to sue me on behalf of John Yates,"


Link


----------



## weltweit (Jul 19, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> So basically what we have is a load of people saying "I knew nothing, it was all somebody else's fault". Eventually they hope that when enough people have resigned they can stop blaming each other at random and start dumping it all on the mugginses who have already fallen on their swords.
> 
> I gather this is what is called "leadership" and "integrity".


 
While I agree with the body of your post, Rebekah Brooks has resigned, despite seemingly to have "done no wrong". Is that not integrity of sorts?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

weltweit said:


> While I agree with the body of your post, Rebekah Brooks has resigned, despite seemingly to have "done no wrong". Is that not integrity of sorts?


_Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes.

One can also speak of "integrity" outside of its prescriptive meaning, in reference to a person or group of people of which the speaker subjectively approves or disapproves. Thus a favored person can be described as "having integrity", while an enemy can be regarded as "completely lacking in integrity". Such labeling, in the absence of measures of independent testing, renders the accusation itself baseless and (ironically) others may call the integrity of the assertion into question._

You only have to google integrity to pull down that definition. In which way has Brookes acted consistently, with values or prinicples and why did resigning as an act of last resort in particular achieve such a benchmark?


----------



## paolo (Jul 19, 2011)

weltweit said:


> While I agree with the body of your post, Rebekah Brooks has resigned, despite seemingly to have "done no wrong". Is that not integrity of sorts?


 
She resigned after a *lot* of wriggling. And that's putting it mildly. Years of it.

Stephenson at least bailed as soon as he was publicly compromised. Rbbbb-bbbekkkah spent more time on a hair do, mid NoW collapse, than he spent considering his position.


----------



## pk (Jul 19, 2011)

Why was she arrested, then released in time to make a full briefing AND watch every word the Murdochs said? 

It would have been more just, and certainly more of a Rebekah Brooks' method of presenting the "facts", to have deprived her of the opportunity to watch the Murdochs grilling.

This stinks. You don't shut down a paper and resign unless you know this went to the top. What did they find in Mulcaire's house?

What is the Mulcaire directory and associated documents really saying about this Murdoch Triangle, between Number 10, Scotland Yard, and News International?

How bad does it get, because the people have a right to know and they will one way or another.

These parliamentary formalities don't change the basic facts of the matter, mainly that one of the guiltiest and most corrupt parties is still holding back with the the actual evidence...


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 19, 2011)

weltweit said:


> While I agree with the body of your post, Rebekah Brooks has resigned, despite seemingly to have "done no wrong". Is that not integrity of sorts?


 
No. If she'd admitted incompetence that would be fine, but you can't get away with being in charge, saying you knew nothing about everything that was going wrong, and then claiming everything is other people's fault. Either she was crap at her job, or she's dishonest, or both. There is no fourth option.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> No. If she'd admitted incompetence that would be fine, but you can't get away with being in charge, saying you knew nothing about everything that was going wrong, and then claiming everything is other people's fault. Either she was crap at her job, or she's dishonest, or both. There is no fourth option.


 
there is: pathological liar


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2011)

Zombie mind control?


----------



## Callie (Jul 19, 2011)

I don't think there is any integrity in jumping ship if you have done nothing wrong. You stay, fight your corner and if you get dragged down with everything else so be it.

Moving out of the line of fire. Cowardice.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 19, 2011)

Damien Green floundering entertainingly on Newsnight.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 19, 2011)

Apparently Cameron is leaking that it was Osbourne who suggested he hire Coulson.  

hehe  

with friends like that


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> nick robinson reports this stuff so much better than robert peston.


 
Nick Robinson is a cunt.


----------



## Santino (Jul 19, 2011)

Brooks fingered Osborne at the Select Committee this afternoon.  I thought it was common knowledge though.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Apparently Cameron is leaking that it was Osbourne who suggested he hire Coulson.
> 
> hehe
> 
> with friends like that


i don't think it's leaking as such, its been positively splashing out that bit of news today.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 19, 2011)

Santino said:


> Brooks fingered Osborne at the Select Committee this afternoon.  I thought it was common knowledge though.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 19, 2011)




----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> Nick Robinson is a cunt.


 
But Peston's an annoying cunt.


----------



## revlon (Jul 19, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Lewis also told MPs that he had been threatened by lawyers acting for John Yates, the former assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan police, because of comments he had made about phone hacking.
> 
> "I have copies of a letter from Carter Ruck [solicitors] threatening to sue me on behalf of John Yates," Link


 
i think lewis testimony should be listened to in full. He basically got shat on by everyone - police, news international, his own firm of solicitors (who sacked him) and got accused of being a liar by PCC (specifically Baroness Buscombe) for saying there were thousands of phone hacking victims.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8922


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 19, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> But Peston's an annoying cunt.


 
They're all cunts. Slimey liberal weasel cunts.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 19, 2011)

Santino said:


> Brooks fingered Osborne at the Select Committee this afternoon.  I thought it was common knowledge though.


 
There was a running line that it was Brooks who intervened as Guto Harri was almost in the job when Brooks demanded Cameron hire Coulson

The insinuation was that clean BBC person was dumped for the dirty diggers man as part of the Chipping Norton sets influence and especially Brooks malignant influence over the PM.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 19, 2011)

revlon said:


> i think lewis testimony should be listened to in full. He basically got shat on by everyone - police, news international, his own firm of solicitors (who sacked him) and got accused of being a liar by PCC (specifically Baroness Buscombe) for saying there were thousands of phone hacking victims.
> 
> http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8922


Definently seems to have been one of the good guys in all this.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 19, 2011)

Santino said:


> Brooks fingered Osborne at the Select Committee this afternoon.  I thought it was common knowledge though.


 
erm yeah, thanks for that image


----------



## weltweit (Jul 19, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> _Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes.
> 
> One can also speak of "integrity" outside of its prescriptive meaning, in reference to a person or group of people of which the speaker subjectively approves or disapproves. Thus a favored person can be described as "having integrity", while an enemy can be regarded as "completely lacking in integrity". Such labeling, in the absence of measures of independent testing, renders the accusation itself baseless and (ironically) others may call the integrity of the assertion into question._
> 
> You only have to google integrity to pull down that definition. In which way has Brookes acted consistently, with values or prinicples and why did resigning as an act of last resort in particular achieve such a benchmark?


 
I was only really playing devils advocate about "integrity" and Rebekah Brooks, but that said, watching the committee questioning the Murdochs today it seems quite a lot of people have resigned or otherwise left the sinking ship that was NotW. 

imo the committee did not land a blow on Brooks, perhaps they were advised various questions could not be asked because of the police investigation but anyhow I think Brooks charmed them.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 19, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> erm yeah, thanks for that image


 
I see what you mean


----------



## revlon (Jul 19, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Definently seems to have been one of the good guys in all this.


 
probably the only person giving evidence to the committee who 1. isn't lying through his teeth to save his neck 2. hasn't got something to hide.

Even the cps are up to their ankles in shit.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 19, 2011)

Tom Watsons parting coment about Gordon Taylors confidentiality clause. There was a suggestion that a voice recording was part of the evidence.

If that was not a Clive Goodman story would that not blow James Murdochs claimed timeline of when he knew hacking was more widespread (if true)?


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Tom Watsons parting coment about Gordon Taylors confidentiality clause. There was a suggestion that a voice recording was part of the evidence.
> 
> If that was not a Clive Goodman story would that not blow James Murdochs claimed timeline of when he knew hacking was more widespread (if true)?


 
In short, no - at least according to this Nick Davies piece, the hacking of Taylor's phone was carried out by Mulcaire prior to his sacking, and in any case James Murdoch claimed that the Taylor settlement was on the (entirely sensible, given what we now know) legal advice given to him to settle the claim, even at an apparently vastly inflated cost.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 20, 2011)

Louise Mensch on CNN confronted by Piers Morgan:


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2011)

That's some pwnage there. She doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on (not that I give a fuck about Piers Morgan, of course)


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 20, 2011)

Yup, she's as stupid as that bell-end who chucked the cream pie at the Digger, we'll have days of Moron calling for the daft git to resign from the Select Committee now...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2011)

piers morgan is a grade a walking talking overfleshed sack of meat giving an ambulatory frame for three stone of shit. But he's got a fair point if she's totally misquoted him and fairly implicated him. mores the pity.


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 20, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> piers morgan is a grade a walking talking overfleshed sack of meat giving an ambulatory frame for three stone of shit. But he's got a fair point if she's totally misquoted him and fairly implicated him. mores the pity.



Looks like she's confused the Guido Fawkes blog with the Moron's biography.


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> piers morgan is a grade a walking talking overfleshed sack of meat giving an ambulatory frame for three stone of shit. But he's got a fair point if she's totally misquoted him and fairly implicated him. mores the pity.


 
Morgan is one of a select few of individuals alive today who shouldnt be allowed to come out with "fair points", given his history.  If he didnt condone phone hacking during his time as editor of the Mirror, then it must be one of a very few malpractices that he didnt condone, facilitate, encourage or financially profit from during that period.

edit:


----------



## pk (Jul 20, 2011)

I'll believe Louise Mensch over Piss Morgan any day of the week.

Nobody has read his fucking book. He's a tosspot criminal who had to quit the Mirror after falsely repeating bullshit stories and insider trading.

The American media might be dumb enough to fall for his shit but I for one am glad he was globally shamed today. He is inextricably linked to this scandal, and CNN should know better.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

I've read his book. It's pretty good.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2011)

Can someone please leak some new dirt please.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

piers morgan was putting it to louise mensch only yesterday evening, the dirty bastards.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

Piers Morgan said:
			
		

> 'Apparently if you don’t change the standard security code that every (mobile) phone comes with, then anyone can call your number and, if you don’t answer, tap in the standard four digit code to hear all your messages. I’ll change mine just in case, but it makes me wonder how many public figures and celebrities are aware of this little trick."



Recently? pub. 2005. 6 years ago. The year before #hackgate breaks. 
So yes, under a decade counts as ''recently''.

Did he boast? Anyone who's read his book could be forgiven for viewing the whole book's cocksure tone as boasting. He says of himself in his book: ''I defy anyone not to be handed the biggest-selling newspaper in the world at 28 and not become a rather cocky little git''.

Does he refer to the criminal activity of using the ''standard four digit code to hear all your messages'' as  ''this little trick'' ? Yes, he refers to a known criminal activity as 'this little trick'. Does he do anything to stop it? No. He writes about it and sells that information in his book (pub. 2005). 

Personal use? Not necessarily, unless turning a blind eye to the use of 'phone-hacking' by either his own journalists, or independent journalists not employed directly by Morgan, who could feasibly have given him a solid lead procured by using 'this little trick', which he would, as editor, then be required to follow-up personally via conventional means, counts as ''personal use''. He may well have made ''personal use'' of information gleaned this way, and there are hints of this as a methodology in his book, but then again, he might not have done. Certainly there are no direct confessions, so we can't say for sure he personally used information gleaned by phone-hacking, however the inference is certainly there in his book. 

He certainly knew about phone-hacking as a practice. He knew his and other journalists were doing it c.2005. Willful ignorance of criminal activity is no defence. If he personally followed up any leads, then it counts as 'personal use'. If he didn't, then it's not. Simple. 

Does this 'little trick'' refer to a celebrity (Ulrika/Sven). Not obviously, although it's not made clear how the initial scoop was gleaned which he then personally followed up with Ulrika's agent (cited as 'close friend'). 

A cursory glance leads one to believe that it's more serious than a celebrity or two having their private life phone-hacked. In his book, the reference to ''little trick'' appears in a series of scoops about Mandelson and the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), discussing journalist knowledge of phone calls without any insider DTI leak at the time. 

Does this bear further investigation? 
Yes, of course it does.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

yes, moron quoted that himself in the clip above. what's your point?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2011)

Classic fuckwittery by Mensch. 
Morgan is a pretty easy target without going on the record with inaccuracy.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> yes, moron quoted that himself in the clip above. what's your point?


 
Why did he bother mentioning it in the book at all?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 20, 2011)

I was intrigued by the role of Ed Llewellyn as Cameron's firewall. He allegedly made efforts to prevent Cameron hearing about NoTW misdeeds. Now either that's after-the-fact porkies designed to allow Cameron to claim ignorance as the Murdochs were doing yesterday, or it indicates that prophylactic PR measures were already in place.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...in-trouble-for-not-communicating-2317215.html


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Why did he bother mentioning it in the book at all?


 
it's fairly obvious what he was hinting at isn't it? why bother adding anything?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 20, 2011)

I was also intrigued by the figure given someplace (in a hurry so no link, but probably BBC or Guardian) that at least 10 members of the Met's PR unit were ex News International scum. 

Certainly puts the 'hail of bottles' which (didn't really) killed Ian Tomlinson and the (not really) 'suspicious behavior' like 'jumping the barriers' by 'bulky jacket trailing wires' wearing 'illegal immigrant' and 'dole-scrounger' JC De Menezes in an interesting light.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> it's fairly obvious what he was hinting at isn't it? why bother adding anything?


 
If that's what's in the book he's unfortunately got her over a barrel over that specific accusation. 

Guardian headline today is nice, though: 

"News International 'deliberately' blocked investigation"

which is a bit bloody different from everything we were hearing yesterday that NI executives were horrified by what they discovered and immediately contacted the police to tell them all.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> whats the definition of countryside?  murdering piers morgan



That's brilliant!


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 20, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> That's brilliant!


 
A Stephen Fry joke I believe


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

two sheds said:


> If that's what's in the book he's unfortunately got her over a barrel over that specific accusation.


 
it's unfortunate that mensch decided to embellish the quote to get bigger headlines. i guess it didn't quite work out the way she hoped.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 20, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I was intrigued by the role of Ed Llewellyn as Cameron's firewall. He allegedly made efforts to prevent Cameron hearing about NoTW misdeeds. Now either that's after-the-fact porkies designed to allow Cameron to claim ignorance as the Murdochs were doing yesterday, or it indicates that prophylactic PR measures were already in place.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...in-trouble-for-not-communicating-2317215.html



Seems reasonable to me, politicians shouldn't be briefed in any detail about ongoing police investigations, to do so opens the floodgates to potential political interference. 

The police should be left to get on with investigating, and politicians should only get involved if it appears they are not doing their job properly.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

Let's not forget, he was sacked for publishing *faked fotos* of British soldiers abusing Iraqis. 



> The BBC's Nicholas Witchell said it appeared Piers Morgan remained unrepentant right to the end
> 
> "According to one report Mr Morgan refused the demand to apologise, was sacked and immediately escorted from the building," he said.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3716151.stm


----------



## kabbes (Jul 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> it's fairly obvious what he was hinting at isn't it? why bother adding anything?


 
I agree with that.  It was pretty stupid of her.

I still think he's on dodgy ground to make a fuss about it though.  He'd have been better advised to keep quiet and hope it got lost in the fuss.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Let's not forget, he was sacked for publishing *faked fotos* of British soldiers abusing Iraqis.


 
does that make fabricating quotes from his book any better?


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> does that make fabricating quotes from his book any better?


 
Sinking to someone else's level in order to take the moral high ground


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> does that make fabricating quotes from his book any better?



It could have been phrased better by Louise Mensch, but since the book hints at his following up leads that come without even any insider leak, the matter bears further investigation, however cackhanded the bringing to light of his knowledge of ''this little trick'' (aka criminal activity) was. 

I think her intent, to quote a published work by a then prominent editor of a national newspaper, was, on the whole, good. It wouldn't have received the uproarious publicity it has, if she had quoted  'Harvard style', so, well done Mrs Mensch


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I still think he's on dodgy ground to make a fuss about it though.  He'd have been better advised to keep quiet and hope it got lost in the fuss.


 
i wonder if CNN gave him any choice. i didn't see any mention of it anywhere else, i think it was only they who picked up on it - with him being their anchor they probably wanted him to get it denied pretty quick.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> i wonder if CNN gave him any choice. i didn't see any mention of it anywhere else, i think it was only they who picked up on it - with him being their anchor they probably wanted him to get it denied pretty quick.



Except to all intents and purposes, he's dug himself in deeper. He's annoyed about the misquote, but not annoyed about the fact that HE KNEW CRIMINAL ACTIVITY was sometimes the initial source of various news stories, be they about celebs, or about politicians and political events. He's bothered about the slur on his name, BUT NOT ABOUT THE VICTIMS OF HACKING. As a (disgracefully sacked for faked fotos) editor of the Mirror, his personal job could have included converting those illicit sources of information into conventional follow-ups in order to avoid accusations of criminality, and his book could be read as inferring or pointing to the criminal act of phone hacking (Morgan: 'this little trick') which, if he'd followed up himself, would then class as ''personal use'' (Mensch) of information that was potentially gleaned by the criminal activity of phone-hacking by Morgan. Of course, these are only impressions which any reader of Morgan's recent book might justifiably make after the first or second read, given his own personal history as the cocky editor of a high circulation daily national newspaper. I'm not accusing him of personally hacking into anyone's phone. 

All Morgan's blustering achieved in the Morgan vs. Mensch fiasco, was to focus on the more petty, trivial gripes, such as whether or not the book is recent, the misquote, and Mensch's parliamentary immunity.  All Mensch did wrong was misquote. The inferences are all in Morgan's book. I don't think he has a leg to stand on, really. He's in it up to his neck. It's clear that he knew journalists who were using ''this little trick''.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2011)

I wonder if Cameron had a good nights sleep?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I wonder if Cameron had a good nights sleep?


 
I hope he's changed his fone code.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 20, 2011)

Ok, it looks as if it was enough for parliament to at least begin to consider an inquiry down here. I hope The Age has been doing similar investigations but I should imagine not.
Linky for anyone interested in Australia

My most startling revelation from the whole evening was that London's Metropolitan Deputy Police Commissioner, John Yates was not a man but a post box


----------



## Callie (Jul 20, 2011)

I wonder whats in it for Piers and the merkins? Discrediting Louise Mensch could just be another way to pave the way for dismissing the whole attack against Murdoch and his empire stateside?


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

Callie said:


> I wonder whats in it for Piers and the merkins? Discrediting Louise Mensch could just be another way to pave the way for dismissing the whole attack against Murdoch and his empire stateside?


 
or it could just be the _fact_ that she grossly libelled him, which is why the vile shit* refused to repeat her accusation.  because she knew it was false.  Fairly fucking straightforward.




* that's Mensch, in this case.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> yes, moron quoted that himself in the clip above. what's your point?


 
Look closer at the context.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 20, 2011)

miniGMgoit said:


> My most startling revelation from the whole evening was that London's Metropolitan Deputy Police Commissioner, John Yates was not a man but a post box



Less a pillar of the community, more a pillar box.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> or it could just be the _fact_ that she grossly libelled him, which is why the vile shit* refused to repeat her accusation.  because she knew it was false.  Fairly fucking straightforward.
> 
> * that's Mensch, in this case.


 
It's not clear that she's libelled him. Not yet, at any rate.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

it's 100% clear.  It is absolute.  It is beyond any reasonable doubt.

Thats why Mensch refused to repeat it.  Despite being stupid, it appears she isnt as stupid as you must be.  

It.  Was.  Libel.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> it's 100% clear.  It is absolute.  It is beyond any reasonable doubt.
> 
> Thats why Mensch refused to repeat it.  Despite being stupid, it appears she isnt as stupid as you must be.
> 
> It.  Was.  Libel.



Explain, if you can, without resorting to insults.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

I'm very sorry you dont understand how libel works, it is quite straightforward.

She said something provably untrue, and damaging.  Hence libel.


The fact that Morgans book indicates he was aware of how the practise might be carried out is utterly irrelevant.  Lots of peope were so aware, it doesnt mean they did it.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I wonder if Cameron had a good nights sleep?


 
Pretty sure he has. He's got a scheduled meeting with 1922 Committee today. That should go well. 'So tell me, boys, how can fuck up the poors even more to prove that it's not worth it making any moves against me?'


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

good god, just watched the Mrogan/Mensch vid.

What a cretin that woman is!  Caught bang to rights and then tries to pretnd he's threatening her!  How on earth did such a fucking moron ever get elected?


(how such a moron as Moron ever got to edit a natinal newspaper is a dfferent question)


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> good god, just watched the Mrogan/Mensch vid.
> 
> What a cretin that woman is!  Caught bang to rights and then tries to pretnd he's threatening her!  How on earth did such a fucking moron ever get elected?
> 
> ...



The enemy of your enemy is your friend, huh?   




			
				Mensch said:
			
		

> ''Piers Morgan'  ''little trick of entering a standard four-digit code allow anyone to call a number and hear your messages'' . In that book he boasted that using *''little trick'' enabled him to win scoop of the year on a story about Sven Goren Ericksson.* So that is a former editor of the Daily Mirror being very open about his personal use of phone hacking.



The scoop referred to, is the 2002 British Press Award, based on the voicemail hacking of Ulrika Jonsson's mobile phone, by Daily Mirror reporter James ''Jamie'' Scott. 

The diary entry is from 2001. Not 2005 (pub. date of book). 
Guido Fawkes (Paul Staines) already published this in his blog (12th/13th July). Daily Express also published something about this. 

The mistake Mensch makes is to attribute Daily Express/Guido Fawkes' claims to Morgan (in bold). It looks as though someone has already gone on record about the Mirror using info from phone hacking of Ulrika Jonsson whilst Morgan was editor of the Daily Mirror. 

Does this mean that Morgan made ''personal use'' of info gleaned initially from phone-hacking. Well if he personally benefits from the kudos of ''award winning editor 2002 Daily Mirror'', then yes, perhaps it does. 

Why hasn't Morgan sued the Daily Express or Guido Fawkes? You tell me. These accusations were already in the public domain.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Look closer at the context.


 
why are you patronising me now?

she libelled him. it doesn't matter if he's a shit himself (he is), or if he was involved in hacking himself (he probably was), she fucked up royally by adding extra information to the quote in his book that changed the context significantly - just to make her point a bit more pointed.

or someone did anyway. i suspect an unpaid gap-year intern's head will be rolling this morning...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

I'm not  patronising you.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

look closer at the context.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> The enemy of your enemy is your friend, huh?


 
God, you seem as wilfully blind as Metropolitan Police Commander!

It's nothing to do with wthose side anyone is on, nor whether it might well be the case that the Mirror also used the same tactics.

It's to do with the FACT - one that neither you  nor the idiot Mensch can admit - that her claim was simply WRONG.  And, therefore, libellous.

Only a cretin would try and continue with the claim, which does nothing except move the spotlight away from the Murdochs.  I suspect that was Mensch's idea.  Why is it yours?


----------



## pk (Jul 20, 2011)

Piers Morgan is as guilty as fuck, we know it, he knows it, Mensch invoking his name is a good thing and there is fuck all he can do about it. Libel my arse, she has parliamentary privelige.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> God, you seem as wilfully blind as Metropolitan Police Commander!
> 
> It's nothing to do with wthose side anyone is on, nor whether it might well be the case that the Mirror also used the same tactics.
> 
> ...



I suspect you're the only cretin here, given your consistent and quick resort to insults, whenever someone on urban disagrees with you.

It emphasises the overall culpability of whoever is editor (i.e. Brooks). Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't make the Murdochs less culpable, given the recent revelations about Fox News' 'Brain Room'.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

pk said:


> Piers Morgan is as guilty as fuck, we know it, he knows it, Mensch invoking his name is a good thing and there is fuck all he can do about it. Libel my arse, she has parliamentary privelige.


it could have been a good thing, had she not made up a load of stuff when invoking his name. as it is, she's just given him ammo for the rinsing he gave her, and no doubt more over the coming days.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> I suspect you're the only cretin here, given your consistent and quick resort to insults, whenever someone on urban disagrees with you.
> 
> It emphasises the overall culpability of whoever is editor. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't make the Murdochs less culpable, given the recent revelations about Fox News' 'Brain Room'.


 aah diddums. Mensch got it wrong. you got it wrong.  You dont understand what libel is.


----------



## gabi (Jul 20, 2011)

Jesus. just seen that piers morgan video. how the fuck did that smirking idiot get elected let alone anywhere near a select committee?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> look closer at the context.


 
I did. Three little letters spring to mind, DTI.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> aah diddums. Mensch got it wrong. you got it wrong.


 
I've been quite clear about Morgan's book, Mensch's mistakes in attribution, and where the various quotes come from.




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> You dont understand what libel is.



Nor does Piers, it seems. Why hasn't he sued/challenged Guido Fawkes, and then the Daily Express for publishing the story on the Mirror's 2002 Scoop being based on information gleaned from phone-hacking? (Libel, as opposed to slander). Why focus only on Mensch? 




			
				Daily Express said:
			
		

> Thursday July 14 2011 by Daily Express Reporter
> TALENT show host Piers Morgan faces political pressure to testify at the phone hacking inquiry after being “exposed” over a Fleet Street scoop.
> Three Conservative MPs – Aidan Burley, Nigel Adams and Douglas Carswell – have demanded, via the internet Guido Fawkes blogging site, that the former Daily Mirror editor give evidence over claims a 2002 scoop was linked to phone hacking.
> The story, revealing an affair between Ulrika Jonsson and Sven Goran Eriksson, was allegedly the result of hacking into Ms Jonsson’s voicemail.
> Mr Morgan, who now hosts a TV chat show on US network CNN, declined to comment last night



14th July: TELL US ABOUT ULRIKA SCOOP, MPS ASK PIERS MORGAN: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view...ll-us-about-Ulrika-scoop-MPs-ask-Piers-Morgan


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

Slander, not libel.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> Slander, not libel.



Is it slander if you have immunity? 
Again, why go after the one who is immune, when it's already been in the public domain for a week (earliest I could find was 12th July). And because it's published, it's libel, isn't it?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> I've been quite clear about Morgan's book, Mensch's mistakes in attribution, and where the various quotes come from.


 
This. 

We're agreeing that Mensch got it wrong. She should have checked her facts. She may be open to a libel suit if she repeats the allegations outside parliamentary privilege. 

However. 

If if it came out in the court case that Moron *actually did or oversaw* the things she alleged, then I wonder whether Moron would win the case.

*yes fair do's slander unless it's repeated written down*


----------



## gabi (Jul 20, 2011)

parliamentary privilege is a fucking joke if shes allowed to get away with that


----------



## pk (Jul 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> it could have been a good thing, had she not made up a load of stuff when invoking his name. as it is, she's just given him ammo for the rinsing he gave her, and no doubt more over the coming days.


 
The way I see it, Piers Moron being slandered with no hope of legal retribution is what he got away with for years.

Mensch is just settling the score. Good luck to her. He's up to his neck in it and nothing would be sweeter than his fall from grace in the USA.

Besides, she's the hottest MP we have. Has to count for something...


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> You dont understand what libel is.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Again, why go after the one who is immune, when it's already been in the public domain for a week


 
moron will have prefered not to raise it, i expect. guido is unlikely to be widely read in the USA (moron's market now), whereas yesterday's hearings were broadcast live there, and were big news - he had no choice but to respond.


----------



## gavman (Jul 20, 2011)

Spymaster said:


> Is Mrs Rupert the attractive oriental chic in the pink?
> 
> She dived over Murdoch and gave someone a right-hander!


 
i'm in love. what a gal


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> aah diddums. Mensch got it wrong. you got it wrong.  You dont understand what libel is.


 
It wasnt a libel.  For a start, she was covered by absolute privilege, and hasnt repeated it outside of that privilege.  Secondly, the bit she did get wrong - that Moron had admitted in his book that he had partaken in phone hacking - is not exactly something that would make the average person think worse of Piers Morgan (he is after all Piers Morgan, with all that entails), given how close it is to what he did say (that he knew how it was done) and it has a good chance of being true anyway - look how the story came out, and the other activities of Moron and the _Mirror_ journalists at the time.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

two sheds said:


>


 
Since the information has been in the public domain for at least 8 days, published now by two sources (Guido Fawkes, Daily Express), could you please inform that lover of the term 'cretin' belboid, that I'm well aware of what constitutes libel.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 20, 2011)

Since we're throwing around accusations of not knowing libel laws, here, two things are worth pointing out to those insisting it is libel:

a) As Santino has referenced, it can't be libel since she didn't put it in print.  It would be slander.  
b) It can't be either slander or libel since the whole affair is protected by parliamentary privilege.  Legally, both "libel" and "slander" have specific meanings and neither meaning includes generically "telling an untruth, regardless of circumstances or context."


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Since the information has been in the public domain for at least 8 days, published now by two sources (Guido Fawkes, Daily Express), could you please inform that lover of the term 'cretin' belboid, that I'm well aware of what constitutes libel.


 
My  was because it wasn't libel it was slander (or - in fact - as you point out because she had parliamentary privilege wasn't even slander). 

eta. tut kabbes has faster reactions


----------



## kabbes (Jul 20, 2011)

Er yeah, plus this:


agricola said:


> Secondly, the bit she did get wrong - that Moron had admitted in his book that he had partaken in phone hacking - is not exactly something that would make the average person think worse of Piers Morgan (he is after all Piers Morgan, with all that entails), given how close it is to what he did say (that he knew how it was done) and it has a good chance of being true anyway - look how the story came out, and the other activities of Moron and the _Mirror_ journalists at the time.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 20, 2011)

Because even taking it away from the slander/libel confusion and the parliamentary privilege, the fact is that if I am a notorious murderer and I write, "The third murder wot I done was when I caved in Jimmy the Sparra's head wiv a wrench" and then you subsequently write elsewhere that "kabbes the notorious murderer stabbed Jimmy the Sparra with a shiv" then you will not have committed libel.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

two sheds said:


> eta. tut kabbes has faster reactions


You've been kabbesed. It happens to me all the time


----------



## pk (Jul 20, 2011)

If it gets journos digging into Piers Moron's dustbins - it's all good.


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

Ha ha, Morgan > Moron, I've just got that.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

thinking about it, it's probably good all round - it turns the heat up on moron a bit, and makes a rising tory mp look like a muppet.

plus, their CNN row was pure gold.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

Hasn't moron been defending murdoch and brooks?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 20, 2011)

Moron is just full of bluster, sabre rattling if you like.  He knows the threats are enough to make people think twice.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Hasn't moron been defending murdoch and brooks?


he had been, but made some comments yesterday disagreeing with some of their select committee evidence. i think.


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Hasn't moron been defending murdoch and brooks?


 
and Coulson, at least before the Coulson season opened.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> In short, no - at least according to this Nick Davies piece, the hacking of Taylor's phone was carried out by Mulcaire prior to his sacking, and in any case James Murdoch claimed that the Taylor settlement was on the (entirely sensible, given what we now know) legal advice given to him to settle the claim, even at an apparently vastly inflated cost.


 My point was not about who performed the deed, but who commissioned it.
Their defense is that it was not until late 2010 that there was evidence that anyone other than Goodman commissioned Mulcaire to hack. I was intrigued if there was evidence that this defense had flaws. And if so had they effectively paid to hide such evidence. This is relevant to Hinton and Murdoch, J.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Because even taking it away from the slander/libel confusion and the parliamentary privilege, the fact is that if I am a notorious murderer and I write, "The third murder wot I done was when I caved in Jimmy the Sparra's head wiv a wrench" and then you subsequently write elsewhere that "kabbes the notorious murderer stabbed Jimmy the Sparra with a shiv" then you will not have committed libel.



To the best of my knowledge, someone's already gone on record that Moron knew that the _'Sven's shagging Ulrika Scoop of the Fucking Year 2002'_ was initially gleaned from yes, you've guessed it - phone-hacking!


----------



## Badgers (Jul 20, 2011)

With hindsight (and it is a lovely thing) do people think the committee (pie aside) was a good/bad thing? 

For some reason it feels in some part like closure when it really is not that at all? Like some sort of victory that they were going to be publicly questioned?


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 20, 2011)

So what are we expecting from parliament today?

Just heard on the news that there has not been a call for him to resign yet. Could today be the day? Does Miliband have the balls?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> With hindsight (and it is a lovely thing) do people think the committee (pie aside) was a good/bad thing?
> 
> For some reason it feels in some part like closure when it really is not that at all? Like some sort of victory that they were going to be publicly questioned?


It's a VERY good thing; because it has established that NI do not rule the country,that they are accountable - and the murdochs are 100% under the microscope now


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2011)

Callie said:


> I wonder whats in it for Piers and the merkins? Discrediting Louise Mensch could just be another way to pave the way for dismissing the whole attack against Murdoch and his empire stateside?


 
Perhaps Morgan is being philanthropic, and discrediting Mensch in the hope (probably vain) that she loses all self-confidence and never writes another novel.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2011)

Khan and Grant have been granted access to police records on hacking (might be my turn to me miles behind today, so apols if posted already)


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> For some reason it feels in some part like closure


 
people were saying that last week after the news of the world closed.


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> With hindsight (and it is a lovely thing) do people think the committee (pie aside) was a good/bad thing?
> 
> For some reason it feels in some part like closure when it really is not that at all? Like some sort of victory that they were going to be publicly questioned?


 
It also got them on record as knowing and not knowing about certain things at certain times, which could well come back to haunt them if fresh evidence turns up.


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> My point was not about who performed the deed, but who commissioned it.
> Their defense is that it was not until late 2010 that there was evidence that anyone other than Goodman commissioned Mulcaire to hack. I was intrigued if there was evidence that this defense had flaws. And if so had they effectively paid to hide such evidence. This is relevant to Hinton and Murdoch, J.


 
Their defence is (IIRC) a bit more nuanced than that.  

In short, it appears to be that _they_ (the Murdochs) had no evidence that this extended beyond Goodman and Mulcaire, and indeed this may be in the legal sense of the word true - James Murdoch wasnt there when this went on, and seems to have deliberately not looked too hard, accepting the assurances of various disposeable persons (who of course were complicit in this themselves, giving them reason to cover it up), and it was beneath Ruperts attention.  All the documentation that they might concievably have used to find out about it was more widespread was - by a convienient set of circumstances - not available to them, being either seized by the Met, or sequestered at Harbottle & Lewis (and had been since mid-2007)*.   

Therefore, the argument will go, they couldnt possibly have known.

* plus the hacks concerned almost certainly had their own copies, for insurance purposes


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> For some reason it feels in some part like closure when it really is not that at all? Like some sort of victory that they were going to be publicly questioned?


 
The nasty nick effect and the normalization of corruption. standard.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 20, 2011)

revlon said:


> probably the only person giving evidence to the committee who 1. isn't lying through his teeth to save his neck 2. hasn't got something to hide.
> 
> Even the cps are up to their ankles in shit.


I would say Mark Lewis and Nick davies (and the 2 MPs) are going to come out of this with massively enhanced reputations. All 4 are prolly loving every moment


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 20, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps Morgan is being philanthropic, and discrediting Mensch in the hope (probably vain) that she loses all self-confidence and never writes another novel.


 
On this basis alone we should stand 100% in support of Moron.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

I think the pie was misguided and showed a lack of awareness of the spin that the media can put on solo-stuntist actions. (Think Blair & Purple Powder furore from Fathers4Justice). 

But it was an act you'd expect from a habitual narcisstic rebel, who thrives on self-publicity provided by his own 'comedic' situationist stunts. 

It wasn't anything to do with UKUncut as a group, and nor do I take any insinuations that it was seriously.
He just screwed himself as an activist against the cuts by that act and by implication he's damaged UKUncut at a time when cuts are biting deep, which might well be spun to demean other groups' communal actions. 

At the very least, he deserves the 'Chris Knight award for failure to acknowledge that lamposts aren't load-bearing'. At most, he'll go down for assault.


----------



## gavman (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> it's 100% clear.  It is absolute.  It is beyond any reasonable doubt.
> 
> Thats why Mensch refused to repeat it.  Despite being stupid, it appears she isnt as stupid as you must be.
> 
> It.  Was.  Libel.


 
it. was. slander.


----------



## gavman (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> good god, just watched the Mrogan/Mensch vid.
> 
> What a cretin that woman is!  Caught bang to rights and then tries to pretnd he's threatening her!  How on earth did such a fucking moron ever get elected?
> 
> ...


 
our political representatives really don't come out well from today's non-events. more like a bunch of lightweights


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2011)

gavman said:


> it. was. slander.


 
slander not a crime in england.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2011)

gavman said:


> our political representatives really don't come out well from today's non-events. more like a bunch of lightweights


 
you get the politicians you deserve.


----------



## Voley (Jul 20, 2011)

gavman said:


> it. was. slander.


 
I was wondering about that, too.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 20, 2011)

gavman said:


> our political representatives really don't come out well from today's non-events. more like a bunch of lightweights


 
Exactly. Could have done with a Galloway-esque member on there. Would have loved it even to let Bryant on the committee. Most of them didn;t really seem keen on digging too hard.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> I think the pie was misguided and showed a lack of awareness of the spin that the media can put on solo-stuntist actions. (Think Blair & Purple Powder furore from Fathers4Justice).
> 
> But it was an act you'd expect from a habitual narcisstic rebel, who thrives on self-publicity provided by his own 'comedic' situationist stunts.
> 
> ...


 twat


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> All the documentation that they might concievably have used to find out about it was more widespread was - by a convienient set of circumstances - not available to them, being either seized by the Met, or sequestered at Harbottle & Lewis (and had been since mid-2007)*.


 
Interesting - are you using the legal definition of sequester here? 



> a. To take temporary possession of (property) as security against legal claims.
> b. To requisition and confiscate (enemy property).



(Reluctantly) taking the first definition, one would have expected an executive who wanted to ensure that his company was not acting illegally to ask for sight of any such documents. That would one presumes be the only way he could tell whether the company was continuing to break the law. Would he not have been allowed sight of them? 

Otherwise that would seem to be collusion, since ignorance is not an excuse?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 20, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I was intrigued by the role of Ed Llewellyn as Cameron's firewall. He allegedly made efforts to prevent Cameron hearing about NoTW misdeeds. Now either that's after-the-fact porkies designed to allow Cameron to claim ignorance as the Murdochs were doing yesterday, or it indicates that prophylactic PR measures were already in place.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...in-trouble-for-not-communicating-2317215.html


There's more; it was LLewellyn who Hilton went to with the news of Coulson's connection to Jonathan Rees that Alan Rusbridger had told him, but Llewellyn decided that this was simply part of hilton's emnity towards coulson (they hated each other) and decided not to inform Cameron.
I'd say either Cameron or Llewellyn goes, as an endgame to all this


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> It wasnt a libel.  For a start, she was covered by absolute privilege, and hasnt repeated it outside of that privilege.  Secondly, the bit she did get wrong - that Moron had admitted in his book that he had partaken in phone hacking - is not exactly something that would make the average person think worse of Piers Morgan (he is after all Piers Morgan, with all that entails), given how close it is to what he did say (that he knew how it was done) and it has a good chance of being true anyway - look how the story came out, and the other activities of Moron and the _Mirror_ journalists at the time.


 
It was a libelous statement, albeit one made in a place where you cant be sued. So technically it isnt libel, but, we all know it would have been had it been made outside of parliament, so thats just pedantry. As to the idea that it cant really be, because its that well known twat Piers Morgan, well, that miht mean he got rather less damages, but he'd still win.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2011)

.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> twat


 
That's a compliment, coming from you


----------



## gavman (Jul 20, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> slander not a crime in england.


 
nor is libel. your point?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> It was a libelous statement, albeit one made in a place where you cant be sued. So technically it isnt libel, but, we all know it would have been had it been made outside of parliament, so thats just pedantry. As to the idea that it cant really be, because its that well known twat Piers Morgan, well, that miht mean he got rather less damages, but he'd still win.


 fyi: libel has to be written, not spoken, tho' i imagine a tv or radio programme might be libellous.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> .


Crikey, look closer in a squinty kinda way and the  man has grown two horns!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2011)

gavman said:


> nor is libel. your point?


 
you ignorant fuck. what makes you think libel's not a crime in england? but slander is most certainly not a crime.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 20, 2011)

gavman said:


> our political representatives really don't come out well from today's non-events. more like a bunch of lightweights


 
I thought similar. 

The committee did not land many punches and seemed to stay away from bribing police officers altogether. But then, they are MPs not trained barristers which might have made the situation rather more forceful. 

However there is the advice which they apparently had which was that various questions could not be asked because of the police investigation, and that when and if the Murdocks (or Brooks) declined to answer (because of the police investigation) they were not pemitted to push it. I wonder what those omitted questions were?


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> Slander, not libel.


 
Actually, it gets even more confusing.  All words in parliament are considered written cos they are recorded in Hansard. So, were it not for parliamentary privilege, it would be libel.


----------



## gavman (Jul 20, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you ignorant fuck. what makes you think libel's not a crime in england? but slander is most certainly not a crime.


 
as you don't appear to know the difference between civil and criminal law....oh what's the point


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you ignorant fuck.


 
Now THAT could be libel


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2011)

little_legs said:


> Pretty sure he has. He's got a scheduled meeting with 1922 Committee today. That should go well. 'So tell me, boys, how can fuck up the poors even more to prove that it's not worth it making any moves against me?'


 
Which presupposes that the majority of the 1922 wouldn't happily shiv Cameron with a sharpened spoon. Most of them would. A few of them would probably orgasm while doing it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2011)

gavman said:


> as you don't appear to know the difference between civil and criminal law....oh what's the point


 fair point poorly made. but slander, despite your wankery, is not against the law, whereas libel is. twat.


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Interesting - are you using the legal definition of sequester here?
> 
> (Reluctantly) taking the first definition, one would have expected an executive who wanted to ensure that his company was not acting illegally to ask for sight of any such documents. That would one presumes be the only way he could tell whether the company was continuing to break the law. Would he not have been allowed sight of them?
> 
> Otherwise that would seem to be collusion, since ignorance is not an excuse?


 
No, I meant sequester in terms of removed and hidden away, rather than either of those definitions.  As for collusion, I would guess that their position will be that he had no reason to look (having as I said above recieved assurances), up until the point that he started to look, then the Harbottle and Lewis file magically reappears.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Now THAT could be libel


 
i think you'll find it's fair comment.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> How on earth did such a fucking moron ever get elected?


Now c'mon, a man of your worldly wisdom knows just how easy it is for a complete - and photogenic - idiot to get elected to a safe tory seat!
e2a; OK, corby isn't historically that safe, but there ARE still a lot of idiotic safe-seat backbenchers (in ALL main parties)


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Since the information has been in the public domain for at least 8 days, published now by two sources (Guido Fawkes, Daily Express), could you please inform that lover of the term 'cretin' belboid, that I'm well aware of what constitutes libel.


 
you clearly aren't, you cretin. Which is why you've been wriggling around here changing your story more often than Murdoch!


----------



## gavman (Jul 20, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> fair point poorly made. but slander, despite your wankery, is not against the law, whereas libel is. twat.


 
don't worry. we'll still pretend to listen to you, despite what everyone else says. it's not fair the way everyone laughs at you


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> It was a libelous statement, albeit one made in a place where you cant be sued. So technically it isnt libel, but, we all know it would have been had it been made outside of parliament, so thats just pedantry. As to the idea that it cant really be, because its that well known twat Piers Morgan, well, that miht mean he got rather less damages, but he'd still win.


 
Perhaps, though its worth pointing out that Moron doesnt appear to have sued / tried to sue Guido, the Express, or the Telegraph - all of whom have made the same statement as Mensch, or reported that someone else has made the statement.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 20, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> fair point poorly made. but slander, despite your wankery, is not against the law, whereas libel is. twat.


are you SURE slander isn't against the law, as a form of defamation?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 20, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you get the politicians you deserve.


 
Nope. We've got the politicians YOU deserve.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2011)

gabi said:


> Jesus. just seen that piers morgan video. how the fuck did that smirking idiot get elected let alone anywhere near a select committee?


 
She was on Cameron's list of sleb-types and "rising stars" who were shoe-horned into seats between 2005-2010. There's a whole slew of equally vapid cunts who look good on camera and have degrees from the "right" universities.


----------



## gavman (Jul 20, 2011)




----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> It's to do with the FACT - one that neither you  nor the idiot Mensch can admit - that her claim was simply WRONG.  And, therefore, libellous.


 
"Libel" is the wrong word. In fact it would be bloody difficult to libel Piers Morgan as his reputation is as an opportunistic arrogant shit who has moral standards that would shame a rabid polecat with a crack habit and kleptomania. It's actually "bullshit". Which, as we all know, is defined as something that might be said by a Tory MP.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though its worth pointing out that Moron doesnt appear to have sued / tried to sue Guido, the Express, or the Telegraph - all of whom have made the same statement as Mensch, or reported that someone else has made the statement.


 
All of those managed to phrase there reports rather more delicately than Mensch did, tho. Guido doesn't even explicitly state that Moron was aware of anything (tho that would be a 'reasonable' interpretation of it, arguably the only reasonable interpretation).  The others report that there is a case to look into. It could be argued that Moron wasn't libeled at all, James Scott was.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> On this basis alone we should stand 100% in support of Moron.


 
Having once, in a fit of boredom, read the first chapter of one of Bagshawe's novels, I can only concur, comrade.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> All of those managed to phrase there reports rather more delicately than Mensch did, tho. Guido doesn't even explicitly state that Moron was aware of anything (tho that would be a 'reasonable' interpretation of it, arguably the only reasonable interpretation).  The others report that there is a case to look into. It could be argued that Moron wasn't libeled at all, James Scott was.


 Staines twitter feed most def said that morgan had been caught red-handed at it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 20, 2011)

i might be a bit late, but the police have been ordered to hand over the documents relating to the phone-hacking of grant and other celebs ...


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> All of those managed to phrase there reports rather more delicately than Mensch did, tho. Guido doesn't even explicitly state that Moron was aware of anything (tho that would be a 'reasonable' interpretation of it, arguably the only reasonable interpretation).  The others report that there is a case to look into. It could be argued that Moron wasn't libeled at all, James Scott was.


 
er - Guido's article explicitly states Moron knew.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> All of those managed to phrase there reports rather more delicately than Mensch did, tho. Guido doesn't even explicitly state that Moron was aware of anything (tho that would be a 'reasonable' interpretation of it, arguably the only reasonable interpretation).  The others report that there is a case to look into. It could be argued that Moron wasn't libeled at all, James Scott was.


 Staines twitter feed most def said that morgan had been caught red-handed at it. I remember being surprised at how far he was going on such spinnable evidence.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> er - Guido's article explicitly states Moron knew.



doh!  Fair do's.  I only read the article and ignored the headline


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> doh!  Fair do's.  I only read the article and ignored the headline


 
who's the cretin now


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 20, 2011)

I'm presuming the Express piece was resculpted by their Lawyers to stay just on the right side of the libel laws, but as morgan hasn't sued Paul Staines for the piece on Agricola's link, that says it all


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> who's the cretin now


 
You.  Because you are unable to admit to making a mistake. How cretinously childish is that?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> You.  Because you are unable to admit to making a mistake. How cretinously childish is that?


 
And what mistake is that?


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 20, 2011)

I love this shit  Please make it go on 

Best thread ever


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 20, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Seems reasonable to me, politicians shouldn't be briefed in any detail about ongoing police investigations, to do so opens the floodgates to potential political interference.
> 
> The police should be left to get on with investigating, and politicians should only get involved if it appears they are not doing their job properly.


 
It's worth listening to Yates precise words when describing this. It's all very nudge nudge wink wink stuff from Llewellyn. Along the lines of "I can brief Cameron about the other thing at the same time, nudge wink." "If it's the other thing I'm thinking of then it's probably best not to tell him about it, nudge wink." It comes across as two people making sure that they both understand clearly that part of a briefing of a third person is to remain completely secret. It doesn't prove Cameron knew anything he has claimed he didn't know, but it stretches his credibility very thin indeed.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 20, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> It's worth listening to Yates precise words when describing this. It's all very nudge nudge wink wink stuff from Llewellyn. Along the lines of "I can brief Cameron about the other thing at the same time, nudge wink." "If it's the other thing I'm thinking of then it's probably best not to tell him about it, nudge wink." It comes across as two people making sure that they both understand clearly that part of a briefing of a third person is to remain completely secret. It doesn't prove Cameron knew anything he has claimed he didn't know, but it stretches his credibility very thin indeed.


 
But, does Cameron have plausible deniability?


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 20, 2011)

Shreddy said:


> I love this shit  Please make it go on
> 
> Best thread ever


 
Init. I've already earmarked it for my vote on the Christmas thread 
%50 at least is arguments


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> And what mistake is that?


 
Too many for you to keep up with?  Denying that the statement would be slanderous is the most obvious one.


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I'm presuming the Express piece was resculpted by their Lawyers to stay just on the right side of the libel laws, but as morgan hasn't sued Paul Staines for the piece on Agricola's link, that says it all


 
TBH the only right side of the libel laws to be on would be not to report it at all, and the story does contain most of the relevant facts (except, oddly, Morgan's own diary entry from his book).


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> Too many for you to keep up with?  Denying that the statement would be slanderous is the most obvious one.


 
Several of us (myself, kabbes _et al._) have already pointed out that Parliamentary Immunity means that in the eyes of the law, the spoken claims & statements were not slanderous.

Next 'mistake' please.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

that wasn't what you meant, and you know it.  Utterly dishonest of you.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> that wasn't what you meant, and you know it.  Utterly dishonest of you.


 
Yes it was. How utterly dishonest of you, although by now I ought to be quite used to your dishonest tactics.

That wasn't what _*you*_ thought I meant. The mistake is yours.


----------



## gavman (Jul 20, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> It's worth listening to Yates precise words when describing this. It's all very nudge nudge wink wink stuff from Llewellyn. Along the lines of "I can brief Cameron about the other thing at the same time, nudge wink." "If it's the other thing I'm thinking of then it's probably best not to tell him about it, nudge wink." It comes across as two people making sure that they both understand clearly that part of a briefing of a third person is to remain completely secret. It doesn't prove Cameron knew anything he has claimed he didn't know, but it stretches his credibility very thin indeed.


 
i really enjoyed hearing politicians use the same codes we all do for talking about dodgy things in public / on the phone
'you know that thing we talked about? yes, lets do the same as last time, usual place, usual amount...'


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 20, 2011)

Millibands press meetings


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Yes it was. How utterly dishonest of you. I'm quite used to your dishonest tactics by now.
> 
> That wasn't what _*you*_ thought I meant. The mistake is yours.



really?  Oh dear.

If you knew about Parliamentary Privilege, and that that was why Mensch made no slander, you wouldn't have written the following:



invisibleplanet said:


> It's not clear that she's libelled him. Not yet, at any rate.



you are a fibber, and have been caught out.  Just grow up and admit you made a mistake, it cant be that hard.



(oh, and disagreeing with you about something is different to be explicitly dishonest. We disagreed on the thread you link to above, openly and honestly.  Here, you are explicitly and deliberately changing what you have argued. THAT is dishonest)


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 20, 2011)

Anyone watching parliament right now?


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

Yes.

Ed Milliband statement on now:

"The Prime Minister and his staff made every effort to avoid" finding out about Coulson


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

"A deliberate attempt to hide from the facts about Mr Coulson". 

Oh no, Cameron's not going to get the last word before recess...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> really?  Oh dear.
> If you knew about Parliamentary Privilege, and that that was why Mensch made no slander, you wouldn't have written the following:
> you are a fibber, and have been caught out.  Just grow up and admit you made a mistake, it cant be that hard.



It's clear I first mention parliamentary immunity here: post #7153

Your response to Callie (post #7158) mentions 'libelled' for the first time on this thread. 

My response to your post #7158 (post #7161) ''It's not clear that she libelled him. Not yet, at any rate''. 

was because unless she's written it down and published it, it's not libel.  

To clarify: 
_''Not yet, at any rate''_ means ''wait until I've made further research to find out who wrote what first''. 
_''It's not clear that she libelled him''_, means 'I have no idea what she's written down'. 

You then keep insisting that it's ''libel'' (and I quote your direct response to the above: 






			
				belboid said:
			
		

> It. Was. Libel.


I'd asked you to explain. You responded by telling me you're sorry that I don't understand how libel works. You then claim she said something unprovable and untrue. You then defended Piers Morgan, who has himself been defending Brooks, Murdoch and Coulson. All this in the name of attacking your 'conservative enemy'. It's almost pitiful. 

You then explicitly wrote, and I quote:_



			
				belboid said:
			
		


			''Denying what she wrote was slanderous for a start'
		
Click to expand...

_', whilst a) slander is oral/aural, and b) libel is written and c) she has immunity enshrined in the law, so she could have said: '' Morgan is a vainglorious self-seeking poopoohead'', and no-one can do a thing about it (if it's within one of the sessions covered by the parliamentary immunity law). 

Anyway, feel free to continue wasting my precious time with more petty nitpicking about what you think you've read. One thing is clear - you still appear to be confused about the definitions of both slander and libel.

e2a: 






			
				belboid's e2a said:
			
		

> (oh, and disagreeing with you about something is different to be explicitly dishonest. We disagreed on the thread you link to above, openly and honestly. Here, you are explicitly and deliberately changing what you have argued. THAT is dishonest)


What is dishonest is your use of archaeology to further your own narrow political/propagandic aims. Although I was polite in our discussion, it's time you should know that your failure in that thread to provide a source at my request for your claims was not forthcoming. If you should care to provide the sources now, in that thread, we can carry on our discussion there.

You still have not given any evidence that I've been dishonest on this thread.
But you should know, that I don't take your skewed view of things, (given your propensity to misread what's presented to you), very seriously, other than to show how people sometimes see what they want to see, and not what's actually there.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 20, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Anyone watching parliament right now?


 
it can be watched here by people via the net: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8920&wfl=truehttp://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8920&wfl=true


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> One thing is clear - you still appear to be confused about the definitions of both slander and libel.


 
naah, got you bang to rights.  Your fail.  Sorry you are too small a person to be able to admit your mistake.


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

I *think* Cameron's losing the exchange when he has to resort to claims of "narrow Party advantage"#


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

laptop said:


> I *think* Cameron's losing the exchange when he has to resort to claims of "narrow Party advantage"#


 
That always fails when you accuse the other party of doing it.


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

Whittingdale fails entirely to support his Party leader: the investigations "should be given the priority that they should have been given a long time ago".


----------



## revlon (Jul 20, 2011)

The full parliamentary report into phone hacking is already out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/interactive/2011/jul/20/phone-hacking-news-corporation

The tone is a little weird - they seem to be, "astounded" "appalled", by certain actions and events but pretty much sticks to the script. News international, apart from their hindering police investigations don't get criticised (not part of their remit) but

hayman gets slaughtered (expect him to be nicked for something on the back of this)
yates gets a slap on the legs
clarke gets a slap on the wrists
cps gets a stern telling off 
stephenson gets a wagged fingered
federico gets mauled, (despite giving little evidence compared to the others)


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Anyone watching parliament right now?


http://www.parliamentlive.tv/main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8920


----------



## pk (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> To the best of my knowledge, someone's already gone on record that Moron knew that the _'Sven's shagging Ulrika Scoop of the Fucking Year 2002'_ was initially gleaned from yes, you've guessed it - phone-hacking!


 
Is there a linky to that??


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

Cameron's refused three times to deny that he talked to Brooks/Murdoch about the BSkyB bid.


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

Dennis Skinner up...

For the third time of asking: 

As Prime Minister did he ever discuss the issue of the BSkyB bid...

Cameron: "I never had one inappropriate conversation."


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

pk said:


> Is there a linky to that??



http://order-order.com/2011/07/12/piers-morgan-knew-award-winning-scoop-was-hacked/


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2011)

"I never had one inappropriate conversation about BSkyB"
WTF does that _mean?_


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

editor said:


> "I never had one inappropriate conversation about BSkyB"
> WTF does that _mean?_


 
I don't think _he_ knows what it means...

General message from primed Tories, following the _Express_... them'uns's bad... we've set up inquiries, now shut up until they report and let us off the hook.

Unfortunately it seems to be working in rhetorical terms on the House. More revelations in the next few days will settle Cameron's future, assuming there are more...


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

Cameron: "Whereas Rebecca Brooks was invited to Downing Street six times a year by the previous government, she hasn't been invited there by me."

No, you went to hers, stupid...


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 20, 2011)

cameron looking / sounding really agitated.


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

Wtf was that last question about hacking and briefing against a senior government official, on Coulson's watch, about?


----------



## Dan U (Jul 20, 2011)

editor said:


> "I never had one inappropriate conversation about BSkyB"
> WTF does that _mean?_


 
it means yes i did speak to them but i get to decide it wasnt inappropriate


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

The Tories look like they might be using the whole inquiry process to try to fuck the BBC again. Every crisis is also an opportunity etc.


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

Mike Hancock: in any of those conversations was BSkyB mentioned?

Cameron: lots of words not actually denying it was.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

More class work from the idiot Mensch - 'lets not be partisan about this. But Labour hired an NI bloke too...'


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> The Tories look like they might be using the whole inquiry process to try to fuck the BBC again. Every crisis is also an opportunity etc.


Only just tuned in, how the hell are they doing that?!


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> Only just tuned in, how the hell are they doing that?!


 
Extending the inquiry into media practices to the BBC and social media. You know, because of all the phone hacking that the BBC did. And the way the BBC has corrupted police officers.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> Extending the inquiry into media practices to the BBC and social media. You know, because of all the phone hacking that the BBC did. And the way the BBC has corrupted police officers.


 
yep


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

Corbyn: for the fifth time: with whom has he ever discussed the BSkyB bid?

Cameron: see my previous non-answer...


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 20, 2011)

"I never had an inappropriate conversation" 

erm - that was any conversation not just an "inappropriate" one!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 20, 2011)

Did Cameron just say "gotcha"...?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 20, 2011)

editor said:


> "I never had one inappropriate conversation about BSkyB"
> WTF does that _mean?_


It means "I'm potentially in the shit here, I haven't a fucking clue as to _how_, or _how much_, I'm in the shit, so I better stonewall with vague, bland flannel!"


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> Extending the inquiry into media practices to the BBC and social media. You know, because of all the phone hacking that the BBC did. And the way the BBC has corrupted police officers.


Feck's sake. Suppose it'd be disappointing if they didn't really.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

laptop said:


> Wtf was that last question about hacking and briefing against a senior government official, on Coulson's watch, about?


 
According to the Grauniad, its:

Jenny Watson, head of the Electoral Commission. Watson has complained about being the victim of some particular hostile briefing from an unnamed government source.


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

Cameron: You [Labour] had Alistair Cambpbell falsifying documents in government... Gotcha!


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

Why won't Cameron name the company that did the background check on Coulson?

Owned by another member of the cabinet? Run by one of the dodgy Met?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 20, 2011)

Gotcha


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 20, 2011)

I'm starting to suspect that Cameron may have a broken toe.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 20, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Gotcha


 
Next up:  "Ed Millband ate my hamster"?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2011)

laptop said:


> Cameron: You [Labour] had Alistair Cambpbell falsifying documents in government... Gotcha!


 
Goodoh, lets have an investigation into that too, then, leading to criminal convictions and pokey if there is evidence of lawbreaking.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 20, 2011)

These MPs are like a fucking pantomime audience


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> These MPs are like a fucking pantomime audience


 
Oh no they're not.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm starting to suspect that Cameron may have a broken toe.


----------



## Mation (Jul 20, 2011)

laptop said:


> Corbyn: for the fifth time: with whom has he ever discussed the BSkyB bid?
> 
> Cameron: see my previous non-answer...


And for the sixth time, now!


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 20, 2011)

All my conversations are appropriate?!


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

And can someone help with what that question about briefings by the security services into the hacking of a senior figure?

Electoral Commission again, or another?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> Oh no they're not.


Well, in my opinion they... oh, wait! You wag.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> All my conversations are appropriate?!


That's what he said.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 20, 2011)

Dunno what it's like now but when i was watching just now it looked like Disco wanted to pick up an axe and go on a rampage in amongst the labour back benches.


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

WTF will it mean for the inquiry to look into "social media" - that's be u75 among others?

I guess it's about contempt of court and defamation on Twitter... but...


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 20, 2011)

Nice to see Cameron looking slightly ruffled.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

ooh, now Ashcroft is claiming Tom Baldwin explicitly handled "unlawfully acquired material".  

Oops, that sounds rather libellous (or would be but for the reasons given earlier relating to Ms Mensch)


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 20, 2011)

Ooh, that's my MP! Meh, alright question I suppose.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

Clegg is looking astoundingly constipated sitting there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> Clegg is looking astoundingly constipated sitting there.


 
that's because he's full of shit.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> Clegg is looking astoundingly constipated sitting there.


 
He forgot his inflatable cushion in the rush to get to the chamber in time for some full and frank answers.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> ooh, now Ashcroft is claiming Tom Baldwin explicitly handled "unlawfully acquired material".
> 
> Oops, that sounds rather libellous (or would be but for the reasons given earlier relating to Ms Mensch)


Are there new allegations against Baldwin or are these just a rehashing of the old Ashcroft  story?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 20, 2011)

laptop said:


> WTF will it mean for the inquiry to look into "social media" - that's be u75 among others?



Better burn the servers sharpish.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

1%er said:


> Are there new allegations against Baldwin or are these just a rehashing of the old Ashcroft  story?


 

just a rehash as far as I can tell


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Nope. We've got the politicians YOU deserve.


 
YOU get the politicians YOU deserve. i've had nothing to do with their election, can you say the same?


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

Did Coulson ever see any briefings on the police investigation?

Cameron: Non-answer... "it would have been an appalling thing".


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 20, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Better burn the servers sharpish.


 
"Findus Crispy Pancakes" thread = "Guide to hacking phones and e-mails"?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 20, 2011)

Bercow sounds like he's never read some of these names before in his life


----------



## Eva Luna (Jul 20, 2011)

You're all on the ball as I'd expect wrt to this - the one thing I want to say is -0 I am so sick and tired of clever hedging when it comes to questions and answer!!!

You could SEE Murdoch asking himself 'Yes or no??  Yes or no?  Could I get in trouble with yes or no??' before answering.

As for Brooks, she used well documented methods of making her actions look non-bad.  (I thought she pulled out the worst items (Milly Dowler) and said 'Who would sanction that?' as defense against the whole of it, which I think is a ruse.)

And now Cameron, refusing to give straight answers.


Its been long overdue but I think honesty, accountability and a fair discussion on ethics needs to take place and whoevers heads roll in the process, well tough shit.


----------



## Eva Luna (Jul 20, 2011)

I wish they would say WHY they did it.
1)  Profit. Leading to a discussion regarding whether profit is ethical in today's age when some people don't have water coming out of a tap.
2)  Because they wanted to find out what people were hiding who were making out they were so perfect yet behind backs were shoddy.
3)  Because they were used to low standards and anaesthetised to it.
(Imo)


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 20, 2011)

Wow, seriously, why won't he name the company?


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

FOI request anyone?


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> Wow, seriously, why won't he name the company?


 
Possibly because he cant remember it, however given how farcical this whole crisis has been there is a good chance it was Chamy Media.  Or News Corp.


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

And again.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 20, 2011)

Someone should put a tally together for how many times he's been directly asked the name of the company.

Someone that isn't me, obviously.


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

Bercow gets annoyed at all the BBMing.  Pity the drones at Millbank and CCHQ who are having to message these questions to MPs!


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> Possibly because he cant remember it


Oh yes. That's _really_ likely.


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

I quite like all the backbenchers who think they've all got a brilliant intervention which they've been honing for days, and which gets brushed aside in half a second.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 20, 2011)

More likely that the company were making donations to the party.


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

editor said:


> Oh yes. That's _really_ likely.


 
Its possible - those companies are usually quite small, and thats if it was a genuine one.  If it was a single-purpose shell company (as Chamy was) set up solely to approve Coulson then he might not remember the name.  (edit) However as I said, there is a good chance it is one of the companies already mentioned, and the more I think about it the more likely it is that it was News Corp itself.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 20, 2011)

Going back to the enquiry and NI and Max Clifford. It seems he was paid between £500k and £1m which seems a lot, and was probably much more than anyone else. I know he is a PR person who could produce a lot of bad press for NI, but could there be any other reason why he was compensated so much?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> Its possible - those companies are usually quite small, and thats if it was a genuine one.  If it was a single-purpose shell company (as Chamy was) set up solely to approve Coulson then he might not remember the name.  (edit) However as I said, there is a good chance it is one of the companies already mentioned, and the more I think about it the more likely it is that it was News Corp itself.


 
if he'd forgotten it, he would have said what he did to some other questions, that he would have to give them a written answer because he couldn't recall it. and of course he would have been briefed about all of this just before going into the house.


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Going back to the enquiry and NI and Max Clifford. It seems he was paid between £500k and £1m which seems a lot, and was probably much more than anyone else. I know he is a PR person who could produce a lot of bad press for NI, but could there be any other reason why he was compensated so much?


 
Taylor got £700,000, and IIRC it was solely to hush everything up before it came out.  Those who have had awards since then have got much less (Andy Gray got £20k).


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> if he'd forgotten it, he would have said what he did to some other questions, that he would have to give them a written answer because he couldn't recall it. and of course he would have been briefed about all of this just before going into the house.


 
He did say that he would reply in writing (albeit when asked whether the company was a Tory donor) in the end.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> He did say that he would reply in writing (albeit when asked whether the company was a Tory donor) in the end.


 
yeh, well sky were likely wittering about glenn mulcaire being hung out to dry at the time.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> According to the Grauniad, its:
> 
> Jenny Watson, head of the Electoral Commission. Watson has complained about being the victim of some particular hostile briefing from an unnamed government source.


 
and now according to them, it definitely ISNT her:

At 12.37pm we suggested Jenny Watson, head of the Electoral Commission, might have been the official Nick Raynsford referred to earlier. We now understand it was not Watson.


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> and now according to them, it definitely ISNT her:
> 
> At 12.37pm we suggested Jenny Watson, head of the Electoral Commission, might have been the official Nick Raynsford referred to earlier. We now understand it was not Watson.


 
I was bimbling around town on my bike when that happened.  Did Labour really dare to criticise the Tories for anonymous hostile briefing against a civil servant?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 20, 2011)

According to Gaby Hinscliff:



> ok: as i understand, Raynsford Q involves a senior public official who believes his phone hacked & bins rifled during big row within govt...
> 
> ...& doesnt believe this was done by the media. it's an unproven allegation & i know it all sounds crazy, but Raysnford is a serious man.
> 
> it sounds like loony conspiracy theory, but then so does this whole story


----------



## gabi (Jul 20, 2011)

> 1.50pm: Cameron says: "As someone once said, I'm enjoying this." Famously, it was Margaret Thatcher - in the no confidence debate on the day she resigned.



lol


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> FOI request anyone?


Yes! That would be a brilliant next move, and widen the request to all correspondence concerning Coulson's appointment to a No 10 job


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> He did say that he would reply in writing (albeit when asked whether the company was a Tory donor) in the end.


He's clearly hiding something here and knows that the 'written answer' cop out will take the heat out of it.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Going back to the enquiry and NI and Max Clifford. It seems he was paid between £500k and £1m which seems a lot, and was probably much more than anyone else. I know he is a PR person who could produce a lot of bad press for NI, but could there be any other reason why he was compensated so much?


 
I *thought* that when Wade was pressed yesterday about whether any of the agreements included confidentiality clauses that talked about illegal actions by NI she specifically said 'no'. If that is so, then presumably could Clifford publish anything he has on NI.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Yes! That would be a brilliant next move, and widen the request to all correspondence concerning Coulson's appointment to a No 10 job


 
If you do go for an FOI request - keep chasing it up - I've got a current FOI request w/the Home Office that they conveniently keep "forgetting" about.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> You.  Because you are unable to admit to making a mistake. How cretinously childish is that?


 
Sorry to bring this up again but  again. 

There really ought to be a Self Awareness Prize for three comments like this in a single thread. Go Belboid


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 20, 2011)

is there no end to the hacking scandal ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14212922

Taliban complain that their phones have been hacked as well.


----------



## agricola (Jul 20, 2011)

editor said:


> He's clearly hiding something here and knows that the 'written answer' cop out will take the heat out of it.


 
Indeed, but perhaps the language used can point to who it might be.  Cameron specifically said company (which rules out the Cabinet Office vetting system), and given Coulsons history (working at News International papers since 1988, apart from 9 weeks at the Mail) whichever company that carried it out would have to have mainly dealt with NI.  Given what we now know, the company either didnt ask the right questions, or were lied to by News International, or were News International themselves (or working on their behalf).  

IMHO its the third that is most likely - it is a massive coincidence that just before Coulson was appointed (July 2007) one of the solicitors at Harbottle and Lewis wrote to an exec at NI claiming (from this BBC piece):



> In this letter, dated 29 May 2007, and sent to Jon Chapman of News International, Lawrence Abramson of Harbottle & Lewis wrote that it had "reviewed e-mails to which you have provided access from the accounts of Andy Coulson, Stuart Kuttner, Ian Edmondson, Clive Goodman, Neil Wallis, Jules Stenson".
> 
> Mr Abramson confirmed to Mr Chapman that it "did not find anything in those e-mails which appeared to us to be reasonable evidence that Clive Goodman's illegal actions were known about and supported by both or either of Andy Coulson, the editor, and Neil Wallis, the deputy editor, and/or that Ian Edmondson, the news editor, and others were carrying out similar illegal procedures".



Those emails (which were hidden away for four years afterwards, dont forget) instead appear to contain clear evidence to the contrary.  Harbottle + Lewis appear to have no reason to deliberately lie to NI (indeed they are squirming under client privilege at the moment), but nor did they give them an accurate account of what was in the emails (which would suggest that it wasnt NI lying to a private vetting company - if they had, the H+B letter would have contained accurate information).  Surely the only plausible theory that remains is that NI were getting paperwork together to tell Cameron that Coulson was ok, that he wasnt involved in wider malpractice, and that there was no reason not to hire him.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Sorry to bring this up again but  again.
> 
> There really ought to be a Self Awareness Prize for three comments like this in a single thread. Go Belboid


 
you should learn to read the whole thread then, dear boy (ok, bit of a tall order at this point). But that's your problem, I freely admitted my mistake, shame others cant do the same.


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

Miliband acting a bit cocky in the debate now. Bit of swagger about him.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> you should learn to read the whole thread then, dear boy (ok, bit of a tall order at this point). But that's your problem, I freely admitted my mistake, shame others cant do the same.


 
I have actually while I should actually have been doing other things  

You've admitted *one* mistake, you made others particularly the one along the lines of 'you clearly don't understand what libel is' ("There's a lecture at 21:00 hours on 'Keats'. Now I want you all to attend because I'm sure you don't all know what a keat is"). I made the same mistake just after you, so I sort of noticed it.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> Miliband acting a bit cocky in the debate now. Bit of swagger about him.


I was just going to say, seems a bit affected though, doesn't it? Dropping in all those little 'asides' seems a little forced.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I have actually while I should actually have been doing other things


 
maybe you should concentrate on one thing at a time then


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

Comrade Marbles justifies his action.

Not particularly well tho


----------



## Voley (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> Comrade Marbles justifies his action.
> 
> Not particularly well tho





> As I languished predictably in a prison cell later that evening, I contemplated whether people would understand why I'd done it.



We understand. You're still a fucking twat.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

He's not my comrade.  That doesn't justify his actions. I stand by my original comment (made at 10:48am today) on him. 

I think the pie was misguided and showed a lack of awareness of the spin that the media can put on solo-stuntist actions. (Think Blair & Purple Powder furore from Fathers4Justice). But it was an act you'd expect from a habitual narcissistic rebel, who thrives on self-publicity provided by his own 'comedic' situationist stunts. His action wasn't anything to do with UKUncut as a group, and nor do I take any insinuations that it was seriously.

He just screwed himself as an activist against the cuts by that act and by implication he's done damage to UKUncut at a time when cuts are biting deep. However, it just looks like just another ambiguous, ill-thought out stunt that the media love to hold up as representative of the anti-cuts groups in general. Scapegoats they might be, but their actions are often spun and receive far more coverage than the other campaigners do.  

And that's my main concern - his actions might well be spun to demean other groups' communal yet legitimate actions against cuts. There are other groups opposing the cuts who don't receive enough media coverage already and I resent the excessive coverage of UKUncut at the expense of the other, longer standing, larger groups. The groups that contain GPs, Surgeons, Nurses, and Concerned Citizens.  

At the very least, he deserves the 'Chris Knight award for failure to acknowledge that lamposts aren't load-bearing'. At most, he'll go down for assault.

And this is my second concern. He interrupted the committee meeting, and gave an opening to sympathy for Murdy, which was instantly exploited to Murdy's benefit. 

He's no comrade. Just a self-seeking ****


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 20, 2011)

Santino said:


> FOI request anyone?


on the _Grauniad_ live coverage thread, one of their reader-contributors has now done that!


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 20, 2011)

I'd sooner see him take a mallet to Murdoch's head than a pie.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2011)

no doubt he doesn't believe in proper violence.


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

he's a fucking Labour Party member, what do you expect?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 20, 2011)

the marbles guy?


----------



## belboid (Jul 20, 2011)

indeed. Now a suspended member


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 20, 2011)

*snigger*


----------



## gosub (Jul 20, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> He's not my comrade.  That doesn't justify his actions. I stand by my original comment (made at 10:48am today) on him.
> 
> I think the pie was misguided and showed a lack of awareness of the spin that the media can put on solo-stuntist actions. (Think Blair & Purple Powder furore from Fathers4Justice). But it was an act you'd expect from a habitual narcissistic rebel, who thrives on self-publicity provided by his own 'comedic' situationist stunts. His action wasn't anything to do with UKUncut as a group, and nor do I take any insinuations that it was seriously.
> 
> ...


 
don't think it was a lone flan flinger :   http://adloyada.typepad.com/adloyada/2011/07/my-day-alongside-murdochs-pie-chucker.html


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 20, 2011)

Fuck me, even Alec Baldwin is throwing in:



> Cameron should resign. England is FILLED with people who could do a better job.


----------



## gabi (Jul 20, 2011)

Twitter war raging between Piers and Mensch now 

not often piers can claim the moral high ground


----------



## 1%er (Jul 20, 2011)

Re: Harbottle & Lewis

was there not a change in the law a few years ago in the Uk that made it a criminal offence for a lawyer to withhold information about a client involved in illegal activerty and put a duty on them to report such actions or face legal action themselves?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

''Yeah, I punched him'' - Jeremy Clarkson, 2007


----------



## laptop (Jul 20, 2011)

1%er said:


> Re: Harbottle & Lewis
> 
> was there not a change in the law a few years ago in the Uk that made it a criminal offence for a lawyer to withhold information about a client involved in illegal activerty and put a duty on them to report such actions or face legal action themselves?


 
There was something like that.

But did it refer to all offences, or just terrrism and noncery?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

This is the closest I can find so far  -- apologies


----------



## 1%er (Jul 20, 2011)

laptop said:


> There was something like that.
> 
> But did it refer to all offences, or just terrrism and noncery?


I think it was some time age, but I'm sure it was "any criminal activity".

I'm not sure it became law.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 20, 2011)

gabi said:


> Twitter war raging between Piers and Mensch now
> 
> not often piers can claim the moral high ground



Given his past, I'm sure that Piers Morgan can't claim the moral high ground over this. _Allegedly_ he's a laughing stock over here in Britain right now. Besides, we're all more concerned that CNN will drop him, and he'll have no choice but to come back to Britain. Maybe the Australians will have him, should the worst happen?


----------



## little_legs (Jul 20, 2011)

Poor Clegg


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 20, 2011)

Has it been mentioned anywhere here that Lulzsec claim to have 4gb of News International emails which they plan to release?


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

probably. it's all mouth till they actually do it though.


----------



## pk (Jul 20, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Has it been mentioned anywhere here that Lulzsec claim to have 4gb of News International emails which they plan to release?


 
Yes.

A far more productive form of protest than swinging off the Cenotaph, I'm sure you'll agree.

Probably why there have been dozens of arrests today of suspected Lulzsec members - instead of raiding the News of the World and y'know, doing their fucking job, the police instead chose to raid a bunch of kids after their corrupt misdeeds are threatened to be exposed via internet leaks.

I look forward to the contents of the emails. If it's anything like as hilarious as the HBGary emails it will be major news.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 20, 2011)

pk said:


> Yes.



In that case I won't bring it up.


----------



## killer b (Jul 20, 2011)

what are they waiting for pk?


----------



## pk (Jul 20, 2011)

I will. Here's the scoop...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/20/lulzsec_ni_hack_latest/


----------



## pk (Jul 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> what are they waiting for pk?


 
I have no idea. Lots of arrests today. Plus stock fortunes might be getting rinsed before they drop the big one that'll send prices plummeting.

Could be any number of reasons. Could be they are bluffing to just troll the Murdochs. 

But they got ACS Law and they got Sony and they got a shitload of other big companies without too much effort, plus they've published a few high level passwords - I seriously doubt News International is hacktivist-proof.


----------



## pk (Jul 20, 2011)

> "While activists hoped data would be released to coincide with Rebekah Brooks’ testimony to parliament yesterday, the emails run to some 4 gigabytes and are taking longer than expected to sift through. Lulzsec members are editing the leaked material into a media-ready package with the ambitious aim of “bringing down News International”.
> 
> On Monday night, members of the mischievous but formidable group hijacked The Sun’s website, posting a fake report on the suicide of Rupert Murdoch.
> 
> ...



This is going to be fun.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 20, 2011)

I'm hoping for a leaked email exchange between Brooks and Cam where they discuss pyjamas.


----------



## revlon (Jul 20, 2011)

At the parliament recall today during the commons general debate, Geoffrey Cox, a tory pulled up keith vaz about the police's limiting the scope of the investigation to those 12 people. He seemed to be saying that it was in fact the attorney general at the time - 2006 Lord Goldsmith, who knew there were thousands of victims and who gave the instruction that the cps and the police should narrow the search to excluded most of those hacked. Vaz cliamed this wasn't put before him on the committee (it wasn't) and would look into it. 

Jack straw got up to confirm the attorney general had never mentioned it to him, as a member of the cabinet, during that period.

Weird one. The attorney general knew about the thousands of hacked phones in 2006 but no-one else in the government did?!


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 20, 2011)

pk said:


> I look forward to the contents of the emails. If it's anything like as hilarious as the HBGary emails it will be major news.


IF they've got those emails, and the dibble haven't confiscated them yet.....


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 20, 2011)

revlon said:


> At the parliament recall today during the commons general debate, Geoffrey Cox, a tory pulled up keith vaz about the police's limiting the scope of the investigation to those 12 people. He seemed to be saying that it was in fact the attorney general at the time - 2006 Lord Goldsmith, who knew there were thousands of victims and who gave the instruction that the cps and the police should narrow the search to excluded most of those hacked. Vaz cliamed this wasn't put before him on the committee (it wasn't) and would look into it.
> 
> Jack straw got up to confirm the attorney general had never mentioned it to him, as a member of the cabinet, during that period.
> 
> Weird one. The attorney general knew about the thousands of hacked phones in 2006 but no-one else in the government did?!


right, but so far Cox hasn't proved this allegation to be true, and it's not normal practice for the Attorney-general to get that close to individual investigations (I also thought that would be the justice secretary if anyone, i.e. Straw, who would stick his oar in.


----------



## pk (Jul 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> IF they've got those emails, and the dibble haven't confiscated them yet.....


 
Much like Wikileaks, the files would be duplicated and shared among several people tasked with editing and tidying up the content to make it media-friendly.

I imagine the flurry of police activity today might have a lot to do with the potential of bent coppers being caught with pants down.

And they're only going on arrest info from the PayPal attacks, so it seems that Louise Boat is one step ahead of them.

If they've got this email cache - it will be released regardless of how many people get nicked - it's probably online already just waiting for an encryption key...


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 20, 2011)

pk said:


> Much like Wikileaks, the files would be duplicated and shared among several people tasked with editing and tidying up the content to make it media-friendly.
> 
> I imagine the flurry of police activity today might have a lot to do with the potential of bent coppers being caught with pants down.
> 
> ...


I very much hope that you're right, because I seriously want those emails out in front of the general public


----------



## rorymac (Jul 20, 2011)

belboid said:


> Comrade Marbles justifies his action.
> 
> Not particularly well tho



I thought he justified it pretty well tbf although I doubt I'd actually say 'well done mate' 
I don't think he deserves to be castigated or sneered at for it mind .. the copper with a big blob of foam on his nose and the other copper wiping the blokes face with a tissue plus Mrs Murdoch steaming in made it worthwhile in my dozy memory at least !
Plus it hardly altered the course of possible justice or anything at all at the end of the day !


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 20, 2011)

What was it that was said when Yates said he was resigning and others should consider doing the same?

One of the committee said 'who do you mean?'  He replied 'I think it's quite obvious'...one of the chair said '*the cps?*' and he immediately replied 'news international'

Not exact quotes, obviously...when do we get around to the cps?


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 21, 2011)

belboid said:


> Comrade Marbles justifies his action.
> 
> Not particularly well tho


Nothing wrong with pieing Murdoch, preferably with a shit filled one,but yesterday was'nt the time nor place


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

It would have saved the inept Committee a lot of time on Tuesday if they'd thought to write to, or call, Max Cliford on the question of whether his £million payoff was subject to a confidentiality clause - Gavin Ezler just asked him straight last night: "No, I didn't sign anything". 

This affair needs trained lawyers (as per the PI). End of.


----------



## dylans (Jul 21, 2011)

rorymac said:


> I thought he justified it pretty well tbf although I doubt I'd actually say 'well done mate'
> I don't think he deserves to be castigated or sneered at for it mind .. the copper with a big blob of foam on his nose and the other copper wiping the blokes face with a tissue plus Mrs Murdoch steaming in made it worthwhile in my dozy memory at least !
> Plus it hardly altered the course of possible justice or anything at all at the end of the day !


 
Pretty much agree with this. Not the most astute political act in the world but I see nothing wrong with injecting a bit of contempt of Parliament into proceedings and disturbing the hypocritical pomposity of the politicians. Murdoch deserved a pie in the face and he got one. I'm a bit disturbed by the amount of outrage being directed at the guy to be honest, especially people hoping the guy gets the book thrown at him. The fact is the entire event was an exercise in Politicians trying to restore their burnt reputations by demonstrating their "statesmanship" and I don't see why we should play along with the likes of Kieth, ban video games, Vaz and Louise, teach abstinance to school girls, Mensch as they try to enhance their careers and Parliamentary statures. A pie in the face deflates the event of its self importance and pomposity and there is nothing wrong with that. 

Objections to this stunt take several forms. One is that it interfered with the questioning. Come on, as if the questioning by this bunch of mundanities was ever going to go anywhere near to revealing the truth. It had very little to do with finding the truth and far more to do with elevating the status of a Parliament which should be damaged by this scandal. Elevating the status of Parliament is not something we should really care too much about assisting these cowardly hypocrites with. I want this scandal to hurt the reputation of Politicians not enhance it. These brown nosing cowards have spent decades grovelling at Murdochs' feet and now we are supposed to celebrate their new found liberatation and their role as investigators of truth?  Come off it. Therefore I see no reason to be outraged when the solemnity of these events are disturbed by a little absurdity. 

The second objection is that it created sympathy for Murdoch and would be spun in the press. First this ignores the fact that the Murdoch press was going to do that anyway. Murdoch even gave them their sound bite with his humble day bollocks. Second this ignores the fact that the non Murdoch press have no interest in spinning a sympathetic view of Murdoch either but finally, what worries me most about this line of argument is that it is exactly the argument used to attack black bloc style direct action. How many times have we heard the argument that such actions will be used to smear " ordinary, peaceful" demonstrators, that they are a distraction etc.  Now, I don't advocate this type of individual stunt anymore than I advocate the individualism of black bloc type civil disobedience. I think they are a substitute for mass action. But, because I don't advocate this type of action, it doesn't follow that I am going to line up to join the  condemnation of  such acts either.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> ... I don't see why we should play along with the likes of Kieth, ban video games, Vaz and Louise, teach abstinance to school girls, Mensch ....


 
I think you got a bit muddled there dylans. Rupert Murdoch was in front of the Culture Media & Sport Committee whose chairman is John Whittingdale not Keith Vaz. Yes Louise Mensch is on the Culture Media & Sport Committee but Keith Vaz is not. He (Vaz home affairs) had sessions with the police the same day. But the pie thrower appeared without invitation in front of the Culture Media & Sport Committee.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

Today other papers are going to get dragged into the shit, as purple have bothered to dig out and read the two information commiosioner.so offices reports into this that were presented to parliament in 2006.
What Price Privacy Now? (pdf)
What Price Privacy?
They identify massive theft of personal info by non NI papers, the mail and the mirror in particular.

edit: to put links in


----------



## dylans (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think you got a bit muddled there dylans. Rupert Murdoch was in front of the Culture Media & Sport Committee whose chairman is John Whittingdale not Keith Vaz. Yes Louise Mensch is on the Culture Media & Sport Committee but Keith Vaz is not. He (Vaz home affairs) had sessions with the police the same day. But the pie thrower appeared without invitation in front of the Culture Media & Sport Committee.


 
It's the proceedings as a whole I am referring to.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> ...
> They identify massive theft of personal info by non NI papers, the mail and the mirror in particular.


 
That would be good, other papers have had an easy ride so far. I am no great fan of NI titles but I think the focus on them alone to date leaves a bad taste.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Today other papers are going to get dragged into the shit, as purple have bothered to dig out and read the two information commiosioner.so offices reports into this that were presented to parliament in 2006.
> WHAT_PRICE_PRIVACY.ashx
> WHAT_PRICE_PRIVACY_NOW.pdf  (pdf)
> 
> They identify massive theft of personal info by non NI papers, the mail and the mirror in particular.


The net widens.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> It's the proceedings as a whole I am referring to.


 
I thought you were talking about the pie thrower..


----------



## Voley (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They identify massive theft of personal info by non NI papers, the mail and the mirror in particular.


 
Ah, I'd been hoping this was in the post.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It would have saved the inept Committee a lot of time on Tuesday if they'd thought to write to, or call, Max Cliford on the question of whether his £million payoff was subject to a confidentiality clause - Gavin Ezler just asked him straight last night: "No, I didn't sign anything".
> 
> This affair needs trained lawyers (as per the PI). End of.


 
Yes, I saw that, very enlightenning, however Clifford does seem quite pro NI and when I mentioned him before on this thread it was suggested that he may be being paid to speak up for them.


----------



## dylans (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I thought you were talking about the pie thrower..


 
What I am saying is the Parliamentary committees are intended to enhance the reputation of Parliament. Several times now, on Newsnight last night and on other news reports we have heard politicians patting themselves on the back and making precisely the point that these hearings have elevated and enhanced the status of Parliament and politicians as an institution. This is quite staggering really considering that the events of the past few weeks have demonstrated the utter corruption of Parliament by its relations to Murdoch.

When people attack the kinds of stunts that disturb these events, what they are suggesting is that these committees deserve our respect.  I don't think they do.


----------



## Voley (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> When people attack the kinds of stunts that disturb these events, what they are suggesting is that these committees deserve our respect.  I don't think they do.


 
Not really. This bloke created sympathy for Murdoch. Attacking that has got nothing to do with giving the committee respect.


----------



## dylans (Jul 21, 2011)

NVP said:


> Not really. This bloke created sympathy for Murdoch. Attacking that has got nothing to do with giving the committee respect.


 
No he didn't.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

Slightly OT but on TV last night they showed a smallish executive jet taking off from somewhere like Farnborough and said, there he goes Rupert Murduch is leaving Britain after his appearance before the select committee. I wondered about that, assuming he would be returning to America or perhps Australia. But a small executive jet could not fly to the USA could it?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> No he didn't.


Oh yes he did.

Well said, NVP.


----------



## Voley (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> No he didn't.


 
In the eyes of some, he did, dylans. There was plenty of coverage on TV of the 'an 80 year old man was hit in the face' ilk. The committe described it as 'unnacceptable' and said he was 'courageous' to carry on being questioned.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

Regarding the committees @dyans I was struck by how people like Watson (CMS) were billed as having focussed on the Murduch issues for a long time and being some kind of expert, yet when he had an extended period of questionning he (Watson) seemed unable to land a single blow, despite that Rupert Murduch seemed quite compliant to his interrogation.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

It's a bit irrelevant given the scale of events. Young man does what young men sometimes do. Back to subject.


----------



## dylans (Jul 21, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Oh yes he did.


 
Oh poor Rupert he got a pie in the face. OK, he corrupted the entire political establishment and hacked a murdered girls phone but that doesn't matter cus he got a pie in the face boo hoo. Give me a break.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Slightly OT but on TV last night they showed a smallish executive jet taking off from somewhere like Farnborough and said, there he goes Rupert Murduch is leaving Britain after his appearance before the select committee. I wondered about that, assuming he would be returning to America or perhps Australia. But a small executive jet could not fly to the USA could it?


 
Yes, although I believe some of them re-fuel in Ireland.


----------



## Voley (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> Oh poor Rupert he got a pie in the face. OK, he corrupted the entire political establishment and hacked a murdered girls phone but that doesn't matter cus he got a pie in the face boo hoo. Give me a break.


 
Saying the protestor created sympathy for Murdoch doesn't mean you have to sympathetic to him yourself.


----------



## madzone (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> Oh poor Rupert he got a pie in the face. OK, he corrupted the entire political establishment and hacked a murdered girls phone but that doesn't matter cus he got a pie in the face boo hoo. Give me a break.


 
And that's why the pie throwing was such an _utterly_ pointless act.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

NVP said:


> Ah, I'd been hoping this was in the post.


 
It's all been out there waiting to be picked up on for a while now - that and the police asking for files from Operation  Motorman are going to spread it around.


----------



## dylans (Jul 21, 2011)

NVP said:


> In the eyes of some, he did, dylans. There was plenty of coverage on TV of the 'an 80 year old man was hit in the face' ilk. The committe described it as 'unnacceptable' and said he was 'courageous' to carry on being questioned.


 
Of course they did. Big deal. Louise Mensch was outraged, Who gives a shit if she is outraged that the solemnity of her circus was disturbed?  When a few black bloc types smashed up a couple of banks, the same bullshit outrage was expressed about their actions. Should we queue up to join in the condemnation? No. We should recognise that those doing the condemning are a bunch of hypocrites. As I said, I don't advocate these kinds of individualist stunts anymore than I advocate black bloc actions but I am not going to join in with the bullshit fake outrage either.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

Pie Man shifted the focus with his pie, and not in a good way. So, bullshit about those opposing his actions as being somehow supportive of the system you love to hate from the comfort of your armchair is not holding any water with me, and I suspect NVP feels similarly, although I'm sure he'll confirm whether he does or not.


----------



## madzone (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> Of course they did. Big deal. Louise Mensch was outraged, Who gives a shit if she is outraged that the solemnity of her circus was disturbed?  When a few black bloc types smashed up a couple of banks, the same bullshit outrage was expressed about their actions. Should we queue up to join in the condemnation? No. We should recognise that those doing the condemning are a bunch of hypocrites. As I said, I don't advocate these kinds of individualist stunts anymore than I advocate black bloc actions but I am not going to join in with the bullshit fake outrage either.


 
Who here is joining in any outrage?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> Of course they did. Big deal. Louise Mensch was outraged, Who gives a shit if she is outraged that the solemnity of her circus was disturbed?  When a few black bloc types smashed up a couple of banks, the same bullshit outrage was expressed about their actions. Should we queue up to join in the condemnation? No. We should recognise that those doing the condemning are a bunch of hypocrites. As I said, I don't advocate these kinds of individualist stunts anymore than I advocate black bloc actions but I am not going to join in with the bullshit fake outrage either.


 
Or you could  ignore it and talk about the actual issues. That was two days ago and now irrelevant.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

I was distracted for a couple of days; is the CPS embroiled yet or is there too much going on elsewhere?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or ignore it and talk about the actual issue. That was two days ago and now irrelevant.


Yes


----------



## dylans (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Regarding the committees @dyans I was struck by how people like Watson (CMS) were billed as having focussed on the Murduch issues for a long time and being some kind of expert, yet when he had an extended period of questionning he (Watson) seemed unable to land a single blow, despite that Rupert Murduch seemed quite compliant to his interrogation.


 
They were pathetic. The Murdochs used the entire event as a reputation building exercise as did the politicians.  "the most humble day of my life". I thought this guy summed it up pretty well. 


> > I find it hard to believe that anybody can watch today’s clutch of Select Committee hearings without coming away with one overwhelming impression; the extraordinarily low quality of the UK’s Members of Parliament. With the noble exception of Tom Watson, I don’t think anyone has enhanced their reputation today. I have often blogged about the fact that for centuries Parliament contained many of the intellectually brilliant, of a whole variety of political persuasions, but beyond doubt amongst the most outstanding minds and extraordinary people of their generation. This was still true in my earlier lifetime.
> >
> > Parliament nowadays is full of dull party hacks of a middle management mentality. The number of parliamentarians I would enjoy sitting next to at dinner, is tiny. How many parliamentarians would you enjoy a dinner with? Most of them are in it, not to serve their country, but as a career. What really agitates them is anything affecting their expenses and their pensions.
> >
> > The Murdochs could bat away these pompous blunderers all day. Even the dull transatlantic management speak of James Murdoch baffles them. It is humiliating for this country that these dullards are our representatives.



http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/07/murdoch-circus/


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

Make a new thread about vanguardism, if you want to continue the Pie Man discussion, dylans.


----------



## dylans (Jul 21, 2011)

madzone said:


> Who here is joining in any outrage?


 
Some posters on here have said they hope they throw the book at him


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

Enjoy dinner with?

They're not inquisitors, nor were they elected to be. Even if they were rubbish it's not exactly the issue to judge them on.


----------



## dylans (Jul 21, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Make a new thread about vanguardism, if you want to continue the Pie Man discussion, dylans.


 
No. I have said my bit. I just thought an alternative view needed to be expressed. We can move on now if you like


----------



## Voley (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> Of course they did. Big deal. Louise Mensch was outraged, Who gives a shit if she is outraged that the solemnity of her circus was disturbed?  When a few black bloc types smashed up a couple of banks, the same bullshit outrage was expressed about their actions. Should we queue up to join in the condemnation? No. We should recognise that those doing the condemning are a bunch of hypocrites. As I said, I don't advocate these kinds of individualist stunts anymore than I advocate black bloc actions but I am not going to join in with the bullshit fake outrage either.



OK, then. Well there'll be plenty of folk out there who will agree with the outrage, fake or otherwise, and this will have the effect of creating sympathy for Murdoch. That's all I'm saying. No-ones asking you to join in with it. Attacking this stunt as counterproductive has absolutely nothing to do with giving the committee respect.


----------



## Voley (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's all been out there waiting to be picked up on for a while now - that and the police asking for files from Operation  Motorman are going to spread it around.


 
I thought it was incredible this had gone as far as it had - could just be the beginning...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> No. I have said my bit. I just thought an alternative view needed to be expressed. We can move on now if you like


 
No, I think you should make a new thread, because other people might want to reply and give their opinion, plus you won't get the broader view from this one due to limited participation and a desire not to lose sight of the matter at hand.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

I wonder if there is going to be a new front, or rather a new openning to an old front. 

It came out in the hearings that NI was paying the legal expenses of Glenn Mulcaire, Rupert Murdoch expressed disgust at that. It has been reported that NI have now ceased paying Mulcaire's legal bill and Mulcaire speaking to the press said words to the effect of : "I have nothing to say for the moment but that may change". 

It seems very unlikely to me that his 4,000 hacks were all done just for Clive Goodman, royal editor at the News of the World who has already served time. In which case we might expect that Mulcaire may out the other journalists for whom he hacked. 

And, when more journalists are in the frame, it seems more likely that one or another of them may cut a deal and directly implicate Coulson or Brooks neither of whom have so far been charged with any offence.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit - You're aware of the Information Commissioner's Report published in 06?

Search for: 'What Price Privacy Now?'


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> weltweit - You're aware of the Information Commissioner's Report published in 06?
> 
> Search for: 'What Price Privacy Now?'


 
oh, no, will search ..


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> oh, no, will search ..



What Price Privacy?

What Price Privacy Now?

Here's Nick Davies summation.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What Price Privacy?
> 
> What Price Privacy Now?
> 
> Here's Nick Davies summation.


 
Yes, thanks, I have already found them on the net as it happens.

Looking at that guardian link, I have read that article before. 

Not completely sure of the relevance to Glen Mulcaire and his journalist clients. The information commissioner seems to be lobbying for a custodial sentence for information crimes, a fine is all there is at the moment. But Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman were sent to prison so they must have been prosecuted under some communications interception laws I would guess. 

What am I missing?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

For starters, the table on page 9 of What Price Privacy Now? (page 11 of the pdf).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Yes, thanks, I have already found them on the net as it happens.
> 
> Looking at that guardian link, I have read that article before.
> 
> ...


 
Half the posts on the thread 

That Davies article doesn't go anywhere near any of that stuff you've just said. It doesn't mention the information commissioner lobbying for anything, it doesn't mention GM or CG. Or do you mean the two reports? In that case, you're missing just about everything.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> For starters, the table on page 9 of What Price Privacy Now? (page 11 of the pdf).


 
Aha, yes that is good, I have also seen that data I think (in bargraph form) embedded in this thread, it serves to indicate that the problem is not at all just NI ... with the Daily Mail being the worst offender. The data seems to have come from Operation Motorman and there have apparently been some lawsuits resulting in fines.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

Good, now you're only 5 years behind the curve.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Good, now you're only 5 years behind the curve.


 
5 ? 

Steve Whittamore was raided in March 2003


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

When was the report published?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

I don't understand why this has been raised in response to my post 7441... Surely Mulcaire can implicate more than just Clive Goodman within NI and this could lead to the conviction of Coulson and or Brooks?


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Enjoy dinner with?
> 
> They're not inquisitors, nor were they elected to be. Even if they were rubbish it's not exactly the issue to judge them on.


 
They SHOULD be judged on their ability to get information from people because that is an essential part of being an MP. They are supposed to be our representatives in the corridors of power. If they can't show that they can find out the information needed to make proper decisions on our behalf then they simply aren't capable of doing their job.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> When was the report published?


 
Sure - 10 May 2006. And the second "What Privacy Now" 13 December 2006


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> That would be good, other papers have had an easy ride so far. I am no great fan of NI titles but I think the focus on them alone to date leaves a bad taste.


 
Seconded. The News of the World has gone down. I want to see the Mail and the Standard go under next.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 21, 2011)

NVP said:


> Not really. This bloke created sympathy for Murdoch. Attacking that has got nothing to do with giving the committee respect.


 
Did he hell. He created a small amount of respect for Mrs Murdoch and created a tiny extra bit if business for a dry cleaners somewhere. Not a great contribution to the betterment of the human race, but not something that did Murdoch himself any good.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Did he hell.


Oh yes he did! http://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=murdoch+sympathy+pie

True Justice for  in front of a particularly hostile crowd armed with hard missiles. Oh, and I'd like to be close to the stage please. Perhaps we could revive it temporarily ?? I feel strongly that NO-ONE should be allowed to call themselves a comedian unless they've been through The Tunnel or an equivalent baptism of ire. 
Check the fool's reasoning here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/user-comments/JonnieMarbles


Returning to the use of private dicks and phone hacks by the press ...


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> They SHOULD be judged on their ability to get information from people because that is an essential part of being an MP. They are supposed to be our representatives in the corridors of power. If they can't show that they can find out the information needed to make proper decisions on our behalf then they simply aren't capable of doing their job.


People study for years, then they practice for decades, before developing the ability to crack witnesses, let alone witnesses as intelligent and well prepared as the NI crowd. Really, decades.

It diminishes the skills of people on all sides to assume it's a job for laypeople, you may as well ask them to diagnose illness, design an office block and replumb your house while they're at it.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 21, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> cameron looking / sounding really agitated.


 
He has a clear tell. He starts going red around his neck when he's blatantly lying and worried about being caught out.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 21, 2011)

He looked as though he wanted to murder someone. Probably, Dennis Skinner.


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2011)

This is the first day in over a fortnight that the news hasn't led with some aspect of this story. Not that I don't think there's more to come, of course.


----------



## pk (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I very much hope that you're right, because I seriously want those emails out in front of the general public


 
Me too. The cops don't, News International don't, and Tory HQ don't...


----------



## smokedout (Jul 21, 2011)

Mirror's got a (possibly slightly spurious) story about coulson hacking a civil servants voicemail whilst in post

http://www.mirror.co.uk/2011/07/21/civil-servant-allegedly-had-phone-hacked-while-andy-coulson-was-in-no10-115875-23285267/


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> People study for years, then they practice for decades, before developing the ability to crack witnesses, let alone witnesses as intelligent and well prepared as the NI crowd. Really, decades.
> 
> It diminishes the skills of people on all sides to assume it's a job for laypeople, you may as well ask them to diagnose illness, design an office block and replumb your house while they're at it.


 yeah, cos no MP has ever been a lawyer, or a journalist with years, decades, of experience of asking awakward questions. Nor do any of them have access to such people who might be able to pass on useful advice, tips, questions....


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2011)

Have we been through how Cameron seems to have deliberately avoided putting Coulson through a full vetting?  Seems like when he was appointed by the Party, all they did was pay sme company £150 to do a basic websearch about him!


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2011)

smokedout said:


> Mirror's got a (possibly slightly spurious) story about coulson hacking a civil servants voicemail whilst in post
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/2011/07/21/civil-servant-allegedly-had-phone-hacked-while-andy-coulson-was-in-no10-115875-23285267/


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 21, 2011)

Ahh, but which company?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

belboid said:


> Have we been through how Cameron seems to have deliberately avoided putting Coulson through a full vetting?  Seems like when he was appointed by the Party, all they did was pay sme company £150 to do a basic websearch about him!


 
Oh, I understood he had been properly vetted for a particular level. Presumably by whateve official bosy does these things.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

Times political writer is now saying that Control Risks were the company that Cameron refused to identify as being hired to look into Coulsen. IIRC Someone went through the torry accounts a few days ago and found them being employed to do checks on others at £140 or so a pop - i.e bottom of the barrel quick check stuff. SO it may not be that he was covering up *who* carried out the checks, but the *shitness* of the checks. That looks even more likley when tallied with the low-mid level clearance he was given - either because he wouldn't pass more stringent tests or to to protect him from further inquiry. I.e someone knew he was rotten then. Did Cameron?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

I saw no link in that story between the civil servant and Coulson - has anyone ever suggested anywhere  at any time Coulson actually did the hacking? If it was beneath his paygrade at NotW, it certainly was at No 10.

Interesting (a) that the civil servant knows who hacked him, and (b) that hacking is demonstrably seen to continue to very recently.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 21, 2011)

I said it was slightly spurious, it's either a flaky dig to keep up the pressure or possibly more to come


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

Only to link it with Coulson is spurious (without more information). Otherwise, it's a strong line.


----------



## laptop (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> Craig Murray said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I thought Paul Farrelly's questioning - rather, cross-examination - of James M was excellent...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Only to link it with Coulson is spurious (without more information). Otherwise, it's a strong line.


If it's true - they are flat out denying it. Given that there's Gus O’Donnell and Special Branch to either confirm or deny it, then _someone_ is simply lying. If it's not true then it's a terrible line that will damage attempts to uncover more of this stuff.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

laptop said:


> I thought Paul Farrelly's questioning - rather, cross-examination - of James M was excellent...


 
I'd say it was ok, _relative_ to the others on the Comm. It wasn't close to the professional standard of a seasoned practitioner, nor would you expect it to be.

Of course, there is the PI, plus an enormous number of civil and criminal cases, to come.....


----------



## laptop (Jul 21, 2011)

smokedout said:


> Mirror's got a (possibly slightly spurious) story about coulson hacking a civil servants voicemail whilst in post
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/2011/07/21/civil-servant-allegedly-had-phone-hacked-while-andy-coulson-was-in-no10-115875-23285267/


 
As I read it, it's just based on Raynsford's question to the PM - between the lines, I suspect Raynsford's told the _Mirror_ what it is he knows and can't say.

Further between the lines, I suspect it *may* be that Raynsford's source is second-hand - not actually the person whose phone is alleged to have been hacked - which would be one possible explanation for why he can't say more, but hopes to flush 'em out.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

laptop said:


> I thought Paul Farrelly's questioning - rather, cross-examination - of James M was excellent...


 
There's a full transcript here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/20/james-rupert-murdoch-full-transcript


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

I didn't find Paul Farrelly that good, he struck me as a bit pompous and in love with his own voice which seemed unneccesary. 

For example, could the following question not have been rather shorter: 




			
				Paul Farrelly said:
			
		

> Q324 Paul Farrelly: I want to return to the question of making statements to Parliament without being in full possession of the facts. During our 2009 inquiry, all the witnesses who came to us testified to being intimately involved in, in particular, a huge trawl of e-mails after the arrival of Colin Myler. It seems that, over the past few days, they have been rather quick to try to distance themselves from that investigation, according to some of the quotes in the newspapers. It was stated to us clearly that that trawl, that investigation uncovered no new evidence: it was still a lone rogue reporter. Mr
> James Murdoch, can you tell us about the file of e-mails, the so-called internal report that was discovered, allegedly—we read in the pages of The Sunday Times, a great newspaper—in the offices of Harbottle & Lewis. Can you tell us a bit more about when that was discovered, when you first came to know about it and what is in it?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/20/james-rupert-murdoch-full-transcript




However it was him that brought out that NI were paying Mulcaire's legal fees which was interesting.


----------



## laptop (Jul 21, 2011)

The bit of Farrelly I actually watched and enjoyed in real time was about that Harbottle & Lewis file:



> Q330 Paul Farrelly: Who looked at it first? It was reputedly Will Lewis.
> 
> James Murdoch: The people managing the work on behalf of News International from early this year have been led by Mr Lewis. That is correct.
> 
> ...



My clear conclusion was that JM had not, in fact examined the file himself. 

(My recollection was that it was more a quick-fire series of questions; has the transcript been tidied up?)


----------



## gosub (Jul 21, 2011)

problem with the PF-JM  Harbottle & Lewis exchange, was that 15mins earlier evidence given in the Home Affairs Committee that clear evidence of illegallity within 2 minutes of reading it. ( (I think COulson is talking about buying ROyal phone number book, quite early on in the file)
Too much was going on the day


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

I want to know who the dark haired woman in the grey trouser suit was who was sitting to the left of Mrs Murduch in the CMS hearing. She had lightning reflexes and was easily the first to rise and counter the pie attacker. But, who is she?


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I want to know who the dark haired woman in the grey trouser suit was who was sitting to the left of Mrs Murduch in the CMS hearing. She had lightning reflexes and was easily the first to rise and counter the pie attacker. But, who is she?


 
Yes. This is the key issue imo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I want to know who the dark haired woman in the grey trouser suit was who was sitting to the left of Mrs Murduch in the CMS hearing. She had lightning reflexes and was easily the first to rise and counter the pie attacker. But, who is she?


 
who was that mysterious masked woman?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> No he didn't.


I think it did, dylans. Up until then he was on the rack, and very much the villain of the piece. post-pie, it was all 'frail old man gets assaulted and rescued by his wife, the Chinese Wonderwoman' - it changed the focus.


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 21, 2011)

Whew. This is all getting very exhausting.

Pardon my ignorance, but could somebody please direct me to that UK tabloid where ladies get their tits out?

I'm North American. We don't get that shit here. And it goes without saying Benny Hill has been sorely missed over here since...well, um...since whenever it was he died


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> If it's true - they are flat out denying it. Given that there's Gus O’Donnell and Special Branch to either confirm or deny it, then _someone_ is simply lying. If it's not true then it's a terrible line that will damage attempts to uncover more of this stuff.


 
Plus it is massively hypocritical - I mean, Labour made a habit of negatively briefing against civil servants, and if they didnt hack into their mobile phones it must be one of the few things that they didnt do (given what they* did to Elizabeth Filkin, David Kelly, that Shoesmith woman and others).

* admittedly with Tory and LD collusion


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

Shreddy said:


> Whew. This is all getting very exhausting.
> 
> Pardon my ignorance, but could somebody please direct me to that UK tabloid where ladies get their tits out?
> 
> I'm North American. We don't get that shit here. And it goes without saying Benny Hill has been sorely missed over here since...well, um...since whenever it was he died



The medium is the massage


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I want to know who the dark haired woman in the grey trouser suit was who was sitting to the left of Mrs Murduch in the CMS hearing. She had lightning reflexes and was easily the first to rise and counter the pie attacker. But, who is she?


 
that was his mrs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> No he didn't.


 
oh yes he did


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Up until then he was on the rack, and very much the villain of the piece. post-pie, it was all 'frail old man gets assaulted and rescued by his wife, the Chinese Wonderwoman' - it changed the focus.



So what you're saying is, Lucy Liu just went down about twelve notches on the "Chinese Wonderwoman" scale...

Shame. Always loved Lucy, but I've suddenly got the serious hots for Ms Wendi


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 21, 2011)

Shreddy said:


> So what you're saying is, Lucy Liu just went down about twelve notches on the "Chinese Wonderwoman" scale...
> 
> Shame. Always loved Lucy, but I've suddenly got the serious hots for Ms Wendi


 
and in a year or two she'll be a rich widow


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> that was his mrs.


 
It wasnt - Wendi had the pink jacket on, and got there after the woman weitweit describes (the woman in the grey jacket, above Rupert Murdochs' head in the first image):


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2011)

Has anyone checked if The Guardian is onto this lead?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

Ms Grey (Murdoch's daughter) intervened, Ms Pink (his wife) lashed out after. Fat fella got some of the pie himself.


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 21, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> and in a year or two she'll be a rich widow



I'd say within a week. Wanna put a fiver on it?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

She was 'rich' before meeting Murdoch.


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

Meanwhile, why wasnt this comment from the debate picked up on by more outlets (its only Guido who I can see covering it at the moment)?



> Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con): I want to raise three points. Although I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on his Committee’s report, one or two loose ends seem not to have been followed up. On 30 May 2006, a Crown Prosecution file note recorded that the police had written a briefing paper informing the Attorney-General and the then Director of Public Prosecutions that
> 
> *“a vast number of unique voicemail numbers belonging to high-profile individuals (politicians, celebrities) have been identified as being accessed without authority. These may be the subject of wider investigation.”*
> 
> ...



Straw denied that it had ever been raised at Cabinet level afterwards, but would anyone be surprised if the investigation was spiked by Blair (as he did with BAe) in its early stages?  Furthermore, does this relevation - if its true (which it appears to be, it is after all apparently backed up by documentation) - put the lie to everything that has been said about this story by official sources up to this point?


----------



## gavman (Jul 21, 2011)

Shreddy said:


> Whew. This is all getting very exhausting.
> 
> Pardon my ignorance, but could somebody please direct me to that UK tabloid where ladies get their tits out?
> 
> I'm North American. We don't get that shit here. And it goes without saying Benny Hill has been sorely missed over here since...well, um...since whenever it was he died


 
benny hill died in europe at the end of the 70's. he lives on in north america, why only they can answer


----------



## rorymac (Jul 21, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> He has a clear tell. He starts going red around his neck when he's blatantly lying and worried about being caught out.



lol .. I think I noticed that subconsciously but when it's written down it seems true as you like !!
Tbf I haven't seen much of him up to this cos his accent winds me up so much .. he sticks an extra couple of vowels in every other word. I imagine folks are impressed with that .. probably why John Prescott took elocution lessons and sounds like a halfwit. Talk properly you clown !
Fackin buncha fakes make this country look pathetic imo !


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

From agricola's quote in #7497:


> However, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police concluded that aspects of the investigation could be focused on a discrete area of offending relating to two officials at the palace and the suspects Goodman and Mulcaire.


That's the part for me. It brings in the CPS (something that's been troubling me for a few days).

The decision dovetails too conventiently with NI's long-standing 'one rotten apple' line of defence and, in the new reality, it's absurd either body would not investigate "a vast array of offending behaviour". What the fuck is their job otherwise....

Who in either/both organisations concluded not to investigate and why didn't one call the other on it...


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> From agricola's quote in #7497:
> 
> That's the part for me. It brings in the CPS (something that's been troubling me for a few days).
> 
> The decision dovetails too conventiently with NI's long-standing 'one rotten apple' line of defence and, in the new reality, it's absurd either body would not investigate "a vast array of offending behaviour". What the fuck is their job otherwise....


 
But they had received assurances. ASSURANCES!


----------



## gavman (Jul 21, 2011)

michael fallon keeps appearing on newsnight. doing an appalling job of blame shifting and then sitting looking smug, like he's actually convincing anyone.
such tired lines..'why didn't labour sort it?' 'disco dave is leading the charge'...do us a fucking colin. you're being pushed by events to do as little as you can get away with, while blaming everyone else. i haven't felt this angry since tb's public appearances


----------



## Shreddy (Jul 21, 2011)

If this is not a fucking pretty much dead old cunt, I don't know what is...







I love the 'feigning' of care on Wendi's face. My new Lucy Liu


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> But they had received assurances. ASSURANCES!


 tbf, I've only seen that line used in relation to appointments, not mass criminality. So far


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

agricola said:


> Meanwhile, why wasnt this comment from the debate picked up on by more outlets (its only Guido who I can see covering it at the moment)?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw denied that it had ever been raised at Cabinet level afterwards, but would anyone be surprised if the investigation was spiked by Blair (as he did with BAe) in its early stages?  Furthermore, does this relevation - if its true (which it appears to be, it is after all apparently backed up by documentation) - put the lie to everything that has been said about this story by official sources up to this point?


 
I'm sure it was mentioned in one of today's Gruniard articles.
Milne? I'll need to re-check.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

belboid said:


> Have we been through how Cameron seems to have deliberately avoided putting Coulson through a full vetting?  Seems like when he was appointed by the Party, all they did was pay sme company £150 to do a basic websearch about him!


This to me is also a scandal; I spoke about this to a senior civil servant I know, and he is utterly astonished that coulson wasn't vetted to the very highest level of SC, simply because it meant that every meeting which Coulson was present at thereby presented a security risk. Given that even software developers are stringently vetted before working on any MOD, police or in fact ANY govt data project, it makes this all the more astonishing.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Oh yes he did! http://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=murdoch+sympathy+pie
> 
> True Justice for  in front of a particularly hostile crowd armed with hard missiles. Oh, and I'd like to be close to the stage please. Perhaps we could revive it temporarily ?? I feel strongly that NO-ONE should be allowed to call themselves a comedian unless they've been through The Tunnel or an equivalent baptism of ire.
> Check the fool's reasoning here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/user-comments/JonnieMarbles
> ...


Given that you're oop north, how da FUCK did you know about the club I went to every week when I was at Thames Poly?
That video certainly brought it all back - I was actually one of the worst hecklers


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

Tebbit says something about that in a lack of forsight saga


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Who in either/both organisations concluded not to investigate and why didn't one call the other on it...


 
IMHO the person who made such a decision was probably above both the Police and CPS, and probably outranked Goldsmith himself.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Given that you're oop north, how da FUCK did you know about the club I went to every week when I was at Thames Poly?
> That video certainly brought it all back - I was actually one of the worst hecklers


 
 what years where you there?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Times political writer is now saying that Control Risks were the company that Cameron refused to identify as being hired to look into Coulsen. IIRC Someone went through the torry accounts a few days ago and found them being employed to do checks on others at £140 or so a pop - i.e bottom of the barrel quick check stuff. SO it may not be that he was covering up *who* carried out the checks, but the *shitness* of the checks. That looks even more likley when tallied with the low-mid level clearance he was given - either because he wouldn't pass more stringent tests or to to protect him from further inquiry.


I think this is absolutely correct. £140 is piss all, and gets you piss all; a few phone calls,maybe ONE meet swith someone who knew Coulson, nothing more. 


> I.e someone knew he was rotten then. Did Cameron?


Well his Chief of staff (i.e. his gatekeeper) certainly bloody did, cos rusbridger told Hilton, and Hilton promptly told LLewellyn! it is possible Llewellyn discounted this on the grounds of Hilton's hatred of Coulson, but more likely to ensure Da Boss wasn't tainted by dangerous knowledge


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

ddraig said:


> what years where you there?


84-87


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

agricola said:


> IMHO the person who made such a decision was probably above both the Police and CPS, and probably outranked Goldsmith himself.


But surely, the only people who outrank Goldsmith, on such a matter as that, are the justice secretary, and the PM (Ok, possibly the Home Sec as well).


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2011)

I seriously doubt £140 gets you anything other than a desk-based check. £140 barely covers the staff time to leave the office and meet up with someone.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

Piers Morgan 'interviewed' by Naomi Campell, 2007 (note the claim that he was 'hacked')



> *What do you think of the News Of The World reporter who was recently found guilty of tapping the Royals' phones? Did you ever allow that when you were there?*
> 
> Well, I was there in 1994-5, before mobiles were used very much, and that particular trick wasn't known about. I can't get too excited about it, I must say. It was pretty well-known that if you didn't change your pin code when you were a celebrity who bought a new phone, then reporters could ring your mobile, tap in a standard factory setting number and hear your messages. That is not, to me, as serious as planting a bug in someone's house, which is what some people seem to think was going on.
> 
> ...


----------



## ddraig (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> 84-87


 
ta, little bit before me then


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2011)

Lulzsec on Twitter: "We're currently working with certain media outlets who have been granted exclusive access to some of the News of the World emails we have."


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> Lulzsec on Twitter: "We're currently working with certain media outlets who have been granted exclusive access to some of the News of the World emails we have."


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

Shreddy said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but could somebody please direct me to that UK tabloid where ladies get their tits out?


you meanThe soopah soaraway Sun
"Page 3" is the bit you refer to. It says everything about Murdoch that putting porn (basically) on P3 of a national daily newspaper was his first famous press innovation in the UK.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> I seriously doubt £140 gets you anything other than a desk-based check. £140 barely covers the staff time to leave the office and meet up with someone.


Just spoke to a mate of mine who still sells ads to PIs on the same directory I used to; he reckons some - not the big firms - will do one 1/2 hour meet as well as a few calls, and it wopuld usually be done by the office rookie


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 21, 2011)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/us-newscorp-coulson-idUSTRE76K2RO20110721




			
				Reuters said:
			
		

> LONDON (Reuters)- Scotland Yard investigators have cryptic financial records corroborating suspicions that former News of the World editor Andy Coulson knew about illegal payments to police officers, a source with knowledge of the matter told Reuters.
> 
> The cash records tally with payments suggested in an email discussion between Coulson and the newspaper's disgraced royal correspondent, Clive Goodman.
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> Louise, teach abstinance to school girls, Mensch...



It was the execrable Nadine "Mad Nad" Dorries, adulteress and hypocrite _extraordinaire_, who started that bundle of fail off.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Ms Grey (Murdoch's daughter) intervened, Ms Pink (his wife) lashed out after. Fat fella got some of the pie himself.


 
Cleared up, thanks London_Calling.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Ms Grey (Murdoch's daughter)


 
she isn't his daughter.  Dont know who it is, but its deffo not Elizabeth or Prudence, and his kids with Wendi are still a bit younger than she looked


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

stephj said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/us-newscorp-coulson-idUSTRE76K2RO20110721
> 
> 
> > Cameron told parliament on Wednesday that if it emerged Coulson had lied to him about not knowing of illegal practices at the paper, he would offer a "profound apology."
> ...


Damn. If only he'd offered to strip naked and wrap himself in rubber bands until he fell over. That would be so much better than an apology. On second thoughts. This should be Cameron wrapping Coulson in rubber bands until Coulson falls over. Coulson will then resemble the worm* that we all know he truly is. 



ViolentPanda said:


> It was the execrable Nadine "Mad Nad" Dorries, adulteress and hypocrite _extraordinaire_, who started that bundle of fail off.


 
Indeed it was. http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/nadine-dorries-mp-how-journalism-works-in-bedfordshire/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> They SHOULD be judged on their ability to get information from people because that is an essential part of being an MP. They are supposed to be our representatives in the corridors of power. If they can't show that they can find out the information needed to make proper decisions on our behalf then they simply aren't capable of doing their job.


 
The Commons also houses a disproportionate number of QCs. One doesn't generally take silk unless one is capable of formulating probing and/or  tricksy questions.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

belboid said:


> she isn't his daughter.  Dont know who it is, but its deffo not Elizabeth or Prudence, and his kids with Wendi are still a bit younger than she looked


aren't the two elder daughters both blondes, anyway?


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> But surely, the only people who outrank Goldsmith, on such a matter as that, are the justice secretary, and the PM (Ok, possibly the Home Sec as well).


 
Which one of those has form for killing off politically inconvienient investigations?  Which one was closely allied to News Corp and the senior figures involved in this scandal?  Which one still has the influence to ensure that potentially damning evidence that leads to his door doesnt recieve wider attention?


----------



## Dan U (Jul 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> I seriously doubt £140 gets you anything other than a desk-based check. £140 barely covers the staff time to leave the office and meet up with someone.



i've paid more to a letting agent for a check, just to put it in context


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Times political writer is now saying that Control Risks were the company that Cameron refused to identify as being hired to look into Coulsen. IIRC Someone went through the torry accounts a few days ago and found them being employed to do checks on others at £140 or so a pop - i.e bottom of the barrel quick check stuff. SO it may not be that he was covering up *who* carried out the checks, but the *shitness* of the checks. That looks even more likley when tallied with the low-mid level clearance he was given - either because he wouldn't pass more stringent tests or to to protect him from further inquiry. I.e someone knew he was rotten then. Did Cameron?


 
FFS.
Positive vetting for "mid-level clearance" used to mean them doing a thorough job on you, up to and including such delights as trawling your political history, your bank account(s), your criminal record, and even contacting your school and college peers and your teachers and tutors.

Not some penny-ante credit and google check.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

streathamite said:


> aren't the two elder daughters both blondes, anyway?


 
no one cares!!!!!!


----------



## Random (Jul 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> FFS.
> Positive vetting for "mid-level clearance" used to mean them doing a thorough job on you, up to and including such as trawling your political history, your bank account(s), your criminal record, and even contacting your school and college peers and your teachers and tutors.
> 
> Not some penny-ante credit and google check.


 Was just going to say, 140 quid probably only got them something slightly better than a google check. But of course CR and the like are attributed with magic powers oohhhhhh


----------



## Dan U (Jul 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> FFS.
> Positive vetting for "mid-level clearance" used to mean them doing a thorough job on you, up to and including such as trawling your political history, your bank account(s), your criminal record, and even contacting your school and college peers and your teachers and tutors.
> 
> Not some penny-ante credit and google check.


 
bit on the Guardian feed about what 'developed' vetting actually is, and its not £140.. much more as you describe



> A reader who says he has gone through developed vetting, and asked not to be named, sends this concise summary of the process, which I have confirmed with another person who has gone through it:
> 
> It's an intimidating and very personal experience; every element of your life is examined in detail such as relationship with parents; your partner; your relationship status; sexual identity, activity and pornography consumption; internet use; financial status and debts; drug and alcohol use; and criminal activity, even if not known to the police.
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Seconded. The News of the World has gone down. I want to see the Mail and the Standard go under next.


 
I want to see Paul Dacre impaled Vlad Tepes-style on a blunt spike, screaming as the stake slowly rips through his viscera.

That'd give him something to shout "cunt!" about!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> People study for years, then they practice for decades, before developing the ability to crack witnesses, let alone witnesses as intelligent and well prepared as the NI crowd. Really, decades.



You don't half come out with some guff.



> It diminishes the skills of people on all sides to assume it's a job for laypeople, you may as well ask them to diagnose illness, design an office block and replumb your house while they're at it.


 
You're attributing a timescale that isn't anywhere near accurate. A good detective, according to both the US feds and ourr own police services, takes about 5 years to train up to "trained interrogator" standard, a couple of years longer for lawyers and psychologists because they're not generalists like detectives.

Of course the job isn't likely to be very well done by laypersons, but Parliament, and especially the Commons, isn't exactly composed of laypersons, it has a disproportionate number of Barristers and QCs sitting there.


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> FFS.
> Positive vetting for "mid-level clearance" used to mean them doing a thorough job on you, up to and including such delights as trawling your political history, your bank account(s), your criminal record, and even contacting your school and college peers and your teachers and tutors.
> 
> Not some penny-ante credit and google check.



It seems there were separate vetting processes.  The first one - the one that Control Risks are alleged to have done (though FWIW I still think it was someone associated with NI, given his almost exclusive history working for them) - was for his appointment into CCHQ, which would probably not have required any Cabinet Office vetting.  After they got into office, Coulson (along with the new SPADs) would have gone through Cabinet Office vetting, albeit not to the DV level.  

I should also point out that if (and its a big if) the Tories are telling the truth that Coulson didnt have access to material restricted to DV and above people, and wasnt able to order about civil servants who did, then they should really be congratulated for that.  Access to (and abuse of) that kind of material by the likes of Campbell under the last Labour government was something that desperately needed to be stamped out.


----------



## pk (Jul 21, 2011)

Has this been mentioned yet?

http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/...police-mobile-tracking?cat=media&type=article

Arguably worse than hacking - phone tracking...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I think it did, dylans. Up until then he was on the rack, and very much the villain of the piece. post-pie, it was all 'frail old man gets assaulted and rescued by his wife, the Chinese Wonderwoman' - it changed the focus.


 
Frail old man gets rescued by the minder Chinese intelligence honey-trapped him with, more likely!!!


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

pk said:


> Has this been mentioned yet?
> 
> http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/...police-mobile-tracking?cat=media&type=article
> 
> Arguably worse than hacking - phone tracking...



If that is true (at least in terms of corrupt police officers making fake requests), it would probably be quite easy to trace - there is a lot of paperwork that has to be completed, liaison with senior officers (who have to approve it, and record the reasons for doing so) and mobile phone companies, it requires a clear reason to request the check (IME its been people who have threatened to kill themselves and cannot be immediately located) and it would (as the article says) generate a paper trail.


----------



## krink (Jul 21, 2011)

Sorry it's a bit of a digression but I've been working from home last few weeks, are 'normal'  people still talking about this (i.e. people without a big interest in politics/media)?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 21, 2011)

One thing I don't quite understand, is how shit is the PNC if no footprint is created on every search? Surely if you have a list of 4,000 names you can reasonably easily (though not quickly I appreciate) look all them up and see what searches have been done for those names, and then the individuals involved and torture then for information on who's asking for it and how frequently?


----------



## gosub (Jul 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> Lulzsec on Twitter: "We're currently working with certain media outlets who have been granted exclusive access to some of the News of the World emails we have."


 
so in the middle of hubub about the media illegally sourcing material, a media company is writing a story using illegally sourced material about who knew about illegally sourced material.   This could lead to another public enquiry.


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> One thing I don't quite understand, is how shit is the PNC if no footprint is created on every search? Surely if you have a list of 4,000 names you can reasonably easily (though not quickly I appreciate) look all them up and see what searches have been done for those names, and then the individuals involved and torture then for information on who's asking for it and how frequently?


 
You are mistaken - the PNC records when a search was done, whose account did the search, what terminal the search was done at, the reason for the check and (though the operator has to add this manually) who asked for the check and where they were at the time.  The slightly newer PNC interface on the onboard computers in the Met's vehicles also records where (in terms of GPS coordinates) the vehicle was when the search was performed.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You don't half come out with some guff.


 I'd rather stick to the issues in hand but you're obv. keen to be another keyboard hero, so if you want to make it personal and be abusive, we can do that you over-blown, self-important, ignorant cunt.


ViolentPanda said:


> Of course the job isn't likely to be very well done by laypersons, but Parliament, and especially the Commons, isn't exactly composed of laypersons, it has a disproportionate number of Barristers and QCs sitting there.


Unless you're suggesting they should have stood in the middle of the Chamber and ‘the Commons’ take turns at them, they were questioned by a sitting Select Committee comprising (it would appear from the quality of questioning) zero legally qualified MPs.

Remind me, what was your ever-so-worthwhile point? Something about 'the Commons' questioning them because of so many silks? Love to hear more about that.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 21, 2011)

agricola said:


> You are mistaken - the PNC records when a search was done, whose account did the search, what terminal the search was done at, the reason for the check and (though the operator has to add this manually) who asked for the check and where they were at the time.  The slightly newer PNC interface on the onboard computers in the Met's vehicles also records where (in terms of GPS coordinates) the vehicle was when the search was performed.


 
Then fishing out the crooked cops/user should be a piece of piss? Contact the handful of people who accessed, say, Jude Law's records in a 5 year period and bob's your uncle?


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Then fishing out the crooked cops/user should be a piece of piss? Contact the handful of people who accessed, say, Jude Law's records in a 5 year period and bob's your uncle?


 
Well yes, but this isnt about misuse of the PNC (though Motorman was).  Trawling through 4000+ peoples mobile phone records, when (it appears) they dont know whose is what, who requested the checks and why will (and is) take ages.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I'd rather stick to the issues in hand but you're obv. keen to be another keyboard hero, so if you want to make it personal and be abusive, we can do that you over-blown, self-important, ignorant cunt.
> 
> Unless you're suggesting they should have stood in the middle of the Chamber and ‘the Commons’ take turns at them, they were questioned by a sitting Select Committee comprising (it would appear from the quality of questioning) zero legally qualified MPs.
> 
> Remind me, what was your ever-so-worthwhile point? Something about 'the Commons' questioning them because of so many silks? Love to hear more about that.


 
Silks aren't the only ones capable of asking a question.  And it is, amazingly enough, possible for a silk to advise one of the colleagues on how best to question someone!  Crazy stuff, I know.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Frail old man gets rescued by the minder Chinese intelligence honey-trapped him with, more likely!!!



what an intriguing explanation of the origin of their marriage....
(I always thought it was simply dirty old man-golddigger, tho')


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Commons also houses a disproportionate number of QCs. One doesn't generally take silk unless one is capable of formulating probing and/or  tricksy questions.


Plus journalists and other meejah types, same goes for them, and most successful businessmen didn't get there without that ability


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

How can you read and watch as much politics as you do and fail to  understand it is not about (as Tom Watson did, for example) asking a list of questions?

With or without help from 'the silks' in 'the Commons', a fucking 8-year old could have done that.

Is it any wonder both Murdoch's became more and more confident the longer it went on.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

Dan U said:


> bit on the Guardian feed about what 'developed' vetting actually is, and its not £140.. much more as you describe


DV is nothing to do with the £140 Control Risks process


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 21, 2011)

agricola said:


> Well yes, but this isnt about misuse of the PNC (though Motorman was).  Trawling through 4000+ peoples mobile phone records, when (it appears) they dont know whose is what, who requested the checks and why will (and is) take ages.


 
If they didn't make at least an effort to find and oust the insiders, then they give little deterrant for the practise to continue.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> How can you read and watch as much politics as you do and fail to  understand it is not about (as Tom Watson did, for example) asking a list of questions?
> 
> With or without help from 'the silks' in 'the Commons', a fucking 8-year old could have done that.
> 
> Is it any wonder both Murdoch's became more and more confident the longer it went on.


 
That's true, you can also say one word louder than another: 'To *be* or not to be,' or 'To be *or* not to *be*,' or 'To be or not to *be*' you see? And so on. 

And of course inflection.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

agricola said:


> Which one of those has form for killing off politically inconvienient investigations?  Which one was closely allied to News Corp and the senior figures involved in this scandal?  Which one still has the influence to ensure that potentially damning evidence that leads to his door doesnt recieve wider attention?


I think they'd be VERY lucky to pin any of this on Teflon Tony. Not saying you're wrong, just don't think Cox has proved his case yet


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

two sheds - You mean emphasis? Whoa, steady on. You'll be coaching Tom Watson before you know it.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 21, 2011)

I think that the weakness of the committee was that it did not have any big hitters on it. This may be because the remit of the comittee is Culture, Media. and Sport. The politicians who come from those backgrounds or have an interest in those areas, and are therefore on that committee are not the heavyweights of politics. That is why some of their questions were so weak as to appear almost witless.


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> If they didn't make at least an effort to find and oust the insiders, then they give little deterrant for the practise to continue.


 
Er - they fairly regularly get people for misuse of the PNC.  This issue is something else entirely.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> How can you read and watch as much politics as you do and fail to  understand it is not about (as Tom Watson did, for example) asking a list of questions?
> 
> With or without help from 'the silks' in 'the Commons', a fucking 8-year old could have done that.
> 
> Is it any wonder both Murdoch's became more and more confident the longer it went on.


 
lol, what does this have to do with anything?  Fuck all, really. Your notion that only 'silks' are capable of such questioning is drivel, and one you dont even attempt to justify!  Hey ho


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 21, 2011)

Cameron's own checks are irrelevant. MI5 would have briefed him on his close aides.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> Cameron's own checks are irrelevant. MI5 would have briefed him on his close aides.


 
That's why he tried so hard and so repeatedly to cover it up. His knowledge of dodginess is precisely what he's trying to hide.


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's why he tried so hard and so repeatedly to cover it up. His knowledge of dodginess is precisely what he's trying to hide.


 
The irony is that it appears everyone knew of his (and NI's) dodginess, and yet noone gave a shit apart from Nick Davies.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2011)

Labour probly thought it was a gift waiting to happen.

Well, that and the fact that after appointing Campbell they didn't have that strong a leg to stand on


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

Nick Davies was employed, he didn't do it freelance. Tom Watson also worked hard on it - presumably everyone else either had a skeleton (as most of us do) they didn't want exposed, or just didn't want the inevitable and on going smearing of them and/or their families.

This was intimidation of the political class and the Met on a mental scale.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 21, 2011)

pk said:


> Has this been mentioned yet?
> 
> http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/...police-mobile-tracking?cat=media&type=article
> 
> Arguably worse than hacking - phone tracking...



It's why anyone engaging in criminal stuff even 10 years ago would constantly change their phone .. and always pay as you go. Yer average celebrity and member of the public would have no reason to even think about such a thing. So whatever records there are about this has to land at crooked coppers with far less (I imagine) links to wrongun journalists.
The fuckin cunts !!


----------



## Mitre10 (Jul 21, 2011)

Seems to be a rumour circulating that the Mirror's 2003 story re. Rio Ferdinand missing his drug test was based on illegally blagged phone records.

If true, I can't wait to see Morgan try to squirm out of this one.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> How can you read and watch as much politics as you do and fail to  understand it is not about (as Tom Watson did, for example) asking a list of questions?
> 
> With or without help from 'the silks' in 'the Commons', a fucking 8-year old could have done that.
> 
> Is it any wonder both Murdoch's became more and more confident the longer it went on.


I'm sorry, but the idea that experienced MPs (i.e. experience of a lifetime's politicaql involvement), with all the forensic talent they can call on, and with all the briefs and - excuse me! - hacks who get elected, do not know how to ask the right sort of questions or follow the trail, is ridiculous.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 21, 2011)

belboid said:


> Labour probly thought it was a gift waiting to happen.
> 
> Well, that and the fact that after appointing Campbell they didn't have that strong a leg to stand on



This is where Cameron got sucked into making the mistake of employing a journalist as advisor. He was emulating Tony Blair who employed both Cambell and Mandelson from journalistic backgrounds. Both of these characters took over control of their party at different times and got results for Blair - albeit at the expense of the ordinary party members and opponents of Blair. Cameron was so impressed by their performance that he thought a similar man would make him stronger in relation to the media and also within his own party perhaps. What a pity he fell for a bad-un in Coulson. Cameron was already aligned with News International so he would have been unsuspecting of the dodgy side of that organisation, imagining that he was among friends.


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Nick Davies was employed, he didn't do it freelance. Tom Watson also worked hard on it - presumably everyone else either had a skeleton (as most of us do) they didn't want exposed, or just didn't want the inevitable and on going smearing of them and/or their families.
> 
> This was intimidation of the political class and the Met on a mental scale.


 
Nick Davies has been banging on about this - and the rest of the dark arts - for ages, you cant just suggest he was doing it because he was employed to do so (and IIRC he was threatened to try to get him to drop this).  As for Tom Watson (and Bryant), yes they are prominent in this but given whose creatures they were (Watson especially) perhaps some caution should be used when crediting them with noble motives in this case.  

And as for "intimidation of the political class" - do me a favour.  They sucked up to Murdoch because he could do something for them, far more than sucking up because they were scared of him.  In that respect their corrupt involvement with Murdoch (and the rest) is not that dissimilar to their corrupt involvement with the banks, with the Big Four accountancy firms, or any one of a number of other business concerns... who they usually jump to when their time as MPs (or ministers) is done.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> FFS.
> Positive vetting for "mid-level clearance" used to mean them doing a thorough job on you, up to and including such delights as trawling your political history, your bank account(s), your criminal record, and even contacting your school and college peers and your teachers and tutors.
> 
> Not some penny-ante credit and google check.


No, the Control Risks cheapo job was done before he was cleared to work for the Tories' HQ, i.e. when they were still in opposition. Later, he got the mid-level vetting, when the Coalition Of The Wallies was formed, and he was about to be given a job at No 10


----------



## xenon (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's why he tried so hard and so repeatedly to cover it up. His knowledge of dodginess is precisely what he's trying to hide.


 


Yep, it's plane isn't it. He thought he could use a rogue's talent and it's blown up in his face.

It's OK though, he's gonna  issue a full frank opology, when he has to.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I'm sorry, but the idea that experienced MPs (i.e. experience of a lifetime's politicaql involvement), with all the forensic talent they can call on, and with all the briefs and - excuse me! - hacks who get elected, do not know how to ask the right sort of questions or follow the trail, is ridiculous.


 It really isn't. You must have seen the questioning on the day. Every single question was written in advance.

That is not examination, and it could be done by an 8-year old.


You must also have seen how a line of questioning works in a court room, the traps,  faints, emotional manipulation, rhythms, tonal variation, etc, etc, etc  of a line of questioning that starts innocuously and is entirely dependent on the answer just given.

An example is what should have happened after they admitted still paying Mulcaire's fees. A golden opportunity totally missed. The Murdoch's should have beem hung on that alone, and James was ready - but the line never came.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It really isn't. You must have seen the questioning on the day. Every single question was written in advance.


ALL of those questions would have been drawn up on the basis of extensive consultation with Parliamentary counsel, the HoC in-house legal team who are there specifically for that, and for drafting legislation


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

Jesus. Life is too short.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It really isn't. You must have seen the questioning on the day. Every single question was written in advance.
> 
> That is not examination, and it could be done by an 8-year old.
> 
> ...


 
So, once again, your argument why only silks are capable of such  behaviour is..... because only silks are capable of such behaviour.  Jolly well done!


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Jesus. Life is too short.


 
to get anything sensible from you


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

belboid said:


> So, once again, your argument why only silks are capable of such  behaviour is..... because only silks are capable of such behaviour.  Jolly well done!


 
It may already have been said, but half the forensic skills of silks (and detectives fwiw) are developed because they have restrictions on what they can and cant ask.  An MP on a Select Committee has far fewer restrictions.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

Haf found miskiw


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> You must also have seen how a line of questioning works in a court room, the traps,  faints, emotional manipulation, rhythms, tonal variation, etc, etc, etc  of a line of questioning that starts innocuously and is entirely dependent on the answer just given.


This is NOT a court of law, and the rules of questioning, and therefore the techniques and methods that are both allowed and advisable, are totally different. A select committee has NO judicial status; in fact, a local authority planning committee has far more judicial status


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

Mitre10 said:


> Seems to be a rumour circulating that the Mirror's 2003 story re. Rio Ferdinand missing his drug test was based on illegally blagged phone records.
> 
> If true, I can't wait to see Morgan try to squirm out of this one.


 
This report - and others (including an allegation that the Mirror were in possession of a transcript of Angus Deyton's phonecalls from when he left HIGNFY in 2003) are gleefully described in the latest issue of _Private Eye_*

* or _Private Eye (incorporating the News of the World)_ to give it its new full title.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 21, 2011)

agricola said:


> Nick Davies has been banging on about this - and the rest of the dark arts - for ages, you cant just suggest he was doing it because he was employed to do so (and IIRC he was threatened to try to get him to drop this).  As for Tom Watson (and Bryant), yes they are prominent in this but given whose creatures they were (Watson especially) perhaps some caution should be used when crediting them with noble motives in this case.
> 
> And as for "intimidation of the political class" - do me a favour.  They sucked up to Murdoch because he could do something for them, far more than sucking up because they were scared of him.  In that respect their corrupt involvement with Murdoch (and the rest) is not that dissimilar to their corrupt involvement with the banks, with the Big Four accountancy firms, or any one of a number of other business concerns... who they usually jump to when their time as MPs (or ministers) is done.


 
While I largely agree with what you say, I think the intimidation potential of the possibility of being smeared in the NoTW shouldn't be underestimated.

I think Seumas Milne puts it quite nicely ... 



> Murdoch's overweening political influence has long been recognised, from well before Tony Blair flew to Australia in 1995 to pay public homage at his corporate court. What has been less well understood is how close-up and personal the pressure exerted by his organisation has been throughout public life. The fear that those who crossed him would be given the full tabloid treatment over their personal misdemeanours, real or imagined, has proved to be a powerful Mafia-like racket.
> 
> It was the warning that News International would target their personal lives that cowed members of the Commons culture and media committee over pressing their investigation into phone hacking too vigorously before the last election. Barely a fortnight ago, Ed Miliband was warned that Murdoch's papers would "make it personal" after he broke with the political-class omerta towards the company. The same vow of silence meant that when Rebekah Brooks told MPs in 2003 her organisation had "paid the police for information", the bribery admission sank like a stone.
> 
> The Sopranos style is deeply embedded in the Murdoch dynasty. When the New Labour culture secretary Tessa Jowell broke up with her husband in 2006 as he faced Berlusconi-linked corruption charges (he was later cleared), Brooks took her out, letting her cry on her shoulder – just as News International was hacking into the couple's phone. Jowell has now called in her lawyers, but that didn't stop her attending Elisabeth Murdoch's lavish Chipping Norton party earlier this month, along with David Miliband and other Blairite luminaries. The family demands respect – even from those it has punished.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/20/scandal-exposed-scale-elite-corruption


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

The power goes hand in hand with the potential for intimidation. They feed each other.

Development, potentially very important: _Former NoW men Colin Myler & Tom Crone issue sensational statement saying James Murdoch was 'mistaken' in evidence to CMS_

Peston says their statement,(can't find yet) implies JM knew hacking went beyond CG. Big trouble


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think Seumas Milne puts it quite nicely ...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/20/scandal-exposed-scale-elite-corruption


 
Yes, the whole article is worth reading.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

Fighting within the city walls now.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2011)

My word, may RICO call from a different direction? 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/phone-hacking-news-corporation



> US senator invokes website-hacking trial in call for Murdoch inquiry
> 
> Attorney general asked to consider evidence of hacking into site of small firm, which News Corporation later bought outright


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Haf found miskiw


sorry, less cryptic please? 
e2a; No need, gotcha! C4 have found and spoken to Greg Miskiw in Florida, and he says he's returning.
Note to all; this is the bloke who hired Mulcaire


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> sorry, less cryptic please?


 
Greg miskiw has been located in florida and is flying back to the UK.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Greg miskiw has been located in florida and is flying back to the UK.


 
Oooh Greg 'That is what we do — we go out and destroy other people’s lives’ Miskiw.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/20/scandal-exposed-scale-elite-corruption


link's fucked, Bernie


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Greg miskiw has been located in florida and is flying back to the UK.


Thank you.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 21, 2011)

> Just by way of clarification relating to Tuesday's CMS Select Committee hearing, we would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken.
> 
> In fact, we did inform him of the "for Neville" email which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor's lawyers



Just when you think it's quietened down


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

tom watson: "when you signed the Taylor payment did you see or were you made aware of the for Neville email, the transcript...."for Neville email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages? 

James murdoch: No, I was not aware of that at the time"


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 21, 2011)

My god. So what will this mean?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 21, 2011)

what the fuck is this lost bag story all about?



> 7.09pm: More news of the mystery bag belonging to Rebekah Brooks's husband which was found in a bin in an underground car park near the couple's home on Monday.
> 
> Charlie Brooks has said the bag – which contained papers and a lap top – is his and does not contain material connected with the phone hacking inquiry. My colleague Amelia Hill has a story on this soon. Here's a taste:
> 
> ...


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> what the fuck is this lost bag story all about?


 
Yes, I had forgotten about the bag. There must be something in it !!


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> My god. So what will this mean?


It means Colin Myler and the NI legal manager have basically accused james Murdoch of lying to the committee, and have thoroughly dumped him in the shit! 
It also means JM is inching closer and closer to being in _real_ trouble, and of it being proved he knew far more than he's making out.
<cackles gleefully>


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

Murdoch is being recalled to the committee


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2011)

glorious. another weekend of action ahead?


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2011)

BBC has info about NOTW journalists targetting.... the lawyers of phone-hacking victims.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 21, 2011)

Is it me or is Cameron looking extremely shifty? And sorry if I've been missing things but do we know what meetings Coulson had with NI employees when he was in the country's employ, and what was discussed?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 21, 2011)

Nothing inappropriate was discussed, that's been answered several times. Now, if we could start getting onto other matters, such as terrorism ...


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Murdoch is being recalled to the committee


Have you got a link for that please?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> It means Colin Myler and the NI legal manager have basically accused james Murdoch of lying to the committee, and have thoroughly dumped him in the shit!
> It also means JM is inching closer and closer to being in _real_ trouble, and of it being proved he knew far more than he's making out.
> <cackles gleefully>


 
Won't he just get out of it though? After all they're just as corrupt as each other ...


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Yes, I had forgotten about the bag. There must be something in it !!


 
A computer, apparently.


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2011)

Here's The Guardian's four key points for today:



> • Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture secretary, has written to Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, asking who made the decision not to seek the highest-level security clearance for Andy Coulson and why (see 5.32pm http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/201...-scandal-live-coverage?commentpage=9#block-44). Unlike his predecessors Alastair Campbell, Dave Hill and Michael Ellam, Coulson, David Cameron's press chief from 2010 to 2011, was only accorded "security check" level clearance rather than the higher "developed vetting".
> 
> • Andy Coulson's successor, Craig Oliver, has refused to say whether he has undergone a more stringent security vetting than Coulson's mid-level checks. A series of readers who have been through civil service vetting themselves have been in touch to say they are astonished that Coulson, a man working at the heart of Downing Street, was not vetted more thoroughly.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Yes, I had forgotten about the bag. There must be something in it !!



Yes a computer apparently.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 21, 2011)

He's never had an inappropriate discussion, doesn't that answer your question? But if he did discuss anything which is discovered to be inappropriate, he will issue a full and frank apology.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2011)

editor said:


> Have you got a link for that please?


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/phone-hacking-scandal-live-coverage


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2011)

belboid said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/phone-hacking-scandal-live-coverage


Gotcha. 



> 7.15pm: John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons select committee, has told my colleague Patrick Wintour that he will be recalling James Murdoch to explain the statement issued tonight by Colin Myler and Tom Crone.
> 
> Whittingdale said:
> 
> We as a committee regarded the For Neville email as one of the most critical pieces of evidence in the whole inquiry. We will be asking James Murdoch to respond and ask him to clarify.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> It means Colin Myler and the NI legal manager have basically accused james Murdoch of lying to the committee, and have thoroughly dumped him in the shit!
> It also means JM is inching closer and closer to being in _real_ trouble, and of it being proved he knew far more than he's making out.
> <cackles gleefully>


An important part of the news international narrative is that they acted swiftly as soon as they became aware there was more than one rogue journalist. This happened in late 2010 when the civil cases had gotten quite far.

The Taylor payout and case shows that is not a credible version of events. So they did not behave in a honest fashion and they cannot explain things as merely trusting the wrong people.

Also news international staff have covered up evidence of criminal behaviour by staff other than Goodman and as part of this cover up offered a very substantial payout to a plaintive (Taylor) in order that the case not reach court. There may be ground (I dont know how strong) for charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. James Murdochs signature is on the cheque.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Greg miskiw has been located in florida and is flying back to the UK.


 
In today's Palm Beach post, Alexandra Clough reports: 


> Ihor "Greg" Miskiw had been living in a tropical hideaway in Delray Beach, The Palm Beach Post reported Wednesday.
> 
> Press reports say police want to talk to Miskiw about the burgeoning phone hacking scandal.
> 
> ...


----------



## revlon (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> sorry, less cryptic please?
> e2a; No need, gotcha! C4 have found and spoken to Greg Miskiw in Florida, and he says he's returning.
> Note to all; this is the bloke who hired Mulcaire


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Won't he just get out of it though? After all they're just as corrupt as each other ...


It depends on how insistent Myler and Crone are. the key thing is; two prominent, senior ex-NI people have flatly contradicted him, which as butchers alluded to in typically enigmatic fashion (), they've now begun to fight amongst themselves, and the old NI pack loyalty looks truly dead and buried.
In fact, JM has already been recalled by the CMS committee chair, for questioning on this.
e2a; if enough of this shit sticks to him, what it also means is that the next CEO of Newscorp will NOT be called Murdoch


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> An important part of the news international narrative is that they acted swiftly as soon as they became aware there was more than one rogue journalist. This happened in late 2010 when the civil cases had gotten quite far.
> 
> The Taylor payout and case shows that is not a credible version of events. So they did not behave in a honest fashion and they cannot explain things as merely trusting the wrong people.
> 
> Also news international staff have covered up evidence of criminal behaviour by staff other than Goodman and as part of this cover up offered a very substantial payout to a plaintive (Taylor) in order that the case not reach court. There may be ground (I dont know how strong) for charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. James Murdochs signature is on the cheque.


Absolutely agree with all of this - and loving it!


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> It depends on how insistent Myler and Crone are. the key thing is; two prominent, senior ex-NI people have flatly contradicted him, which as butchers alluded to in typically enigmatic fashion (), they've now begun to fight amongst themselves, and the old NI pack loyalty looks truly dead and buried.
> In fact, JM has already been recalled by the CMS committee chair, for questioning on this.
> e2a; if enough of this shit sticks to him, what it also means is that the next CEO of Newscorp will NOT be called Murdoch


 
It's not necessarily fighting amongst themselves - maybe it's young jim being the next to get thrown under the bus? Either way, I think he's done for...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

Sun journo just been sacked over this apparently - Peston


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2011)

This is like an extended disembowelling - each time you tug, out falls another pile of entrails, while the disembowellee screams & wriggles.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 21, 2011)

killer b said:


> It's not necessarily fighting amongst themselves -


It looks that way to me.

 James Murdoch claimed he relied on legal advice from experts. The legal experts have stated that he was fully aware of the facts when he chose to sign the cheque. 

The simplest way to see things is that the lawyers are now settling into a "just following orders" and "client confidentiality" defense of their behaviour.

They are placing the consequences of the choices onto James. So long as they have their story and legal position well prepared I would expect them to be able among the most comfortably placed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

killer b said:


> This is like an extended disembowelling - each time you tug, out falls another pile of entrails, while the disembowellee screams & wriggles.


 
Matt Nixson, features editor of Sun...

Ex NOTW news editor and  features editor


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I'd rather stick to the issues in hand but you're obv. keen to be another keyboard hero, so if you want to make it personal and be abusive, we can do that you over-blown, self-important, ignorant cunt.



Who's the self-important one, the person making a fairly uncontentious statement that you talk guff, or the person reacting in the manner of a foul-mouthed _prima donna_?



> Unless you're suggesting they should have stood in the middle of the Chamber and ‘the Commons’ take turns at them, they were questioned by a sitting Select Committee comprising (it would appear from the quality of questioning) zero legally qualified MPs.
> 
> Remind me, what was your ever-so-worthwhile point? Something about 'the Commons' questioning them because of so many silks? Love to hear more about that.



Having problems with your reading comprehension again? Must be something to do with getting in a tizz every time someone points out that you're coming out with a load of old bollocks.

I'll simplify what I said for you. Parliament, especially the House of Commons, has a disproportionately high number of lawyers on the benches. Nothing about the Commons questioning anybody. Such an active imagination you have.

Learn to read, or learn to keep quiet, in case you reveal what people have previously only guessed at: That you're an idiot.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

killer b said:


> It's not necessarily fighting amongst themselves - maybe it's young jim being the next to get thrown under the bus? Either way, I think he's done for...


OH, I am sooo dreaming this is the case. I don't wanna get my hopes up too much


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Sun journo just been sacked over this apparently - Peston


YES!!!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

Matt Nixson appointed by Coulsen



> News of the World editor Andy Coulson has handed the vacant post of news editor to Matt Nixson, who did not even apply for the job.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> How can you read and watch as much politics as you do and fail to  understand it is not about (as Tom Watson did, for example) asking a list of questions?



No-one has claimed that it's about "asking a list of questions". All the professions that have been mentioned include learning how to interrogate, that it, to manipulate answers from a subject, not to read a question from a list.



> With or without help from 'the silks' in 'the Commons', a fucking 8-year old could have done that.



You could have too, no doubt.



> Is it any wonder both Murdoch's became more and more confident the longer it went on.


 
They became confident because Murdoch Sr's "mad grandad" act was paying off, and Murdoch Jr's "Cleatus the inbred" act was working too.

Perhaps the committee realised something that you obviously haven't: That pushing them hard, on that occasion, had less value than being able to convince them to return of their own free will rather than compelling them.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> It depends on how insistent Myler and Crone are. the key thing is; two prominent, senior ex-NI people have flatly contradicted him, which as butchers alluded to in typically enigmatic fashion (), they've now begun to fight amongst themselves, and the old NI pack loyalty looks truly dead and buried.
> In fact, JM has already been recalled by the CMS committee chair, for questioning on this.
> e2a; if enough of this shit sticks to him, what it also means is that the next CEO of Newscorp will NOT be called Murdoch


 
Maybe it's just me being cynical here but i would have thought he's too rich and his dad's too influential to mean that he ended up inside? Or by "big trouble" do you simply mean not being on the board of News Int'l?


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2011)

he's done for. totally fucked.

probably won't end up in prison, but a glittering career at newscorp is over.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Matt Nixson appointed by Coulsen


 
Jesus wept lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> No, the Control Risks cheapo job was done before he was cleared to work for the Tories' HQ, i.e. when they were still in opposition. Later, he got the mid-level vetting, when the Coalition Of The Wallies was formed, and he was about to be given a job at No 10


 
In which case all of the shit currently airing will have been known by Cameron for at least a year.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 21, 2011)

Where's Wallis in all this? (lol). Is he bailed or locked up somewhere?


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2011)

a one line press release from murdoch:

http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_502.html


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 21, 2011)

Where's Wallis in all this? (lol). Is he bailed or locked up somewhere?

Oh and has this been posted yet lol: 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-yard-job-after-work-experience-at-the-sun.do


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 21, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/19/neil-wallis-andy-coulson

Fucking neil wallis lol. Everyone is desperate to deny that they had anything to do with him.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 21, 2011)

http://twitter.com/#!/MattNixson



> Really sad how nasty Twitter has allowed people to become and how publicly.





> Gutted by @billybragg's new song. Massive massive fan for years. Now I'm not allowed to have a job anymore.





> I am so proud of all my colleagues and friends at the News of the World and editor Colin Myler for the dignity they have shown.


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2011)

hehe. i was just looking at that.


----------



## elbows (Jul 21, 2011)

Regarding Nixson, I like reading old stuff and putting new interpretation on the words with the benefit of hindsight 

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=34075&sectioncode=1



> NoW managing editor Stuart Kuttner said: "Matt is an inordinately resourceful and he's a tenacious journalist. He demonstrated the ability to think widely and constructively in his features role, and to see many enterprises through from conception into the paper. Like the editor, Andy Coulson, Matt saw the newsdesk role as his next challenge and was delighted to seize it."
> 
> He added that Nixson was "a young man of significant talent and would fulfil the demands of the newsdesk with style and credit".


----------



## ska invita (Jul 21, 2011)

killer b said:


> he's done for. totally fucked.
> 
> probably won't end up in prison, but a glittering career at newscorp is over.




ITS THE SON WOT DONE IT!


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 21, 2011)

http://istyosty.com/tmp/cache/5626fd1aa6951608d74d4eeeaa48b56ca65fe35b.html ffs ...


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jul 21, 2011)

A Twitter exchange between Robert Peston and Tom Watson: 



> Peston Robert Peston
> There has been a dismissal of a Sun journalist tonight in relation to investigations into hacking etc by News Corp. Will give you more soon





> tom_watson tom_watson
> Why Sun story now @Peston? More spin to deflect Myler/Crone statement? Where's your dignity?





> Peston Robert Peston
> @tom_watson Tom, this is an outrageous and untrue allegation





> tom_watson tom_watson
> I'm sorry @Peston but you are being spoonfed stories. The Myler statement creates a crisis at NI. You have form. Stop being a patsy.





> Peston Robert Peston
> @tom_watson That is not worthy of a response


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 21, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> A Twitter exchange between Robert Peston and Tom Watson:


 
Hahaha ...


----------



## agricola (Jul 21, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> A Twitter exchange between Robert Peston and Tom Watson:


 
An ex-Labour minister accusing _anyone_ of spin is massive hypocrisy in itself.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 21, 2011)

Watson is spot on though and Peston's role need to be highlighted. 

This story just keeps on giving doesn't it? 
For about 48 hours things seemed to have calmed down, but now more twists. 

Camerons and Murdoch must been feeling like they were over the worst of it - and then ...

Could James Murdoch go down? Its definitely within the realms of possibility. Seems there's a few high up in NI willing to dump him in the shit. At the very least he will almost certainly have to resign in the near future.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

I don't understand why Watson is bothered what Peston is reporting on. Watson has a committee investigation to deal with which should be able to get to the bottom of the issues. Surely that should be more important than arguing over minor momentary details with Peston.


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I don't understand


 
.


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2011)

Massive kudos to Watson and The Guardian here for relentlessly driving this story. Watson laid the trap for Murdoch Jnr with his questioning beautifully.

As an aside, I had contact with Watson a while ago on an unrelated issue and he responded immediately.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> .


 
I think my point deserved more than that. Watson should not be being ruled by petty BBC items, his exchange with Peston is showing that he is being distracted.


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think my point deserved more than that. Watson should not be being ruled by petty BBC items, his exchange with Peston is showing that he is being distracted.


 
He's not being ruled by anything and he's not being distracted. This whole story came out because people paid attention to lots of things. Have some perspective.


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2011)

what was watson's record in government? wasn't really conscious of him before last summer...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 21, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/james-murdoch-select-committee-evidence


> Colin Myler, editor of the paper until it was shut down two weeks ago, and Tom Crone, the paper's former head of legal affairs, said they had expressly told Murdoch of an email that would have blown a hole in its defence that only one "rogue reporter" was involved in the phone-hacking scandal.
> 
> This contradicts what Murdoch told the committee when questioned on Tuesday.


This is definitely the more important story, if Smithers lied to the committee...I mean everyone knows he lied to the committee but this is fucking great.

I mean he's out on his arse, minimum, in a week if this gathers pace - and we'll have Watson and the Guardian pushing it...and probably half the MPs in the country now.

(they'll be able to bargain a better price from the next bidder)


----------



## ska invita (Jul 21, 2011)

This on the sacking tonight of Sun features editor Matt Nixson.

 "Matt Nixson, who has worked for the Sun for six months, was approached by four News International security guards at 6.30pm at the newspaper's office at Wapping. The guards asked him to leave the building because he was being dismissed. *His computer was seized.* [that'll be his Sun computer]

News International sources stressed this was standard procedure and did not indicate any wrong doing during Nixson's time at the Sun. They said the evidence indicating wrong doing related to his time at the News of the World."

blatantly desperate attempt to stop contagion to the sun, and getting rid of evidence before it comes up, dont you reckon?


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2011)

The way news international was spinning myler being a good & honourable journalist has a taste of delicious irony now. Who's going to believe murdoch over him?


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2011)

ska invita said:


> This on the sacking tonight of Sun features editor Matt Nixson.
> 
> "Matt Nixson, who has worked for the Sun for six months, was approached by four News International security guards at 6.30pm at the newspaper's office at Wapping. The guards asked him to leave the building because he was being dismissed. *His computer was seized.* [that'll be his Sun computer]
> 
> ...


 
Or cleaning up ahead of the lulzsec email release? They'll know what's in the 4 gigs they have.


----------



## dylans (Jul 21, 2011)

killer b said:


> Or cleaning up ahead of the lulzsec email release? They'll know what's in the 4 gigs they have.


 
I don't think there is a 4 gig email stash. I think its bullshit


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2011)

dylans said:


> I don't think there is a 4 gig email stash. I think its bullshit


 
You're probably right. Maybe not the best thread for groundless speculation...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 21, 2011)

I have a feeling that the whole issue of Coulson's security clearence  - whilst seemingly a rather obscure issue - will cause Cameron a whole heap of trouble. Its clear that the number 10 office deliberately avoided probing into his background - for obvious reasons. It will stretch the credibility of Cameron's story -  that nobody passed any info -  to him to breaking point. 

'So your staff deliberatly withheld info on how toxic coulson was and deliberately avoided giving him the appropriate security clearence? - Why? And why haven't you sacked those responsible?'

Seriously though - what the fuck were they thinking??!!? You'd think that even an outside chance that Coulson might have caused shit for cameron would have put him off employing him. Unbelivable stupidity. Why was he considered so valuable that they performed all these acrobatics and took such a massiver risk in employing him?  

I'm now beginning to think that this will bring cameron down.

Story here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/david-cameron-andy-coulson-security-vetting


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 21, 2011)

ska invita said:


> This on the sacking tonight of Sun features editor Matt Nixson.
> 
> "Matt Nixson, who has worked for the Sun for six months, was approached by four News International security guards at 6.30pm at the newspaper's office at Wapping. The guards asked him to leave the building because he was being dismissed. *His computer was seized.* [that'll be his Sun computer]
> 
> ...


Even with an instant dismissal should you not be suspended then dismissed after a hearing?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 21, 2011)

killer b said:


> The way news international was spinning myler being a good & honourable journalist has a taste of delicious irony now. Who's going to believe murdoch over him?


 
Myler's got plenty of work to do to polish up his past:

1985-90 News editor, _Today_
1990-92 Deputy editor, _Sunday Mirror_
1992-94 Editor, _Sunday Mirror_
1994-95 Editor, _Daily Mirror_
1995 Managing director, _Daily_ & _Sunday Mirror_
1995-98 Chief executive, Super League (Rugby League)
*1998-2001 Editor, Sunday Mirror*
2001-07 Executive editor, _New York Post_
2007-11 Editor, _NOTW_

He was editor at the _Sunday Mirror_ through the period that its journalists were implicated (in surveillance material that was aired in court) in the corrupt/corrupting relationships with police officers and private detectives surrounding the Daniel Morgan murder.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 21, 2011)

4gigs of mail in an industry reliant on images?

Its not uncommon to see 1gig on a single user in exchange server.

Those fecking cats, on the server wasting the bandwidth.


----------



## gabi (Jul 21, 2011)

Jesus christ. Is fridgemagnet autistic? Yet another thread closed for no reason.

sometimes threads pop out of other subjects, you triggerhappy nut...


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2011)

The Guardian report that lulzsec won't publish the emails for fear of compromising future court cases. And then lulzsec have tweeted what looks like the mobile phone number of the tech editor of the Guardian.

I am well confused.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

That's because he called them out on twitter earlier today. Pathetic. No wonder they're certain peoples political heroes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

His phone numbers on his bloody site anyway.


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2011)

This makes him sound like a dick though: "@LulzSec a word to the wise: it is a bad idea to make enemies of journalists."


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

He might well be a dick, it is a bad idea to piss off the people you're supposed to be negotiating with - on either side.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 21, 2011)

There's only one way to sort out this grave tech writer/hacker kiddie spat


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

BTW, according to the FT Raynsford's Civil Servant was Tim Byles and Gus O' Donnell says they're bollocks.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

The Guardian currently seem to have more staff on hacking than the Met (45 moving to 60) - I saw someone usually on the TV beat overseeing the live update page earlier. Can't  remember a bigger political story - anyone?

First one to say Profumo gets a fake custard pie.


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2011)

it's not that big a team i don't think - seems to be the same few names cropping up. the live update thing will need people to provide breaks for the regulars though, who i expect will be whoever is about at the time...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 21, 2011)

gabi said:


> Jesus christ. Is fridgemagnet autistic? Yet another thread closed for no reason.
> 
> sometimes threads pop out of other subjects, you triggerhappy nut...


wtf are you on about man? i don't really know why i've replied to your stark-raving-bonkers, other than morbid curiousity of the kind that makes one slow down and stare at road accidents tbh.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2011)

killer b said:


> it's not that big a team i don't think


 It's huge.


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2011)

Lulzsec tweet this: "Charles Arthur from Guardian here. I've been illegally feeding LulzSec internal info for 3 months, then I ditched them. Someone arrest me."


----------



## laptop (Jul 21, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Even with an instant dismissal should you not be suspended then dismissed after a hearing?


 
Not for gross misconduct...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> Lulzsec tweet this: "Charles Arthur from Guardian here. I've been illegally feeding LulzSec internal info for 3 months, then I ditched them. Someone arrest me."


 
Embarassing


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Divisive Cotton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Interviewer: ''I have a question for you. What do you think about what's going on with twitter right now, and the technology craze? Do you feel it's just a phase all people go through or do you think it could last as long as other companies?''
RM: ''Right now it's something very big, and getting bigger, but these things don't last forever''  
Interviewer: ''And especially news has become so popular on twitter. Where it's become a new news portal. People get their information from twitter, rather than reading a newspaper or going online, reading the blogs''
RM: ''Facebook isn't cool any longer, although it's still huge, huge''
Interviewer: ''How do you feel like it's changed the way that news is being transferred to the world?''
RM: ''Not very much. Not very much. No''


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2011)

Guardian editorial:



> *News Corp and phone hacking: Wilful blindness at the very top*
> _If James Murdoch's evidence was wrong, it undermines all the clean broom assurances he and his father gave to parliament_
> 
> On Thursday night, the two other key executives involved in the Taylor settlement directly challenged Mr Murdoch's version of events. Tom Crone – praised by James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks as an excellent NI lawyer – and Colin Myler, the former NoW editor, said they had informed Mr Murdoch about the "for Neville" email. Shortly afterward News Corp released its own statement saying James Murdoch stood by his evidence.
> ...


----------



## laptop (Jul 22, 2011)

Intriguing snippet:




			
				Private Eye said:
			
		

> some very high-level members of the Met's murder squad are worrying about how exactly such exchanges [of untraceable payment with police] were recorded in the _News of the World_ accounts



Murder squad is new, yes?


----------



## pk (Jul 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's because he called them out on twitter earlier today. Pathetic. No wonder they're certain peoples political heroes.


 
Yeah. Right on. Because we are all aware of what your heroes have actually achieved this past 20 years... or are we??? 

Here's the latest statement from this Anonymous/Lulzsec lot anyway...


LulzSec and Anonymous Statement



Hello thar FBI and international law authorities,

We recently stumbled across the following article with amazement and a certain amount of amusement:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138555799/fbi-arrests-alleged-anonymous-hackers

The statements made by deputy assistant FBI director Steve Chabinsky in this
article clearly seem to be directed at Anonymous and Lulz Security, and we are happy to provide you with a response.

You state:

"We want to send a message that chaos on the Internet is unacceptable, [even if] hackers can be believed to have social causes, it's entirely unacceptable to break into websites and commit unlawful acts."

Now let us be clear here, Mr. Chabinsky, while we understand that you and your colleagues may find breaking into websites unacceptable, let us tell  you what WE find unacceptable:

* Governments lying to their citizens and inducing fear and terror to keep them in control by dismantling their freedom piece by piece.

* Corporations aiding and conspiring with said governments while taking advantage at the same time by collecting billions of funds for federal contracts we all know they can't fulfil.

* Lobby conglomerates who only follow their agenda to push the profits higher, while at the same time being deeply involved in governments around the world with the only goal to infiltrate and corrupt them enough  so the status quo will never change.

These governments and corporations are our enemy. And we will continue to fight them, with all methods we have at our disposal, and that certainly includes breaking into their websites and exposing their lies.

We are not scared any more. Your threats to arrest us are meaningless to us as you cannot arrest an idea. Any attempt to do so will make your citizens more angry until they will roar in one gigantic choir. It is our mission to help these people and there is nothing - absolutely nothing - you can possibly to do make us stop.

"The Internet has become so important to so many people that we have to ensure that the World Wide Web does not become the Wild Wild West."

Let me ask you, good sir, when was the Internet not the Wild Wild West? Do you really believe you were in control of it at any point? You were not.

That does not mean that everyone behaves like an outlaw. You see, most people do not behave like bandits if they have no reason to. We become bandits on the Internet because you have forced our hand. The Anonymous bitchslap rings through your ears like hacktivism movements of the 90s. We're back - and we're not going anywhere. Expect us.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 22, 2011)

Positive start to the day: Reuters/Ipsos MORI Political Monitor - July 2011:  



> The Reuters/Ipsos MORI Political Monitor for July – our first poll since the phone hacking scandal broke – shows that *half of the public think that Prime Minister David Cameron has handled the phone hacking situation badly* (52%) while a third say he has handled it well (36%). *By contrast, almost half of the public think that Ed Miliband has handled the crisis well* (47%) compared to a third who think he has handled it badly (35%).
> 
> This is reflected in public satisfaction with both leaders. *Cameron’s satisfaction ratings have fallen and are his lowest since becoming Prime Minister* (and lower than any of his ratings as leader of the Opposition since September 2007). Two in five (38%) are satisfied with the way he is doing his job as Prime Minister while half are dissatisfied (53%). *Miliband’s satisfaction ratings have improved this month, although they are still negative on balance*, to level Cameron’s at a similar time in his period as Opposition leader. Satisfaction with Nick Clegg remains unchanged this month.
> 
> Despite the improvement in Miliband’s personal ratings, this has had little effect on Labour’s vote share, which remains unchanged this month on 39%. *The Conservatives are down 5 points to 32%, while the Liberal Democrats are unchanged at 11%*.


con't


----------



## Puzzled (Jul 22, 2011)

Chair of the Select Committee John Whittingdale, is not only Facebook friends with Elisabeth Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, but is also a Facebook Friend of Les Hinton!





[/IMG]
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=559850540&sk=friends&v=friends


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 22, 2011)

I am loving this statement from Colin Myler & Tom Crone that James Murdoch basically lied to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, there's no way that James would have forgotten about the contents of that e-mail.

Clearly the two of them are not expecting to be among the majority of former NotW staff to be re-employed by News Int', or just decided themselves that they didn't want to have anything more to do with the company.

Hopefully they will have a lot more to say that will drag Murdoch, Brooks, etc. further into the shitstorm.


----------



## xenon (Jul 22, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> I have a feeling that the whole issue of Coulson's security clearence  - whilst seemingly a rather obscure issue - will cause Cameron a whole heap of trouble. Its clear that the number 10 office deliberately avoided probing into his background - for obvious reasons. It will stretch the credibility of Cameron's story -  that nobody passed any info -  to him to breaking point.
> 
> 'So your staff deliberatly withheld info on how toxic coulson was and deliberately avoided giving him the appropriate security clearence? - Why? And why haven't you sacked those responsible?'
> 
> ...


 

Because they thought someone with connections to out of the box, jounarlistic practises, might be useful. And were arrogent enough to think it would be forgotten, buried in news churn or couldn't get back directly to them. Them being Cameron and whoever advised Coulson's appointment.


----------



## Puzzled (Jul 22, 2011)

Chair of the Select Committee John Whittingdale, is not only Facebook friends with Elisabeth Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, but is also a Facebook Friend of Les Hinton!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 22, 2011)

Puzzled said:


> Chair of the Select Committee John Whittingdale, is not only Facebook friends with Elisabeth Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, but is also a Facebook Friend of Les Hinton!


 


> Even John Whittingdale, chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee, has stopped saying that Murdoch should be allowed to make the deal. I regret to say I had begun to wonder whether even the fragrant chairman had an interest. But, as Humbert Wolfe almost put it: "You will never find for sale/ Thank God, the spotless Whittingdale./ But seeing what the man will do/ Unbought, there's no occasion to."


 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/06/simon-hoggart-murdoch-phone-hacking


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 22, 2011)

Puzzled said:


> Chair of the Select Committee John Whittingdale, is not only Facebook friends with Elisabeth Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, but is also a Facebook Friend of Les Hinton!



And do you find this. . . puzzling, Puzzled?


----------



## Puzzled (Jul 22, 2011)

I find it Puzzling that the chair of the committee has these people as FB friends yet is still allowed to chair the meeting, he did eventually admit that Brooks and Murdoch were FB friends but has kept quiet about Les Hinton.
Mind you look at the other committee members 3 of whom were involved in the expenses scandal


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2011)

It's not that puzzling is it?  It's facebook, not his secret list of closest confidantes. As Chair of ther DCMS its hardly surprising that he knows newspaper people.

What's more surprising is that someone would wait half a week before creating an identity with which to post this story..... clearly there must be somethng amiss here...


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2011)

jesus christ


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2011)

And it (the friends stuff) was posted at the start of the week as well. Don't people read 8000 post threads before replying our something?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2011)

good point made on CiF



> thornintheside
> 
> 22 July 2011 9:02AM
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2011)

yeah, i think it's likely to gain traction over the next few days.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 22, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> good point made on CiF


 
Feeding insider info to multinational corps who are bidding to take over state-run/state-wide functions/companies (NHS Hospitals, Forensics, Defence, Prisons, Welfare, Schools, etc)?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2011)

Potentially having access to highly sensitive counter-terrorism info which he didn't have clearance for, which can be spun as cameron endangering the safety of the nation


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 22, 2011)

killer b said:


> yeah, i think it's likely to gain traction over the next few days.


 
Let's hope so.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2011)

the more i read about it, the more i keep thinking_ he's fucked_.


----------



## mack (Jul 22, 2011)

I was thinking the same thing yesterday about Coulson being around top level briefings and what not, then I read somewhere (Guardian probably) that his role didn't include him being in those type of meetings or even cabinet meetings, which I though was a bit strange and probably bull.

Found it now..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/20/andy-coulson-security-clearance-checks

"The Cabinet Office said that, unlike Campbell and Powell, Coulson's job did not require him to have high-level security clearance. He did not attend cabinet meetings, the bi-weekly national security council meetings, or Cobra, the government's emergency committee."


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 22, 2011)

killer b said:


> the more i read about it, the more i keep thinking_ he's fucked_.


 
Cameron?

Sadly I don't think he is ... yet.  It's damaging, but so far nowhere near enough to knock him off his perch IMO.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 22, 2011)

At Wednesdays questions, he dodged so many easy deliveries that even supporters of his (I'll declare I don't find him totally reprehensible generally cf the rest of the twats in parliament) must realise something fishy is going on?

You get used to him turning every tricky question back onto labour as his standard tactic, but avoiding the BskyB conversation and the vetting of Coulson questions show him with genuinely something big to hide.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Cameron?
> 
> Sadly I don't think he is ... yet.  It's damaging, but so far nowhere near enough to knock him off his perch IMO.


 
we'll see. i'm probably being overly hopeful, but i think it has the potential...


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 22, 2011)

killer b said:


> we'll see. i'm probably being overly hopeful, but i think it has the potential...


 
Oh aye, it's got potential, especially if it emerges that Cameron hasn't been fully honest over the Coulson business, but it's not there yet...

Meanwhile, on a lighter note: Cameron's Kitchen!


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2011)

great line in the Grauniad about why Cameron didn't want to put Coulson thru vetting:

"There was also said to be concern over the *£500* cost of the vetting process."

So, it's all Gordon Browns fault, for fucking up the economy.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 22, 2011)

I know the basic history of the Watergate scandal, but can anyone give me some good books / articles to read about it? There've been a lot of suggestions that this scandal is (or could turn out to be) basically the British version of it, and I wondered whether that could be said to be the case, or if its just hyperbole ...


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 22, 2011)

Are Hague, Osborne and Cameron are all responsible for somehow circumventing high-level security checks on Coulson? They'd been working with him for some time. Hague since Coulson invited him to write a column for NoTW in 2003, and ... well ...

The only possible explanation is that he was spared because he would not have passed the vetting and it was known in advance that he would not have passed the vetting. 

Their association goes back some way, it seems. 


> 22nd September 2009, 9am. Venue: Shadow cabinet room, Westminster. Present: D. Cameron, W. Hague, G. Osborne, Steve Hilton (Advertising guru), *Andy Coulson* (Media supremo).
> Mr. Cameron opened proceedings by saying that while he very much hoped that the Lisbon treaty would not be ratified it now appeared that it would be and the party would need a new policy on Europe. A post-ratification referendum might, regrettably, prove untenable, he said. Did anybody have any ideas? Mr. Hague said that he had been worrying about this privately for some time and was very relieved that there would probably not be a referendum campaign. He had not been looking forward to clambering back on that Union flag-clad flat-bed truck he had travelled the country in promising to save the pound in the 2001 general election. It had been a nice enough truck, said Mr. Hague, but sometimes there had been rain and Mr. (Alan) Duncan, his campaign aide, had failed to order the construction of an adequate roof. Mr. Hilton noted that the 2001 campaign had not worked out very well, and that all the polling evidence suggested that actually it had been the opposition of the then Chancellor Gordon Brown to British Euro entry that had won the day. Mr. Hague looked glum and indicated that this was probably true. Mr. Cameron asked Mr. Hilton not to wander off topic and to refocus in a blue-sky-thinking way on “what the hell to do next”. Mr. Hilton replied that he had undertaken some focus group research on Europe and that he had a power-point presentation ready. He dimmed the lights and turned on a soundtrack by the Chemical Brothers by way of introduction.
> This from 2009: http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2009/11/05/camerons-european-union-decision-a-dodgy-dossier-in-full/



More from that WSJ link:



> 24th September 2009, 10am. Venue, CCHQ Millbank Tower. Present: D. Cameron, W. Hague, G. Osborne, Ed Llewellyn, Steve Hilton, *Andy Coulson*
> Time was running out said Mr. Cameron and the urgent priority was to “cobble something together that can get us through Tory conference.” Mr. Hague said that Mr. Osborne was very good at this sort of thing and perhaps he might be able to come up with something. There was a long silence. Mr. Osborne said that he had always liked it when Mr.Hague did that “silly thing with his voice” when making speeches about Europe when he was leader. Mr Hague asked Mr. Osborne what he meant. Mr. Osborne adopted a Yorkshire accent and said “you know, ‘saaaave thu pound’, we must ‘saaaave thu pound…’.” Mr Hague looked hurt and said that he had not been trying to put on a silly voice when he made those speeches, it had just been his real voice. Mr. Cameron sighed and asked Mr. Osborne to stop it.* Mr. Osborne said, to be serious for a moment, that the best way to prevent a row on Lisbon was just to avoid ever mentioning Europe. Mr. Cameron looked annoyed and said he didn’t think that would endure for five minutes with the press. Mr. Coulson disagreed, saying it had every chance of working and the press not noticing*. Mr. Cameron sighed again and said that if no-one had any better ideas then “not mentioning Europe” would have to do. Mr. Llewellyn promised to talk, discretely, to Tory big beasts such as Lord Heseltine and Ken Clarke, who are pro-Europe, and to ensure that they were “on the same page as us” and lined up not to say anything.



Currently looking for a suitable facepalm. Think a new one needs making 

It goes on 


> 7th October 2009, 7am. Venue, penthouse suite of the Midland Hotel Manchester at Conservative Conference. Present. D. Cameron, Mrs Samantha Cameron, G. Osborne, *Andy Coulson* and Steve Hilton
> Mr. Cameron said that on his morning run through the streets of Manchester with Mr. Desmond Swayne MP (his parliamentary aide and exercise partner) he had been thinking about the EU issue. Mr. Osborne’s idea of just not mentioning Europe seemed to be working so far but it had a limited shelf-life as the Czechs were under intense pressure to ratify. What a mess the whole thing was, he said; it could dominate the whole first year of a Tory government. Mrs. Cameron reminded Mr. Cameron that he should eat something, suggesting a guava and kiwi fruit smoothie followed by a bowl of dorset cereals muesli. Mr. Cameron said he would prefer a bacon sandwich but was over-ruled by Mrs. Cameron. *Mr. Coulson asked if there was any way out of the referendum pledge.* Mr. Osborne indicated that there might be. Mr. Cameron should pen a hand-written note to President Vaclav Klaus. Should he offer Mr. Klaus his support and urge him not to sign the Lisbon Treaty, asked Mr. Hilton? Mr. Cameron thought for a very long time and said: “Hmmmmmmmm, maybe.” Wouldn’t it be easier if Klaus just signed the damn thing and we could all get on with the rest of our lives, asked Mrs. Cameron? Mr Cameron indicated that everyone apart from Mrs. Cameron should leave as he wanted to eat his muesli and have another think.[/b]


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 22, 2011)

General consensus seems to be it shares certain themes, but not be quite as massive. If for nothing more than we wouldn't be as surprised with this


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 22, 2011)

Like the potential in the state security angle, just a shame Obama didn't visit while Coulson worked at Downing Street.

When Blair ran his sofa government, Campbell always sat in the top-level meetings..... Who else important visited (State visits, etc) between May 2010 and January 21, 2011....


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> just a shame Obama didn't visit while Coulson worked at Downing Street.


 
Cameron did visit Obama tho, and discussed various security topics with him. Coulson was certainly on that trip, and would have been in any such meeting, you'd have thought.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> The only possible explanation is that he was spared because he would not have passed the vetting and it was known in advance that he would not have passed the vetting.


 
this is it really. there can't be any other reason, and it's plainly obvious to anyone. i really think this could do for him.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2011)

More on this...Who actually was 'doing Coulson's job' if he was told he couldn't attend due to lack of security clearance? Im guessing counter-terrorism requires a fairly high level of clearance? See end of the below.



> Paul Owen writes: The Guardian established last night that Craig Oliver, Andy Coulson's successor as No 10 communications chief, is currently undergoing the higher level "developed vetting" process to which Coulson was not subject.
> 
> Coulson's predecessors Alastair Campbell, Dave Hill and Michael Ellam were all checked to "developed vetting" level too. David Cameron's deputy press secretary, Gabby Bertin, who was Coulson's No 2, is currently undergoing the full checks.
> 
> ...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2011)

The last point is pertinant - what if someone with a high level security check happenedd to say something in a meeting that Coulson was in attendance?



> Who approved Coulson's mid-level vetting?
> 
> • Was Coulson asked to take "developed vetting" and refused?
> 
> ...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2011)

Lance Price on vetting:



> Some things in life you never forget. And being interviewed on behalf of the security services for a senior job in the same Downing Street department where Andy Coulson would later work, is one of them. The officer came to my home at a prearranged time and asked me a range of questions: about my political affiliations, the state of my finances, whether I drank to excess and what I did for sex. At times he seemed more embarrassed asking the questions than I was answering them.
> 
> I had been warned what to expect by colleagues at No 10 who had been through the process. One, a woman, was asked if her glance ever went up to the top-shelf porn mags when she bought a newspaper. I didn't get that one. At the end the officer asked me: "Is there anything else you think we should know?" I racked my brains. "I'm probably a member of Greenpeace," I said, "but I really can't remember." "Don't worry about that," he said. "You'd be surprised how many people are." All he really wanted to know, I suspect, is whether I might be susceptible to blackmail. Once he knew I was solvent and didn't appear to have any guilty secrets, he was satisfied.
> 
> ...



Im off down the bookies before the odds shorten again!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 22, 2011)

killer b said:


> this is it really. there can't be any other reason, and it's plainly obvious to anyone. i really think this could do for him.








Andy Coulson





Grima Wormtongue


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2011)

killer b said:


> jesus christ


That is fucking sick.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 22, 2011)

killer b said:


> invisibleplanet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed.


----------



## mack (Jul 22, 2011)

Are there no records kept (public or otherwise) of who attended security briefings? Can they be requested under FOI?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 22, 2011)

editor said:


> That is fucking sick.


 


> “Not surprising that the Murdochs would use a human disaster like the famine in Somalia to deflect attention from their own crimes.
> These people "use" others all the time, and all for their own gain.”


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/reasonshouldrule/murdoch-times-cartoon-hacking-somalia_n_905899_98448319.html


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2011)

belboid said:


> great line in the Grauniad about why Cameron didn't want to put Coulson thru vetting:
> 
> "There was also said to be concern over the *£500* cost of the vetting process."
> 
> So, it's all Gordon Browns fault, for fucking up the economy.


 
It's also bollocks, unless the government now use external vetters, because it always used to be Special needs Branch and the Security Service who took care of the mid to high level stuff.


----------



## contadino (Jul 22, 2011)

belboid said:


> Cameron did visit Obama tho, and discussed various security topics with him. Coulson was certainly on that trip, and would have been in any such meeting, you'd have thought.


 
US Secret Service have their own processes. They would have a full dossier on Coulson regardless of what UK government vetting he'd been through. I doubt he would have been present in any meetings with Obama.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2011)

mack said:


> Are there no records kept (public or otherwise) of who attended security briefings? Can they be requested under FOI?


 
All meetings under the aegis of the Civil Service (incl. the Cabinet Office) should have files that also contain a list of attendees. Haven't got a clue whether ones for matters of state security would be available under FoI legislation though. I suspect it's an excluded category.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 22, 2011)

editor said:


> That is fucking sick.


 
Isnt it.

I suspect it wouldent be to hard to find a recent editorial from The Times criticising the government's decesion to increase spending on aid for developing countries.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 22, 2011)

Health Care Reforms have also not received the full attention they deserve. 


> It currently costs each family in the USA about £13,000 a year for a family of four for a basic privatised health service with strict limits on what they can claim. And medical bills are the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the US.
> 
> Most of the money spent goes straight into the profits of the health insurance companies rather than on the provision of healthcare.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/20/doctors-campaign-against-nhs-reforms?commentpage=last#end-of-comments


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2011)

contadino said:


> US Secret Service have their own processes. They would have a full dossier on Coulson regardless of what UK government vetting he'd been through. I doubt he would have been present in any meetings with Obama.


 
Why not? Campbell attended such meetings


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2011)

belboid said:


> Why not? Campbell attended such meetings


 
you missed the bit where coulson was denied top security clearance, didn't you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Will someone PLEASE UPDATE THE NHS REFORMS BLOG: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/series/nhs-reforms-blog
> There are four pages of committees, lords, commons etc since 21st June 2011 to 19th July 2011 on health reforms! : http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Archive.aspx


 why don't you contact them rather than posting it up here?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you missed the bit where coulson was denied top security clearance, didn't you?


 
He was denied? 

I thought he was never put forward for it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> He was denied?
> 
> I thought he was never put forward for it.


you doubtless think a lot of things. how many of them have any basis in reality?


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2011)

He wasn't 'denied' it, tho, was he?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2011)

belboid said:


> He wasn't 'denied' it, tho, was he?





> Andy Coulson did not face the rigorous government security checks into his background that most recent Downing Street press chiefs have undergone, it emerged on Wednesday.
> 
> The former News of the World editor was granted only mid-level security clearance when he was appointed by David Cameron as his director of communications, so avoiding "developed vetting" involving a detailed interview by government investigators looking for anything in his past that could compromise him.
> 
> The checks would have involved a review of his personal finances and cross-examination by investigators of referees, who could include friends and family. Coulson would have been asked by government vetters, some of whom are former police officers, such questions as: "Is there anything else in your life you think it appropriate for us to know?"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/20/andy-coulson-security-clearance-checks

looks like he was denied it so embarrassing stuff wouldn't come out in the vetting


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2011)

Well if DV just involves being interviewed at length by security personnel I think most communications people should be able to pass it. 

My understanding (from posts earlier in the thread) was that bank accounts, internet activity, friends and family were all interrrogated before subsequent interviews took place. Rather more detailed and painstaking than the recent posts suggest.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> ...
> was that bank accounts, internet activity, friends and family were all interrrogated before subsequent interviews took place.
> ...



Oh and medical records of course....


----------



## contadino (Jul 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Well if DV just involves being interviewed at length by security personnel I think most communications people should be able to pass it.
> 
> My understanding (from posts earlier in the thread) was that bank accounts, internet activity, friends and family were all interrrogated before subsequent interviews took place. Rather more detailed and painstaking than the recent posts suggest.


 
You're right. The vast majority of the work is undertaken without your knowledge.  The interviews are just a minor component.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 22, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Cameron?
> 
> Sadly I don't think he is ... yet.  It's damaging, but so far nowhere near enough to knock him off his perch IMO.



Yeah, I am still betting on this and I have £50 on the table for the server fund if Cameron does resign over hack-gate.

I note no one else has placed their money were their mouth is. 



killer b said:


> we'll see. i'm probably being overly hopeful, but i think it has the potential...



How about it killer b, or are you not really that certain?


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2011)

i'm not a betting man, sorry.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 22, 2011)

Right put me down for £20 for the server fund if Cameron has not resigned by the end of the year. 

As I posted earlier I think the Coulsons Security clearence issue is the real faultline in Camerons story. Cameron is looking and behaving like someone who knows hes about to be dropped right in the shit and is despreately buying time with evasions, half truths and lies before the inevitable downfall. 







"I'm co-operating here!"


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 22, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Isnt it.
> 
> I suspect it wouldent be to hard to find a recent editorial from The Times criticising the government's decision to increase spending on aid for developing countries.


 Murdoch's Sun has covered it. Don't know about The Murdoch Times. Defence Minister Liam Fox is most vocal opponent: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3586300/PM-hits-back-in-overseas-aid-war.html

We've only talked about the Hague > Osborne > Cameron & Coulson connections to date.
Where does Liam Fox stand with regards to the hiring/firing of Coulson? Does anyone know?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 22, 2011)

I think the - frankly disgusting -  Times cartoon says more about just how fucking desperate the murdoch/cameron/met cabal are to move on from this story. 

The very first postings on gaurdian comment Cif from their Tory Trolls took exactly the same angle - hysteria whipped up by the lefties at the grauan and bbc, ordinary people are bored, more important things move along now.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Yeah, I am still betting on this and I have £50 on the table for the server fund if Cameron does resign over hack-gate.
> 
> I note no one else has placed their money were their mouth is.
> ...



I had thought perhaps to join you in betting that Cameron will remain in office but to be honest things are going drip drip against him and while there is not yet a smoking gun the crisis keeps on giving. I think my money is better staying in my pocket


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> As I posted earlier I think the Coulsons Security clearence issue is the real faultline in Camerons story. Cameron is looking and behaving like someone who knows hes about to be dropped right in the shit and is despreately buying time with evasions, half truths and lies before the inevitable downfall.


 
TBH I am starting to think it is more of a distraction as its currently been spun - after all, as the numerous revelations that have come to light have shown everyone at that level of politics (in both main parties, and especially in the police and security services) knew what was going on anyway, to suggest that DV "would have exposed phone hacking" misses the point - it was already exposed, just not to us - and its not as if his failing a DV check (or his admitting to it in interview) would ever have been common knowledge.  

If anything, its IMHO more likely that he wasnt vetted because the security services announced to iDave that they were not going to hand over intelligence in the likelyhood that Rupert Murdoch would be publishing his version of it a day later.  They had after all gone through a similar situation with Campbell et al, to the great damage of their reputation and our country (which is also why I repeat myself that a director of communications / spin doctor - who are after all political figures rather than civil servants nowadays - should *never* have access to secret information of this kind).


----------



## Mitre10 (Jul 22, 2011)

From the Wall St Journal:


"The US justice department is preparing subpoenas as part of preliminary investigations into News Corporation relating to alleged foreign bribery and alleged hacking of 9/11 victims' answerphone messages".


<replenishes bag of popcorn>


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903461104576460393481721896.html


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Potentially having access to highly sensitive counter-terrorism info which he didn't have clearance for, which can be spun as cameron endangering the safety of the nation


Yes?


agricola said:


> TBH I am starting to think it is more of a distraction as its currently been spun - after all, as the numerous revelations that have come to light have shown everyone at that level of politics (in both main parties, and especially in the police and security services) knew what was going on anyway, to suggest that DV "would have exposed phone hacking" misses the point - it was already exposed, just not to us - and its not as if his failing a DV check (or his admitting to it in interview) would ever have been common knowledge.
> 
> If anything, its IMHO more likely that he wasnt vetted because the security services announced to iDave that they were not going to hand over intelligence in the likelyhood that Rupert Murdoch would be publishing his version of it a day later.  They had after all gone through a similar situation with Campbell et al, to the great damage of their reputation and our country (which is also why I repeat myself that a director of communications / spin doctor - who are after all political figures rather than civil servants nowadays - should *never* have access to secret information of this kind).


Yes.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 22, 2011)

Mitre10 said:


> From the Wall St Journal:
> 
> 
> "The US justice department is preparing subpoenas as part of preliminary investigations into News Corporation relating to alleged foreign bribery and alleged hacking of 9/11 victims' answerphone messages".
> ...


 
Good times  

I like the interactive page on that link


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 22, 2011)

But its clearly standard practice for anyone working at that level (and lower). Except in the case of Coulson. They clearly went out of their way to avoid doing so in order that Coulson would not be officailly declared 'toxic'. That is quite extraordinary behaviour and suggests they were absolutely despreate to have him at the heart of government.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Yes?
> 
> Yes.


 
I've got no idea what your series of posts today mean.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2011)

agircola said:
			
		

> .... they were not going to hand over intelligence in the likelyhood that Rupert Murdoch would be publishing his version of it a day later. They had after all gone through a similar situation with Campbell et al, to the great damage of their reputation and our country ...


 
You seem to be suggesting the Campbell was a liability wrt leaking to the press. Is that correct?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 22, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> But its clearly standard practice for anyone working at that level (and lower). Except in the case of Coulson. They clearly went out of their way to avoid doing so in order that Coulson would not be officailly declared 'toxic'. That is quite extraordinary behaviour and suggests they were absolutely despreate to have him at the heart of government.


 
yep. 

honestly i'm starting to think you're right killer b, he's fucked and will resign at the end of the year


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 22, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Right put me down for £20 for the server fund if Cameron has not resigned by the end of the year.



Yay! 

I've done two bets like this before on urban, which have benefited the server fund, IIRC, at the expense of Sass & Citizen66.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 22, 2011)

belboid said:


> great line in the Grauniad about why Cameron didn't want to put Coulson thru vetting:
> 
> "There was also said to be concern over the *£500* cost of the vetting process."
> 
> So, it's all Gordon Browns fault, for fucking up the economy.


 
Come on, be fair. When you've spent £680,000 on getting Downing Street nice for Samantha there's obviously not going to be a lot left for security vetting key personnel. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/27/david-cameron-taxpayers-home-improvements


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 22, 2011)

Interestingly, odds on Cameron not surviving 2011 as PM have lengthened today (on Paddy Power at least) from 4/1 to 5/1.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 22, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> I've done two bets like this before on urban



I notice a lot of people are under scrutiny over this scandal but nobody is looking at editor and the server fund here?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 22, 2011)

The story about News Interantional hacking - and putting under surveilance - the lawyers working for hacking victims is yet more evidence of how they operated. Industrial scale Intimidation and snooping into the private lives of anyone of interest to them.  A large part of that was to generate stories but  - far more seriously - the other arm was to use that info to threaten and control politicians, public servants, policeman and anyone else either threatened or who could be useful to them. That - to me - is the real corruption at the heart of this scandal and is rarely getting explained in those terms. 

This is not about the media 'overstepping the mark' - its about a fucking gangster organisation calling the shots at the heart of the body politic.

Btw - if its proved they were doing this to the lawyers - would that be 'conspiracy to pervert the course of justice'? Like proper prison time.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> But its clearly standard practice for anyone working at that level (and lower). Except in the case of Coulson. They clearly went out of their way to avoid doing so in order that Coulson would not be officailly declared 'toxic'. That is quite extraordinary behaviour and suggests they were absolutely despreate to have him at the heart of government.


 
Thats the thing though - under this government, it was not "standard practice".  From the Grauniad piece (emphasis mine):



> Craig Oliver, a former BBC executive who replaced Coulson when he resigned from Number 10 in February, *is undergoing* "developed vetting" – a rigorous probe into his background and finances aimed at uncovering anything that could make him vulnerable to blackmail or other compromises. Coulson underwent less stringent checks.



If he (Oliver) is only undergoing this process now, then he didnt at the time of his appointment.  That Labour spin doctors underwent DV in order to get access to secret material is not especially relevant, indeed as I said above that they did have access, and what they went on to do with that access, was a flagrant abuse anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2011)

Well how long does DV take?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 22, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Oh aye, it's got potential, especially if it emerges that Cameron hasn't been fully honest over the Coulson business, but it's not there yet...
> 
> Meanwhile, on a lighter note: Cameron's Kitchen!


 
Cameron's No.10's new kitchen was worth a quick look around. 

I found this video there - it's a bit silly, and I'd have preferred to see a review of electoral pledges and broken promises, but never mind:


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> You seem to be suggesting the Campbell was a liability wrt leaking to the press. Is that correct?


 
He did leak stuff to the press (albeit at Blair's behest), and his misuse / mischaracterization of intelligence sources for political ends should be well known.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> He did leak stuff to the press (albeit at Blair's behest), and his misuse / mischaracterization of intelligence sources for political ends should be well known.


 
Well I was amazed that he seems to have escaped completely unscathed after the dodgy dossier episode.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well how long does DV take?


 
No idea, though I would guess that it would be less than five months.


----------



## Santino (Jul 22, 2011)

I think I read somewhere that it can be done in as little as three weeks, if there's an urgent need. No reference, sorry.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> No idea, though I would guess that it would be less than five months.


 
Just wondering as that would be the only excuse for the new one still undergoing DV, or them not having set up a group of people already vetted as standard. (Given that they _will_ be there - without going into whether they _should_ be)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2011)

Santino said:


> I think I read somewhere that it can be done in as little as three weeks, if there's an urgent need. No reference, sorry.



Ta. Sure it's out there somewhere.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Just wondering as that would be the only excuse for the new one still undergoing DV, or them not having set up a group of people already vetted as standard. (Given that they _will_ be there - without going into whether they _should_ be)


 
TBH I think its more likely that he and the rest of the SPADs / political appointees (at least those in the departments where DV wasnt an issue) werent, but now that this line of attack has opened they have panicked and are shoving everyone through it.  As for the "group of people already vetted", of course the relevant civil servants would have undergone DV checks and would be handling this material anyway (which is another reason why political appointees shouldnt be given access to it, there is no legitimate need).


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> Thats the thing though - under this government, it was not "standard practice".  From the Grauniad piece (emphasis mine):
> 
> If he (Oliver) is only undergoing this process now, then he didnt at the time of his appointment.  That Labour spin doctors underwent DV in order to get access to secret material is not especially relevant, indeed as I said above that they did have access, and what they went on to do with that access, was a flagrant abuse anyway.



And, let's face it, the whole process is bizarre and alarming: currently we've got a Doctor of Medicine looking after Defence, a Hack looking after Education, a BA Modern History in charge of the Exchequer, and someone with a Bachelors in European Studies looking after Environment/Agriculture/Rural Affairs.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ta. Sure it's out there somewhere.


 
Various responses from readers to the _Guardian_ live blog yesterday and today put the parameters between around three weeks on a rush job to about six months for those which involve more checking.


----------



## contadino (Jul 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well how long does DV take?


 
It depends on how complicated the life that is being vetted, but several years ago it was around 6 months. Now with online personae, etc.. it could be a lot more work.

ETA: ...or the thoroughness of the vetting has been skimped on....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2011)

Cheers both


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 22, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> And, let's face it, the whole process is bizarre and alarming: currently we've got a Doctor of Medicine looking after Defence, a Hack looking after Education, a BA Modern History in charge of the Exchequer, and someone with a Bachelors in European Studies looking after Environment/Agriculture/Rural Affairs.


 
In the old days, that didn't matter because it was assumed that they'd have the intellectual chops to decipher advice from civil servants and make decisions accordingly. But that depended on a non-political civil service, and once that prop was kicked away. . . (I think there was a paper about this in the Socialist Register some years back)

E2A: I think it may have been this article. I can't get at the text, but here's abstract: 

The cynical state
Colin Leys

Abstract

In recent years state cynicism has broken new ground. The British government's flagrant abuse of military intelligence to persuade parliament and the public to endorse its attack on Iraq was a dramatic case in point. Most famously, Blair told the House of Commons that it was 'completely and totally untrue' that there was disquiet in the intelligence community over the 45-minute claim, but a senior intelligence officer told the enquiry that he and one of his colleagues had submitted a written report about their disquiet. These stories, which could be replicated for almost any field of public policy in contemporary Britain, illustrate the emergence of a new, neoliberal policy regime that is more brazenly willing to dissemble, more indifferent to evidence, more aggressive towards critics and distinctly less accountable--to the point of being virtually unaccountable--than ever before. This policy regime is not peculiarly British. The old 'liberal/social democratic' policy regime which it has displaced did have distinctively British features. The new neoliberal policy regime is a more standardized affair. It not only spans the Atlantic but thanks to neoliberal globalization it is being gradually replicated, in essentials, throughout the world. Its key feature is that policy is now fundamentally about national competitiveness and responding to global market forces. The crucial roles are played neither by political parties nor by civil servants but by personnel seconded into the civil service from the private sector, a handful of 'special advisers' to the prime minister, a small group of certified market-friendly civil servants, and polling, advertising and media experts. Scientific evidence is still relied on, but only in so far as it serves competition policy; otherwise it is treated uncritically, if it helps the government, and dismissed if it does not. When this new policy regime is properly understood the lies about Iraq no longer appear as a special case, but only as a special dimension of a general one. Cynicism, we realize, is a necessary condition of neoliberal democracy.


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2011)

Grauniad questions to Cameron re vetting:
1. Was Andy Coulson asked to undergo developed vetting (DV)?

2. Did Coulson decline to undergo developed vetting?

3. Which Downing Street and/or Cabinet Office officials decided that it would be appropriate for Coulson to be vetted at the lower "security check" level?

4. Was the prime minister involved in the decision to have Coulson vetted at the lower SC level, or informed after it was taken by officials?

5. Were other officials and ministers who might ordinarily have expected a No 10 press secretary to have DV clearance informed that he was not vetted to that level?

6. What meetings did Coulson attend relating to national security issues, the war in Afghanistan or counter-terrorism?

7. Was Coulson interviewed as part of the process of his security vetting?

8. If it was not considered necessary for Coulson to have DV clearance why are both his successor and his former deputy undergoing developed vetting?


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2011)

contadino said:


> It depends on how complicated the life that is being vetted, but several years ago it was around 6 months. Now with online personae, etc.. it could be a lot more work.


 
In the MoD it is 75 days on average, at least according to this pdf.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> In the MoD it is 75 days on average, at least according to this pdf.


 
I have a couple of friends who work at AWE in Aldermarston and their background checks both took about 4 months and they were very detailed.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> In the MoD it is 75 days on average, at least according to this pdf.


 
I had a friend who had to be vetted by the MoD, he put me down as his referee. Some weeks later I had a guy turn up in a dark grey pinstripe suit, brolley, and black briefcase knock on the door. He asked me a series of questions including "Has your friend ever shown homosexual tendancies?".

All quite surreal.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2011)

Poor Moron:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...-hacking-scandal/story-fn7x8me2-1226100025277

 

(via Guido)


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 22, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> I had a friend who had to be vetted by the MoD, he put me down as his referee. Some weeks later I had a guy turn up in a dark grey pinstripe suit, brolley, and black briefcase knock on the door. He asked me a series of questions including "Has your friend ever shown homosexual tendancies?".
> 
> All quite surreal.


Was your friend goodlooking?

Might have been his lucky day....


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> Poor Moron:
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...-hacking-scandal/story-fn7x8me2-1226100025277
> 
> ...


The Mirror have kept an uncharacteristic low profile during this scandal. And here's why!


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2011)

No one gave a shit when it was only celebs being hacked tho, really.  And, despite them generally being almost as wanky as the NoW, there's no evidence (yet) that the Mirror were also going after murdered schoolkids


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 22, 2011)

I hope moron gets dragged into this.  The fact he didnt go down for the city slickers affair was a fucking scandal, it'd be nice to see him get his just deserts.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 22, 2011)

belboid said:


> No one gave a shit when it was only celebs being hacked tho, really.  And, despite them generally being almost as wanky as the NoW, there's no evidence (yet) that the Mirror were also going after murdered schoolkids


 
Exactly.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2011)

I see Watson has referred this issue of James Murdoch's testimony and its contradiction by former NotW employees, as refers to the For Neville email, to the MET Police for investigation.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I see Watson has referred this issue of James Murdoch's testimony and its contradiction by former NotW employees, as refers to the For Neville email, to the MET Police for investigation.


 
Isnt it for Parliament to investigate (and deal with) persons who are in contempt of it?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> Isnt it for Parliament to investigate (and deal with) persons who are in contempt of it?


 
What he seemed to be saying was that if James Murdoch had had knowledge of the For Neville email at the time his former colleagues are claiming then he could be guilty of perverting the course of justice.


----------



## contadino (Jul 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> In the MoD it is 75 days on average, at least according to this pdf.


 
It looks like things may have sped up since my day. Mine took about 6 months, and was necessary in order for me to have any contact with cabinet ministers (as in it was necessary for me to report TO cabinet ministers.)  All the information I used was from the public domain, so it's not like I was privy to anything that I knew to be sensitive.  IIRC, I think the same restriction applied to me in contact with cabinet advisors.

In that environment, it would have been unthinkable for Coulson to have been allowed to brief the PM, let alone attend PM briefings. So either things have changed significantly, or there is a rat to be smelt.


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> What he seemed to be saying was that if James Murdoch had had knowledge of the For Neville email at the time his former colleagues are claiming then he could be guilty of perverting the course of justice.


 
Perhaps, though given that there wasnt actually a trial (IIRC it was settled before it got that far) its hard to see how he could make that work.


----------



## belboid (Jul 22, 2011)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though given that there wasnt actually a trial (IIRC it was settled before it got that far) its hard to see how he could make that work.


 
because if he'd seen it, he'd have had proof that the hacking went beyond Mulcaire and Goodman?


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2011)

belboid said:


> because if he'd seen it, he'd have had proof that the hacking went beyond Mulcaire and Goodman?


 
Yes, but I am sure his defence (if it ever got to trial) would point out that the Police, the CPS, the DPP and the Attorney General all knew that as well (and had done since before James Murdoch).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2011)

Not much of defence is it though?


----------



## agricola (Jul 22, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not much of defence is it though?


 
To perverting the course of justice it would be - after all, how has justice actually been perverted?  All the relevant bodies knew about this at least a year before James Murdoch did, and in any case he (and his company) did actually make restitution for what they had done.  It might be less of a defence for being in contempt of parliament - but if they are going to set a (welcome) precedent of imprisoning people for lying to the House and its committees, then you would think it would be open season on Blair, Vaz et al.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 22, 2011)

given what just may have happened in Oslo, i guess NI and the Tories will be scrambling to bury bad news later today.


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> I think the - frankly disgusting -  Times cartoon says more about just how fucking desperate the murdoch/cameron/met cabal are to move on from this story.
> 
> The very first postings on gaurdian comment Cif from their Tory Trolls took exactly the same angle - hysteria whipped up by the lefties at the grauan and bbc, ordinary people are bored, more important things move along now.


 
this was the angle newsnight took, to their disgrace. they do an impersonation of impartiality, but when the stakes are high that goes straight out of the window and they become craven to the government. reminds me of the despicable wikileaks coverage, with kirsty clueless trying to make it a feminist issue, claiming assange was getting away with rape because the media was overlooking the rights of the 'victims' in sweden


----------



## gavman (Jul 22, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Well I was amazed that he seems to have escaped completely unscathed after the dodgy dossier episode.


 
he cried on the telly and got off. he's paul mcmullen's inspiration


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2011)

Well Tom Watson seemed to think it was a big deal, this discrepancy between who knew what and when, he was on the BBC News channel looking like the cat that had got the cream while John Whittingdale was later interviewed during a parliament shooting outing at Bisley, he seemed slightly less enthusiastic.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2011)

gavman said:


> he cried on the telly and got off. he's paul mullen's inspiration


 
It is amazing to me that they produced a dodgy dossier based on stuff cut from the internet about something as serious as war and as far as I can tell no one was punished for this.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 22, 2011)

Some people are claiming they have been offered free copies of The Times at WH Smiths.


----------



## contadino (Jul 22, 2011)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/22/uk-newscorp-lewis-idUKTRE76L30S20110722

News Corp leaked the sting on Vince Cable, apparently.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 22, 2011)

Crikey!

Lewis/Peston again.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 22, 2011)

_Private Eye_ must love this, they've run loads of stuff about Lewis' departure from TMG & Euston.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2011)

There was apparently going to be a bit on NewsNight tonight about how the hacking scandal was about to spread to another tabloid. 

Did anyone see that, which paper it was about?


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2011)

mirror


----------



## weltweit (Jul 23, 2011)

killer b said:


> mirror


 
aha, thanks, any more details?


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2011)

dunno, someone's fb update. i expect it'll be all over the internet by now though. maybe google it?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 23, 2011)

killer b said:


> dunno, someone's fb update. i expect it'll be all over the internet by now though. maybe google it?


 
ok.. google news: 




			
				independent said:
			
		

> The phone-hacking story took a new and dramatic turn yesterday as a former journalist on the Daily Mirror claimed that the practice was "endemic" at the newspaper during his time there and that he would be willing to ...






			
				herald sun said:
			
		

> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...-hacking-scandal/story-fn7x8me2-1226100025277
> Whistleblower ready to tell inquiry others also hacked phones
> A FORMER reporter for the Daily Mirror who says the News of the World was not the only British newspaper involved in phone hacking says he's likely to make himself available to testify to the judicial inquiry into the scandal.
> James Hipwell, 45, told The Australian Online he saw show business reporters on the Daily Mirror regularly intercept voicemail messages when he worked there from 1998 to 2000.



Note: I suspect the Herald Sun is a Murdoch paper.


----------



## Santino (Jul 23, 2011)

If only there were a way to confirm your suspicion.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 23, 2011)

Santino said:


> If only there were a way to confirm your suspicion.


 
I am sure you can confirm it Santino, if it is important to you!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2011)

George Osborne had dinner with Rupert Murdoch two weeks before BSkyB bid decision


----------



## weltweit (Jul 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> George Osborne had dinner with Rupert Murdoch two weeks before BSkyB bid decision


 
But, .... do you think they had any innopropriate conversations?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2011)

I do not. By definition


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2011)

They just discussed Uganda I believe.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 23, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Note: I suspect the Herald Sun is a Murdoch paper.


 


Santino said:


> If only there were a way to confirm your suspicion.



Wikipedia? It says yes.

Listed under News Limited, News Corp's newspaper division down under.



> Newspapers:
> Australia published by News Limited.
> 
> The Australian (Nationwide)
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 23, 2011)

two sheds said:


> They just discussed Uganda I believe.


 
With Rupert taking the lead in the discussions.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2011)

Judge led inquiry

Phone hacking inquiry judge attended parties at home of Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law



> Lord Justice Leveson went to two parties in the past year at the London home of Matthew Freud, a PR executive married to Elisabeth Murdoch, the daughter of Rupert Murdoch widely tipped to be her father’s successor.



Neck deep in shit. 

M Freud deleted half his facebook freidnds last week btw


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2011)

Coulson has got to be absolutely *fucked*.



> *Andy Coulson investigated for perjury while working at No 10*_
> Sources say police will examine Coulson's denial of any knowledge of phone hacking at Tommy Sheridan trial_
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Judge led inquiry
> 
> Phone hacking inquiry judge attended parties at home of Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law
> 
> ...


 
If going to a party at which was hosted by someone related to Murdoch is sufficient to disqualify people from having an oversight role on this, shouldnt the vast majority of MPs (and certainly the vast majority of ministers, shadow ministers and ex-ministers) have recused themselves by now?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 23, 2011)

When will the first MPs call for Dave's resignation?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2011)

Yep, that's the key thing for me here, to expose how they're all interconnected. Others have their own priorities.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 23, 2011)

Fuckin hell .. I'm gonna take some of these cunts out when I get a serious illness


----------



## agricola (Jul 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, that's the key thing for me here, to expose how they're all interconnected. Others have their own priorities.


 
Not the least of whom is Bryant, who - it is perhaps worth recalling given that he is questioning the integrity of a senior member of the judiciary - was one of the more prominent cheerleaders for the Hutton Report, as well as being the auctioneer of that Blair-signed copy which caused a minor furore a while back.


----------



## rorymac (Jul 23, 2011)

I hope this bloke isn't taking the piss (sorry if it's already been posted) 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...nk-that-the-Left-might-actually-be-right.html


----------



## two sheds (Jul 23, 2011)

agricola said:


> If going to a party at which was hosted by someone related to Murdoch is sufficient to disqualify people from having an oversight role on this, shouldnt the vast majority of MPs (and certainly the vast majority of ministers, shadow ministers and ex-ministers) have recused themselves by now?


 
Yes, let's have people who are demonstrably independent, otherwise there's the risk (or perception) of "time to pay up for mumsie".


----------



## elbows (Jul 23, 2011)

rorymac said:


> I hope this bloke isn't taking the piss (sorry if it's already been posted)
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...nk-that-the-Left-might-actually-be-right.html


 
That article is an interesting sign of the times we are in!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 23, 2011)

I'm away from UK at the moment, but whenever I open the guardian website I just can't stop grinning. It just gets better each day. Shame about the summer recess though.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 23, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> I'm away from UK at the moment, but whenever I open the guardian website I just can't stop grinning. It just gets better each day. Shame about the summer recess though.


 
Yes, I think the summer holidays may take some heat out, mind you the story has legs perhaps it will still be stinging when parliament is back.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 23, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> I'm away from UK at the moment, but whenever I open the guardian website I just can't stop grinning. It just gets better each day. Shame about the summer recess though.


 
not at all, it's good timing.  keeps the pressure on cameron when the press would usually be full of stories about piano playing kittens, without distracting from the real shit that's going on in people's lives, which will be back to kick them in the teeth come september


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 23, 2011)

smokedout said:


> not at all, it's good timing.  keeps the pressure on cameron when the press would usually be full of stories about piano playing kittens, without distracting from the real shit that's going on in people's lives, which will be back to kick them in the teeth come september


 
Time of the year when the politics desk is struggling for news and the politicos are all of on their holibobs so now the hacks can keep finding new angles in what is a pretty vast story and there is a good chance the relevant minster or his advisor may be sunning themself not in the office so co-ordinating responses is going to be slightly harder than everyone in the same room.


----------



## ymu (Jul 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, that's the key thing for me here, to expose how they're all interconnected. Others have their own priorities.


 
Did you see Pilger's article?

Amid the Murdoch scandal, there’s an acrid smell of business as usual



> Certainly, there is no "revolution", as reported in the Guardian, which compared the fall of Murdoch with that of the tyrant Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania in 1989. The overexcitement is understandable; Nick Davies's scoop is a great one. Yet the truth is, Britain's system of elite monopoly control of the media rests not on News International alone, but on the Mail and the Guardian and the BBC, perhaps the most influential of all. All share a corporate monoculture that sets the agenda of the "news", defines acceptable politics by maintaining the fiction of distinctive parties, normalises unpopular wars and guards the limits of "free speech". This will be strengthened by the illusion that a "bad apple" has been "rooted out".


----------



## belboid (Jul 23, 2011)

interesting piece by Ian Katz on Coulsons lack of vetting.  Seemingly he was undergoing it belatedly, but it hadn't been completed when he suddenly quit.   Because he wasn't going to be cleared, perhaps?


----------



## cybertect (Jul 24, 2011)

rorymac said:


> I hope this bloke isn't taking the piss (sorry if it's already been posted)
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...nk-that-the-Left-might-actually-be-right.html


 
Coming from Charles Moore, it's a bit of a surprising eye opener.


----------



## starfish (Jul 24, 2011)

One question. Did all this shite stop in 2007 when Coulson resigned or did it carry on with the 200 who got sacked recently?


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 24, 2011)

starfish said:


> One question. Did all this shite stop in 2007 when Coulson resigned or did it carry on with the 200 who got sacked recently?


 
That did occur to me when if ever it did stop


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 24, 2011)

Well we can be sure it has stopped for the moment, and the rest of it still to come out.


----------



## starfish (Jul 24, 2011)

I reckon thats what the new regime, Myler, was brought in for. It stopped then. Hope so, means 200 people can sue for wrongful dismisal.


----------



## rhod (Jul 24, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Well we can be sure it has stopped for the moment, and the rest of it still to come out.



In the UK, perhaps.

But in the US it is still quite possible to listen to the voicemail of many people with AT&T or Sprint phones using callerID spoofing services. i.e. you spoof the number of the target phone, so that the voicemail thinks you are the legitimate handset accessing the account.

Apparently this is not possible on T-Moblie or Verizon as they require a PIN to access voicemail (regardless of who is accessing the voicemail, or how).

Wouldn't it be interesting if NewsCorp's US interests were found to have been eavesdropping..


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 24, 2011)

> Senior government officials working with Andy Coulson believed that he did have the highest security clearance, it is claimed, raising questions over whether the prime minister's former aide was improperly granted access to the most sensitive information.
> 
> Last week it emerged that the former editor of the News of the World had not undergone the most intensive vetting on becoming the prime minister's director of communications and so was working without the highest level of clearance. This should have restricted his access to some documents.
> 
> ...


link

Blimey. Posh boys lax attitude to his mates is dragging him deeper into the mess.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 24, 2011)

If Coulson, while in Cameron's government, saw materials that were above his security clearance, would that do for Cameron or could he still sneak his way out of it?


----------



## stavros (Jul 24, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> When will the first MPs call for Dave's resignation?


 
Dennis Skinner last week;


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 24, 2011)

Dodgy Dave


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 24, 2011)

weltweit said:


> If Coulson, while in Cameron's government, saw materials that were above his security clearance, would that do for Cameron or could he still sneak his way out of it?


 
He can hand off part of the responsibility for letting Coulson see and hear stuff beyond his clearance to the Cabinet Secretary.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 24, 2011)

Just got this from Chris Bryant on Twitter:



> Surrey police finally admit a detective constable revealed details of the milly Dowler investigation and was demoted for it in 2002.



Am off to ask him for links etc on this one.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2011)

Ask him who it was reveladed to and how was it uncovered? You don't lop off DC's without an investigation. What was that investigation. Who did it?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ask him who it was reveladed to and how was it uncovered? You don't lop off DC's without an investigation. What was that investigation. Who did it?


 
Will do, good sir.

EDIT:  Tis done.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Will do, good sir.
> 
> EDIT:  Tis done.


 
Ta.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 24, 2011)

butchersapron - Chris Bryant gave me the heads up on this media link: BBC News Am trying to find the Indie on Sunday one he mentioned.  Still waiting on the other stuff so far.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 24, 2011)

The removal of the DC from the Dowler investigation is mentioned in the last three paragraphs of this story in todays Indy, with a quote from Chris Bryant.

The Telegraph cover it as a separate story today: link


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 24, 2011)

cybertect said:


> The removal of the DC from the Dowler investigation is mentioned in the last three paragraphs of this story in todays Indy.
> 
> The Telegraph cover it as a separate story today: link


 
Thanks cybertect   Chris Bryant hinted that the Indie story was a stand alone thing, which is why I couldn't find it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2011)

Ta both, there's space here.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2011)

> The Dowler family's solicitor Mark Lewis said: "The Dowler family, Bob and Sally, have become aware in the last week of the fact that someone from the Surrey Police was removed from the initial investigation because of the leak of information.


For starters they sat on that for near 10 years...space yet...


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 24, 2011)

Also this (from the Telegraph piece):



> ''This related to the inappropriate disclosure of information about aspects of the investigation to a retired police officer friend. A serving colleague was told of the inappropriate disclosure by the person who had heard it, and immediately reported it to their senior management team.



Was the "retired police officer" on speaking terms with a certain media organisation, I wonder/speculate?

e2a:  Just asked Chris Bryant this on Twitter.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2011)

...and what she s/he doing before being retired.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> ...and what she s/he doing before being retired.


 
Asked yer man this too (good question, by the way).


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 25, 2011)

so was the retired officier fishing for info on behalf of the NOTW or was it just a friend who asked out of curiosity


----------



## laptop (Jul 25, 2011)

Sir Hugh Orde said:
			
		

> "What we have seen over the last few days is police officers standing up, explaining their actions and decisions and being held to account for them. Across the country, in serving our communities, police officers expect to have to do no less.
> 
> "It is a stark contrast to the way in which others have sought to meet their responsibilities."
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/24/rupert-murdoch-phone-hacking-police



"Others" being ... 7 letters, first letter M, third R, fifth O...


----------



## agricola (Jul 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> For starters they sat on that for near 10 years...space yet...


 
Bryant is talking shite, though:




			
				Indy piece said:
			
		

> ut Labour MP Chris Bryant said: "This raises major questions about the original investigation and about the News of the World's relationship with other police forces. The problem is the Surrey police knew about this in 2002 and did nothing."






			
				Bryants own tweet said:
			
		

> Surrey police finally admit a detective constable revealed details of the milly Dowler investigation and was demoted for it in 2002.



Obviously Surrey Police did do something - they gave words of advice (the lowest form of official reprimand), removed the DC from the case permanently, and (if Bryant is to be believed in his tweet) demoted them (ie: back to PC).  Nor is it clear what the information was that was leaked - indeed it is at least a possibility that the DC was telling their retired chum that the murder team themselves were being targetted by a lot of the tabloid media, something which was reported on a short while ago, which Surrey Police were aware of at the time.


----------



## agricola (Jul 25, 2011)

Meanwhile, via PB comes this::



> *Ring, a ring a story*
> How appropriate that the most glamourous event in the showbusiness calender should be sponsored by a phone company. Mohan went on to thank "Vodafone's lack of security" for the Mirror's showbusiness exclusives. Whatever does he mean?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 25, 2011)

Not heard back from Chris Bryant as yet - will leave it a while longer, and then chase up later if need be.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 25, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Maybe it's just me being cynical here but i would have thought he's too rich and his dad's too influential to mean that he ended up inside? Or by "big trouble" do you simply mean not being on the board of News Int'l?


nope, I mean porridge. Conspiracy to corrupt the course of justice.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> nope, I mean porridge. Conspiracy to corrupt the course of justice.


 
Pervert !!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 25, 2011)

agricola said:


> Bryant is talking shite, though:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They did do something, you're right. I think the point here is that it's another string to pull. The immediate pucture is not what we should be looking at. Who told Bryant this? Is it the same cource as told the telegrpah and so on?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> In which case all of the shit currently airing will have been known by Cameron for at least a year.


yes - excactly! And that, my monochromatic ursine mate, is hopefully the beauty of it; that not only was he aware, but he ignored substantive warnings on it. which is enough to cause him - at the minimum least - really serious, major shit.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 25, 2011)

revlon said:


>



Ta for that, revlon - forgot how much I liked the king of mancunian miserablism!


----------



## agricola (Jul 25, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They did do something, you're right. I think the point here is that it's another string to pull. The immediate pucture is not what we should be looking at. Who told Bryant this? Is it the same cource as told the telegrpah and so on?


 
Which is the key here.  It may be nothing, but one of the lines in the Surrey Police denial has the potential to be interesting (emphasis mine):



> A force spokeswoman said today: ''A Surrey Police detective constable was given words of advice and removed from working on the Operation Ruby (investigation into the murder of Milly Dowler) team in 2002 following concern raised by a colleague about the conduct of the officer.
> 
> ''This related to the inappropriate disclosure of information about aspects of the investigation to a retired police officer friend. A serving colleague was told of the inappropriate disclosure by the person who had heard it, and immediately reported it to their senior management team.
> 
> ...



Not _"there was no suggestion of any officer sharing information with the press"_.  Again - it may be nothing, but given the timing of this (ie: after the scandal starts to spread to the _Mirror_), the way the response is phrased, the strange way in which Bryant has found out about it, and the way that Bryant has linked this to the NOTW despite there seeming to be no evidence for him to do that, it is suspicious.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 25, 2011)

I think it's a case of the wrong end of the stick, myself.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 25, 2011)

Could be interesting:

Channel 4 - 8pm tonight - HOW MURDOCH RAN BRITAIN  - Dispatches investigates the world of Rupert Murdoch and the influence and political power he holds in the UK.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 25, 2011)

The Independent are running "DPP was warned hacking was rife at Murdoch paper" back in 2006, nearly six months _before_ the convictions of Mulcaire and Goodman, as their main story tomorrow

http://twitpic.com/5vs6sf/full

Lord MacDonald, then DPP, went on to work for News International.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 25, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Could be interesting:
> 
> Channel 4 - 8pm tonight - HOW MURDOCH RAN BRITAIN  - Dispatches investigates the world of Rupert Murdoch and the influence and political power he holds in the UK.


 
Just watched on 4OD link

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2011)

That commentator seem to adopt a comedy voice most of the way through.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 26, 2011)

I think the narrator was peter obourne


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I know the basic history of the Watergate scandal, but can anyone give me some good books / articles to read about it? There've been a lot of suggestions that this scandal is (or could turn out to be) basically the British version of it, and I wondered whether that could be said to be the case, or if its just hyperbole ...


The book by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein - the two _Washington Post_ journalists who broke the Watergate story - is called _All The President's Men_, and is just about required reading for anyone who wants to get clued up on Watergate


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 26, 2011)

cybertect said:


> <snip> Lord MacDonald, then DPP, went on to work for News International.


 I'm sure he was well rewarded for not prosecuting his Master.


----------



## agricola (Jul 26, 2011)

cybertect said:


> The Independent are running "DPP was warned hacking was rife at Murdoch paper" back in 2006, nearly six months _before_ the convictions of Mulcaire and Goodman, as their main story tomorrow
> 
> http://twitpic.com/5vs6sf/full
> 
> Lord MacDonald, then DPP, went on to work for News International.


 
Suspicious, though does anyone here honestly think that Goldsmith (who appears to be the source for the Indy's story) wouldnt pass that on to his boss?  Or that his (Goldsmiths) boss wouldnt have interfered with an investigation of this kind?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 26, 2011)

Well his opinions on the Iraq war would tend to prove that Goldsmith was an invertebrate ...


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

belboid said:


> Grauniad questions to Cameron re vetting:
> 1. Was Andy Coulson asked to undergo developed vetting (DV)?
> 
> 2. Did Coulson decline to undergo developed vetting?
> ...


here's another one; how come just about all of coulson's successor's and predecessors were vetted to the highest level - but not him, and him alone? What's so unique about Coulson, other than the near certain knowledge he wouldn't pass, due to the NI issues?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

agricola said:


> If going to a party at which was hosted by someone related to Murdoch is sufficient to disqualify people from having an oversight role on this, shouldnt the vast majority of MPs (and certainly the vast majority of ministers, shadow ministers and ex-ministers) have recused themselves by now?


Yes, but they can't, and it's unfeasible. In a world as incestuous, villagey and enclosed as the westminster-meejah world, it's virtually impossible to nail someone for going to a drinks bash. 
I've been to a BAe drinks do, and (long ago) an NI one - what am I guilty of? Nowt. Same goes for anyone else.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, that's the key thing for me here, to expose how they're all interconnected. Others have their own priorities.


of course they are, like you are 'connected' with everyone you've ever gone into a pub with. How is that relevant, other than that the individuals in question have rather more power than you or I?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> He can hand off part of the responsibility for letting Coulson see and hear stuff beyond his clearance to the Cabinet Secretary.


do you reckon Sir Gus would be happy to take all the shit for that, at a risk to his professional reputation?


----------



## agricola (Jul 26, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Yes, but they can't, and it's unfeasible. In a world as incestuous, villagey and enclosed as the westminster-meejah world, it's virtually impossible to naqil someone for going to a drinks bash.
> I've been to a BAe drinks do, and (long ago) an NI one - what am I guilty of? Nowt. Same goes for anyone else.


 
I agree, but doesnt that make the attacks on Leverson especially - and unpleasantly - hypocritical?  He is a very senior judge who should not be slated for being biased before he has heard one second of evidence, least of all by a bunch of twats, one of whom thought the Hutton Report was "sober, considered and spot on"*, and who blatantly have a  interest in concealing their own considerable involvement (or "guilt", if you prefer a shorter word) in this particular scandal?

* that is when he wasnt making unreasonable demands of the BBC


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Pervert !!!


yeah fair enuff sorry guv


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

agricola said:


> I agree, but doesnt that make the attacks on Leverson especially - and unpleasantly - hypocritical?  He is a very senior judge who should not be slated for being biased before he has heard one second of evidence, least of all by a bunch of twats, one of whom thought the Hutton Report was "sober, considered and spot on"*, and who blatantly have a  interest in concealing their own considerable involvement (or "guilt", if you prefer a shorter word) in this particular scandal?
> 
> * that is when he wasnt making unreasonable demands of the BBC


agreed, but due to the highly sensitive nature of these enquiries, it's best if they find someone - _anyone_ - who has as minimal a connection as possible, to anything even slightly NI. It's just asking for trouble otherwise, and although m'lud Leveson has a high forensic reputation, I don't believe he is the only man in the country who can conduct this inquiry.


----------



## laptop (Jul 26, 2011)

Had to come out sooner or later, given the numbers:



> Now it's the turn of lawyers and the legal process to be sucked into the phone-hacking vortex. The Law Society has even suggested justice itself is under threat, implying messages could have been intercepted with the intention of influencing court cases.
> 
> Several prominent solicitors fear their mobile phones have been hacked. Some have been formally informed of the risk by police after detectives discovered their numbers among a private investigator's notes.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/butte...law/2011/jul/25/phone-hacking-lawyers-mobiles



Story not going into retirement for the silly season, then


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2011)

There's a whole load more to come I reckon


----------



## agricola (Jul 26, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> agreed, but due to the highly sensitive nature of these enquiries, it's best if they find someone - _anyone_ - who has as minimal a connection as possible, to anything even slightly NI. It's just asking for trouble otherwise, and although m'lud Leveson has a high forensic reputation, I don't believe he is the only man in the country who can conduct this inquiry.


 
They dont want an independent, unimpeachable and honest person in charge though - in fact, thats the last thing they want.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

agricola said:


> They dont want an independent, unimpeachable and honest person in charge though - in fact, thats the last thing they want.


sadly true, but I'm hoping this is now to big a hot potato for them to try a fast one or anything funny


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 26, 2011)

Re: The Guardian's questions for Cameron on Coulson's vetting (or lack of) - Is this the kind of thing that can be dealt with by a FoI request - or will they have to pin the slippery fucker down in some way?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> do you reckon Sir Gus would be happy to take all the shit for that, at a risk to his professional reputation?


 
He wouldn't have much choice. If he doesn't, all the contacts he's spent his Civil Service career cultivating will give him the cold shoulder. Civil Servants who don't step into the breach and die for their masters are frowned upon by their own kind.

And, to be fair, if he does take a bullet, he'll be handsomely rewarded further down the line.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> He wouldn't have much choice. If he doesn't, all the contacts he's spent his Civil Service career cultivating will give him the cold shoulder. Civil Servants who don't step into the breach and die for their masters are frowned upon by their own kind.
> 
> And, to be fair, if he does take a bullet, he'll be handsomely rewarded further down the line.


ahhh...right yes, I see the point


----------



## cybertect (Jul 26, 2011)

Mirror Group are now conducting their own internal investigation "review of editorial controls and procedures"...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/26/hack_mirror_group/


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 26, 2011)

Sly by name?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2011)

The willingness of newspaper groups to conduct internal investigations is all you need to know about how much they have to hide.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 26, 2011)

Internal investigation = burn everything.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 27, 2011)

...and (perhaps a little unsurprisingly), Paul Staines has piped up w/yet more of Moron' indiscretions, which are however related to this whole business - read here


----------



## Santino (Jul 28, 2011)

Tom Watson on Twitter, just now: "The hacking scandal is about nosedive to a whole new low. How could these people do what they did?"


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

Rumours of something that's going to trump the lot coming out quite soon. From normally v good sources.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

Bastard


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Rumours of something that's going to trump the lot coming out quite soon. From normally v good sources.


 
I knew I should have bought those shares in Consolidated Popcorn Inc.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 28, 2011)

Santino said:


> Tom Watson on Twitter, just now: "The hacking scandal is about nosedive to a whole new low. How could these people do what they did?"


 
Have just read this, wondering what they can possibly have done that is worse. I just thought there would be more equally murky stuff dribbling out for a while, but now I'm intrigued.


----------



## Santino (Jul 28, 2011)

In your face, Butchers!


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 28, 2011)

Santino said:


> Tom Watson on Twitter, just now: "The hacking scandal is about nosedive to a whole new low. How could these people do what they did?"


 
A new low? How could it get any lower?


----------



## laptop (Jul 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Rumours of something that's going to trump the lot coming out quite soon. From normally v good sources.


 
Would this be Rebecca B's "more" already? 

I note, belatedly, that the "you will be hearing from us" in the first round of News International apology ads hasn't shown up yet.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 28, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> I knew I should have bought those shares in Consolidated Popcorn Inc.


 
I'm sitting pretty (lol) with my massive position on International Deckchairs inc.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 28, 2011)

bastard.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

Santino said:


> In your face, Butchers!


 
As i said, 'bastard'. I was lulled into a false sense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2011)

King Biscuit Time said:


> I'm sitting pretty (lol) with my massive position on International Deckchairs inc.


 
That's "posterior", not "position".


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jul 28, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> A new low? How could it get any lower?


 
It has to be about them gaining information via the hacking which they then did nothing about and which led to some sort of crime, probably against a person, being committed. Or something like that.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 28, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's "posterior", not "position".


 
'I've got a Mass Red Base, I'd rather sit on the floor,

If you want to be a Vanguard, go and join Securicor'.

In the immortal words of Adrian Mitchell.


----------



## past caring (Jul 28, 2011)

My money is on the Daniella Jones stuff.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> As i said, 'bastard'. I was lulled into a false sense.


 
Just as long as it's not false consciousness.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 28, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> It has to be about them gaining information via the hacking which they then did nothing about and which led to some sort of crime, probably against a person, being committed. Or something like that.



Ecrasez l'infame.


----------



## laptop (Jul 28, 2011)

past caring said:


> My money is on the Daniella Jones stuff.


 


Ah: Danielle Jones: Butchers' post


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

Whatever it is it seems Nick Davies at the Guardian has it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

laptop said:


> Ah: Danielle Jones: Butchers' post


 
Slipped under that one didn't it.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 28, 2011)

Sarah Payne's mothers phone hacked.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/28/phone-hacking-sarah-payne


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

NotW targeted Sarah Payne's mother's phone … *a phone given to her by Rebekah Brooks*


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 28, 2011)

_The evidence that police have found in Mulcaire's notes is believed to relate to a phone given to Sara Payne by Rebekah Brooks as a gift to help her stay in touch with her supporters. One of Payne's close colleagues said: "We are all appalled and disgusted. Sara is in bits about it."_

They even got the mother to write a piece for the last copy of the screws, saying how much she'd been supported by them....this could get very messy now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

That's brooks tied in, no way out.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 28, 2011)

Was wondering when the Sarah Payne case would make an appearance, given the prominence the papers afforded it (particularly relating to the 'Sarah's Law' stuff).


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 28, 2011)

The Guardian said:
			
		

> Friends of Sara Payne said she had accepted the News of the World as a friend and ally. Journalists from the paper attended the funerals of her mother and father and visited her sick bed after she suffered a severe stroke in December 2009.



With friends like these.....if anyone needed any further proof just how despicable these people are....


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's brooks tied in, no way out.


 
Yep, what's she going to claim? She didn't know the phone was a set-up?

She's proper fucked.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> With friends like these.....if anyone needed any further proof just how despicable these people are....


 
They had a column by her in the last edition.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They had a column by her in the last edition.


 
(to Paulie as well) Is there a word that conveys "Lowest of the low" for these people?  

I hope Brooks chokes on this.  I hope it kills what "soul" she has left.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2011)

> Friends of Sara Payne have told the Guardian that she is "absolutely devastated and deeply disappointed" at the disclosure. Her cause had been championed by the News of the World, and in particular by its former editor, Rebekah Brooks. Believing that she had not been a target for hacking, Payne wrote a farewell column for the paper's final edition on 10 July, referring to its staff as "my good and trusted friends"...
> 
> The Labour MP Tom Watson, who has been an outspoken critic of News International, said of the Payne revelation: "This is a new low. The last edition of the News of the World made great play of the paper's relationship with the Payne family. Brooks talked about it at the committee inquiry. Now this. I have nothing but contempt for the people that did this."


The lows just keep on coming.


----------



## belboid (Jul 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They had a column by her in the last edition.


 
Dragged her in to Wapping despite her being very seriously I'll, as well. On rebecca's insistence.


----------



## laptop (Jul 28, 2011)

belboid said:


> Dragged her in to Wapping despite her being very seriously I'll, as well. On rebecca's insistence.


 
Quoted as saying "Rebecca said she's 'calling in her favour'."


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

SP pays tribute to NOTW



> THE mum of murdered schoolgirl Sarah Payne has paid tribute to the News of the World — saying she felt "like a friend had just died".



I think one just did.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 28, 2011)

belboid said:


> Dragged her in to Wapping despite her being very seriously I'll, as well. On rebecca's insistence.


 
Why would they even need to do that?


----------



## laptop (Jul 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Slipped under that one didn't it.


 
It'll come back in the inquiry, I'll wager. If not earlier.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 28, 2011)

Ye gods. I know it had been looking feasible, but even so.

Sara Payne pays tribute to axed News of the World, The Sun, 8th July 2011.




			
				The Sun said:
			
		

> THE mum of murdered schoolgirl Sarah Payne has paid tribute to the News of the World — saying she felt "like a friend had just died".
> 
> Justice campaigner Sara joined forces with the Sunday paper after her daughter's death and it championed her fight against sick paedophiles.
> 
> ...



Private Eye ran this piece in their last edition




			
				Private Eye said:
			
		

> One of the most glowing encomia in the final edition of The News of The World came from Sara Payne, mother of Sarah, whose murder in 2000 kicked off the paper's "Name and Shame" campaign that made Rebekah Brooks's reputation.
> 
> As well as announcing, in the manner of a defendant at one of Stalin's show trials, that "rumours turned out to be untrue that I and my fellow Phoenix charity chiefs had our phones hacked", Payne heaped praise on the paper's staff. "The News of the World and more importantly the people there became my very good and trusted friends. And like all good friends they have stuck with me through the good and the bad."
> 
> ...


----------



## past caring (Jul 28, 2011)

belboid said:


> Dragged her in to Wapping despite her being very seriously I'll, as well. On rebecca's insistence.



The thing I'm struggling with is.....what the fuck was Brooks thinking? Can't have forgotten she'd given Payne the phone and must have realised that this was going to come out/Mulcaire had the number. So, at that point, to be twisting Payne's arm for a column for the last edition? Yeah - a cunt's trick, but we've known that all along. Just didn't think she was that stupid.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

Have i missed this? When was the phone given?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 28, 2011)

double post.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

(RT @monstris Here's the @popbitch story from 8 August on Sara Payne. http://twitpic.com/5x7hu3)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

**


----------



## Santino (Jul 28, 2011)

More to come this afternoon.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 28, 2011)

Christopher Hope of the _Telegraph_ says "there is worse to come [than the Sara Payne story] at 5pm today", and that it is "apparently _Daily Mirror_ related"


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 28, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Christopher Hope of the _Telegraph_ says "there is worse to come [than the Sara Payne story] at 5pm today", and that they are "apparently _Daily Mirror_ related"


 
Ooh, does this implicate the Moron, then?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 28, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Ooh, does this implicate the Moron, then?


 
That would be the cherry in this whole affair IMO.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 28, 2011)

He's been strenuously denying any wrongdoing since the beginning, it could be beautiful.

Particularly if they take the chatshow gig from him


----------



## teqniq (Jul 28, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> I knew I should have bought those shares in Consolidated Popcorn Inc.



Oh yes!


----------



## magneze (Jul 28, 2011)

It's not surprising, but still a bit shocking.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

The Octagon said:


> He's been strenuously denying any wrongdoing since the beginning, it could be beautiful.
> 
> Particularly if they take the chatshow gig from him


 
That job is mine.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 28, 2011)

I can't begin to get too excited about the Brooks/Payne thing - not that it goes beyond her evil-doing, but they way she fanfared Sarah's Law in her recent pleas for mercy, just make it too long that she'd laud something so easily connected to her in this way.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 28, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Christopher Hope of the _Telegraph_ says "there is worse to come [than the Sara Payne story] at 5pm today", and that it is "apparently _Daily Mirror_ related"


 
He's also re-tweeted this tantalising note from Mark Ferguson, editor of Labour List.




			
				@MarkFergusonUK said:
			
		

> As well as phone hacking, there's potentially a story coming tomorrow that will have senior Tories very concerned...


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 28, 2011)

Ooh, senior tories eh, hurry up and reveal it Twitter!


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2011)

How much teasing can a man take?! I want the dirt NOW!


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 28, 2011)

I'm wondering if there's anybody they didn't hack...


----------



## laptop (Jul 28, 2011)

Minister Jonathan Djanogly faces investigation over 'blagging' by detectives

No apparent News International connection in this morning's _Telegraph_ story. Spent £5k investigating constituents who'd raised questions abt his expenses.

Nice put-down by the headline sub-editor - "we need to explain who the fuck this is!"


----------



## mack (Jul 28, 2011)

Senior Tories worried - got to be about Cameron and maybe his alleged past habits.


----------



## laptop (Jul 28, 2011)

mack said:


> alleged past habits.


 
They were bugging his nose?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 28, 2011)

laptop said:


> They were bugging his nose?


 
Now this is funny.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 28, 2011)

Jon Snow tweeted that Piers Morgan has been suspended by CNN but seems to have deleted the tweet now?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 28, 2011)

Ed Fraser from Channel 4 News: "Please note @jonsnowc4 tweet on Piers Morgan sent in error"


----------



## laptop (Jul 28, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Ed Fraser from Channel 4 News: "Please note @jonsnowc4 tweet on Piers Morgan sent in error"


 
That'd be like having an obituary ready to roll when the event happens - pre-tweeting, as it were


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 28, 2011)

Added to list of hacked....Sarah Payne's mum.... 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/28/phone-hacking-sarah-payne


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/t...one-given-sarah-payne-brooks[Brooks statement



> For the benefit of the campaign for Sarah's Law, the News of the World have provided Sara with a mobile telephone for the last 11 years. It was not a personal gift.
> 
> The idea that anyone on the newspaper knew that Sara or the campaign team were targeted by Mr Mulcaire is unthinkable. The idea of her being targeted is beyond my comprehension. It is imperative for Sara and the other victims of crime that these allegations are investigated and those culpable brought to justice.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2011)

11 years. Answers my question above. Both _before_ and _after_.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 11 years. Answers my question above. Both _before_ and _after_.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 28, 2011)

Nice to see the story back in the news again,been overshadowed by other events these last few days.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 28, 2011)

@christopherhope said:
			
		

> There will be NO news on Mirror tonight, sources say. For clarity, the story is not a Telegraph one...



I wonder if whoever's going to run that decided to hold off until the Sara Payne story had occupied tomorrow's front pages.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 28, 2011)

Rebekah Brooks said:
			
		

> For the benefit of the campaign for Sarah's Law, the News of the World have provided Sara with a mobile telephone for the last 11 years. It was not a personal gift.



So she was "on the staff", eh Brooks?  Company property, I see....


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 28, 2011)

butchers that New Statesman link in post 7944 doesn't work. It has an extra http at the beginning.

Here it is again for those interested: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/07/phone-given-sarah-payne-brooks


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 28, 2011)

The Octagon said:


> He's been strenuously denying any wrongdoing since the beginning, it could be beautiful.
> 
> Particularly if they take the chatshow gig from him


 
Wouldn't it just!


----------



## laptop (Jul 28, 2011)

cybertect said:


> I wonder if whoever's going to run that decided to hold off until the Sara Payne story had occupied tomorrow's front pages.


 
More like, the lawyers at all media outlets are saying as one: "oh fuck, give us time to work this one out..."

Piers Morgan denies phone-hacking 'admission'
27 July 2011 Last updated at 16:46


----------



## laptop (Jul 28, 2011)

laptop said:


> More like, the lawyers at all media outlets are saying as one: "oh fuck, give us time to work this one out..."
> 
> Piers Morgan denies phone-hacking 'admission'
> 27 July 2011 Last updated at 16:46


 
Or, for that matter: has Morgan an injunction?


----------



## little_legs (Jul 28, 2011)

Boris Johnson's deputy mayor for policing Kit Malthouse was briefed about Hoare's NYT article _5 days before Johnson dismissed the phone-hacking scandal as "codswallop cooked up by the Labour Party"_.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...otland-yard-chief-faces-phone-hacking-quiz.do


----------



## audiotech (Jul 28, 2011)

> As new allegations of phone hacking swirl around CNN primetime host Piers Morgan, he may yet come to regret the swashbuckling hubris of his performance at the DCMS select committee in 2003.



His performance at the DCMS select committee is here to see:

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/07/piers-morgan-dcms-committee/


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 29, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> (to Paulie as well) Is there a word that conveys "Lowest of the low" for these people?
> 
> I hope Brooks chokes on this.  I hope it kills what "soul" she has left.


it's difficult to see that you're the lowest of the low, if everyone around you is even deeper? who knows? bunch of fucking arseholes at the very least, the worst kind of excuse for journalism if i was being kind.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 29, 2011)

Someone has been trying to post this on the Guardians comments page and not getting very far



> I've been working on this little list of MPs (and a couple of ex-MPs) that have received either donations or payments for work from NI, posted it on the Guardian, it got deleted, so here is an updated version of it. It covers summer 09 to present so far but I will extend it and hopefully format it a bit more nicely:
> 
> Baker, Norman £300 (09-10)
> *Blunkett, David £50,000* plus (09-11) (someone may have more success adding this up than me)
> ...


Its interesting although perhaps you could guess at who will be top of the list based on articles written.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 29, 2011)

Reading this on my phone, but isn't there a big gap where Hague should be ?


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 29, 2011)

What's the significance of the bolded names?


----------



## ymu (Jul 29, 2011)

The Octagon said:


> What's the significance of the bolded names?


They're mostly the largest sums, and also the most high profile villains, but I dunno why Redwood, Rifkind and Straw have been left unhighlighted on either count.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2011)

That list is missing quite a few people - presumably because they just went through the files searching for News International - if you bung in bskyb or sky the list expands a fair bit.


----------



## The Octagon (Jul 29, 2011)

ymu said:


> They're mostly the largest sums, and also the most high profile villains, but I dunno why Redwood, Rifkind and Straw have been left unhighlighted on either count.


 
I just found it odd that Cameron was left out of the 'notables'


----------



## weltweit (Jul 29, 2011)

The Octagon said:


> I just found it odd that Cameron was left out of the 'notables'


 
*Gove, Michael £34500*

That is a lot. Wasn't Gove a former journalist?


----------



## Santino (Jul 29, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Wasn't Gove a former journalist?



He still is a former journalist.


----------



## ymu (Jul 29, 2011)

^



The Octagon said:


> I just found it odd that Cameron was left out of the 'notables'


Ooh, missed him. Yep - he qualifies on amount (more than Milliband's £1k) and villainy.

So no, I do not know what the bolding is about.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 29, 2011)

Santino said:


> He still is a former journalist.


 
 

Yes, why did I do that ...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jul 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That list is missing quite a few people - presumably because they just went through the files searching for News International - if you bung in bskyb or sky the list expands a fair bit.


Thanks for that. Very useful. 

Rt Hon David Cameron turns up again 


> Payment of £3089.06 from HarperCollins Publishers, via Ed Victor Ltd, 6 Bayley Street,
> Bedford Square, London WC1B 3HE, for publication advance for ‘Cameron on Cameron:
> Conversations with Dylan Jones, ahead of paperback edition. Hours: Approximately 3 hrs on
> updated (paperback) edition. All payments relating to the book will be donated to charity.
> (Registered 3 March 2010)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 29, 2011)

Presumably this is just what they admitted to in the register of interests or whatever it's called? 

Rather than any hypothetical brown envelopes, free wraps of coke, blow-jobs or whatever?


----------



## Random (Jul 29, 2011)

Nothing on Sara Payne's mum being hacked?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 29, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Added to list of hacked....Sarah Payne's mum....
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/28/phone-hacking-sarah-payne


 
Here ...


----------



## killer b (Jul 29, 2011)

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/arti...om_david_jones_investigative_journalists.html

i'm no fan of mensch, but that's perfectly pitched.


----------



## ymu (Jul 29, 2011)

killer b said:


> http://www.politicshome.com/uk/arti...om_david_jones_investigative_journalists.html
> 
> i'm no fan of mensch, but that's perfectly pitched.


 
It is. Credit where credit's due. Perfect response to obvious harrassment and attempts at threatening her, like they've been doing for decades with great success.

I do hope someone finds out who hired the investigative journalist. If they're stupid enough to try and pull this shit still, they can go down for it too.


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2011)

eh?  harrassment?  It's prerrt pisspoor harrassment, if that is what it is. Looks more like someone has acted on longstanding rumours, now that Mensch has made a bit of a name for herself (no point outing her drug use when she was just a no mark backbencher)


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2011)

& in more Mensch news, the eejit has just apologised for misquoting Morgan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14346050


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 29, 2011)

Seems that Glenn Mulcaire is coming out and claiming that he in no way acted alone - "As an employee he acted on the instructions of others." That's from some sky bloke - haven't got the full statement yet.


----------



## Santino (Jul 29, 2011)

"No longer paying my legal fees, are you? Well, watch this!"


----------



## weltweit (Jul 29, 2011)

killer b said:


> http://www.politicshome.com/uk/arti...om_david_jones_investigative_journalists.html
> 
> i'm no fan of mensch, but that's perfectly pitched.


 
And one of the responses to her piece 



> Think you are trying to get people to forget you lied at the Select Committee about books you've never read and justifying your lies.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 29, 2011)

She wasn't lying, it's just a throwback to the snowblindness with which she is afflicted on account of all the fruit & flowers.


----------



## laptop (Jul 29, 2011)

Santino said:


> "No longer paying my legal fees, are you? Well, watch this!"



 :fingers-crossed:


----------



## laptop (Jul 29, 2011)

Statement from Mulcaire's solicitors:



> As an employee he acted on the instructions of others.
> 
> There were also occasions when he understood his instructions were from those who genuinely wished to assist in solving crimes. Any suggestion that he acted in such matters unilaterally is untrue. In the light of the ongoing police investigation, he cannot say any more.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/29/phone-hacking-scandal-live-coverage#block-18


----------



## two sheds (Jul 29, 2011)

laptop said:


> Statement from Mulcaire's solicitors:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/29/phone-hacking-scandal-live-coverage#block-18



Goodoh


----------



## Voley (Jul 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Seems that Glenn Mulcaire is coming out and claiming that he in no way acted alone - "As an employee he acted on the instructions of others." That's from some sky bloke - haven't got the full statement yet.


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14346083


----------



## audiotech (Jul 29, 2011)

belboid said:


> & in more Mensch news, the eejit has just apologised for misquoting Morgan
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14346050





> With demands for an apology over the misjudged comment, Morgan could have refused to give further evidence to the committee on the basis that a member had used it as a platform to make misleading allegations. Mensch’s statement could clear the way for another appearance from the CNN presenter, which will doubtless be more contrite than the arrogant 2003 performance highlighted by Scrapbook yesterday.



http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/07/mensch-piers-morgan-apology/


----------



## Voley (Jul 29, 2011)

Santino said:


> "No longer paying my legal fees, are you? Well, watch this!"


----------



## marty21 (Jul 29, 2011)

Santino said:


> "No longer paying my legal fees, are you? Well, watch this!"



another hilarious decision - the one man who can really fuck them up, they cut off his legal help  

although I think he is taking them to court over that -


----------



## killer b (Jul 29, 2011)

marty21 said:


> another hilarious decision - the one man who can really fuck them up, they cut off his legal help
> 
> although I think he is taking them to court over that -


 
they didn't have any choice. one of the useful outcomes of the select committee appearance, i reckon.


----------



## laptop (Jul 29, 2011)

marty21 said:


> another hilarious decision - the one man who can really fuck them up, they cut off his legal help



That was after the Select Committee asked "You're paying _what_?"



marty21 said:


> although I think he is taking them to court over that -


 
Not yet. His lawyers wrote yesterday to say "Oh yes you are!"


----------



## marty21 (Jul 29, 2011)

laptop said:


> That was after the Select Committee asked "You're paying _what_?"
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet. His lawyers wrote yesterday to say "Oh yes you are!"



it's a delicious situation - they get criticised for paying his fees, and if they don't , he'll name names


----------



## Badgers (Jul 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Seems that Glenn Mulcaire is coming out and claiming that he in no way acted alone - "As an employee he acted on the instructions of others." That's from some sky bloke - haven't got the full statement yet.


 
Happy happy joy joy


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2011)

slightly irritating, but that's two spiffing results fairly directly from the select committee hearings (three if you include mensch making a tit of herself)


----------



## killer b (Jul 29, 2011)

belboid said:


> slightly irritating, but that's two spiffing results fairly directly from the select committee hearings (three if you include mensch making a tit of herself)


 
why is it irritating?


----------



## belboid (Jul 29, 2011)

cos most of the people on it are fules


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 29, 2011)

weltweit said:


> *Gove, Michael £34500*
> 
> That is a lot. Wasn't Gove a former journalist?


leader-writer & Columnist for The _Times_, and his wife still is


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Seems that Glenn Mulcaire is coming out and claiming that he in no way acted alone - "As an employee he acted on the instructions of others." That's from some sky bloke - haven't got the full statement yet.


Now if HE starts ratting left, right and centre - oh boy, it'll be _carnage_ 
<rubs hands gleefully>


----------



## smokedout (Jul 29, 2011)

belboid said:


> eh?  harrassment?  It's prerrt pisspoor harrassment, if that is what it is. Looks more like someone has acted on longstanding rumours, now that Mensch has made a bit of a name for herself (no point outing her drug use when she was just a no mark backbencher)


 
and given her party supports a policy that can involve jailing drug users I'd say it's very much in the public interest.  as to the letter, this is what people like mosley and hugh grant want isn't it, that people before are informed beforehand of allegations made against them, hardly harrassment, she's an MP ffs


----------



## agricola (Jul 29, 2011)

belboid said:


> slightly irritating, but that's two spiffing results fairly directly from the select committee hearings (three if you include mensch making a tit of herself)


 
Not sure she made that much of a tit of herself, tbh.  Yes, she misquoted Moron, but then she has played a small role in him getting some well deserved (and long overdue) attention with regards to his antics.  Then there are have these reports, which - if true - are somewhat worrying, given how contrite and apologetic they all are (the hack concerned is a freelance ex-_Mail_ bod, apparently).


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 29, 2011)

did anyone notice the latest 'scalp'? Lady Buscombe, the PCC chair, is to stand down


----------



## killer b (Jul 29, 2011)

agricola said:


> Not sure she made that much of a tit of herself, tbh.  Yes, she misquoted Moron, but then she has played a small role in him getting some well deserved (and long overdue) attention with regards to his antics.  Then there are have these reports, which - if true - are somewhat worrying, given how contrite and apologetic they all are (the hack concerned is a freelance ex-_Mail_ bod, apparently).


her performance in the committee was good. it was her wrestling match with morgan on cnn afterwards where she fucked up.


----------



## pk (Jul 29, 2011)

Just as a point of interest, I heard that one NotW journo who was middle ranked got two year's pay as a severance package.

Seems to be the average. It would be nice to have £70,000 plus various expenses dropped in your hand as a lump sum in time for summer holidays, eh??

Don't believe a fucking word of the "woe is me" stories coming from Wapping's newest P45 recipients. They're being well looked after.


----------



## ymu (Jul 29, 2011)

Why would they be saying "woe is me"? Surely they know that if they sign on they'll get a big house, free car and £50k/year just like all the other benefit claimants?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 29, 2011)

They'll also be instantly snapped up by someone, somewhere, with the exception of those who've been nicked


----------



## weltweit (Jul 29, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> did anyone notice the latest 'scalp'? Lady Buscombe, the PCC chair, is to stand down



Nope, didn't notice that. 

Mind you she was as impotent as a Chinese Panda in her role so perhaps that is no suprise.


----------



## laptop (Jul 29, 2011)

pk said:


> Just as a point of interest, I heard that one NotW journo who was middle ranked got two year's pay as a severance package.


 
Not least because, as noted waaay up this thread, News International woefully fucked up the statutory redundancy procedure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 29, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Nope, didn't notice that.
> 
> Mind you she was as impotent as a Chinese Panda in her role so perhaps that is no suprise.



You're asking for a smack in the mouth, cuntlugs!!


----------



## audiotech (Jul 29, 2011)

We live in huge Mansions, paid for with housing benefit don't you know.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 29, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> did anyone notice the latest 'scalp'? Lady Buscombe, the PCC chair, is to stand down


Yes.  Sadly there's no notw for her to jump ship to. 

Poor Baroness.   The PCC will be an easy casualty in this, hardly worth bothering about but certainly worth it if there's a slight chance they'll grow some balls.  They're as bad as the IPCC without a doubt.


----------



## ymu (Jul 29, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> did anyone notice the latest 'scalp'? Lady Buscombe, the PCC chair, is to stand down


 
Yeah.

You know she had to pay damages to Mark Lewis (Dowler solicitor, and also Gordon Taylor's when the payoff was negotiated), and the PCC had to formally apologise. She repeatedly said he was wrong about what a copper told him about the number of victims to the DCMS (6000 vs the "handful" they insisted it was), and he sued for libel because she was effectively saying he lied to parliament.

Fucking clueless she is.Don't appoint a judge who needs telling what to do, appoint one that will do it anyway. In this case, just appoint someone who automatically believes that the establishment is right.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 29, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're asking for a smack in the mouth, cuntlugs!!


 
Are you a Lady Buscombe fan VP?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 29, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Are you a Lady Buscombe fan VP?


 did you read george michael's twitter today then?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 30, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> did you read george michael's twitter today then?


 
I am, I am pleased to announce to the world - a twitter virgin ... 

twit twat twozzle - perhaps  

I am also an ebay virgin of which I am proud!!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 30, 2011)

GM tweeted that he invited Lady Buscombe to a house warming party, which she come along to and enjoyed herself for a couple of hours, including a tour of his new house.

then she went home and called the police, to complain about the noise coming from his party


----------



## weltweit (Jul 30, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> GM tweeted that he invited Lady Buscombe to a house warming party, which she come along to and enjoyed herself for a couple of hours, including a tour of his new house.
> 
> then she went home and called the police, to complain about the noise coming from his party


----------



## Greebo (Jul 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Are you a Lady Buscombe fan VP?


It's to do with his username


----------



## weltweit (Jul 30, 2011)

Greebo said:


> It's to do with his username


 
Oh duh .. of course - silly me


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 30, 2011)

Operation Tuleta really should be Weeting on double-strength steroids.

If the PI reports inside three years I'll eat my neck.


----------



## paolo (Jul 30, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> did anyone notice the latest 'scalp'? Lady Buscombe, the PCC chair, is to stand down


 
Aye.

And Murborg might be recalled to the committee. I'd bloody love to see Watson have a second bite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Are you a Lady Buscombe fan VP?


 

My name is ViolentPanda.

You traduced pandas.

Prepare to die.

(100 internet poyntz to anyone who can say which character in which film I paraphrased there)


----------



## weltweit (Jul 30, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> My name is ViolentPanda.
> 
> You traduced pandas.
> 
> ...


 
But I thought it common knowledge that male pandas have extremely small genitalia such that the only successful mating position which ensures proper entry is a position which can only be described as "two juggernaughts reverse into each other"... And as this is both a difficult to achieve, and extremely unnatural sexual position not mentioned in the Karma Sutra, many panda matings are rather unsucessful ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 30, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> My name is ViolentPanda.
> 
> You traduced pandas.
> 
> ...


 
_The Princess Bride_ of course.


----------



## gosub (Jul 30, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> They'll also be instantly snapped up by someone, somewhere, with the exception of those who've been nicked


 
Suppose Siberia counts as somewhere


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> But I thought it common knowledge that male pandas have extremely small genitalia such that the only successful mating position which ensures proper entry is a position which can only be described as "two juggernaughts reverse into each other"... And as this is both a difficult to achieve, and extremely unnatural sexual position not mentioned in the Karma Sutra, many panda matings are rather unsucessful ...


Pandas don't have sex like that.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2011)

WTF  is going on with this thread? This is an important news topic. Please try and keep it remotely on topic.


----------



## smokedout (Jul 30, 2011)

I think it's important we get this cleared up first

"The penis of an adult panda is only about 3 centimeters (1.2 inches) long,"

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/09/china.panda.reut/index.html

I'm sure VP will be able to confirm or deny this


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2011)

smokedout said:


> I think it's important we get this cleared up first
> 
> "The penis of an adult panda is only about 3 centimeters (1.2 inches) long,"
> 
> ...


For the last time of asking: take this to another thread, please. Anyone posting up any more disruptive, off topic nonsense can expect to be banned for the rest of the weekend. Your call.


----------



## ymu (Jul 30, 2011)

So, have we had thew news about NI's former legal officer coming out to support Crone and Myler's account of James Murdoch's lies? 

Crone and Myler are interesting, because their statement drops Murdoch J in it, but they're also contradicting their own testimony to the DCMS a couple of years ago. Looks like they're angry enough to drop themselves in it if it means getting the Murdoch's back. Which is nice. 

Mulcaire will have to spill. The court cases he is fighting are appeals against judgements forcing him to name the people he dealt with at NI. No legal fees means he can't fight that even if he wanted to any more. He looks like he's ready to blow the lid off any moment.

It's all good.


----------



## paolo (Jul 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> So, have we had thew news about NI's former legal officer coming out to support Crone and Myler's account of James Murdoch's lies?
> 
> Crone and Myler are interesting, because their statement drops Murdoch J in it, but they're also contradicting their own testimony to the DCMS a couple of years ago. Looks like they're angry enough to drop themselves in it if it means getting the Murdoch's back. Which is nice.
> 
> ...


 
Epic isn't it?

As we all sussed, originally everyone seems to have told stories that best fit their own ends. But all a house of cards because the facts won't add up under scrutiny. And now the microscope is on, it all tumbles. I'm all for the grassing if it nails the people at the top.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 30, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> _The Princess Bride_ of course.


 
50 poyntz, sir, as you didn't name the character.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 30, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Epic isn't it?
> 
> As we all sussed, originally everyone seems to have told stories that best fit their own ends. But all a house of cards because the facts won't add up under scrutiny. And now the microscope is on, it all tumbles. I'm all for the grassing if it nails the people at the top.


 
Crone and Myler have their careers (what's left of them) to worry about, so they've an "angle" to work when it comes to dangling Murdoch Jr. in the brown stuff, but Mulcaire, he's got no angles left really. He's *got* to shit on his employers because unless he can hand off some of the guilt to them, he's looking at a world of fucked-overness.

Whatever the various motivations, though, as ymu says, "it's all good".


----------



## teqniq (Jul 30, 2011)

Is it just me or do Crone and Myler sound like a pair of Victorian villains?

'Dammit, we're done for, best use our insurance policy. The Crushers will be of no use this time they find themselves in a similar predicament'


----------



## ymu (Jul 30, 2011)

It's exactly what happens when they crack a big organised crime network. Once the rats start talking, it's every rat for themselves. But News Corp is the biggest organised crime syndicate of all. Just gotta keep those dominoes tumbling. 

This connects up with so much other stuff that's going on, too. Thatcher needed Murdoch to sell the viciousness and economic illiteracy that we're all paying for now. Kelner is in the frame for allowing Hari's laxness, and hatchet jobs ... and the Guardian has allowed similar (there was a Chomsky hatchet job from them a few years back) ... the BBC have been an unashamed propaganda mouthpiece for the government for decades (blatantly so since Kelly/Gilligan and New Labour's cuntery). Peston is being hammered for his part in promoting the NI agenda through this.

And that's just the UK. Uprisings in the ME and North Africa, and increasingly in Asia. And the US is there too, and was before the Murdoch scandal spread there. Several US states have had rolling demonstrations against Tea Party governors which, in population terms, are as big as the biggest demos London has ever seen. Wisconsin had 100,000 out in the capital for weeks on end in a state with just 5 million people - and when the police turned up to the occupation of the Capitol Building, it was to join the demonstrators. All this on an issue that was solely about attempts to destroy public sector unions, and nothing to do with the latest financial terrorism being inflicted by Congress.

The whole establishment smoke screen is getting thinner by the day.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> Thatcher needed Murdoch to sell the viciousness and economic illiteracy that we're all paying for now.


 
i'm not persuaded that everything there was one way, ie thatcher needed murdoch. i'd have said that relationship, as the relationships of subsequent prime ministers have been, was more mutual than begging.


----------



## ymu (Jul 30, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not persuaded that everything there was one way, ie thatcher needed murdoch. i'd have said that relationship, as the relationships of subsequent prime ministers have been, was more mutual than begging.


 
I'd agree that it was mutual under Thatcher - that was true of earlier PMs in the 1970s too. But it was Wapping that decisively changed the situation, and I wouldn't agree that there has been anything like the same balance since Thatcher.  It's nothing to do with the myth that NI chooses the election winner - Murdoch just sniffs the air and backs the winner. It is a great deal to do with the ability to wreck or make careers, and wreck or make policy. Murdoch gets what he wants from government because they're fucking terrified of him - under Thatcher he got it because they were political soulmates.

I'm waiting to see more about the alleged war-room art Fox. If that gets raided, things could get very interesting indeed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2011)

it's going to get more interesting anyway as this spreads from ni elsewhere


----------



## ymu (Jul 30, 2011)

Note the flame red hair engulfed in the wave (at the bottom), all the coppers' hats in there too, and Cameron desperately hiding behind Steve Hilton. 

And the US, apparently on a wave of something browner than gold coins, in the background.


----------



## ymu (Jul 30, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it's going to get more interesting anyway as this spreads from ni elsewhere


Of course. But the war-room makes it serious criminality. There was a case where the News Corp advertising business took over a competitor by hacking into their website and stealing their client details. The case got to court when 65 out of 85 employees had been made redundant and got settled when they agreed to sell the company to News Corp.

The allegation is that the Fox war room was about black ops, not just dodgy news gathering. Guards on the door, employees with access to it under surveillance. I can't imagine they can have cleaned up well enough to escape the consequences if that gets investigated.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2011)

we'll wait and see


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Nope, didn't notice that.
> 
> Mind you she was as impotent as a Chinese Panda in her role so perhaps that is no suprise.


the problem really is with the PCC itself; it's instutionally impotent and incapable of showing real teeth, which is hardly surprising as the meejah fund it


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

ymu said:


> Of course. But the war-room makes it serious criminality. There was a case where the News Corp advertising business took over a competitor by hacking into their website and stealing their client details. The case got to court when 65 out of 85 employees had been made redundant and got settled when they agreed to sell the company to News Corp.
> 
> The allegation is that the Fox war room was about black ops, not just dodgy news gathering. Guards on the door, employees with access to it under surveillance. I can't imagine they can have cleaned up well enough to escape the consequences if that gets investigated.


There also rumours of a similar room having been installed at the WSJ, filled with state-of-the-art comms, IT, decryption and interception kit


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

ymu said:


> Murdoch gets what he wants from government because they're fucking terrified of him - under Thatcher he got it because they were political soulmates.


They _were_ terrified of him and the ratpack at NI - that vital psychological hold is broken now, probably for good.


----------



## ymu (Jul 31, 2011)

Oh yes! It is great to be able to use the past tense, innit.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mulcaire, he's got no angles left really. He's *got* to shit on his employers because unless he can hand off some of the guilt to them, he's looking at a world of fucked-overness.


damn right - It's clear from his statements that he's not been paid an absolute fortune to take the whole rap (as I expected NI to try), so his ONLY defence is "I voz only obeyink orders" and to implicate everyone he knows. same goes for Whittamore and Rees.
And the key thing is; sooner or later SOMEONE - be it leveson, a commons committee, or a future trial judge - has to decide where the buck stopped i.e. who DID know and din't stop the hacking, bribery etc. So far, all the murdochs, Coulson, Brooks and Myler have all vehemently denied any knowledge of anythiong other than the original royal hack. It's like the 6 wise monkeys
It's also totally non-credible as a denial. There's a potential 12,000 hacks here; that's just not realistic, or reasonable. 
Nor is 'unkknowingness' compatible with signing off hefty payments to the 3 (dept editor at least) PIs, let alone the six-figure damages checks. Especially when you consider that NI are famous for running a tight financial ship


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2011)

He _can_ take outside money (lots in this mums account)  and fuck off. However, he's worth more than that right now. 

Who is *now* paying his legal fees?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> He _can_ take outside money (lots in this mums account)  and fuck off. However, he's worth more than that right now.
> 
> Who is *now* paying his legal fees?


 
apparently it's still ni, his solicitors were in the news the other day saying that they hadn't heard from ni that the tap had been turned off but they'd fight it if it was because ni had agreed to indemnify mulcaire's legal costs some time ago.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 31, 2011)

We won't have to wait long - legal bills often get sent out at month's end, and I bet NI won't pay this lot...they can't, not after JM said in front of parliament that they wouldn't, and not in the current climate.


----------



## ymu (Jul 31, 2011)

Murdoch R did add that it depended on contractual obligations. I think they can wriggle out quite easily, but at the cost of even more bad publicity, so it's a sort of win-win. They'll get them in the dock in the end. 

Murdoch's biographer has said that some News Corp execs aren't wondering if there'll still be Murdochs at News Corp next year, they're wondering if Murdoch will be behind bars.

And they should have a better inkling than most. So that's nice.


----------



## treelover (Jul 31, 2011)

'http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/murdoch_s_5k_a_day_for_blunkett_1_3609778'


Not sure if this has been posted on megathread, but apparently Blunkett was on the payroll of NI on a 'social responsibility' project and paid 25,000 for the work...

oh, and 33,000 from the Mail...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/murdoch_s_5k_a_day_for_blunkett_1_3609778'
> 
> 
> Not sure if this has been posted on megathread, but apparently Blunkett was on the payroll of NI on a 'social responsibility' project and paid 25,000 for the work...
> ...


as someone who's posted here for nigh on ten years i am surprised you're having trouble posting links: http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/murdoch_s_5k_a_day_for_blunkett_1_3609778


----------



## WWWeed (Jul 31, 2011)

.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> The PCC will be an easy casualty in this, hardly worth bothering about but certainly worth it if there's a slight chance they'll grow some balls.  They're as bad as the IPCC without a doubt.


They are utterly useless, *every bit* as bad as the IPCC, and if there is one good thing to come from this, it's real, worthwhile press regulatory and police watchdog regimes.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

ymu said:


> So, have we had thew news about NI's former legal officer coming out to support Crone and Myler's account of James Murdoch's lies?
> 
> Crone and Myler are interesting, because their statement drops Murdoch J in it, but they're also contradicting their own testimony to the DCMS a couple of years ago. Looks like they're angry enough to drop themselves in it if it means getting the Murdoch's back. Which is nice.
> 
> ...


O)h, it's all unfolding beautifully....We;'ve got A WHOLE YEAR of this to go!


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who is *now* paying his legal fees?


His lawyers insist NI should, and by all accounts they'll take this to court; also, Mulcaire is still fighting a high court order compelling him to, well, spill all on his paymasters. Which, IMO, puts mulcaire in an astonishingly strong position. He's so far the only person who we can be sure knows where _all_ the bodies are buried.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 31, 2011)

To be fair, it depends what the causes for termination are, within the contract, and what happens in case of termination. Without seeing the terms of the contract itself (how I'd love to) it's difficult to see how this is going to end. Certainly, Mulcaire's lawyers are keen to hold NI to the terms of the original agreement, and I think would have no problems suing NI for breach of contract if NI broke the agreement.

In terms of bodies buried etc, it does seem to be an exceedingly silly thing to do.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 31, 2011)

They can breach - and seemingly have, but they'll still have to pay in the end, plus costs and plus an extra  kick in the bollocks for being..... unpleasant.

It was typical NI bullshit from the first ("immediate effect").


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 31, 2011)

Oh I agree, contracts are breached all the time, it just makes JM's evidence seem even more untrustworthy.

Serve them right if the appeal is lost and the names of NI journalists are released anyway.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 1, 2011)

Oooh tut. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/01/phone-hacking-news-international-emails



> The technology firm HCL has told the home affairs select committee it was aware of the deletion of hundreds of thousands of emails at the request of News International between April 2010 and July 2011, but said it did not know of anything untoward behind the requests to delete them.



So over this last year. I wonder who authorised that?


----------



## elbows (Aug 1, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Oooh tut.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/01/phone-hacking-news-international-emails
> 
> ...


 
Some of it does sound like the sort of thing you'd do for non-dodgy IT reasons, to try to prop up a system thats wobbling. 200000 messages stuck in an outbox is the most striking example!


----------



## Badgers (Aug 2, 2011)

Slightly off topic but amusing 

Data of Sun website users stolen


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 2, 2011)

See also:

https://twitter.com/#!/batteye

Via @BrianWhelanHack


----------



## paolo (Aug 2, 2011)

elbows said:


> Some of it does sound like the sort of thing you'd do for non-dodgy IT reasons, to try to prop up a system thats wobbling. 200000 messages stuck in an outbox is the most striking example!


 
Yep. Sounds like they're running Exchange


----------



## Badgers (Aug 2, 2011)

Miss Scotland heh


----------



## Kanda (Aug 2, 2011)

elbows said:


> Some of it does sound like the sort of thing you'd do for non-dodgy IT reasons, to try to prop up a system thats wobbling. 200000 messages stuck in an outbox is the most striking example!


 
Stuck? It was reported as NDR's.


----------



## pk (Aug 2, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Slightly off topic but amusing
> 
> Data of Sun website users stolen


 
Oh dear LOL!


----------



## Santino (Aug 2, 2011)

And we're back:



> A key new arrest has been made in the ongoing phone-hacking scandal.
> 
> The unnamed man apparently did not know he was going to be taken into custody when he arrived by appointment at a police station in London at 11am on Tuesday to answer questions about the phone-hacking scandal.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/02/phone-hacking-scandal-new-arrest


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2011)

I bet santino posts this before me:



> A key new arrest has been made in the ongoing phone-hacking scandal.
> 
> The unnamed man apparently did not know he was going to be taken into custody when he arrived by appointment at a police station in London at 11am on Tuesday to answer questions about the phone-hacking scandal.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2011)

Yep, beaten by miles.


----------



## Santino (Aug 2, 2011)

Beaten more soundly than an ill-prepared Indian cricket team lacking their best bowler.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 2, 2011)

> A key new arrest has been made in the ongoing phone-hacking scandal.



Time for wild speculation


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2011)

Stuart Kuttner, former managing editor of NotW - from Guardian twitter


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2011)

Kuttner in 2008: "It happened once at the News of the World. The reporter was fired; he went to prison. The editor resigned."


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 2, 2011)

"70 year old man" according to newsdan (Daniel Sandford, BBC).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 2, 2011)

2009 profile of Kuttner in _Guardian_.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 2, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> "70 year old man" according to newsdan (Daniel Sandford, BBC).


 
Channel 4 News raises to 71.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2011)

6 weeks for the phantom plan flinger Jonathan May-Bowles.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 2, 2011)

Try that again.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 6 weeks for the phantom plan flinger Jonathan May-Bowles.


A "plan flinger"? How does one fling a plan, then? 

On a serious note, Kuttner was a VERY big cheese at Wapping. As Managing Editor, he answered only to gingernut.
If they manage to pin something on him, things look seriously bad for Brooks


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 2, 2011)

Tom Watson's FoI 'saga' is now developing into something.   http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2011/08/foi-request-to-the-cabinet-office-the-ongoing-saga/

Coulson's testimony at the Sheridan trial was paid for by notw whilst he was working for Cameron, it had to be OK'ed.  My feeling is that the request on who took that decision is going to come back with absolutely nothing.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 4, 2011)

I see Heather Mills is accusing Mirror Group and Piers Morgan of hacking her phone 10 years ago and printing stories that could only have come from eavesdropping on her and Paul. 

Apparently Piers Morgan may have incriminated himself in something he wrote around the time.


----------



## Kanda (Aug 4, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14399307



> No plans to call Piers Morgan, committee chairman says


----------



## Dan U (Aug 4, 2011)

according to Private Eye, it used to be a party piece of Morgans to recite a phone message between Mills and Mcartney ending with him singing to her.

They've repeated it several times over the years and haven't felt the wrath of Carter Fuck so make of that what you will...

Morons statement today is just an attack on Mills basically, as unpalatable as she may be, it doesn't mean she isn't telling the truth.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 4, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I see Heather Mills is accusing Mirror Group and Piers Morgan of hacking her phone 10 years ago and printing stories that could only have come from eavesdropping on her and Paul.
> 
> Apparently Piers Morgan may have incriminated himself in something he wrote around the time.



Well, she hasn't accused Piers Moron, nor has she claimed the Mirror printed stories as a result of eavesdropping, nor has Moron incriminated himself in authorising 'hacking' or running stories as a result of such action - apart from that you are correct. 

Sadly, there's no smoking gun in respect of Moron. 

Yet.


----------



## badseed (Aug 4, 2011)

His name keeps coming up, maybe it's a lot of wishful thinking. Hopefully it's more than that and the nets closing on the smug cunt.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 4, 2011)

I am praying and I don't even believe in god.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 4, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> ... nor has Moron incriminated himself in authorising 'hacking' or running stories as a result of such action - apart from that you are correct.  ...


 
Well I have been watching tv and listenning to R4 and I definately heard from one or other of them that Morgan had claimed in writing that he had listenned to a tape recording of Mills voicemail messages from Paul.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 4, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Well I have been watching tv and listenning to R4 and I definately heard from one or other of them that Morgan had claimed in writing that he had listenned to a tape recording of Mills voicemail messages from Paul.


 
He has said this indeed (including in his book!), but he's been playing the Bart Simpson "I didn't do it" defence up until now...actually, I think I have my latest copy of Private Eye on me - will check a bit later to see if there's any more in there on all this...


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 4, 2011)

I presume if you listen to messages you didn't actually illegally obtain yourself, then  you must beguilty of conspiracy and being an accessory, unless you instantly shopped the person who gave em to you


----------



## Dan U (Aug 4, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> He has said this indeed (including in his book!), but he's been playing the Bart Simpson "I didn't do it" defence up until now...actually, I think I have my latest copy of Private Eye on me - will check a bit later to see if there's any more in there on all this...



there certainly is.

there is also a swipe at Marina Hyde's silence on the Mirror/Morgan issue whilst slating NOTW in columns


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2011)

morgan is totally fucked on this. i look forward to his inevitable disgrace with pleasure.


----------



## agricola (Aug 4, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I presume if you listen to messages you didn't actually illegally obtain yourself, then  you must beguilty of conspiracy and being an accessory, unless you instantly shopped the person who gave em to you


 
In Morons defence there is at least a 50/50 chance that Mucca actually gave him the answerphone message herself, in which case there is no foul, hopefully it isnt this that dominates the anti-Moron argument, lets face it there is an awful lot more that people should use.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 4, 2011)

agricola said:


> In Morons defence there is at least a 50/50 chance that Mucca actually gave him the answerphone message herself, in which case there is no foul, hopefully it isnt this that dominates the anti-Moron argument, lets face it there is an awful lot more that people should use.


REALLY? why would the silly woman do that?
*totally* agree there's loads more spears that could be chucked at moron,and it would be a shame if the chance were lost.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 4, 2011)

I think by 'Mucca' agric means McCartney. Or it could be Mills, either way the motive would be to play to the gallery to get favourable coverage in the press.

I remember years ago there were photos of Di on a gym exercise machine that purported to be the product of a hidden camera. I read a letter in one of the papers from a professional photographer who said there was no way you could get an image of that quality from a hidden camera. . .


----------



## agricola (Aug 4, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> REALLY? why would the silly woman do that?
> *totally* agree there's loads more spears that could be chucked at moron,and it would be a shame if the chance were lost.


 
She has a history of taping things that might prove useful to her later on, and as idris points out she might have wanted to sway the media.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 4, 2011)

Why are your guns out so much for Piers Morgan? 

Do you have reasons, or is it just tall poppy syndrome? 

I have no gripe with him I think at least... Mind you I don't read the mirror, never have.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 4, 2011)

He's a cunt.

When he went after Ian Hislop he even got one of his staff to ring Hislop's vicar trying to dig dirt.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 4, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> I think by 'Mucca' agric means McCartney. Or it could be Mills,


if it's *'herself'*, I shouldn't think it's Sir Paul!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 4, 2011)

agricola said:


> She has a history of taping things that might prove useful to her later on, and as idris points out she might have wanted to sway the media.


blimey....cheers for that, I'd not noticed.
Yes, now I really do hope there's more on Moron than anything she's got


----------



## laptop (Aug 4, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> no way you could get an image of that quality from a hidden camera. . .


 
I dunno - "hide" a D90 or equivalent  with a cable release in a kit-bag...

[/derail]


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 4, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> He's a cunt.
> 
> When he went after Ian Hislop he even got one of his staff to ring Hislop's vicar trying to dig dirt.


 
His "team" also waylaid Hislop and Co at a Private Eye book signing, and did a full-page splash on this "exclusive" - not that Moron ever bears a grudge or would abuse his editorial position to show off said grudge nationwide, of course....anyone for some Viglen shares or staged torture pics?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 4, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Why are your guns out so much for Piers Morgan?


As a leading light in a tabloid press ethos which was despicably vicious, ruthless, cynical and unscrupulous, for one, and which doesn't care who they hurt or how


----------



## Gingerman (Aug 4, 2011)

Dan U said:


> there certainly is.
> 
> there is also a swipe at Marina Hyde's silence on the Mirror/Morgan issue whilst slating NOTW in columns


 Did'nt she have an affair with Moron a few years back?


----------



## Gingerman (Aug 4, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> His "team" also waylaid Hislop and Co at a Private Eye book signing, and did a full-page splash on this "exclusive" - not that Moron ever bears a grudge or would abuse his editorial position to show off said grudge nationwide, of course....anyone for some Viglen shares or staged torture pics?


 
Did'nt PE expose the Mirror share scandal involving Moron? I remember when he appeared on HIGNFU he tried to best Hislop and ended up having his arse handed to him on a plate.As Mirror editor he did his best to dig up any sort of dirt against Hislop without much success.


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> He's a cunt.
> 
> When he went after Ian Hislop he even got one of his staff to ring Hislop's vicar trying to dig dirt.


He is a cunt, but not for going after hislop. Hislop's fair game imo.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 4, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Did'nt PE expose the Mirror share scandal involving Moron? I remember when he appeared on HIGNFU he tried to best Hislop and ended up having his arse handed to him on a plate.As Mirror editor he did his best to dig up any sort of dirt against Hislop without much success.


 
Tis true indeed.  If I recall correctly, the Moron tried to have a go at Clive Anderson (a trained and much-practiced barrister before his comedy days), who also sent Moron packing.  Moron actually threatened to have Anderson tailed and "exposed" too - never a great idea to threaten someone well versed in the law, eh Piers?

e2a:  Marina Hyde and the Moron's affair lasted over 4 years, and it was her "inappropriate" e-mails to him whilst at The Sun that got her the boot from News Int.


----------



## rorymac (Aug 4, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Why are your guns out so much for Piers Morgan?
> 
> Do you have reasons, or is it just tall poppy syndrome?
> 
> I have no gripe with him I think at least... Mind you I don't read the mirror, never have.



Because he's a wrongun .. fuck the Daily Mirror also .. another scummy fucking rag !


----------



## yardbird (Aug 4, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Because he's a wrongun .. fuck the Daily Mirror also .. another scummy fucking rag !


 
This.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 4, 2011)

Fish night at the old folks' home again I see.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 4, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Fish night at the old folks' home again I see.


sorry?


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 4, 2011)

This thread's way of saying people are posting the same thing over and over without paying any attention to each, streathamite.


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 4, 2011)

I see from Peston's 'analysis' on the BBC website today that Southern Investigations invoices the BBC has seen from the late 1990s (I wonder how, for starters) show that they were mostly being sent to Alex Marunchak, and that roughly £67,000 was spent over two years - which Peston equates to approximately 2 pieces of work a week. Now this is for the Mirror, rather than NOTW, but the implication was that Marunchak commissioned the work. 

I commission work from people as part of my job, and it's not my name on the invoice, even though I commission it. The implicit assumption that it must have been Marunchak who commissioned the work just on the strength of his name on the invoices, is to my mind a bit flawed. If there's other evidence to point to him, fine, but that's not mentioned in the article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14386696


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 4, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> This thread's way of saying people are posting the same thing over and over without paying any attention to each, streathamite.


ah right got it


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 4, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> I see from Peston's 'analysis' on the BBC website today that Southern Investigations invoices the BBC has seen from the late 1990s (I wonder how, for starters) show that they were mostly being sent to Alex Marunchak, and that roughly £67,000 was spent over two years - which Peston equates to approximately 2 pieces of work a week. Now this is for the Mirror, rather than NOTW, but the implication was that Marunchak commissioned the work.
> 
> I commission work from people as part of my job, and it's not my name on the invoice, even though I commission it. The implicit assumption that it must have been Marunchak who commissioned the work just on the strength of his name on the invoices, is to my mind a bit flawed. If there's other evidence to point to him, fine, but that's not mentioned in the article.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14386696


sure, but this is different. this is invoices addressed to a tabloid editor, from a PI, charging for getting info so sensitive and personal that it would at least raise the question as to how they got that. it strikes me that "ask no questions and look the other way" is a questionable tactic in those circs.


----------



## laptop (Aug 5, 2011)

Silly season or not, still it giveth:



> The FBI is widening its investigation of News Corporation's activities within the US to look at whether alleged computer hacking by one of its subsidiaries was an isolated case or part of a "larger pattern of behaviour", Time magazine is reporting.
> 
> Time suggests that the FBI inquiry has been extended from a relatively narrow look at alleged malpractices by News Corp in America into a more general investigation of whether the company used possibly illegal strong-arm tactics to browbeat rival firms.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/04/fbi-news-corp-investigation


----------



## ovaltina (Aug 5, 2011)

Next up, the daily mail


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 5, 2011)

ovaltina said:


> Next up, the daily mail


oh please let it happen


----------



## laptop (Aug 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> oh please let it happen


 
At least one MP is going to have a bloody good try come the Autumn.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2011)

'Street Of Shame' from _Private Eye_ #1294:



> *SMOKE AND MIRRORS*
> 
> "For the record, at my time at the Mirror and the News of the World I have never hacked a phone, told anybody to hack a phone, or published any stories based on the hacking of a phone," declared Piers Moron last week.
> 
> ...


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 5, 2011)

top work dave. Award yourself a large Cinzano!


----------



## lazyhack (Aug 5, 2011)

Emerging today that the Guardian's David Leigh hacked voicemails and may have taught journalism students how to hack voicemails. Oops.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> top work dave. Award yourself a large Cinzano!


 
What are you on about? That's just C&Ped from the _Private Eye_ website.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 5, 2011)

lazyhack said:


> Emerging today that the Guardian's David Leigh hacked voicemails and may have taught journalism students how to hack voicemails. Oops.


link?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 5, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> What are you on about? That's just C&Ped from the _Private Eye_ website.


still damn good to read


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2011)

lazyhack said:


> Emerging today that the Guardian's David Leigh hacked voicemails and may have taught journalism students how to hack voicemails. Oops.


 
Well, it's a lot less exciting having read the details than the likes of John Higginson were suggesting yesterday. Even Paul Staines had trouble making it sound interesting (but then he got scooped by some _Metro_ hack who used the revolutionary technique of using a search engine to discover the post-Goodman conviction article on the _Guardian_'s own website).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2011)

.


----------



## lazyhack (Aug 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> still damn good to read


 
You should really splash out £1.50 for your own copy, if you think so. 

Dave, if its true he 'taught' students to hack voicemails and the two students come forward then you have to admit this will be pretty fucking funny, regardless of Leigh being one of the rebel alliance or whatever it is people think the Guardian are.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 5, 2011)

lazyhack said:


> Emerging today that the Guardian's David Leigh hacked voicemails and may have taught journalism students how to hack voicemails. Oops.


to me, that seems like he actually did have a fairly strong public interest defence?
I mean, it was in the name of exposing corruption in the oil business, not finding out who ulrikkka/sienna/prescott was shagging.
have I misread this?
(e2a; no, I'm no blind uncritical grauniad fan, i rarely buy it


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2011)

lazyhack said:


> ...you have to admit this will be pretty fucking funny, regardless of Leigh being one of the rebel alliance or whatever it is people think the Guardian are.


 
Not as 'funny' as Rusbridger quashing - at the behest of Hayman - the original investigation into links between corrupt media managers and corrupt police officers that is the meat and marrow of this whole thing.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 5, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/05/hacking-police-fees-investigated-tax

The tax man cometh.


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 5, 2011)

Oh dear. 

That reminds me, must start work on the tax return for last year.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2011)

Some interesting stuff on this Southend United fans forum thread:

http://www.weststandviews.com/SMF/chit-chat-and-more/news-of-the-world/

Can anyone identify 'anotheroldimpsfan'/'OIF'? Third-in-command at _Today_ at its closure, with time served at the _Sun_ and _Guardian_ as well as elsewhere in 50 year career?

*anotheroldimpsfan* a.k.a. *OIF*

????-1965 Reporter, _Southend Standard_
1965-1972 Reporter, Press Association ("the youngest ever hired in their history")/casual shifts, Daily Express
1972-1991 Various, _The Sun_
1991-1995 Assistant editor (news), _Today_
1995-2000 Staff reporter (East Anglia), _The Guardian_
2000-xxxx Set up own news agency specialising in politics
2000-xxxx Freelance, _The Guardian_

(Dates approximate as his various posts don't always tally with regards details.)

The behind-locked-door bollocking anecdote rings a bell.


----------



## belboid (Aug 7, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> to me, that seems like he actually did have a fairly strong public interest defence?



there is no public interest defence for hacking


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 7, 2011)

Oh this is interesting ...



> Mr Coulson, David Cameron's media chief, who resigned in January as the phone-hacking scandal developed, was scrutinised by an experienced investigator with *strong links to both the Security Services and to the newspaper group* that owned the News of the World, which Mr Coulson had previously edited.


 (my emphasis)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tor-linked-to-news-international-2333257.html

I've wondered if the corrupt collusion between the cops, the political right and the Murdoch press also extended to the security services ...

It certainly seems to have been the case with the far-right, the gutter press and the secret police in Italy for example, so I think it's worth keeping an eye on this aspect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Oh this is interesting ...
> 
> (my emphasis)
> 
> ...


yeh, the security service and the secret intelligence service - not to mention special branch and gchq - have been the fucking elephants in the room


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 8, 2011)

belboid said:


> there is no public interest defence for hacking


what about when it exposes wrongdoing - especially of the criminal type - by wealthy powerful individuals, public servants or our elected representatives?


----------



## belboid (Aug 8, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> what about when it exposes wrongdoing - especially of the criminal type - by wealthy powerful individuals, public servants or our elected representatives?


You cannot claim a 'public interest' defence for it, like you could with, say hiring a private investigator to break the data protection laws. IN a hacking case, a amgistrate would rule it inadmissable, and you'd lose, so you'd choose a jury trial, wher the judge would still say there is no such defence, but it would be up to the jury to actually decide - as, essentially, happened with Clive Ponting.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 8, 2011)

belboid said:


> You cannot claim a 'public interest' defence for it, like you could with, say hiring a private investigator to break the data protection laws. IN a hacking case, a amgistrate would rule it inadmissable, and you'd lose, so you'd choose a jury trial, wher the judge would still say there is no such defence, but it would be up to the jury to actually decide - as, essentially, happened with Clive Ponting.


ah right, with you know, ta for putting me right, bellers


----------



## Santino (Aug 10, 2011)

Another arrest being reported on Twitter - 61 year old  man.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

Sky News reckon it's Greg Miskiw; if so that's a bloody big scalp


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Sky News reckon it's Greg Miskiw; if so that's a bloody big scalp



BBC saying the same ...


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

christ, that vision of edmondson, Miskiw, Coulson, Wallis, thurlbeck, Wetherup AND Brooks - all in the dock....oh sweet jesus let it happen


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

blimey! Now dick Fedorcio, the Met's press chief, has been sent on 'extended leave'!
jesus, it's the gift that just keeps on giving


----------



## laptop (Aug 10, 2011)

"Will the last person to leave Wapping turn out the lights?"


----------



## stavros (Aug 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> christ, that vision of edmondson, Miskiw, Coulson, Wallis, thurlbeck, Wetherup AND Brooks - all in the dock....oh sweet jesus let it happen



Add the Digger and son and that would be utopia.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 10, 2011)

I think we're all getting a bit hopeful here. Even if they come to trial and their phenomenally clever and highly paid barristers don't get them off, I think any judge is going to say that these poor people have suffered enough because they have lost their reputations, and that really hurts the rich and powerful.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I think we're all getting a bit hopeful here. Even if they come to trial and their phenomenally clever and highly paid barristers don't get them off, I think any judge is going to say that these poor people have suffered enough because they have lost their reputations, and that really hurts the rich and powerful.


yeah, but I can dream


----------



## laptop (Aug 11, 2011)

I don't think they'll get as long a sentence as if they'd nicked a flat-screen TV on Monday.

But I think judges are as aware of public outrage with the hacking case as with the looting - those convicted have to go down for a bit.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 11, 2011)

laptop said:


> I don't think they'll get as long a sentence as if they'd nicked a flat-screen TV on Monday.
> 
> But I think judges are as aware of public outrage with the hacking case as with the looting - those convicted have to go down for a bit.



One or two token convictions only though, I'd have thought. Like the MPs' expenses - plenty of them defrauded the taxpayers (guilty of 'false accounting' my word there's a euphemism up there with 'pension mis-selling') but only a couple went down, and they got much much shorter sentences than people overclaiming benefits.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

and Now Simon Hughes is suing


----------



## mack (Aug 11, 2011)

Tom Watson has some dynamite documents in his hand that can't be released, has to go before the committee and be voted on. He votes yes!

http://twitter.com/#!/tom_watson


----------



## 8den (Aug 15, 2011)

Bollocks. That twat who pied Murdoch has a pretty funny blog about being in prison.

http://anarchish.blogspot.com/

I'll have to revise my prejudices, again.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Keep your eyes on this one today.



> MPs have been sent documents that appear to cast doubt on James Murdoch's evidence that he was unaware of wider hacking at the News Of The World (NOTW), according to Sky sources.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

And these docs are being published at 12.59 according to Watson.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

How very coincidental. Peston is magically back on the case in the last few minutes.


----------



## Maggot (Aug 16, 2011)

Nick Davies is tweeting that there will be new revelations appearing on the Gurdian website at 1pm.


----------



## belboid (Aug 16, 2011)

up already - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/16/phone-hacking-now-reporter-letter

"In the letter, which was written four years ago but published only on Tuesday, Goodman claims that phone hacking was "widely discussed" at editorial meetings at the paper until Coulson himself banned further references to it; that Coulson offered to let him keep his job if he agreed not to implicate the paper in hacking when he came to court; and that his own hacking was carried out with "the full knowledge and support" of other senior journalists, whom he named.

<snip>

And they confront Rupert and James Murdoch with the humiliating prospect of being recalled to parliament to justify the evidence which they gave last month on the aftermath of Goodman's allegations. In a separate letter, one of the Murdochs' own law firms claim that parts of that evidence were variously "hard to credit", "self-serving" and "inaccurate and misleading


----------



## laptop (Aug 16, 2011)

belboid said:


> up already - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/16/phone-hacking-now-reporter-letter



But is that the _whole_ of this tranche:



> Mr Whittingdale said the committee was publishing evidence later on Tuesday which appeared to contradict some of what they were told.
> Tom Watson MP, another member of the committee, said it would also publishing documents at 13.00 BST which he predicted would raise fresh questions for News International.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14541848



:drums fingers on desk:


----------



## belboid (Aug 16, 2011)

I hope not, even tho its probly enough to sink Jimmy anyway


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 16, 2011)

laptop said:


> But is that the _whole_ of this tranche


From the Guardian live coverage:


> Watson reiterates that the new evidence is "devastating". He refers to fresh evidence in relation to former News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman.


Hope it's not all, but does reference Goodman specifically.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Here it all is.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 16, 2011)

_In the letter, which was written four years ago but published only on Tuesday, Goodman claims that phone hacking was "widely discussed" at editorial meetings at the paper until Coulson himself banned further references to it; that Coulson offered to let him keep his job if he agreed not to implicate the paper in hacking when he came to court; and that his own hacking was carried out with "the full knowledge and support" of other senior journalists, whom he named._

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/16/phone-hacking-now-reporter-letter


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Coulsen asked Goodman to commit perjury in short. He is fucked.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 16, 2011)

And from the Guardian piece:

"... MP Tom Watson, said Goodman's letter was "absolutely devastating". He said: "Clive Goodman's letter is the most significant piece of evidence that has been revealed so far. It completely removes News International's defence. This is one of the largest cover-ups I have seen in my lifetime."

Ooooh, tut.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Coulsen asked Goodman to commit perjury in short. He is fucked.


fuck coulson and all who've sailed in him  and we all know who that means


----------



## laptop (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here it all is.



Er, that was 29 July: see 16 August


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Perverting the Course of Justice



> General sentencing brackets summarised in Archbold at 28-28 as follows:
> 
> threatening or interfering with witnesses - 4 months to 24 months.
> concealing evidence - 4 months to 18 months, possibly longer if serious crime.
> false allegation of crime resulting in arrest of innocent person - 4 to 12 months.



How about conspiracy to...?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

laptop said:


> Er, that was 29 July: see 16 August


Oops. ta. Will edit right link in.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

What's Mulcaire going to do now? I reckon he'll take brown bag money to keep quiest-ish.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 16, 2011)

here's a copy of Goodman's letter

funny how Grauniad managed to get hold of all of this before the official DCMS statement...


----------



## laptop (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Perverting the Course of Justice
> 
> How about conspiracy to...?



Generally speaking, the maximum penalty for conspiracy to do X is the same as for doing X.

The difference is in ease of conviction. Conspiracy's a bit double-edged for the prosecutor; on the one hand obv. it doesn't require evidence of defendant doing X; on the other, the defence can sow doubt in the jury's mind over why such a wooly charge is being tried.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 16, 2011)

letting some of the hyperbole blow over, there are questions arising from this letter, namely, does it actually prove anything? not really, it's now one person's word against another inre: whether Coulson allowed/encouraged hacking to take place. it's a letter of appeal that he was trying to win back his old job with, so he's bound to try and mount a robust defence, hence allusions to being promised a return if he kept schtum. i suspect that this may not be the silver bullet that some think will nail Coulson, Brookes, and the Murdochs somehow....


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> letting some of the hyperbole blow over, there are questions arising from this letter, namely, does it actually prove anything? not really, it's now one person's word against another inre: whether Coulson allowed/encouraged hacking to take place. it's a letter of appeal that he was trying to win back his old job with, so he's bound to try and mount a robust defence, hence allusions to being promised a return if he kept schtum. i suspect that this may not be the silver bullet that some think will nail Coulson, Brookes, and the Murdochs somehow....


That's what the legal bods are starting to say - after the initial excitement.


----------



## peterkro (Aug 16, 2011)

laptop said:


> Generally speaking, the maximum penalty for conspiracy to do X is the same as for doing X.
> 
> The difference is in ease of conviction. Conspiracy's a bit double-edged for the prosecutor; on the one hand obv. it doesn't require evidence of defendant doing X; on the other, the defence can sow doubt in the jury's mind over why such a wooly charge is being tried.


I seem to recollect a charge of "conspiring with persons and places unknown" failing miserably.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 16, 2011)

Yes, although he'll find it harder to get out of the Harbottle & Lewis statements at the end of that Guardian article. One of News International's own legal firms directly contradicting James.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 16, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Yes, although he'll find it harder to get out of the Harbottle & Lewis statements at the end of that Guardian article. One of News International's own legal firms directly contradicting James.


Even that isn't clear cut - my reading is that they're saying that they weren't actually asked to investigate criminality as such, therefore statements in relation to their previous letter referred to by Murdoch cannot be used to demonstrate no evidence of criminality. I can't remember Murdoch's exact statements in relation to this, but I would imagine he will revert to a defence of "oh deary me, but that's what i was/wasn't told about this particular issue".

in other news, which may help clarify some of this farrago,  CMS cttee is calling Tom Crone, Colin Myler, Daniel Cloke and John Chapman give further evidence on the Thursday 6 Sep.


----------



## laptop (Aug 16, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Even that isn't clear cut - my reading is that they're saying that they weren't actually asked to investigate criminality as such



I look forward to evidence emerging of the conversation the gist of which was: "Dear Harbottle & Lewis, can you help us frame a question that we put to you which guarantees the answer 'No'? Love, the Murdochs"


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 16, 2011)

Have things gone quiet on the Mulcaire front? I'm still waiting for him to turn tail and retaliate against News Int. for bailing on him. There's gotta be some bombs waiting to go off on that one...?


----------



## two sheds (Aug 16, 2011)

From the Guardian article again:



> Harbottle & Lewis then produced a letter, which has previously been published by the select committee in a non-redacted form: "I can confirm that we did not find anything in those emails which appeared to us to be reasonable evidence that Clive Goodman's illegal actions were known about and supported by both or either of Andy Coulson, the editor, and Neil Wallis, the deputy editor, and/or that Ian Edmondson, the news editor, and others were carrying out similar illegal procedures."
> 
> In their evidence to the select committee last month, the Murdochs presented this letter as evidence that the company had been given a clean bill of health. *However, the Metropolitan police have since said that the emails contained evidence of "alleged payments by corrupt journalists to corrupt police officers". And the former director of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, who examined a small sample of the emails, said they contained evidence of indirect hacking, breaches of national security and serious crime.*
> 
> ...



Also, if NI had felt that Goodman's account was wrong when he sent them the letter and they were in fact completely innocent - one would have expected them to write back in utter astonishment at the claims he was making.

I take your point about Murdoch probably being able to wriggle out of this, but I think there are real issues that he will have to wriggle out of.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

The legal bods mentioned before are all backtracking as they get deeper in...(why the fuck they'd bother posting it does/doesn't mean anything is beyond me)


----------



## teqniq (Aug 16, 2011)

Came to this a little late, what with being at work all day. Good to see it at the top of the news again. Please let it all end really badly for all the scum concerned. Happy happy happy, joy joy joy.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 16, 2011)

teqniq said:


> Came to this a little late, what with being at work all day. Good to see it at the top of the news again. Please let it all end really badly for all the scum concerned. Happy happy happy, joy joy joy.



I was thinking the same, bored with the riot fall-out now, let's get back to catching the real bastards.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Coulsen asked Goodman to commit perjury in short. He is fucked.


as also, quite possibly, is the prime minister. ALL he can do now is throw his hands up and cry "My God" coulson LIED to me! I had no idea!" - either way, the question of whether he sought any assurances other than Coulson's own word, now comes into play again, as do the warnigns he got from Rusbridger, clegg and milord Paddy


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What's Mulcaire going to do now? I reckon he'll take brown bag money to keep quiest-ish.


I don't think they (NI) can afford the risk of being caught making a 'hush payment' big enough to buy his silence, not after Murdoch Snr's big show of shock, at the DCMS committee hearing, at the revelation that they were still paying Mulcaire's legal fees. they will _have_ to cut him loose - at which point, he in turn will have no real option but to spill all that he knows.  
Oh, this just looks better and better.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 16, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> letting some of the hyperbole blow over, there are questions arising from this letter, namely, does it actually prove anything? not really, it's now one person's word against another inre: whether Coulson allowed/encouraged hacking to take place. it's a letter of appeal that he was trying to win back his old job with, so he's bound to try and mount a robust defence, hence allusions to being promised a return if he kept schtum. i suspect that this may not be the silver bullet that some think will nail Coulson, Brookes, and the Murdochs somehow....


I think the key point here is that this makes it highly likely that goodman will be asked to testify at the various trials, and he has absolutely no reason to help haul NI out of the shit - all the motivation, in fact, to do the obvious, as Mulcaire will also prolly have by then.
There is also the prospect that goodman can back this up, with his own documented evidence, or that others present at those meetings will be subpoenaed - giving them the possibility of a risk of committing perjury, or dumping their own bosses in the shit.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 16, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Even that isn't clear cut - my reading is that they're saying that they weren't actually asked to investigate criminality as such, therefore statements in relation to their previous letter referred to by Murdoch cannot be used to demonstrate no evidence of criminality. I can't remember Murdoch's exact statements in relation to this, but I would imagine he will revert to a defence of "oh deary me, but that's what i was/wasn't told about this particular issue".
> 
> in other news, which may help clarify some of this farrago, CMS cttee is calling Tom Crone, Colin Myler, Daniel Cloke and John Chapman give further evidence on the Thursday 6 Sep.


all they were asked to check was whether others werte aware of Goodman's activities; the murdoch's very carefully restricted their remit


----------



## two sheds (Aug 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> all they were asked to check was whether others werte aware of Goodman's activities; the murdoch's very carefully restricted their remit



Indeed, and then claimed that they had been given a 'clean bill of health'. That was a lie - although possibly Murdoch senior was indeed so senile or lied to by his son that he didn't realise he was lying.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 16, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Indeed, and then claimed that they had been given a 'clean bill of health'. That was a lie - although possibly Murdoch senior was indeed so senile or lied to by his son that he didn't realise he was lying.


I don't think Murdoch's senile - the old bastard's still clearly dangerous - I think this just got too out of hand for anyone to be in control


----------



## newbie (Aug 16, 2011)

I particularly liked this

_Two versions of his letter were provided to the committee. One which was supplied by Harbottle & Lewis has been redacted to remove the names of journalists, at the request of police. The other, which was supplied by News International, has been redacted to remove not only the names but also all references to hacking being discussed in Coulson's editorial meetings and to Coulson's offer to keep Goodman on staff if he agreed not to implicate the paper._

they just can't stop digging._
_


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 16, 2011)

I was a _little_ bit worried that other events would be used to smother this.

Surely Coulson must now be interviewed by Scots police about his apparent perjury in the Sheridan trial. A quick google news search gave me


> Coulson, who was called as a witness in December 2010, told the court that he had no knowledge of illegal activities by reporters while he was editor of the newspaper.
> He also claimed: "I don't accept there was a culture of phone hacking at the News of the World."



Goodman's letter is unarguable...how can newscorp argue it's fake when they paid him £250,000 when even their own money-men said to pay him only £90k if anything - legally nothing.   The money men said pay him nothing, he broke the law in the course of his employment, fuck him.   The bosses gave him a quarter million and he was expecting more....he got his lawyers involved, it's so sweet you could wet yourself.   He got his lawyers.   It shows how fucking weak newscorp is now.

You have to wonder if people are doing this from a sense of civic duty (pause for laughs...) or fear of worse charges later.  Watson is now publicly talking about computer hacking being the next part of the investigation.  (He knows where he's going, I'm sure most agree.)

Cameron will most likely not be tory leader in 18 months.   Didn't they pass a law saying standard 5 year terms, no-confidence motions not allowed?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 16, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Goodman's letter is unarguable...how can newscorp argue it's fake when they paid him £250,000 when even their own money-men said to pay him only £90k if anything - legally nothing. The money men said pay him nothing, he broke the law in the course of his employment, fuck him. The bosses gave him a quarter million and he was expecting more....he got his lawyers involved, it's so sweet you could wet yourself. He got his lawyers. It shows how fucking weak newscorp is now.


It's his words against theirs, far more damaging is the laywers evidence, because NI relied on that.


----------



## belboid (Aug 16, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's his words against theirs, far more damaging is the laywers evidence, because NI relied on that.


except it is very odd that NI never made any mention of it before, despite plenty of opportunity to do so. And all that money.  And even if it is one persons word against the others, how many juries would believe any of the NI lot over Goodman?


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 16, 2011)

belboid said:


> except it is very odd that NI never made any mention of it before, despite plenty of opportunity to do so. And all that money. And even if it is one persons word against the others, how many juries would believe any of the NI lot over Goodman?



I think it's importance/lack of it will become clearer if and when James Murdoch is recalled. The problem Goodman has is he's a convicted hacker and rather untrustworthy, the problem News Int have is, well, they're News Int, and their rather obvious reticence to mention any of thie before....


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 16, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> You have to wonder if people are doing this from a sense of civic duty (pause for laughs...) or fear of worse charges later.


if you're referring to Goodman and other NI people, it's certainly not the former, as they simply don't have any morals. It's the latter, plus everyone rushing to cover their arses (like Harbottle & lewis) and save themselves. Plus, with goodman, I'd say revenge was in there too.


> Didn't they pass a law saying standard 5 year terms, no-confidence motions not allowed?


Nope, it's one of their _proposed_ constitutional reforms. Nowhere near the statute book yet, mercifully

e2a; apart from that, really good post.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 17, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> The problem Goodman has is he's a convicted hacker and rather untrustworthy,....


When you think though, the letter and his allegations fit exactly with what's happened, it's the only reasonable explanation for the payment.   Apart from the fact that it's baltantly true.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 17, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> e2a; apart from that, really good post.



eh...question mark!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> eh...question mark!


----------



## Fedayn (Aug 17, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> When you think though, the letter and his allegations fit exactly with what's happened, it's the only reasonable explanation for the payment. Apart from the fact that it's baltantly true.



I'd agree it does look the most likely at first face, but in court cases the medium can become the message, this, I might add, cust both ways here...


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2011)

Well the houses of Parliament are back from recess on the 5th September, I think we can expect the committees to get right back into action then.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 17, 2011)

Interesting that that utter waste of space Mensch is on holiday during a crucial DCMS select committee session.
getting a nice suntan are we Louise baby?


----------



## teqniq (Aug 17, 2011)

> *Met officers cleared over hacking misconduct claims*
> 
> _
> 
> ...




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14559802


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> When you think though, the letter and his allegations fit exactly with what's happened, it's the only reasonable explanation for the payment. Apart from the fact that it's baltantly true.


it's certainly the most likely and logical explanation.
breaking news; NOTW hollywood reporter James desborough has become the 13th person to be arrested so far


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 18, 2011)

And that takes us nicely to America. 

Can't believe those plods were cleared though.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

Yep - if he got up to anything dodgy on the Hollywood beat, then NewsCorp are massively in the shit. 
more surprised over Yates and hayman than Stephenson and Clarke (clarke IMO is the one OB who's been totally straight over this), but Yates has still got the matter of the job for Neil Wallis's daughter to answer for.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 18, 2011)

IPCC clears police.
Who'd have thunk it?
They may end up looking pretty stupid if and when more shit comes out about the MET.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What's Mulcaire going to do now? I reckon he'll take brown bag money to keep quiest-ish.


Well now we know. He's suing News Corp.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well now we know. He's suing News Corp.


YES!! Even if it's just for legal costs, that massively increases the chances of him spilling all he knows. What we really need, however, is for him to lose the other case he's fighting to not have to reveal all his dealings with NI.


----------



## laptop (Aug 18, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> What we really need, however, is for [Mulcaire] to lose the other case he's fighting to not have to reveal all his dealings with NI.



Well, if he's not funded, he's more likely to lose that, isn't he?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 18, 2011)

Gideons coke and hookers back in the news

Just in time to help set the leitmotif for Broken Britain: Back II Basics the sequel.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

laptop said:


> Well, if he's not funded, he's more likely to lose that, isn't he?


yes, that's what i'm hoping, but the idiocy of a judge can't be ruled out. fingers crossed..


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 19, 2011)

YES!!! Mulcaire HAS lost his appeal, and he's been ordered to reveal who ordered him to hack elle McPherson's phone, plus that of 5 others.
And better still, it was alan partridge who brought the case, so to speak. A-HA!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/19/glenn-mulcaire-phone-hacking



> Mulcaire, who was jailed in 2007 after pleading guilty to hacking the phones of members of the royal household for the News of the World, has been forced into making the disclosure following legal action by the comedian and actor Steve Coogan.
> In February, Coogan's lawyers argued in court that if it were proved that the News of the World had instructed Mulcaire to hack into the phones of the six public figures, it would show that phone hacking was taking place at an industrial scale.
> Mulcaire must now name names in relation to MacPherson, Hughes and four others – the celebrity PR Max Clifford; the football agent Sky Andrew; Jo Armstrong, a legal adviser to the Professional Footballers Association; and Gordon Taylor, the former head of the PFA. At his trial in 2006 Muclaire also admitted hacking the phones of
> five of the six names in Coogan's court order.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 19, 2011)

just realised - this means NO NI hush money, no sweet deal with them for Mulcaire, in return for taking the rap, he's suing them anyway, so what has he got to lose by spilling the whole damn lot?


----------



## ohmyliver (Aug 19, 2011)

I also note the Murdoch's sold his ranch in Carmel Valley, California
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...-Murdoch-sells-some-of-his-family-silver.html
I wonder why now?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 19, 2011)

ohmyliver said:


> I also note the Murdoch's sold his ranch in Carmel Valley, California
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...-Murdoch-sells-some-of-his-family-silver.html
> I wonder why now?



Perhaps he is thinking of going home to Oz to retire.


----------



## ohmyliver (Aug 19, 2011)

perhaps... possibly he's thinking there's a chance that he'll get his US assets seized


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 19, 2011)

This is impossibly far-fetched speculation, but *If* it turns out that his firm was up to the sort of shenanigans stateside that theyw ere up to here - ESPECIALLY bribing police, and hacking into 911 victims - he'll want to leave fast. We know he's in excellent financial shape (despite the MySpace and WSJ write-offs) - so he doesn't need to raise cash


----------



## Santino (Aug 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> YES!!! Mulcaire HAS lost his appeal, and he's been ordered to reveal who ordered him to hack elle McPherson's phone, plus that of 5 others.
> And better still, it was alan partridge who brought the case, so to speak. A-HA!
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/19/glenn-mulcaire-phone-hacking


Spiceworld!


----------



## belboid (Aug 19, 2011)

first copper nicked! A 51-year-old detective constable was arrested at work on Thursday. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers said the police officer's arrest was "hugely disappointing".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-14596815


----------



## stavros (Aug 19, 2011)

ohmyliver said:


> perhaps... possibly he's thinking there's a chance that he'll get his US assets seized



Isn't the ownership of those, like his UK operation, mainly funnelled through various tax havens via the numerous News Corp offshoots? Unless he mainly uses the States' own in-built haven of Delaware, but even then, would the state be willing to divulge power to Washington, thereby setting a precident?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 19, 2011)

So that's 17 arrests so far, not including Goodman and Mulcaire first time round?

Taking out Laura Elston that's 16 people in the poop. Are the three Elveden arrestees coppers?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 19, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> So that's 17 arrests so far, not including Goodman and Mulcaire first time round?


And no charges, which some people are getting antsy about. But when you press charges you have to show your hand, reveal your evidence. Every arrest introduces a new point at which the chain of silence can break. Every person arrested has to believe everyone else is staying silent and not cutting a deal.

Must be a few valiums getting necked to get the full nights sleep.


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 20, 2011)

Did anybody see this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14573942

I had a look at the thread but couldn't see it mentioned anywhere.

That photo creeps me out...


----------



## laptop (Aug 20, 2011)

Cop arrested over leaks, and we can't rule out them being leaks to the _Guardian_ over the investigation...



> A spokesperson for Guardian News & Media, which publishes the Guardian, declined to comment on reports that the leaks had been to the Guardian, and said: "We note the arrest of a Scotland Yard detective on suspicion of misconduct in a public office relating to unauthorised disclosure of information.
> 
> "On the broader point raised by the arrest, journalists would no doubt be concerned if conversations between off-the-record sources and reporters came routinely to be regarded as criminal activity. In common with all news organisations we have no comment to make on the sources of our journalism."
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/19/phone-hacking-detective-arrested



Also, in the above story, another NotW hack arrested.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 20, 2011)

laptop said:


> Cop arrested over leaks, and we can't rule out them being leaks to the _Guardian_ over the investigation...
> 
> Also, in the above story, another NotW hack arrested.



Would be quite telling if they were arresting whistleblowers after years of corrupt collusion with the Murdoch press being, shall we say, _less than vigorously_ pursued.


----------



## agricola (Aug 20, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Would be quite telling if they were arresting whistleblowers after years of corrupt collusion with the Murdoch press being, shall we say, _less than vigorously_ pursued.



Perhaps, though one has to wonder what on earth the Guardian thought it was up to using a "whistleblower" (if that is indeed what this officer was) in the way that it appears to have (ie: simply to generate relatively mundane stories), despite (presumably) knowing who they were, what position they occupied and the likely consequences of that persons exposure in the circumstances.

Their statement - especially the "_in common with all news organisations we have no comment to make on the sources of our journalism" _part - is a bit odd as well, given the context of the story, the criticism they have aimed at other news organizations doing similar things (or at least things that superficially appear similar and to which the same excuse could easily be applied), and the obvious compromising effect that this would have on Weeting as a whole.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 20, 2011)

Plus of course, following that line of thought, if these are whistleblower arrests, they've conveniently provided material for an effective PR counter-attack by the Murdoch press.


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though one has to wonder what on earth the Guardian thought it was up to using a "whistleblower" (if that is indeed what this officer was) in the way that it appears to have (ie: simply to generate relatively mundane stories), despite (presumably) knowing who they were, what position they occupied and the likely consequences of that persons exposure in the circumstances.



Isn't this what newspapers have been doing forever? Having sources within organisations who feed them stories and opinions? Obviously we need to know the whole story, but I see a vast moral difference between a newspaper using a contact on the force and paying police officers for info and stories.

Of course, ideally, newspapers should name sources. But we do not live in a country with strong FOI laws and protection of whistle-blowers and that's unlikely to change.


----------



## agricola (Aug 20, 2011)

lagtbd said:


> Isn't this what newspapers have been doing forever? Having sources within organisations who feed them stories and opinions? Obviously we need to know the whole story, but I see a vast moral difference between a newspaper using a contact on the force and paying police officers for info and stories.
> 
> Of course, ideally, newspapers should name sources. But we do not live in a country with strong FOI laws and protection of whistle-blowers and that's unlikely to change.



The point is though that this story (or at least the story as it is now) does give News International (and the rest) some cover when it comes to improper contact between police and journalists.  I am sure the lawyers would have been using the line anyway, but if it is true that the Guardian felt justified in doing the same thing (and with an officer involved in Weeting no less), then their argument will have considerably more justification about it.

As for the whistleblower angle, have their been any stories critical of Weeting and how it was going about things in the paper?


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> As for the whistleblower angle, have their been any stories critical of Weeting and how it was going about things in the paper?



The nature of the contact and the information given is at the crux of this and we don't yet know. I'm bloody loathe to defend the Guardian but I think it's fair to say they are the most critical of the police of the major national newspapers, for what that it sometimes worth.


----------



## laptop (Aug 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> Their statement - especially the "_in common with all news organisations we have no comment to make on the sources of our journalism" _part - is a bit odd



No it isn't. There's no suggestion that this was anything other than voluntary, unpaid whistleblowing.

No corruption, no hacking.

I hope you'd do the same if you came across something in your work that was being covered up...

(Of course the Guardian's got form for carelessly shopping a whistleblower - Sarah Tisdall)


----------



## agricola (Aug 20, 2011)

laptop said:


> No it isn't. There's no suggestion that this was anything other than voluntary, unpaid whistleblowing.
> 
> No corruption, no hacking.
> 
> ...



There is no suggestion that it was "voluntary, unpaid whistleblowing" though, is there?  In fact, as I said above has there been any articles in the Guardian that suggest Weeting (which is after all what this bloke was apparently engaged in) is involved in a cover-up, is being badly run or is not doing what it should be doing?


----------



## laptop (Aug 20, 2011)

agricola said:


> There is no suggestion that it was "voluntary, unpaid whistleblowing" though, is there?



Only the Guardian's presumption against paying sources. Which is quite strong - not least because of their wish to compete with the _Washington Post_.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2011)

peston is promising something 'fairly interesting' at 10.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 22, 2011)

he might string a concise and grammatically correct sentence together i suppose....


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

> Andy Coulson, the former editor of the News of the World who has been arrested on suspicion of involvement in phone hacking and bribing the police, received several hundred thousand pounds from News International after starting work as the Conservative Party's Director of Communications in July 2007.


This is his thing;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14624167


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

Sort of understood, and why is peston softing us?

(santino normally does this but he's got stuff on his plate)


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2011)

that is fairly interesting, tbf.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2011)

actually, on reading - not that interesting.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 22, 2011)

peston is protecting shiny dave prolly. he's certainly got more reason to butter him up than coulson, whose now untouchable essentially.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

Coulsen was paid by NI whilst working for DC. The people who did his clearance - did they flag that up to cameron - did cameron know? If not, why not.

Yes, has legs.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 22, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> peston is protecting shiny dave prolly. he's certainly got more reason to butter him up than coulson, whose now untouchable essentially.


How is this good news for Dave?.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2011)

if it's an agreed payoff, I can see it not coming to much - although it does seem incongruous that news international paid him off in installments: is this them getting their story out through peston before the payments came to light via other means?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2011)

How it's bad for cameron: his best mate was paid to keep his mouth shut, you employed someone being paid to keep schtum, paid not to grass. You dodgy dodgy cunt.
For NI? fuck all.

Why peston?


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 22, 2011)

*@pollycurtis*polly curtis

July 12, asked by the Guardian, senior Tory party official said:"We can give categorical assurances that he (Coulson) wasn't paid by any other source"
brackets by me


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 22, 2011)

why peston?

cos he moves in their i.e. Cam, Murdoch, Freud, etc circles and cos he's popularly reckoned to be a bit too close to some of those people.

(and cos his unedited replies to questions on t'radio go on for about 5 years and don't make any sense at all by thee end )


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2011)

If the payments are part of a compromise agreement, it means Coulson was essentially sacked - which is more evidence that NI had full knowledge of the extent of the hacking, no?
-


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Coulsen was paid by NI whilst working for DC. The people who did his clearance - did they flag that up to cameron - did cameron know? If not, why not.
> 
> Yes, has legs.



It's simply untenable to think that the question of 'other sources of income' didn't come up when going through the hiring procedure.

Dave MUST have known. This was a time before the relationship between the press and MP's was under far less scrutiny, though christ how it's come back to bite him.

If not during the vetting interviews, then shirley Dave asks him informally if there's 'anything he should know about'.

This may be the time for him to throw Coulson to the wolves and admit it was a mistake (whilst parliament is out) and work on damage limitation.


----------



## The Octagon (Aug 23, 2011)

Isn't the fact that the payments didn't decrease in mitigation when Coulsen was hired by Downing Street a little contrary to usual practice?


----------



## Santino (Aug 23, 2011)

Why should he get any payments at all if he resigned because of a failure on his part? That's the angle they should take.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2011)

killer b said:


> If the payments are part of a compromise agreement, it means Coulson was essentially sacked



No it doesn’t. Compromise agreements are drawn up for all kinds of reasons, someone at my place is (probably) getting one shortly to cover a redundancy. Coulson would claim that he was doing the honourable thing, to ensure the company mire, despite the fact that he, personally, did nothing wrong. There is no reason at all why a CA should include a condition that remuneration decreases upon appointment to a new post, why would it? 
Clearly, the amazingly good terms of the deal imply that NI knew they had to make sure Coulson kept his gob shut, but there is nothing fundamentally weird, about what they did.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2011)

by 'all kinds of reasons', you mean two, yeah? 1) being made redundant, 2) when they want to sack you, but don't have sufficient reason/want to keep you quiet.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Taking out Laura Elston that's 16 people in the poop. Are the three Elveden arrestees coppers?


we don't know yet, so far we've only had confirmed one copper nicked


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though one has to wonder what on earth the Guardian thought it was up to using a "whistleblower" (if that is indeed what this officer was) in the way that it appears to have (ie: simply to generate relatively mundane stories), despite (presumably) knowing who they were, what position they occupied and the likely consequences of that persons exposure in the circumstances.
> 
> Their statement - especially the "_in common with all news organisations we have no comment to make on the sources of our journalism" _part - is a bit odd as well, given the context of the story, the criticism they have aimed at other news organizations doing similar things (or at least things that superficially appear similar and to which the same excuse could easily be applied), and the obvious compromising effect that this would have on Weeting as a whole.


all this would hold more water if there was a likelihood, or suggestion, that the _Guardian_ had been paying plod for info - something which I reckon is unlikely


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> How it's bad for cameron:


because if AC had been paid by NI whilst working for the Tories, that is tantamount to an undeclared donation, and as such v much against the rules


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> It's simply untenable to think that the question of 'other sources of income' didn't come up when going through the hiring procedure.


but that's the whole point; the 'vetting' done prior to the Tories hiring Cameron`was of the most basic and cursory nature; a £140 check by Control Risks Ltd (£140 buys you fuck all, basically); therefore, they purposely didn't ask that many questions - because they were afraid of what the answers might be. They just went on Coulson's own assurances.
(eg:
"now, Andy, can you reassure us you've been involved in nothing untoward, which might blacken the good name of our Party?"
"I certainly can!"
"fine, nothing to worry about then")


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> (eg:
> "now, Andy, can you reassure us you've been involved in nothing untoward, which might blacken the good name of our Party?"
> "I certainly can!"
> "fine, nothing to worry about then")



Which, IMO might be DC's "I was lied to" get out of jail card,


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Which, IMO might be DC's "I was lied to" get out of jail card,


That is almost certainly the strategy, but it then raises a huge question of the (lack of) judgement of DC and those around him, especially Ed Llewellyn


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 23, 2011)

Tom Watson has an interesting angle


> Mr Watson said last night: "Did anyone at the Conservative Party know about these payments to Andy Coulson? If these were discretionary payments, they must surely constitute an undeclared donation to the Conservative Party. I will be asking the Electoral Commission to investigate."





> According to the BBC, his severance package included two years' salary and he was allowed to keep other work benefits, such as private healthcare, for three years, and his company car.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/coulson-paid-by-murdoch-while-working-for-pm-2342291.html

I suspect he is just shit stirring over this but it could be an interesting approach.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

I, for one, am thoroughly glad about TW's shit stirring!
on a serious note, there's potential in this; he should push it for all its' worth.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2011)

tom watson is amusing me atm. he spent the weekend getting leathered at a festival (v, so not too brilliant... but he is an MP) and tweeting at grime acts. then straight back in the saddle monday... he must be knackered by now...


----------



## teqniq (Aug 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> ....Yes, has legs.



Like a cockroach.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 23, 2011)

My mate and his partner recently had to become kinship carers to _their own grandson_ and they went through a ridiculous amount of scrutiny before it was allowed.

Certainly in comparison to a close advisor to the leader of the country, that is.

Coulson kept his health and car for 2 to 3 years...to me that means he was probably scheduled to return to newscorp in...hmmm....2 to 3 years?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2011)

killer b said:


> tom watson is amusing me atm. he spent the weekend getting leathered at a festival (v, so not too brilliant... but he is an MP) and tweeting at grime acts. then straight back in the saddle monday... he must be knackered by now...


bloody hell, ol' jabba boogieing on down!


----------



## Santino (Aug 26, 2011)

Mulcaire has revealed the names of the NOTW staff who ordered him to hack phones.

http://t.co/ONJDgr5


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 26, 2011)

But not to the general public atm, just Steve Coogan's lawyers, in case an appeal against their general release is successful. Sadly.


----------



## teqniq (Aug 26, 2011)

I see from that article that Coogan's lawyers are Schillings. Does he have any idea of their complete absence of principles, does he even care? /derail


----------



## killer b (Aug 26, 2011)

i shouldn't mistake coogan for someone with principles. he's got a grudge, nothing more.


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 26, 2011)

killer b said:


> i shouldn't mistake coogan for someone with principles. he's got a grudge, nothing more.



Justified, it would seem.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Justified, it would seem.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

killer b said:


> i shouldn't mistake coogan for someone with principles. he's got a grudge, nothing more.


he was good as alan partridge


----------



## killer b (Aug 26, 2011)

He was. He's an excellent comedian, and a very talented writer.


----------



## WWWeed (Aug 27, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> But not to the general public atm, just Steve Coogan's lawyers, in case an appeal against their general release is successful. Sadly.


Fingers crossed it gets mysteriously leaked!


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 27, 2011)

I'm always picking up abandoned confidential documents from the photocopier at work, I'm sure it wouldn't take much doing...


----------



## hegley (Aug 31, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> But not to the general public atm, just Steve Coogan's lawyers, in case an appeal against their general release is successful. Sadly.



Blocked by Scotland Yard now. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/30/news-of-world-journalists


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 31, 2011)

hegley said:


> Blocked by Scotland Yard now.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/30/news-of-world-journalists



That seems fair enough whilst the police investigation continues.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 31, 2011)

killer b said:


> i shouldn't mistake coogan for someone with principles. he's got a grudge, nothing more.


yep, but a rather useful one in the current circs! this isn't my 'enemy's enemy...', but young master coogan should certainly be egged on in his pursuit


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 31, 2011)

Knutter re-arrested
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=47782&c=1


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 2, 2011)

> A 34-year-old man has been arrested in the inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World, police have said.
> 
> The man was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to intercept voicemail messages and attempting to pervert the course of justice


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14766406



> The latest arrest is the 15th to be made on suspicion of phone hacking since Operation Weeting was launched in January.



34-year old?  Assuming Weeting is still relying on McClaire's information, he was late twenties at the relevant time. Hmmm.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2011)

*Phone hacking: victims' lawyers were targeted*



> News International sanctioned the use of private detectives as recently as six months ago to conduct surveillance and compile dossiers on the private lives of three lawyers who are leading damages claims against the News of the World for illegal phone hacking.
> One of the lawyers, Mark Lewis, whose clients include the family of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, told The Independent that the use of private detectives against him "crossed a new line" and threatened his ability to do his job. The reports gathered on the lawyers include claims about their personal lives, political beliefs and health.
> The dossiers were submitted to senior executives at Rupert Murdoch's newspaper group at a time when it was still seeking to limit the hacking scandal by insisting voicemail interception was restricted to a single "rogue" reporter.





> Desmond Hudson, the Law Society's chief executive, said: "To seek to gather information on your opponent's lawyer is intended to coerce that lawyer and gain unfair advantage in the legal process." News International last night declined to comment on the story.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/phone-hacking-victims-lawyers-were-targeted-2348387.html


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 3, 2011)

> Mr Watson, a member of the committee and a leading campaigner on the NOTW's activities said: "Here we have an international media company worth billions of dollars in receipt of material from private detectives looking into the private lives of lawyers whose clients are victims and at the centre of a police investigation. It is staggering.
> 
> "We will want to ask Mr Crone if he sanctioned the use of these private investigators, whether he read their reports and what was the purpose of these reports."


 source above

Thing is, this business of collecting dirt on anyone who got in their way, or the way of their friends in government or their corrupt stooges seems to have been endemic.

Look at the way News of the World resources were used to try to collect dirt on the police officer leading the murder investigation of that private investigator ...


----------



## two sheds (Sep 3, 2011)

Still, at least they weren't out stealing bottles of water eh?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 3, 2011)

James Murdoch declines $6m bonus over NoW controversy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14770818


----------



## laptop (Sep 3, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14766406
> 
> 34-year old? Assuming Weeting is still relying on McClaire's information, he was late twenties at the relevant time. Hmmm.



Now says 30...


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 4, 2011)

weltweit said:


> James Murdoch declines $6m bonus over NoW controversy
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14770818



Did you see how much his payrise was though? 74%!!!! Unbelievable!!!! If your pay rises to 17m a year, of course you'll forgo a bonus of 6m to make it look like you're making a big sacrifice.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 6, 2011)

There are going to be some interesting appearances in front of the parliamentary committee today, apparently an effort to show that NI management knew about the hacking before they claim they did. I don't know if it will be televised or not.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 6, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> Did you see how much his payrise was though? 74%!!!! Unbelievable!!!! If your pay rises to 17m a year, of course you'll forgo a bonus of 6m to make it look like you're making a big sacrifice.


If they're obv. about the salary you know they're hiding the important parts (share options, pension contrib,etc..).


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> There are going to be some interesting appearances in front of the parliamentary committee today, apparently an effort to show that NI management knew about the hacking before they claim they did. I don't know if it will be televised or not.



It's on the BBC News channel now.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 6, 2011)

Guardian live blogging anything that moves as well (as ever)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/06/phone-hacking-levseon-inquiry-live


----------



## 8den (Sep 6, 2011)

I'm quite enjoying Steve Coogan's rage.



> Paul Dacre can have my fucking hard drive off my computer. He won't find anything there other than very orthodox pornography that consenting couples used recreationally. He'll be familiar with the stuff.





> The Daily Mail is worse than the redtops because it has this semblance of respectability. To me the Daily Mail is like a used car salesman in a cheap suit because it masquerades as having this respectability about it and yet it peddles the same kind of hate-mongering [as] the redtops.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/05/steve-coogan-phone-hacking-quotes


----------



## weltweit (Sep 6, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> It's on the BBC News channel now.



thanks, am listenning to it.

Crone seems quite clear in his recollections.


----------



## 1%er (Sep 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> There are going to be some interesting appearances in front of the parliamentary committee today, apparently an effort to show that NI management knew about the hacking before they claim they did. I don't know if it will be televised or not.


You can watch it live here


----------



## weltweit (Sep 6, 2011)

1%er said:


> You can watch it live here



Thanks, but atm I am watching it on the BBC News site.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 6, 2011)

From earlier - Crone : secrecy and confidentiality are not the same.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> From earlier - Crone : secrecy and confidentiality are not the same.


duh  obviously they're different. are you having trouble differentiating between them?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> duh  obviously they're different. are you having trouble differentiating between them?



Not at all, but Watson had trouble.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 6, 2011)

So, Colin Myler and Crone believe that in a 15 minute meeting with James Murdoch they brought the "for Neville" email which implied phone hacking was more widespread than just the royal correspondent Clive Goodman to his, James Murdochs, attention and its implications caused them to make a decision on whether to fight a case for compensation.

James Murdoch in his earlier testimony said that at this time, the "for Neville" email and its implications were not brought to his attention.


----------



## 1%er (Sep 6, 2011)

Is there a transcripts of the anonymous letter received by some members of the committee,  allegedly from a NI senior executive that was mentioned, it sounded very strongly worded.

Was it bluster when the MP asked if he was aware that any members of the committee were investigated by NOTW or is there evidence that they were?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 6, 2011)

1%er said:


> Is there a transcripts of the anonymous letter received by some members of the committee, allegedly from a NI senior executive that was mentioned, it sounded very strongly worded.



Yes that was interesting, except that it could perhaps be a fraud. I haven't seen any copy of it.



1%er said:


> Was it bluster when the MP asked if he was aware that any members of the committee were investigated by NOTW or is there evidence that they were?



I must have missed that bit.


----------



## 1%er (Sep 6, 2011)

Someone asked about NOTW investigating layers used by clients who were suing them (the answer was he knew of two and they were revelations about their private lives), he went on to ask if he had any knowledge that any members of the committee had been looked into.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 6, 2011)

1%er said:


> Someone asked about NOTW investigating layers used by clients who were suing them (the answer was he knew of two and they were revelations about their private lives), he went on to ask if he had any knowledge that any members of the committee had been looked into.



Oh ok..


----------



## weltweit (Sep 6, 2011)

According to my radio, James Murdoch has recently said that he stands by his testimony.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 6, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> source above
> 
> Thing is, this business of collecting dirt on anyone who got in their way, or the way of their friends in government or their corrupt stooges seems to have been endemic.
> 
> Look at the way News of the World resources were used to try to collect dirt on the police officer leading the murder investigation of that private investigator ...


are you referring to Dave Cook, and the late Danny morgan here?


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 6, 2011)

weltweit said:


> thanks, am listenning to it.
> 
> Crone seems quite clear in his recollections.


of course he is; he's fighting desperately to make sure he doesn't take all the shit for the rest.
Also, he _is_ a lawyer


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 7, 2011)

35 year old bloke arrested (not by prior agreement) on sus of conspiring to intercept communications. If true, given his age, that might suggest more recent activity on that front. Possibly.


----------



## skitr (Sep 7, 2011)

I'm not too clued up on the thinking behind raids, but does the timing (5.50am) suggest they thought he might do a runner?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 7, 2011)

Possibly, or tyo make themselves look all dynamic.

Lates now is that Amelia HIll, the Guardian journo who with Nick Davies diod most to bring expose all this has been arrested/ interviewed under caution (differing accounts) over the police leaks. Lots of people going _oh no i can't believe it, Not Amelia! _Given that the Guardian was clearly getting the leaks who the hell did they expect they were being given to?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 7, 2011)

Amelia Hill not arrested but interviewed under caution apparently.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 7, 2011)

so more journo's have been questioned for recieving info than police for receiving bungs.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 7, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> are you referring to Dave Cook, and the late Danny morgan here?



Yep, sorry was rushing off someplace and no time to check the names.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 12, 2011)

> Of all the mysteries surrounding the British phone hacking scandal, it is the claims from a dominatrix linking Britain's now chancellor George Osborne to drug use, prostitution and political subterfuge that may be the most intriguing...



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-...phone-hacking-scandal/2882242/?site=newcastle


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2011)

Beautiful.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 12, 2011)

And he's never sued over it. Interesting..


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2011)

He and Cameron have always refused to discuss such matters rather than deny anything.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 12, 2011)




----------



## London_Calling (Sep 12, 2011)

Dan U said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-...phone-hacking-scandal/2882242/?site=newcastle


Latest from The Guardian:



> As well as dealing with the Vickers report, he may well be now closeted with his advisers working out what to say about a repeated claim that he took cocaine when he was in his early 20s.
> The allegation has come from Natalie Rowe, a former prostitute and dominatrix, who used to go out with one of Osborne's friends in the early 1990s. Six years ago a photograph was published in the Sunday Mirror and the News of the World showing Osborne with his arm around Rowe and what was alleged to be a line of cocaine on the table in front of them. Rowe claimed that she had taken cocaine with the future chancellor. He issued a statement describing the allegations as "completely untrue" and part of a smear campaign intended to damage the David Cameron campaign (which Osborne was running) in the Tory leadership contest. Rowe did not produce any evidence (beyond the photograph, which did not prove anything) to substantiate the claim, the papers did not pursue the issue aggressively and eventually it was forgotten.
> 
> *The story has re-emerged because Rowe has given an interview to the Australian broadcaster ABC News, which has been pursuing the story because it might explain help to explain why Osborne played such a big role in persuading Cameron to offer Coulson a job in 2007, after his resignation as News of the World editor*. ABC News has published some extracts from the interview on its website. Rowe repeats her claim that Osborne did take cocaine on the night that the key photograph was taken. ABC News also says Rowe has been told by the police that her phone was hacked by the News of the World.


So, not the class A per se (though it all helps), but rather the potential for yet more influence/corruption/implicit bribery - this time affecting the Chancellor directly and the very heart of Number Ten.

Where's my Ode To Joy CD....


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2011)

I hope Cameron is receiving some robust assurances this morning.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 12, 2011)

ABC is also pursuing the story because it really would rather part of its News operation wasn't farmed out to Murdoch

self interest at work, but its great to watch.

eta - its not the News, it's the Aus Govts foreign TV service being tendered
http://inside.org.au/will-australia’s-satellite-tv-service-head-skywards/


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 12, 2011)

Dog eat dog. Beautiful.

The Guardian's been a bit off the pace on this angle unless ..... there's a UK super-injunction. Seems unlikely but worth bearing in mind....


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> The Guardian's been a bit off the pace on this angle unless ..... there's a UK super-injunction. Seems unlikely but worth bearing in mind....



YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MENTION THAT!


----------



## Dan U (Sep 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Dog eat dog. Beautiful.
> 
> The Guardian's been a bit off the pace on this angle unless ..... there's a UK super-injunction. Seems unlikely but worth bearing in mind....



UK journos' a bit more reluctant to pursue Cocaine stories than their antipodean cousins?

can't think why


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 12, 2011)

two sheds said:


> YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MENTION THAT!



Well then, lets just say it's mildly interesting that the UK media isn't reporting a story involving a senior a UK Gov Minister, sex, drugs and the influencing of a key Gov appointment.

Instead, one UK 'paper (thus far) has reported on a report from Australia.

Lets see what occurs next....


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Well then, lets just say it's mildly interesting that the UK media isn't reporting a story involving a senior a UK Gov Minister, sex, drugs and the influencing of a key Gov appointment.



YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT ALLOWED TO SAY *THAT*, EITHER!


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 12, 2011)

I assumed you were being ... *amusing*,  but perhaps you're not.  In which case you're an idiot. General Forum > >

Fwiw, it is perfectly lawful to speculate on whether, as a matter of fact, an injunction exists.


----------



## agricola (Sep 12, 2011)

I doubt that there is a superinjunction - the Osborne / Rowe / Cocaine story has been doing the rounds for years, and commented upon (albeit obliquely) in Parliament.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 12, 2011)

If it were subject to a SI - and we wouldn't know when that became effective, Parliament is the only place you could mention it. But I agree, it's unlikely. It is though curiously under reported ...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 12, 2011)

New Statesman also picked up on this now.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/09/took-cocaine-osborne-rowe

i did like these 2 comments...

_I guess it would take quite a lot of drugs for his economic plans to appear to make sense._
_If true, I do hope that Cameron stops his benefits._


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> perhaps you're not. In which case you're an idiot.





You could still be right about me being an idiot, though.


----------



## belboid (Sep 12, 2011)

Its blatantly NOT suibject to an SI - thats why there was quite a lot of talk about it when the claims first appeared. Nor is it particularly under-reported. The only thing that hasnt been mentioned is the claim that Coulsens appointment amounts to repayment for services rendered. But as there is only conjecture and the word of a former prostitute selling her story, I'd imagine every newspaper wants to make damn sure there lawyers have studied everything in minure detail.

That and the fact that most papers support the fucking tories


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2011)

The Telegraph is running it now too.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 12, 2011)

I think George Osborne is more to be blamed for his economic policies now, than his drug taking when he was in his twenties. He can only have harmed himself with the latter, but the former has caused damage and misery to millions. Also this is not news, we have known about it for a long time.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2011)

Not to do with the hacking but ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/12/mail-on-sunday-legal-socgen



> One of Europe's largest banks, Société Générale, is reportedly planning to take legal action against the Mail on Sunday for defamation after it claimed the bank was in a "perilous" state and on the "brink of disaster".
> The Mail on Sunday sent shares in the French bank plummeting more than 20% after the story was published on 7 August. The newspaper quickly retracted the article and published an apology on its website accepting that the claim "was not true".



My word, but that could be a hefty damages bill. Couldn't happen to nicer a nicer newspaper.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 12, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Not to do with the hacking but ...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/12/mail-on-sunday-legal-socgen
> 
> My word, but that could be a hefty damages bill. Couldn't happen to nicer a nicer newspaper.



What's that german word again? schade-something...


----------



## two sheds (Sep 13, 2011)

"Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of tossers" I think the Oxford Dictionary defines it as


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> What's that german word again? schade-something...


schadenfreude


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 13, 2011)

two sheds said:


> "Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of tossers" I think the Oxford Dictionary defines it as


pleasure derived from the misfortune of others. the others may be tossers, but it is not neccesary


----------



## weltweit (Sep 13, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> schadenfreude



freude (happiness) schaden (damage or misfortune of some kind)


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 13, 2011)

I was being tongue-in-cheek...thanks though.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 13, 2011)

equationgirl said:


> I was being tongue-in-cheek...thanks though.


irony and internet. so close and yet so far....


----------



## Dan U (Sep 13, 2011)

The Mother of a 7/7 victim called Christian Small is going to sue NOTW for hacking in to his voicemail after his death. His family left messages for him in the aftermath.

This is from Twitter, haven't time atm to find online link but sure it will be somewhere soon.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 13, 2011)

Australia to open their own 'enquiry' in to Murdoch dominance
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/13/australia-investigate-media-phone-hacking

Brave move from Gillard, given her precarious state. Although with this and the Carbon Tax kerfuffle, maybe she knows she is fucked anyway so why not..

eta - And Murdoch (J) recalled to parliament for more obfuscation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/13/phone-hacking-james-murdoch


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2011)

Re-tweeted by Tom Watson: Recall of James Murdoch may overshadow "significant" news that News Corp has found "10s of thousands" of hack-related documents."

Can't find any other reference to this though.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 13, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/13/phone-hacking-news-international-documents

here you go Santino


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 13, 2011)

Dan U said:


> The Mother of a 7/7 victim called Christian Small is going to sue NOTW for hacking in to his voicemail after his death. His family left messages for him in the aftermath.
> 
> This is from Twitter, haven't time atm to find online link but sure it will be somewhere soon.


if she goes all the way with that, so to speak, that's another dowler-sized crisis for them


----------



## hiccup (Sep 13, 2011)

Tomorrow's Indie front page:







/via @tweetminster


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Sep 13, 2011)

agricola said:


> I doubt that there is a superinjunction - the Osborne / Rowe / Cocaine story has been doing the rounds for years, and commented upon (albeit obliquely) in Parliament.



Coulson 'was behind spin over Osborne, cocaine and dominatrix'


----------



## Santino (Sep 14, 2011)

Full Independent story: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...eyes-dirty-work-for-fleet-street-2354360.html

"A former police officer has revealed how the authorities have known for more than eight years the vast scale on which media organisations employed private detectives to obtain the personal information of thousands of individuals, including the families and friends of murder victims.

_The Independent _has conducted a detailed examination of the files seized as part of Operation Motorman in 2003, and has been told by the lead investigator on that inquiry that his team was forbidden from interviewing journalists who were paying for criminal records checks, vehicle registration searches, and other illegal practices."


----------



## teqniq (Sep 15, 2011)

About fucking time. Expecting the Met to properly investigate this is imo like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas:



> Scotland Yard's incoming boss has called in an outside force to review the inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World.
> Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe considered it best practice to ask Durham Police to look at the Met's Operation Weeting due to the sensitive nature of the case, police said.
> The revelation comes after Britain's top police officer said press and police relationships had "gone too far" as he called for an era of transparency and austerity



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9848832


----------



## two sheds (Sep 15, 2011)

teqniq said:


> About fucking time. Expecting the Met to properly investigate this is imo like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9848832



Hehe 'austerity', i.e. not accepting bribes any more.


----------



## Santino (Sep 16, 2011)

Payback time for The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/16/phone-hacking-met-court-order



> The Metropolitan police are seeking a court order under the Official Secrets Act to make Guardian reporters disclose their confidential sources about the phone-hacking scandal.
> 
> In an unprecedented legal attack on journalists' sources, Scotland Yard officers claim the act, which has special powers usually aimed at espionage, could have been breached in July when reporters Amelia Hill and Nick Davies revealed the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone. They are demanding source information be handed over


----------



## Dan U (Sep 16, 2011)

not so tough on crime, tough on the reporters of crime

(stolen from twitter)


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 16, 2011)

Santino said:


> Payback time for The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/16/phone-hacking-met-court-order



But, they have a 'public interest' defence, so hopefully it will come to nothing.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 16, 2011)

The man from the Guardian just had to explain this to Eddie Marr on P.M. as if he was a five year old. Eddie asked him why they didn't help the police with their investigations into very serious allegations. The nice man from the guardian explained that the police already had all the documents they just wanted to find out who had leaked this to the guardian as they were embarrassed by the fact that they were being shown to have failed to act.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 18, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/18/met-police-worrying-hugh-grant

I have to confess to having been initialy baffled by the headline of this story.  Why should we care what some cheesey actor thinks about the Met trying to use the Official Secrets Act to pressurise the Guardian into revealing the source of the leak at Scotland Yard?  But of course Hugh is a victim as well as an activist for the Hacked Off campaign.  In my mind the story has gone so far beyond celebrity privacy that I couldn't see the link.


----------



## killer b (Sep 19, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14975549

wonder what the truth/purpose of this leak is?


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 19, 2011)

The timing is probably to dilute the outcry over the official secrets action by the police.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 19, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14975549


> Phone hacking: Milly Dowler's family 'close to £2m settlement'
> 
> News International is close to agreeing a financial settlement with the family of murdered school girl Milly Dowler as a result of the phone hacking scandal, the BBC understands.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2011)

£2m to the family and £1m personal donation to charity by Rupert Murdoch. Thet is a lot of money but oddly my first thought was 'is that all' when I heard the story on the radio. Not sure what I was measuring it against or what I thought it should be though.....


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2011)

The previous highest 'privacy' pay off before the NOTW phone hack was £60k for Max Mosley.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> The previous highest 'privacy' pay off before the NOTW phone hack was £60k for Max Mosley.



eh. my understanding was that Max Clifford was at least a million.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2011)

weltweit said:


> eh. my understanding was that Max Clifford was at least a million.



Was Max before the NOTW?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Was Max before the NOTW?



How do you mean? I am confused now!..


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2011)

weltweit said:


> How do you mean? I am confused now!..



As in NOTW phone/privacy/hack thing?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> As in NOTW phone/privacy/hack thing?



I thought the hacking of Clifford was just a part of the overall story..
Perhaps I am being thick - it does happen


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I thought the hacking of Clifford was just a part of the overall story..
> Perhaps I am being thick - it does happen



I don't really keep track of these things.

Just surprised that Max Mosley achieved a £60k settlement in March 2008, Max Clifford achieved a £1m settlement in March 2010 and the Dowler family are likely to accept a settlement of £2m in October 2011.

I think that the intrusion on the Dowler family is far more brutal than the intrusion on Max 'consenting adults' Mosley but still it is a massive upward trend.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Just surprised that Max Mosley achieved a £60k settlement in March 2008, Max Clifford achieved a £1m settlement in March 2010 and the Dowler family are likely to accept a settlement of £2m in October 2011.
> 
> I think that the intrusion on the Dowler family is far more brutal than the intrusion on Max 'consenting adults' Mosley but still it is a massive upward trend.



Indeed on the upward trend. I wonder how much News International is presently thinking this stink will cost them.

Incidentally the BBC is reporting that NI is to pay the Dowlers 2m and Rupert Murdock is also to make a 1m donation to charity. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14975549


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Indeed on the upward trend. I wonder how much News International is presently thinking this stink will cost them.



I heard on the BBC this morning they have allocated a £20m war chest to deal with this.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2011)

20 million? They'll be lucky.


----------



## Santino (Sep 20, 2011)

Designating a certain column on a budget sheet as a 'war chest' must make some people's desk jobs that little bit more exciting.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2011)

They'll be appointing a  tsar next.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 20 million? They'll be lucky.



I know, they are ploughing through it and not even heard about the McCann family yet.


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I know, they are ploughing through it and not even heard about the McCann family yet.



Or Soham, assuming they roughly match the payouts, that's half the 'war chest' gone already.


----------



## killer b (Sep 20, 2011)

The Octagon said:


> Or Soham, assuming they roughly match the payouts, that's half the 'war chest' gone already.


just on payouts too. you can be sure the solicitors fees will be a substantial chunk on top of that...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2011)

They can afford to lose that amount (doubled tripled) without blinking, it's the easy access to influencing media legislation that's really going to hurt them. The ongoing profit making of sky etc basically.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2011)

Of interest:
Met's supergrass system called into question by dismissal of Gary Eaton 



> Scotland Yard's supergrass system has been called into question after a judge ruled a key criminal witness was a "pathological liar" for the second time in six months.
> 
> Full details of the handling of the man – a career criminal with psychiatric problems and convictions for bribing police, blackmail and firearms offences – and how tens of millions of pounds have been spent on cases based on his flawed evidence have been revealed for the first time. Gary Eaton was used in a failed prosecution of four men for the murder of the private detective Daniel Morgan.
> 
> Now a leading police officer has warned of the inherent dangers in using such so-called "assisting offenders". Chief Constable Jon Murphy, head of crime for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), says using supergrasses is akin to "dancing with the devil".


----------



## Dan U (Sep 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I know, they are ploughing through it and not even heard about the McCann family yet.



or the 7/7 victims family who have been added to the court case


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 20, 2011)

The level of payments seems about as relevant to the main issue as how much Cheryl Cole got from Hello! for her wedding photos.

The main issues remain to have some kind of safeguard put in place to make sure this all-emcompassing nonsense (police, CPS, politicians, media, blackmail, corruption, anti-democratic influence, etc, etc) can't happen again, and also for the PI to undermine the Murdoch clan so much the US shareholders thrown them overboard.

Should I care about who gets how much?


----------



## Dan U (Sep 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They can afford to lose that amount (doubled tripled) without blinking, it's the easy access to influencing media legislation that's really going to hurt them. The ongoing profit making of sky etc basically.



definitely.

and they (NI) and the Police are moving to close this down now. The former with the cheque book, the latter with this Official Secrets nonsense - which has even had the Daily Mail and Richard Littlejohn defending the Guardian..


----------



## WWWeed (Sep 20, 2011)

> The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is issuing the following statement in relation to recent media coverage and comment about Operation Weeting, its inquiry into phone-hacking at the News of the World.
> 
> It has been reported that officers from Operation Weeting are in some way misusing the Official Secrets Act in relation to their inquiry. This is not true.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2011)

Paddick briefs. Others leak


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I don't really keep track of these things.
> 
> Just surprised that Max Mosley achieved a £60k settlement in March 2008, Max Clifford achieved a £1m settlement in March 2010 and the Dowler family are likely to accept a settlement of £2m in October 2011.
> 
> I think that the intrusion on the Dowler family is far more brutal than the intrusion on Max 'consenting adults' Mosley but still it is a massive upward trend.



I don't think you can compare the Mosley case with the others, as that had nothing to do with phone hacking - it was a privacy case over the headline "F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with five hookers" and article under it.

He didn't exactly do well in that case because most of the report was true, he only got the £60k, because the court ruled that there was no evidence of a Nazi element to the sex act.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 20, 2011)

What is phone hacking if not a privacy issue?


----------



## belboid (Sep 20, 2011)

A specific crime in law.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 20, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> What is phone hacking if not a privacy issue?



Mosley didn't win on the privacy issue anyway, he was awarded £60K ONLY because the rag described him involved in a 'sick Nazi orgy with five hookers', whereas the court ruled that there wasn't a Nazi element to the 'sick orgy'.

Even if he had a major win based on privacy, it could still not be compared with the phone hacking situation as that goes way further than just buying the story from someone else involved, as in the Mosley case.

Also as belboid points out there's the criminal element to phone hacking, no crime was committed in the Mosley case.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 20, 2011)

I don't agree. Both cases are about privacy  - or more specifically the ridiculous state of privacy law in the UK - even if they relied on different areas of law. It's a legal dogs breakfast, made worse by tabloid abuse.


----------



## belboid (Sep 20, 2011)

disagree all you want.  You are still completely and utterly wrong.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 20, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I don't agree.



You don't agree that some things are a crime and some things are not?

Weird.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Of interest:
> Met's supergrass system called into question by dismissal of Gary Eaton



Amusing, given how deeply into the use of 'assisting offenders' the likes of subsequent Murdoch shill Andy Hayman was whilst at CIB.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 20, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> You don't agree that some things are a crime and some things are not?


The point is they should both be criminal breaches of privacy and yet they are currently not. Or at least one might be and the other can be protected if you have £30,000 spare. QED (the law is a dogs breakfast).


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 20, 2011)

Leaving the finer points of the UKs privacy laws to one side for a moment, the Mosley connection is just bizarre.  Can you imagine your reaction if someone told you two years ago that a member of that clan would have played an instrumental role in bringing the political classes, the media and the Met into such a state of disarray?  I wouldn't have hoped for the best, but in fact it has been quite a pleasure watching the Met, the Tories and News International getting sucked into a vortex of sleaze.


----------



## pesh (Sep 20, 2011)

Badgers said:


> £2m to the family and £1m personal donation to charity by Rupert Murdoch. Thet is a lot of money but oddly my first thought was 'is that all' when I heard the story on the radio. Not sure what I was measuring it against or what I thought it should be though.....



i thought it was a decent amount of cash when i first read that this morning, but when i read that it was the same amount they gave Rebekah Wade as a payoff it seemed a bit weak...


----------



## stavros (Sep 20, 2011)

Dan U said:


> and they (NI) and the Police are moving to close this down now. The former with the cheque book, the latter with this Official Secrets nonsense - which has even had the Daily Mail and Richard Littlejohn defending the Guardian..



The Met have dropped the move against the Graun now, haven't they?


----------



## Dan U (Sep 21, 2011)

stavros said:


> The Met have dropped the move against the Graun now, haven't they?



yep they have now, backfired splendidly against them. Welcome to The Met new Commissioner


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 21, 2011)

Yes, after taking 'legal advice' 

"Senior Met officer: we should not have tried to force Guardian to reveal sources"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/21/met-officer-force-guardian-sources



> Deputy assistant commissioner says using Official Secrets Act on journalists investigating phone hacking was 'not appropriate'"



Which also appears to contradict that previous statement that it wasn't using the Official Secrets Act?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2011)

stephj said:


> Yes, after taking 'legal advice'


i wonder if anyone will put in an foi request to find out how much was wasted on this fiasco.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 21, 2011)

The 'i' is reporting that journalists from The Sun, The Times & The Sunday Times are to be interviewed by lawyers acting for News Corp in a major escalation of the internal inquiry.

Staff singled out for questioning have been alarmed after being told they should retain their own legal representation before and during the interviews - although News Corp will paid their legal fees.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 23, 2011)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...spaper-unit-sued-in-london-by-a-coulson-.html



> The News Corp. (NWS) unit that published the Sun and the now defunct News of the World, was sued in London by a person identified only as “Mr. A. Coulson.”



Love it.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 23, 2011)

Oh...something else too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...eil-Wallis-while-he-was-at-Scotland-Yard.html



> *The former News of the World executive employed by the Metropolitan Police was secretly paid more than £25,000 by News International during his time at Scotland Yard, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.*





> The legality of Mr Wallis, who was effectively working as a police employee, selling potentially confidential police information to tabloid newspapers is not clear.


Maybe they should charge him under the official secrets act?


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 23, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...spaper-unit-sued-in-london-by-a-coulson-.html



Over News International having stopped paying his legal fees/breach of contract apparently.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 24, 2011)

This may be a way of silencing him over a difficult period, I can't see any other tactical reason (for withdrawing counsel).   Likely not but I'm just going on my first thoughts.


----------



## killer b (Sep 24, 2011)

it's purely face saving - they need to be seen to do the 'right thing' now, regardless of their contractual obligations to mulcaire, coulson et al. it's great tbh - if they keep paying, they're fucked, and if they stop paying they're fucked. war chest'll need topping up soon.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 24, 2011)

stavros said:


> The Met have dropped the move against the Graun now, haven't they?



I read that they have dropped it temporarily, and have specifically said that they may resume it.


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 24, 2011)

I like the fact that the Dowlers have been able to put a price on the upset they have suffered.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2011)

They didn't put the price on it - New Corps did. And at the same time the Dowlers are fighting against the proposed legal reforms that would have let them off the hook, or at least allowed them to behave as they like towards towards poorer families. It's not them any fingers should be pointing at here.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They didn't put the price on it - New Corps did. And at the same time the Dowlers are fighting against the proposed legal reforms that would have ket them off the hook, or at least allowed them to behave as they like towards towards poorer families. It's not them any fingers should be pointing at here.



Yep, the money is a bit of a persuader for News Corp not to do it again.


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They didn't put the price on it - New Corps did. And at the same time the Dowlers are fighting against the proposed legal reforms that would have let them off the hook, or at least allowed them to behave as they like towards towards poorer families. It's not them any fingers should be pointing at here.



So they are fighting for legal aid to stay (which is good) but if they were to go through the courts for their settlement they would be setting a precedent which would make it easier for other victims to pursue at least phone hacking claims through the courts.

I'm not a fan of the idea that financial compensation can in make up for anything (unless it helps with medical costs from accidents etc.) By accepting the money without going to court I think the Dowlers have let Newscorp off the hook slightly and as such have put a price on how much they value the pain they went through (and newscorp have found out how much the Dowlers can be bought off for)


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2011)

And i think you're the one putting a price on their suffering by demanding they do what _you_ want and suggesting that they settle for less than they _should_ have got. I think you insult them  - and pointlessly - by saying that they've been 'bought off'.


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And i think you're the one putting a price on their suffering by demanding they do what _you_ want and suggesting that they settle for less than they _should_ have got. I think you insult them - and pointlessly - by saying that they've been 'bought off'.



I'm torn, they deserve something but I don't know what that is, if it was me I'd want to see newscorp suffer and not just settle out of court but I guess they don't want to re live anything so an out of court settlement is good for them.

The way I see it , and this is just how i feel, is that if your going to take someone to court it's for the reason of getting them into that court and being judged, not in order to get financial gain, which as harsh as it sounds is what taking an out of court settlement comes across as to me. I'd like to know how you would describe an out of court settlement if it's not newscorp paying the Dowlers to avoid going to court then i'd like to know what it is and I don't see how you can describe that as anything other than newscorp buying the best possible outcome for them that they can.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 24, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> I'm torn, they deserve something but I don't know what that is, if it was me I'd want to see newscorp suffer and not just settle out of court but I guess they don't want to re live anything so an out of court settlement is good for them.
> 
> The way I see it , and this is just how i feel, is that if your going to take someone to court it's for the reason of getting them into that court and being judged, not in order to get financial gain, which as harsh as it sounds is what taking an out of court settlement comes across as to me. I'd like to know how you would describe an out of court settlement if it's not newscorp paying the Dowlers to avoid going to court then i'd like to know what it is and I don't see how you can describe that as anything other than newscorp buying the best possible outcome for them that they can.



I can see where you are coming from, but in this case News Corp has already been judged, by the general public, resulting in the actual closure of the rag in question, so I see no advantage in this particular case going to court.

That said, I hope to see News Corp and various individuals in court facing criminal charges.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> I'm torn, they deserve something but I don't know what that is, if it was me I'd want to see newscorp suffer and not just settle out of court but I guess they don't want to re live anything so an out of court settlement is good for them.
> 
> The way I see it , and this is just how i feel, is that if your going to take someone to court it's for the reason of getting them into that court and being judged, not in order to get financial gain, which as harsh as it sounds is what taking an out of court settlement comes across as to me. I'd like to know how you would describe an out of court settlement if it's not newscorp paying the Dowlers to avoid going to court then i'd like to know what it is and I don't see how you can describe that as anything other than newscorp buying the best possible outcome for them that they can.


But that's irrelevant _even if true_. What you're essentially saying by that line of argument is that the Dowlers should act according to _your_ motivations to achieve an outcome acceptable to or desired by _you_. You're imposing what you think is an a acceptable price for their pain on them (newscorp being found guilty in court) - and that your price should take precedence, all other outcomes amounting to being 'bought off'.


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> But that's irrelevant _even if true_. What you're essentially saying by that line of argument is that the Dowlers should act according to _your_ motivations to achieve an outcome acceptable to or desired by _you_. You're imposing what you think is an a acceptable price for their pain on them (newscorp being found guilty in court) - and that your price should take precedence, all other outcomes amounting to being 'bought off'.



I'm not saying what I think should take precedence. The Dowlers can do whatever they feel best is for them, I'm just offering my opinion and expressing how I feel, to be honest I think that because the Dowlers are such a high profile case the expectation for them to go through court would probably be too much so maybe taking the cash was the best option for them.

The problem with accepting the pay off is it makes me question their motivation for bringing this case, I find the idea that they have could have thought 'we can make some cash out of this phone hacking thing' just as sickening as the phone hacking was in the first place, I guess it depends on what they do with the money that will give some insight into their motivation and I'm really hoping it's not going to be just about the money.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2011)

Well part of the announced settlement was a million quid given to charity. But again, it's none of your business what their motivation was - simple cash or otherwise. You really _are_ aggressively stamping your desired outcome on these people and thereby putting _your_ price on _their_ pain - no matter how many times that you say that you're nor. I'm finding this quite astonishing to be totally frank.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 24, 2011)

Plus, as a civil court case, it would have only resulted in a cash settlement anyway.

Bring on the criminal cases!


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well part of the announced settlement was a million quid given to charity. But again, it's none of your business what their motivation was - simple cash or otherwise. You really _are_ aggressively stamping your desired outcome on other people and thereby putting your price on their pain - no matter how many times that you say that you're nor. I'm finding this quite astonishing to be totally frank.



No you're twisting what I'm saying, I'm not saying they should have done this or that, I'm saying that what they have done has formed my opinion of their actions and now i'm expressing those opinions.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2011)

But you are explicitly saying what they should have done and why - you have clearly said that you find the idea that they may have been motivated by cash to be 'sickening' (as sickening as the hacking of their murdered daughters phone even!) and that they should have got a verdict in court rather then acccept an out-of-court settlement. That's you saying both what they should not have done and what they should have. It's baffling that you now deny your own posts earlier in the thread.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 24, 2011)

They have crossed the line now. Jade Goody


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2011)

Badgers said:


> They have crossed the line now. Jade Goody


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> No you're twisting what I'm saying, I'm not saying they should have done this or that, I'm saying that what they have done has formed my opinion of their actions and now i'm expressing those opinions.


and in english pls?


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> But you are explicitly saying what they should have done and why - you have clearly said that you find the idea that they may have been motivated by cash to be 'sickening' (as sickening as the hacking of their murdered daughters phone even!) and that they should have got a verdict in court rather then acccept an out-of-court settlement. That's you saying both what they should not have done and what they should have. It's baffling that you now deny your own posts earlier in the thread.



Maybe you could point out where I have explicitly said the Dowlers should do anything because at the moment I'm unsure whether I am just not putting my opinions very well or you're just up for an argument on a saturday morning.


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> and in english pls?


please


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> Maybe you could point out where I have explicitly said the Dowlers should do anything because at the moment I'm unsure whether I am just not putting my opinions very well or you're just up for an argument on a saturday morning.


Well, from your very first post for example:



Termite Man said:


> I like the fact that the Dowlers have been able to put a price on the upset they have suffered.



Contained in this sneer is the idea that the Dowlers should not have agreed an out of court settlement, and the logical corollary that they should have held out for a court judgment. And no, i'm not after a Saturday morning argument. I find what you have written to be bizarrely insulting to the dowlers and the way you've argued it to be bizzare - making a point then almost immediately denying that you've said any such thing. Of all the people to come onto a thread and point the finger at it's the dowlers?


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well, from your very first post for example:
> 
> Contained in this sneer is the idea that the Dowlers should not have agreed an out of court settlement, and the logical corollary that they should have held out for a court judgment. And no, i'm not after a Saturday morning argument. I find what you have written to be bizarrely insulting to the dowlers and the way you've argued it to be bizzare - making a point then almost immediately denying that you've said any such thing. Of all the people to come onto a thread and point the finger at it's the dowlers?



Yeah, like I said I don't like the idea that financial gain was the motivation for the court action, but the Dowlers can do what they want, if they want the financial gain then I reserve the right to judge them and 'sneer' at them, the thing is I hope they didn't just want the financial gain from this as it devalues the sympathy I have for them and that's something I don't want to happen because they have suffered and deserve sympathy. I'm fully aware that this is completely illogical and to be honest it's why I waited so long before posting what I did but I can't help how it makes me feel.

As for me saying explicitly that the Dowlers should have done what i think maybe you can come up with a better example since 'contained in this sneer is the idea' suggest I didn't explicitly say anything.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2011)

The rest of your posts went on to develop the idea expressed in the first post. That's pretty clear - even if you don't think that you think that you explicitly did (i think that you did here) the chains of the argument are clear. The dowlers took the money - _they shouldn't have_. They didn't wait for a court judgment - _they should have. _Otherwise what was the point of your original post? What was the point of the following posts if not to argue this?


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 24, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The rest of your posts went on to develop the idea expressed in the first post. That's pretty clear - even if you don't think that you think that you explicitly did (i think that you did here) the chains of the argument are clear. The dowlers took the money - _they shouldn't have_. They didn't wait for a court judgment - _they should have. _Otherwise what was the point of your original post? What was the point of the following posts if not to argue this?


What you're doing is getting my explanation for how I feel mixed up with me saying the Dowlers should have done things differently. I am incredibly uncomfortable with the idea that the Dowlers were motivated just to get some cash and unfortunately thats what taking the out of court settlement made me feel, but like I said in my previous post, it's an illogical feeling.

I have said that going to court may have been too much for the Dowlers and taking the settlement was the best thing for them to do but I still have that illogical feeling about their motivation because of the out of court settlement.




			
				termite man said:
			
		

> I'm torn, they deserve something but I don't know what that is, if it was me I'd want to see newscorp suffer and not just settle out of court but I guess they don't want to re live anything so an out of court settlement is good for them.


----------



## pesh (Sep 24, 2011)

after the shit they had to go through in court to get the conviction of their daughters killer i'm not surprised they don't want to rush back there to be turned over by N.I.'s lawyers this time

i'm sure they won't lose any sleep over your illogical feeling, you don't feature in any of this.


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 24, 2011)

pesh said:


> after the shit they had to go through in court to get the conviction of their daughters killer i'm not surprised they don't want to rush back there to be turned over by N.I.'s lawyers this time
> 
> i'm sure they won't lose any sleep over your illogical feeling, you don't feature in any of this.



I do know that. Am I not allowed to express my opinions on this thread then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> please


i didn't think you'd be able to reduce your gibberish to a single word.


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i didn't think you'd be able to reduce your gibberish to a single word.



fuck off pickmans


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 24, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> fuck off pickmans


the vacuity of your 'argument' is exposed for all the gawp at.


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> the vacuity of your 'argument' is exposed for all the gawp at.



well it suits the vacuity of your argument then doesn't it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 25, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> well it suits the vacuity of your argument then doesn't it.


my 'argument' as you put it was simply a question asking what you meant.


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> my 'argument' as you put it was simply a question asking what you meant.



yeah right, you're argument was to be a snide little fuck.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 26, 2011)

So when is J Murdoch back to answer more questions?


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 26, 2011)

It must be difficult for Tom Watson now; part of a Parliamentary committee (and Chair) way out of their legal (and otherwise) depth - and which has also been rendered an irrelevant side show by the terms of the Public Inquiry, and yet in no small part being responsible for getting things this far.

Still, it's all attractive theatre - just a little unfortunate it gives the Murdoch's some real practice before the lawyers get into them properly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> yeah right, you're argument was to be a snide little fuck.


i see you've not been able to explain what your post meant. i'm surprised that YOU can't make head or tail of it - you, after all, should be able to understand what you've submitted.


----------



## killer b (Sep 26, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It must be difficult for Tom Watson now; part of a Parliamentary committee (and Chair) way out of their legal (and otherwise) depth - and which has also been rendered an irrelevant side show by the terms of the Public Inquiry, and yet in no small part being responsible for getting things this far.
> 
> Still, it's all attractive theatre - just a little unfortunate it gives the Murdoch's some real practice before the lawyers get into them properly.



i don't think the committee hearings are an irrelevant sideshow at all - they've done extensive damage to the murdochs so far. chances are, far more than the PI is likely to do too.


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i see you've not been able to explain what your post meant. i'm surprised that YOU can't make head or tail of it - you, after all, should be able to understand what you've submitted.



I've explained it to butchers since he actually engaged with me rather than making snide comments  for cheap point scoring like you. Dickhead.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> I've explained it to butchers since he actually engaged with me rather than making snide comments for cheap point scoring like you. Dickhead.


i'm by no means surprised to see you admit your irrationality.


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm by no means surprised to see you admit your irrationality.



yeah? Maybe you will admit to being a twat but I doubt that will happen.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 26, 2011)

killer b said:


> i don't think the committee hearings are an irrelevant sideshow at all - they've done extensive damage to the murdochs so far. chances are, far more than the PI is likely to do too.


LOL. Sure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 26, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> yeah? Maybe you will admit to being a twat but I doubt that will happen.


your scepticism does you credit.


----------



## Termite Man (Sep 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> your scepticism does you credit.


that made me laugh


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2011)

Next one 



> A News of the World reporter at the heart of the phone-hacking scandal is taking the defunct tabloid's publishers to an employment tribunal, claiming he was a whistleblower.
> 
> Neville Thurlbeck, the paper's former chief reporter, is claiming that he was unfairly dismissed by Rupert Murdoch's News Interrnational. There is scheduled to be a preliminary employment tribunal hearing in east London this Friday. It has only just come to light that Thurlbeck – who had been behind a string of high-profile exclusives at the News of the World – had been fired by the company.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 28, 2011)

Just heard on radio another journalist has done the same, missed is name but wasn't Neville

Also, and this is quite funny really, Kelvin Mackenzie has found out he was hacked and is now OMG about it after previously dismissing it out of hand.

On phone atm so apologies for lack of links


----------



## Santino (Sep 28, 2011)

Ian Edmondson


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 29, 2011)

And just when you thought it couldn't get any better:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/28/news-of-world-paid-rivals


----------



## teqniq (Oct 2, 2011)

Good article by Nick Cohen in todays's Graun/Observer:



> ....There is just one proper subject for a public inquiry: the cashless corruption Rupert Murdoch perfected. He did not behave like a common criminal. Instead of giving the ruling party money to spend on political propaganda and demanding business favours in return, Murdoch instructed his editors to provide propaganda free of charge. No money changed hands. But the briber still received business favours and the bribed politicians still got puff pieces. Now the hacking racket has been exposed, we need an inquiry to ask if the law should make it an offence for media conglomerates to use threats and inducements to enrich themselves.....




http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...uiry-rupert-murdoch-cameron#start-of-comments

The first comment is worth a read too.


----------



## killer b (Oct 2, 2011)

it is indeed... first i've heard of that allegation so i'll take it with a pinch of salt for now, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if leveson was a corrupt fuck.


----------



## killer b (Oct 2, 2011)

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article6911108.ece


----------



## killer b (Oct 2, 2011)

initial reading suggests things aren't quite what the comment suggests, so i'll file under bullshit for now...


----------



## teqniq (Oct 2, 2011)

@ killer b Thanks for digging that out.   Maybe bullshit yes but if as the commenter alleges Levenson attended dinner parties hosted by Murdoch then this possibly implies conflict of interest?


----------



## killer b (Oct 2, 2011)

he declared the dinner parties when he was appointed iirc.

i think it was pointed out at the time that you'd find it difficult to appoint someone to lead such an enquiry who hadn't had some sort of connection to murdoch's various interests, such is his pervasiveness in british public life.


----------



## killer b (Oct 2, 2011)

(not to let leveson off the hook mind - i'm not expecting great things from the enquiry)


----------



## teqniq (Oct 2, 2011)

Ah ok thanks. I too have no great expectations of this enquiry unfortunately.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 2, 2011)

killer b said:


> i think it was pointed out at the time that you'd find it difficult to appoint someone to lead such an enquiry who hadn't had some sort of connection to murdoch's various interests, such is his pervasiveness in british public life.



well yes, but that's almost the point of the whole exercise of having an enquiry. 'Yes I accepted bribes from Murdoch but i'm shouldn't be barred from running an enquiry because everyone else was doing it'.


----------



## laptop (Oct 6, 2011)

> [Solicitor] Mark Lewis said: "When the final tally takes place, we will see thousands of claims and more than one paper."
> 
> He added that, as the number of claimants grows, estimates that Murdoch's company would need *at least £100m to settle such claims looks like "a serious underestimate"*.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/05/phone-hacking-shaun-russell-suing



editing 

content


----------



## Badgers (Oct 6, 2011)

Sara Payne and Shaun Russell sue News International

I had not seen this.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 6, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Sara Payne and Shaun Russell sue News International
> 
> I had not seen this.



Paul Dadge is also suing, he was a 7/7 'hero' whose photo was splashed over the worlds media.

wtf did they hope to find? that he was a secret rohypnobummer and then they could expose him or something.

and the Sara Payne thing is like the perfect trap, here have this mobile phone, we'll pay for it...

scum


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2011)

Onto The People



> David Brown said journalists on the People regularly targeted celebrities, usually to try to discover their latest partners.
> 
> He wrote in a witness statement leaked to Sky News: "A number of the methods used to pry into individuals' lives were illegal and I have little doubt that if these people knew they had been spied upon, they would take legal action for breach of their right to privacy."


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2011)

Marvelous stuff:
Met loses diary that may have proven former chief's links to Rupert Murdoch



> Scotland Yard has lost crucial documents which would have disclosed whether the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Stevens, frequently met senior News of the World executives while he was in office, including an editor at the tabloid who is alleged to have been involved in the illegal hacking of emails.
> 
> 
> The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) confirmed to The Independent that it is currently investigating the missing diaries of the former Commissioner.
> ...


----------



## laptop (Oct 7, 2011)

> Interior designer Kelly Hoppen has accepted £60,000 in damages over the News of the World phone-hacking case.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15215506



Cheap at the price...


----------



## laptop (Oct 7, 2011)

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to parse this sentence from yesterday:



> Macpherson's spokesman declined to comment on Ms Field and Mr Lewis's version of events, with one exception: "Elle has not at any time sought or received any settlement, in any form, from News International (or any other related company, entity or individual). Nor are there any claims, discussions or other activities outstanding in relation to the issue."
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...anager-sacked-by-elle-macpherson-2366150.html



Macpherson sacked Field after material from their phone contact appeared in _NotW_. Macpherson has not sued. Field is suing, despite it likely not being her phone (unclear wny not). Indy article loudly hinting at payoff.

So are Macpherson's lawyers saying:

She sought and/or received compensation that was not "a settlement"; or
Compensation went, unsolicited by her, to a third party; or
The unvarnished truth; or
An outright lie?


----------



## theCIA (Oct 11, 2011)

i'll just leave this right here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/10/campaign-grows-to-oust-murdoch


----------



## killer b (Oct 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Marvelous stuff:
> Met loses diary that may have proven former chief's links to Rupert Murdoch


they've found it now, apparently...




			
				tom watson said:
			
		

> Just been told that apparently the Met have found the "lost" appointments diary of lord stevens 2000-2005.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 12, 2011)

The number of victims just keeps increasing:
*http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/11/phone-hacking-glenn-mulcaire-persecution*

*Phone hacking: Glenn Mulcaire wants 'persecution' by victims to stop*

Private investigator at the centre of News of the World scandal believes victims have nothing to gain from suing him


----------



## Santino (Oct 12, 2011)

ts; dr


----------



## two sheds (Oct 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> ts; dr



which bit didn't you read?


----------



## Santino (Oct 12, 2011)

two sheds said:


> which bit didn't you read?


All the s bits.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> All the s bits.



They were the _best_ bits.


----------



## Santino (Oct 12, 2011)

two sheds said:


> They were the _best_ bits.


There's a lesson there for someone.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 12, 2011)

Persecution lol


----------



## Dan U (Oct 12, 2011)

Apparently Paul Dacre is currently talking at the Leveson Enquiry about ethics and journalism

lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2011)

Dan U said:


> Apparently Paul Dacre is currently talking at the Leveson Enquiry about ethics and journalism
> 
> lol



Hey! Who knows, he *might* be talking about how little he knows about the subjects!


----------



## Dan U (Oct 12, 2011)

apparently they are now going to run a corrections column on page 2.

which could potentially take over most of the paper some days.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Oct 12, 2011)

via @tomwatson
  Another adviser recommends shareholders vote against Murdoch sons next week: http://t.co/x7LkWW31 And it's barely reported in the UK.


----------



## newbie (Oct 12, 2011)

There has been some reporting, though I can't remember where.

Meanwhile, with wonderful timing


*Wall Street Journal circulation scam claims senior Murdoch executive*

Andrew Langhoff resigns as European publishing chief after exposure of secret channels of cash to help boost sales figures

The Guardian found evidence that the Journal had been channelling money through European companies in order to secretly buy thousands of copies of its own paper at a knock-down rate, misleading readers and advertisers about the Journal's true circulation.
The bizarre scheme included a formal, written contract in which the Journal persuaded one company to co-operate by agreeing to publish articles that promoted its activities, a move which led some staff to accuse the paper's management of violating journalistic ethics and jeopardising its treasured reputation for editorial quality.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 13, 2011)

unreal story that is. If that doesn't convince the big US investors the current Directorship stinks, fuck knows what will.


----------



## xenon (Oct 14, 2011)

Why's this WSN circulation scam not making more waves? I've not heard it mentioned on radio. Nothing on the BBC News site yesterday. I'm not surprised this sorta thing happens but one blogger I was reading seemed to think this was gonna be a more damaging blow to NI than the phone hacking stuff.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 14, 2011)

Probably because the newspaper industry is teetering on the edge of collapse, they may also have a general agreement about not attacking each other on certain things - maybe.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2011)

maybe it's not been reported here because of the various pending court cases


----------



## xenon (Oct 14, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Probably because the newspaper industry is teetering on the edge of collapse, they may also have a general agreement about not attacking each other on certain things - maybe.



Possibly. I'd be surprised if this sort of circulation trickery isn't fairly widespread.




Pickman's model said:


> maybe it's not been reported here because of the various pending court cases



Fair point.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 14, 2011)

xenon said:


> Possibly. I'd be surprised if this sort of circulation trickery isn't fairly widespread.


Definitely, advertisers pay by market share afaik.   They won't be happy.


----------



## newbie (Oct 15, 2011)

a quick search reveals followups in the Telegraph, Independent, Evening Standard, CNN, WSJ...

I regret to say that since Gilligan the BBC has become increasingly irrelevent for breaking news


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 20, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15393892



> Surrey Police knew Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked by someone working for the News of the World (NoW) in 2002, the force's chief constable has said.
> Mark Rowley said the paper made a call to them in April 2002 which made it apparent it had accessed her voicemail.
> In a letter to the Commons culture committee into the phone hacking scandal he said the priority at the time was to find the missing girl.


 


> Mr Rowley said: "From that call it was apparent that person(s) working for, or on behalf of, the NoW had accessed Milly Dowler's voicemail.
> "At that time, the focus and priority of the investigation was to find Milly, who had then been missing for over three weeks and significant resources were deployed to achieve this objective.
> "I can confirm that Surrey Police did not launch a criminal investigation into how the NoW came by the information it provided Operation Ruby with in April 2002 and that Surrey Police neither arrested nor charged anyone in relation to accessing Milly Dowler's voicemail.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 21, 2011)

Next question.  Did Surrey police know the NoW had deleted messages?   If so, more heads to roll hopefully.   Was a while ago though.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 21, 2011)

Tom Watson is off to the shareholders meeting today in the US to reveal more dirt apparently


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 21, 2011)

Dan U said:


> Tom Watson is off to the shareholders meeting today in the US to reveal more dirt apparently


and there was me thinking he had a day job to go to


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 21, 2011)

What would you know about that kind of thing?


----------



## elbows (Oct 21, 2011)

The Guardian are liveblogging the shareholders meeting at the moment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/oct/21/news-corporation-annual-meeting-live

Tom Watson manged to ask some questions but it doesn't sound like his dirt was very juicy, trying to turn attention towards computer hacking, but without killer details there is nothing for me to get too excited about.


----------



## elbows (Oct 21, 2011)

NYT live-blog has more on that:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/news-corp-s-annual-shareholders-meeting/



> Tom Watson, the British lawmaker who has intensified pressure on News Corp., spoke to media as well. About the reports that he would be unveiling new things: "That's a slightly overcooked story there. I'm here because investors should be aware that the scandal has not gone away in the U.K."
> "Their PR people would like you to think that they are through the worst of it," he said.
> Mr. Watson, in Prada glasses and a purple tie, said he would not be meeting with any law enforcement or government officials during his trip to Los Angeles. He arrived Wednesday and will leave Saturday.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 21, 2011)

elbows said:


> NYT live-blog has more on that:
> 
> http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/news-corp-s-annual-shareholders-meeting/



 "in Prada glasses and a purple tie" what an odd detail to include!


----------



## stavros (Oct 22, 2011)

Dan U said:


> Apparently Paul Dacre is currently talking at the Leveson Enquiry about ethics and journalism
> 
> lol



Did he call Leveson et al cunts? If not, he's obviously talking out of character and acting according to brief.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2011)

Possibility on more on this over the next few days because of this - not gone though them yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2011)

Here we go Phone hacking: NoW lawyer warned editor of 'damning email' in 2008


----------



## Santino (Nov 4, 2011)

Another arrest: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/04/phone-hacking-scotland-yard-arrest


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

Victims up to around 6000 now.

6000


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 4, 2011)

It's like the Stasi ...

Record everyone just in case.

What gets me is people's fascination for reading about all these minor slebs ..


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 4, 2011)

They've been conditioned that way.


----------



## Santino (Nov 4, 2011)

Very few people think of themselves as obsessed with celebrities. It's a bit of a laugh. Other people may be obsessed, they just take an interest because other people are interested.


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2011)

people just like reading entertaining stories ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> They've been conditioned that way.


Little better than animals.


----------



## gentlegreen (Nov 4, 2011)

At least slebs used to have a bit of class in the old days ...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 4, 2011)

Sun jurno arrested


----------



## Badgers (Nov 4, 2011)

ferrelhadley said:


> Sun jurno arrested



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15593767

Jamie Pyatt


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 4, 2011)

So, finally it spreads to The Sun.

I guess it's too much to hope that shit explodes all over The Sun, and that ends up being closed down?


----------



## Badgers (Nov 4, 2011)

Just been browsing his articles - http://journalisted.com/jamie-pyatt?allarticles=yes


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 4, 2011)

He s





Badgers said:


> Just been browsing his articles - http://journalisted.com/jamie-pyatt?allarticles=yes


He should be jailed for the articles, never mind other stuff.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 4, 2011)

Also, a lot of those headlines imply he's obviously getting inf from bent police.    Assuming you can say imply and obviously together.

Through him in jail.   Next!


----------



## two sheds (Nov 4, 2011)

I'm wondering how they're going to prosecute him without prosecuting any of the coppers he bribed.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 4, 2011)

if he did it, of course, m'lud


----------



## laptop (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Victims up to around 6000 now.
> 
> 6000



6000 x £100,000 = £600 million


----------



## laptop (Nov 5, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I'm wondering how they're going to prosecute him without prosecuting any of the coppers he bribed.





> He is the sixth person arrested by detectives working on Operation Elveden, which was set up in July following allegations that police officers had received up to £130,000 over several years from the News of the World for information, including contact details for the royal family.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/05/sun-journalist-bailed



Are all six News International hacks? BTW,



> So far, 16 people have been arrested and bailed on allegations of phone hacking.



the six are specifically for police bribery.


----------



## laptop (Nov 5, 2011)

laptop said:


> Are all six News International hacks? ... The six are specifically for police bribery.



Hmm. The Operation Elveden tally so far seems to be:

Jamie Pyatt
Clive Goodman
Andy Coulson
Rebekah Brooks
Stuart Kuttner
Unnamed 63-year-old man
Who he, then?


----------



## Santino (Nov 5, 2011)

Hope it spreads to The Times next.


----------



## stavros (Nov 5, 2011)

If Sky can be implicated it'd be good too.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

Seems a bit...cheap

Murdoch gave loyal lieutenant Rebekah Brooks £1.7m pay-off, car and office

sniff


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 5, 2011)

It was on the BBC website that the police have proof of *5,800 people* so far being phonehacked. Who the hell were News International hacking??


----------



## killer b (Nov 5, 2011)

everyone they wrote a story on, pretty much.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 5, 2011)

That's still a shedload of people though.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 7, 2011)

We've known for somewhile that picking out people who may have been hacked - including the subject of this thread - is a simple headline generating game for parts of the media. Everyone slightly in the news at that moment was hacked, it was sytematic and very comprehensive. Pick any name from that time, they'll be on the list.

The thing about this particular name is it became the 'tipping point', or rather it allowed what wasn't a great concern to the public to snowball through the mainstream.


----------



## laptop (Nov 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> We've known for somewhile that picking out people who may have been hacked - including the subject of this thread - is a simple headline generating game for parts of the media.



Mediated by a press briefing from their lawyers at some appropriate moment after the Met get around to notifying the person whose phone has been hacked.

I seem to remember an estimate somewhere further up this thread that even with an expanded Operation Weeting team they were managing to call in fewer than 30 people a week, perhaps as few as 10 or 15. 5800/30 = 193 weeks = nearly 4 years to go


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 7, 2011)

I presume Weeting is a tiered operation; they'll be a level - or cadre - of officers that goes through an almost routine meeting with those hacked - extracting very little but performing a necessary function, and also specific lines of inquiry targetted at different aspects of News International, the political class, the Met itself etc. Then more officers and lines of inquiry looking at particular players, not least those formerly arrested. Mammoth and massivley complicated.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 7, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/07/news-world-investigator-spy-lawyers



> The News of the World hired a specialist private investigator to run covert surveillance on two of the lawyers representing phone-hacking victims as part of an operation to put pressure on them to stop their work.
> The investigator secretly videoed Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris as well as family members and associates. Evidence suggests this was part of an attempt to gather evidence for false smears about their private lives.
> The News of the World also took specialist advice in an attempt to injunct Lewis to prevent him representing the victims of hacking and attempted to persuade one of his former clients to sue him.


----------



## co-op (Nov 7, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> The thing about this particular name is it became the 'tipping point', or rather it allowed what wasn't a great concern to the public to snowball through the mainstream.



I'm fascinated by this step though. Why did this suddenly turn into a massive story when (nearly) all the material facts - ie that NI were up to systematic phone-hacking - had been known for years?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2011)

Quite simply because milly dowler was not a celebrity so not seen as fair game, and they actually potentially impacted on either the search or her families reactions/emotions/etc to their childs murder.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 7, 2011)

It is remarkable, though, that - just as an example - Rebekah Brooks had previously admitted criminal behaviour (buying information from police informants) in public, in front of a Parliamentary Select Committee and no one did a thing about it. Such was Murdoch's grip on the political class, the police and the media.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 7, 2011)

Did they hack John Terry?


----------



## Badgers (Nov 8, 2011)

Private investigators following lawyers?


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2011)

James Murdoch is going to be fucking _roasted_ on this.


----------



## Santino (Nov 8, 2011)

Paxman promised further revelations on Newsnight tonight.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 8, 2011)

editor said:


> James Murdoch is going to be fucking _roasted_ on this.





> A News International spokesperson said : "News International's enquiries have led the company to believe that Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris were subject to surveillance. While surveillance is not illegal, it was clearly deeply inappropriate in these circumstances. This action was not condoned by any current executive at the company."



It is gold isn't it?


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> Paxman promised further revelations on Newsnight tonight.


It's the gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 8, 2011)

I was just going to post exactly that.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 8, 2011)

> James Murdoch is preparing to concede in front of MPs that News Corporation should have taken further action earlier to investigate allegations that phone hacking was more widespread at the News of the World than the actions of a single rogue reporter.
> 
> *The News Corporation boss is to appear before the culture media and sport select committee on Thursday* ready to admit that more could have been done between 2007 and 2010 when first insiders and later rivalnewspapers said the illegal practice was widely deployed.



It will a good day to dig up bad news


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 8, 2011)

But, again, while inappropriate, distasteful and worse, nothing actually illegal...

You might even argue - from the pov of News International - that as Lewis and Harris had 'public profiles' (whatever that may be) it was legitimate and potentially_ in the public interest_ to explore their personal lives; any future legislation on privacy will have to include a public interest defence, and that defence might legitimise actions such as this. It would only become illegal if News International tried to manipulate, blackmail, etc.

We have to note, News International didn't publish anything about these two, and didn't approach these two.

Privacy/public interest is a friggin minefield, for sure.

And fwiw, this Committee is a self-aggrandising,  amateur fucking circus, they should shut up and let the Public inquiry do its job.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2011)

Harris suggested on radio five earlier that Mark Watson was 'under surveillance'.


----------



## Santino (Nov 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Harris suggested on radio five earlier that Mark Watson was 'under surveillance'.


The inoffensive, cider-advertising comedian?


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 8, 2011)

'under surveillance' is a lovely, evocative phrase. Far more interesting than the reality of some sweaty, middle-aged fat bloke following people around while trying to control his bladder.

But enough of my hobbies.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> The inoffensive, cider-advertising comedian?


You don't know about his _other_ side.

Tom Watson.


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2011)

For the umpteenth time, there is _no_ public interest defense for hacking.  That's why people are getting arrested.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 8, 2011)

We are talking about the 'surveillance' (and where that may lead) of two solicitors by the party they were, in the legal sense, opposing. Hacking is taken as read, this is about information gathering in the widest possible sense.


----------



## laptop (Nov 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> fwiw, this Committee is a self-aggrandising,  amateur fucking circus, they should shut up and let the Public inquiry do its job.



But:

1) the purpose of the Public Inquiry is to kick it all into the long grass

2) in contrast the Select Committee's sense of timing is a major reason why the story keeps building instead of going away

3) I live in hope that the SC is going to go after other tabloid bastards - when the time is right to keep the story building


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 8, 2011)

I'm not sure 'long grass' is that helpful when the  PI must, by definition of its extent, last at least as long as this Parliament. I suppose the terms could have been narrower - in order to report during this Parliament - but you can imagine the fuss if they tried that...

In relation to Tom Watson and that way-way-out-of-his-depth Chair, it's USA style grandstanding, surely. Having said that, Watson surely deserves his moment in the spotlight - he's certainly making sure he gets it.


----------



## laptop (Nov 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> that way-way-out-of-his-depth Chair...



I'm in a bind here: on principle, I must despise anyone who was PPS to Thatcher. And Whittingdale may _appear_ to bumble. But he's very, very sharp indeed and I want to like him. [/confessions]

I think Farrelly is underrated, too.


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 8, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/15644038
More shit for Murdoch to answer to


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 8, 2011)

laptop said:


> I'm in a bind here: on principle, I must despise anyone who was PPS to Thatcher. And Whittingdale may _appear_ to bumble. But he's very, very sharp indeed and I want to like him. [/confessions]
> 
> I think Farrelly is underrated, too.


The difficulty for me is they are not trained for this type of work, let alone professional inquisitors. Thus Whittingdale's significant gaff towards the end of the Murdoch appearance when he shut down Watson's really very interesting line of questioning, much to Watson's chagrin. He's not getting stuff in real time.

Plus, he has a poxy 2ii in Economics from UCL


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 9, 2011)

East Germany had the Stasi. We had news international.
This wasn't all about getting juicy stories to sell, it was also to gather information to help control and cajoul influential people in order to further the interests of Murdochs crime cartel.
That - to me is far worse then the profit driven muck racking - is a hugely corrupting influence at the heart of the body politic.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 9, 2011)

You should have gone straight to the Gestapo and be done with it.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 9, 2011)

When is Murdock Junior next in front of the parliamentary committee?


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 9, 2011)

Next week, and he's likely to be upstaged by a man who might have enough on Therea May for her to be forced to resign.


----------



## coltrane (Nov 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Next week, and he's likely to be upstaged by a man who might have enough on Therea May for her to be forced to resign.



James Murdoch's next appearance before the select committee supposed to be at 11am on Thu 10th Nov.

I agree with your frustration about the people asking the questions, there should be a paid barrister to ask succinct and pointed questions. The questions asked are long winded waffle fests - the honourable exception has been Tom Watson whose questions rarely went  over a dozen words when the Murdochs last appeared before the select committee.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 9, 2011)

coltrane said:


> James Murdoch's next appearance before the select committee supposed to be at 11am on Thu 10th Nov.



Ta, I thought it was this week.



coltrane said:


> I agree with your frustration about the people asking the questions, there should be a paid barrister to ask succinct and pointed questions. The questions asked are long winded waffle fests - the honourable exception has been Tom Watson whose questions rarely went over a dozen words when the Murdochs last appeared before the select committee.



There is something about Britain in that we somehow accept amateurs doing things for which professionals would do a better job. Hmm Now that I have said that I can't think of too many other examples! :-(


----------



## Santino (Nov 9, 2011)

Yes, what we need is more lawyers.


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 9, 2011)

In this specific instance, yes. Yes we do.

Preferably angry ones.

Where's Atticus Finch when you need him?


----------



## Badgers (Nov 10, 2011)

I can't watch the fun today sadly, will be travelling. Am sure it will be on a radio station so will have a listen.


----------



## coltrane (Nov 10, 2011)

Murdoch Jr on now on

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9389


----------



## gabi (Nov 10, 2011)

This is a masterclass in dodging blame. I doubt they can pin anything on him. Relying on passing the buck to his executives.


----------



## gabi (Nov 10, 2011)

OUCH!!! Killer blow


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Nov 10, 2011)

So he agreed to pay a large amount of damages on the advice of his lawyers who said NOTW would lose the case but didn't really ask why...mmmm...!


----------



## gabi (Nov 10, 2011)

Watson fucked up right at the end there, calling him a mafia boss. Petty.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2011)

well, he has been up all night, playing Portal 2, according to his Twitter feed.


----------



## krink (Nov 10, 2011)

watson is determined to have them. good stuff. radio 5 just said scotland yard had recieved millions of emails from news international! good luck to whoever is searching through them...


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2011)

gabi said:


> Watson fucked up right at the end there, calling him a mafia boss. Petty.



imo Watson is overrated. Just because you loathe all Murdocks and the News of the World and believe they are "rotten to the core" is not on its own enough.


----------



## gabi (Nov 10, 2011)

he had just landed what could be the killer blow and then makes a childish insult about the mafia. stupid imo.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2011)

nah, he was spot on. NI is a criminal cartel.


----------



## gabi (Nov 10, 2011)

im actually looking forward to Mensch. presumably she'll be last again.


----------



## peterkro (Nov 10, 2011)

I have no liking for politicians in general, Mensch however is in a category all of her own.I think if I got close enough a life sentence would be worth it.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2011)

peterkro said:


> I have no liking for politicians in general, Mensch however is in a category all of her own.I think if I got close enough a life sentence would be worth it.


what a spectacularly stupid post, well done.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 10, 2011)

Are they actually going to be able to pin anything on him? Can't watch live but reading the Guardian and BBC text feeds it seems like it's a lot of stuff he can _claim_ he didn't know about, it happened without his knowledge, he was as shocked as everyone else, etc...

All seems a bit of a dance around a lot of smoke.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2011)

Lord Camomile said:


> ... All seems a bit of a dance around a lot of smoke.



My thoughts also ..


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2011)

he's didn't rule out shutting the sun if it's proved that they hacked phones


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 10, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> he's didn't rule out shutting the sun if it's proved that they hacked phones



The lawyers sitting behind him did not like that one bit!

Anyone heard of Operation Millipede before? None of the hacks on twitter seem to know what it is.


----------



## gabi (Nov 10, 2011)

it's all hearsay basically. he's off the legal hook again. altho i doubt he is with his shareholders.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 10, 2011)

gabi said:


> it's all hearsay basically. he's off the legal hook again.


Well, exactly.

Have the Murdochs been canny enough to ensure there's no paper trail, or have they just been lucky it hasn't been found yet. So far there's a lot going on underneath them but they're still able to claim plausible deniability.

Well, deniability, anyway...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2011)

wasn't it "vicarious liability"?


----------



## laptop (Nov 10, 2011)

And the lawyers hit back:



> A former News International lawyer has accused company chairman James Murdoch of giving "disingenuous" evidence to the Commons media committee.
> 
> Mr Murdoch repeatedly told MPs he had not been made aware of details suggesting phone hacking at the News of the World went beyond a lone reporter.
> 
> ...



They're *lawyers*, James. They remain expensive lawyers, and probably not stupid. Do you know how much they cost when they were _your_ lawyers?

Accusing expensive lawyers of lying will be as expensive as a very expensive thing, James


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 10, 2011)

Anyone want to argue it wasn't the predicted self-serving, inept circus?


----------



## stavros (Nov 10, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> nah, he was spot on. NI is a criminal cartel.



But in the dramatisations you kind of want the upcoming boss, be it Michael, Tony or whoever, to succeed as an antihero. I don't think the same can be said of James, and Rupert is several levels of evil above Vito or Uncle Junior.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 10, 2011)

Calling him a mafia boss is disrespectful to mafia bosses everywhere. He's more like the head of a paedophile ring.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 11, 2011)

I missed it. What happened?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2011)

The News Of The World got caught hacking into Milly Dowler's mobile phone, as well as dead soldiers' families phones and, even more shockingly, famous peoples' too. There was a mighty storm about it, which resulted in the NOTW being shut down and Rupert and James Murdoch being hauled in for questioning by a House Of Commons Select Committee. Shit is still going down.


----------



## gabi (Nov 11, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I missed it. What happened?



Murdoch gave a master-class in deflecting blame. For 2 and a half hours.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...s-hole-in-the-fabric-of-honesty-201111114529/

In all seriousness it was quite a performance - i'd be bricking it - the whole layout of the room and format is clearly designed to intimidate.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 11, 2011)

the layout of the room is your basic enquiry room in portcullis house tbf, they're all like that.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 11, 2011)

link to the video and transcript of smithers, i mean murdoch giving his "evidence" yesterday

http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...ort-committee/news/james-murdoch-10-november/


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 11, 2011)

Or even

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngGgcnJL5G4


----------



## two sheds (Nov 11, 2011)

Did they ask him how NI came to pay Gordon Taylor £700,000 specifically because the lawyers said that there was evidence of widespread illegal activity. Did Murdoch claim that he didn't authorise it, or did he just make the payment on the nod without even looking at the legal advice?


----------



## Santino (Nov 11, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Did they ask him how NI came to pay Gordon Taylor £700,000 specifically because the lawyers said that there was evidence of widespread illegal activity. Did Murdoch claim that he didn't authorise it, or did he just make the payment on the nod without even looking at the legal advice?


I have no recollection if he was asked that.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> I have no recollection if he was asked that.



who?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 11, 2011)

teqniq said:


> who?



what was the question again?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 11, 2011)

To sum up:

James Murdoch was nowhere near the grassy knoll, he did not have sexual relations with that woman, and he definitely thought those things really were shower blocks.


----------



## Santino (Nov 12, 2011)

Only the Daily Mail but:



> Police investigating phone-hacking at the
> News of the World have recovered a
> series of ‘bombshell’ emails which they
> believe takes the inquiry to ‘a new level’ .
> ...



dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060569/Phone-hacking-James-Murdoch-questioned-bombshell-emails-found.html


----------



## strung out (Nov 12, 2011)

james murdoch arrested apparently


----------



## strung out (Nov 12, 2011)

that's according to sky news btw


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 12, 2011)

@SkyNewsBiz BREAKING: James Murdoch arrested over phone-hacking claims. Questioned at Paddington Green police station


----------



## strung out (Nov 12, 2011)

and that tweet's been deleted now. fuck knows what's going on.


----------



## Santino (Nov 12, 2011)

Oh please...


----------



## weltweit (Nov 12, 2011)

I caught a bit of a feature on Tom Watson on BBC R4 this evening - at first I wondered if he had died!!


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 12, 2011)

> Police investigating phone-hacking at the News of the World have recovered a series of ‘bombshell’ emails which they believe takes the inquiry to ‘a new level’.
> The emails were among tens of thousands held by the newspaper at a data storage facility in India.
> Police are believed to want to question News International chief James Murdoch and former Sun and News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks about their contents.


Daily Mail


​


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 13, 2011)

Peter Preston quite eloquently - not to mention gleefully_ - _jumps up and down on the Murdoch carcass:


> There's the tragedy for the son and the family, but worst of all for Rupert. Those who didn't quite believe it in the summer must surely acknowledge it now: James Murdoch can never sit at his father's desk. The whole succession scenario is bust. The Murdoch hegemony stops here. No sentient shareholder is going to let the family run things hands-on any longer. Just sit back and cash the dividends.
> 
> There may be more rumours about a _Sun on Sunday_ come the dawn of 2012, but forget them. We can't even be sure there'll be a _Sun_ if James's readiness to shut it (should more hacking be discovered) is tested. There won't be any clear, calm, imminent moment when, all passion spent, the _Bun_ seems wholesome again. Trinity Mirror, its profits bulwarked by the greatest ever stroke of luck, can carry on smiling. The murk of 2011 will just linger on (oozing into view every time Tom Watson mentions a new private eye).
> 
> Those who like strong medicine and stronger penalties against malfeasance may care to count the payback thus far. For Murdoch: no heir, no _News of the World_, some $90m (£56m) gone, a reputation and an influence lost, a family at war. For James: no glowing future. For many of the rest of the gang: no jobs and possibly no freedom either. Retribution doesn't come crueller than this. Hacking can damage your health, wealth, your nearest and dearest. Hacking has sundered the biggest media empire in the globe: and many things, including Wapping and, less joyously, the papers that remain, can never be quite the same again.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/13/phone-hacking-james-murdoch-comment?newsfeed=true


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 13, 2011)

Geoffery Robinson very sensibly agrees with the general sentiment here - and makes a very strong point:


> James Murdoch – the world's most forgetful manager – was lightly grilled this week by a "parliamentary select committee" of MPs selected only by virtue of their inability at cross-examination. It was a lengthy reprise of "Yes you did" (know about all the illegal hacking) and "No, I didn't" (because my editor, my lawyers and my executives failed to tell me the truth).





> So what happens now? *The select committee is an amateur exercise of little legal consequence – it will now write its report, although under UK contempt law it will be severely limited in its comments in case they prejudice impending trials*. These trials are likely to be further delayed because News International has deluged Scotland Yard with 300m emails, which will take the police years just to read.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/11/james-murdoch-forgetful-manager?newsfeed=true


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 13, 2011)

sleaterkinney said:


> @SkyNewsBiz BREAKING: James Murdoch arrested over phone-hacking claims. Questioned at Paddington Green police station



http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/james-murdoch-arrested-tweet-taken-260850



> After sending shockwaves through the social media sphere Saturday night, Sky News has taken down a tweet on @SkyNewsBiz reporting that *James Murdoch *had been arrested, saying the feed had most likely been hacked.


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 13, 2011)

strung out said:


> james murdoch arrested apparently


Bollix,got me hopes up there for a mo


----------



## stavros (Nov 13, 2011)

Santino said:


> Only the Daily Mail but:
> 
> dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060569/Phone-hacking-James-Murdoch-questioned-bombshell-emails-found.html



Hmm, is Dacre turning against the Digger too? Like just about everyone bar the Graun, the Fail have been relatively quiet on Wappinggate. If 'Middle England' of the Mail's fantasies turns on NI, it could be their one good deed for the century.


----------



## laptop (Nov 13, 2011)

stavros said:


> Hmm, is Dacre turning against the Digger too? Like just about everyone bar the Graun, the Fail have been relatively quiet on Wappinggate. If 'Middle England' of the Mail's fantasies turns on NI, it could be their one good deed for the century.



He appears to be - but not as strongly as he attacked the _Guardian_ and _Independent_ in his presentation to Lord Leveson.

This could be a high-risk position for Dacre, given what I expect to come out about the _Fail_'s  use of private investigators...


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 13, 2011)

stavros said:


> Hmm, is Dacre turning against the Digger too? Like just about everyone bar the Graun, the Fail have been relatively quiet on Wappinggate. If 'Middle England' of the Mail's fantasies turns on NI, it could be their one good deed for the century.



The mirror weren't tbf.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> The mirror weren't tbf.



Independent neither.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 13, 2011)

Stavros has a point though - traditionally, these bastards have a code of not shitting on their own, presumably because they've each got so many skeletons we'd never hear the end of it.
That code's dead now, thanks to this.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> The mirror weren't tbf.


Operation motorman identified the mirror and the sunday mirror as being up to their necks in this sort of stuff - as amongst the worst offenders actually.

edit: oops, misread post,thought you were saying they were clean.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2011)

i misread it too, i was about to say even the guardian have hacked phones. all of them have done it.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 13, 2011)

nah I meant that they werent keeping quiet on the suns antics, regardless of their own!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 13, 2011)

on that subject, does anyone know whether steve whittamore or any other PIs have been jailed for illegally accessing info (by dint of hacking or bribery) since the Milly Dowler hacking story broke? or what the situation on them is?


----------



## two sheds (Nov 14, 2011)

I've not seen anyone else cover the Fail story - were they perhaps rehashing old information?

And from the US: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201111120004?frontpage

I've not watched the vid but "*Roy Greenslade Tells Media Matters Radio: "Every Single Member Of The Parliamentary Committee Investigating [Phone Hacking] Were Followed By Private Eyes And/Or Members Of [News of the World] Staff"*

Surely that has to be some form o Contempt of Parliament. I wonder whether anyone will recall who ordered that. Some of the comments are interesting. (I like the way they indent asides from people, too. )

(And bloody hell Roy Greenslade must be getting on, it has to be 50 years since he starred in the Goons.)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2011)

That was Wallace Greenslade...


----------



## two sheds (Nov 14, 2011)

Ah his brother then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2011)

laptop said:


> He appears to be - but not as strongly as he attacked the _Guardian_ and _Independent_ in his presentation to Lord Leveson.
> 
> This could be a high-risk position for Dacre, given what I expect to come out about the _Fail_'s use of private investigators...



Dacre may be a total and utter camel cunt, but he's not stupid. I suspect he's already worked out a damage-limitation strategy for the _Mail_, and I further suspect it's one that'll be tied to him taking the hit for any _Mail_ wrongdoing by retiring (which he's been planning, but has repeatedly put on hold for the last 3-4 years). I may be wrong, but Dacre, as an individual, is fanatically-committed to the _Mail_ titles, far more so than most of his contemporaries.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Stavros has a point though - traditionally, these bastards have a code of not shitting on their own, presumably because they've each got so many skeletons we'd never hear the end of it.
> That code's dead now, thanks to this.



That's a very good thing, if it's true. Perhaps the print and broadcast media might be a little more concerned about their own probity if they had the worry of a competitor publishing a scoop about their dodgy practices.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I've not seen anyone else cover the Fail story - were they perhaps rehashing old information?
> 
> And from the US: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201111120004?frontpage
> 
> ...



Contempt of Parliament would only pertain within the environs of prliament, so if PIs were entering parliamentary buildings to follow committee members (or search their offices) that would apply. Outside of parliament you'd have to actually assemble a case to show beyond reasonable doubt that the committee members were being followed for a specific committee-related reason, which is where the going gets hard, and plausible deniability takes over.


----------



## laptop (Nov 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps the print and broadcast media might be a little more concerned about their own probity if they had the worry of a competitor publishing a scoop about their dodgy practices.



Which is precisely what Nick Davies did in the _Guardian_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2011)

laptop said:


> Which is precisely what Nick Davies did in the _Guardian_



The problem there being that Davies' work was the exception to practice, rather than the rule. If we could expect such behaviour from all journos across the media, I'd have a little more faith in the supposed self-regulation that gets harked on about.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 14, 2011)

what is a "dodgy practice" - either it's legal or it's illegal, no?

All this drama queen nonsense from Watson and others about 'surveillance' is a tad precious- as best I know, unless there was intent to use information gained (say, in order to coerce or intimidate), an individual has civil remedies, like .. for example, harrassment. Following people around is not in itself an offence.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2011)

Following people is dodgy. I'm sure you've been told this before.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 14, 2011)

Ah yes, that well known legal concept.

If I've been told before, I'm sure it's somewhere in your little surveillance notebook.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> what is a "dodgy practice" - either it's legal or it's illegal, no?
> 
> All this drama queen nonsense from Watson and others about 'surveillance' is a tad precious- as best I know, unless there was intent to use information gained (say, in order to coerce or intimidate), an individual has civil remedies, like .. for example, harrassment. Following people around is not in itself an offence.



If we're saying "either it's legal or illegal" then we're defining the law and the situation as issues that can be looked at purely in black-and-white terms. That isn't always the case.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Ah yes, that well known legal concept.
> 
> If I've been told before, I'm sure it's somewhere in your little surveillance notebook.


Who mentioned legality? All good fun until you're caught eh?

Amazing this moral space you live in.It's ok it if it's legal. Nothing dodgy could be legal. No motivations, no actions, nothing can be dodgy if legal. Lucky that you're a dodgy cunt eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Ah yes, that well known legal concept.
> 
> If I've been told before, I'm sure it's somewhere in your little surveillance notebook.



Does the issue reside in the following, or to what the following pertains to? I'd say it's the latter, and that you're either missing the point or avoiding it. I could follow you, and the act of following wouldn't be dodgy, but if I were accumulating information on your movements, habits, the odd way you walk etc for purposes of finding something I could use to smear you or use as leverage on you, then there you have your "dodgy practice".


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 14, 2011)

The problem you have is 'dodgy' is meaninglessly subjective, whether in idle conversation or before a court e.g. your (above) explanation/justification is 'dodgy' - then we get into the panto of no it isn't, yes it is.

The law, however ... is the law.

tbf, I think we've prob all got better things to do than argue the toss about 'dodgy'.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> what is a "dodgy practice" - either it's legal or it's illegal, no?
> 
> All this drama queen nonsense from Watson and others about 'surveillance' is a tad precious- as best I know, unless there was intent to use information gained (say, in order to coerce or intimidate), an individual has civil remedies, like .. for example, harrassment. Following people around is not in itself an offence.


 
You're defending this alleged surveillance then are you? Good luck with that one ....


----------



## stavros (Nov 14, 2011)

I know they covered it a bit, but the Mirror and particularly the Indie seemed disappointingly content to let the Graun lead and not really push it (I speak as an Indie reader). The only other mainstream publication delving properly seemed to be Private Eye, but that's to be expected.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> what is a "dodgy practice" - either it's legal or it's illegal, no?



Oh, I wish I lived in a black & white world like yours, not. 



> See the happy moron,
> He doesn't give a damn.
> I wish I were a moron,
> My God! Perhaps I am!


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 14, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> You're defending this alleged surveillance then are you? Good luck with that one ....


To state the very obv, I'm pointing out that 'dodgy' is a worthless, wishy-washy term in the context of any meaningful analysis or discussion.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Dacre may be a total and utter camel cunt, but he's not stupid. I suspect he's already worked out a damage-limitation strategy for the _Mail_, and I further suspect it's one that'll be tied to him taking the hit for any _Mail_ wrongdoing by retiring (which he's been planning, but has repeatedly put on hold for the last 3-4 years). I may be wrong, but Dacre, as an individual, is fanatically-committed to the _Mail_ titles, far more so than most of his contemporaries.


private eye has tended to agree with this narrative as well.


----------



## elbows (Nov 14, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> To state the very obv, I'm pointing out that 'dodgy' is a worthless, wishy-washy term in the context of any meaningful analysis or discussion.



No it isn't, because such analysis and discussions do not have to be along some clearly defined lines, especially when it comes to moral issues. There are a range of press activities that are fair game now that we have entered a phase where the moral failings of the press are wide open to be pick over in public. The can of worms is open, and the worms will not be judged purely along the lines of legal & technical definitions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> To state the very obv, I'm pointing out that 'dodgy' is a worthless, wishy-washy term in the context of any meaningful analysis or discussion.



It's more accurate to say that the term is worthless *if* it is taken out of context. Taken in context it's a sometimes-convenient shorthand.


----------



## killer b (Nov 16, 2011)

the eye seems to be speculating that kelvin mackenzie is being drawn in.

please let it be so.

http://twitpic.com/7eo7iu


----------



## magneze (Nov 16, 2011)

+1


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 16, 2011)

I take it by "drawn in" you don't mean hacked and recently notified of such by the Met?


----------



## stavros (Nov 16, 2011)

killer b said:


> the eye seems to be speculating that kelvin mackenzie is being drawn in.
> 
> please let it be so.
> 
> http://twitpic.com/7eo7iu



They're trying to slowly expose Piers "Morgan" Moron too.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 16, 2011)

Surprised no one's mentioned Neville 'Onan the Barbarian' Thurlbeck's account in the _Press Gazette_ - basically claims he wasn't the Neville of 'For Nev' email infamy; that he had evidence to support this which he showed to Crone and Myler; that Myler and Crone didn't pass this info up the food chain; that Brooks and Murdoch the Lesser didn't know what was going on; and that he had passed his 'dossier' onto Watson.

Terribly written piece, and doesn't really seem to make a whole lot of sense (I have a head cold, though).


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 16, 2011)

killer b said:


> the eye seems to be speculating that kelvin mackenzie is being drawn in.
> 
> please let it be so.
> 
> http://twitpic.com/7eo7iu


Fingers crossed,prayers said,left testicle being offered up etc.


----------



## elbows (Nov 16, 2011)

Lawyer David Sherborne dropped some bombs today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/16/leveson-inquiry-hugh-grant



> Sherborne said that "Whilst Mr Grant was appearing on Question Time, discussing the closure of the NoW, Rupert Murdoch and press standards generally, she received a barrage of telephone calls from a withheld number from someone who managed to get it from somewhere, and when they finally answered she was threatened in the most menacing terms, which should reverberate around this inquiry: 'Tell Hugh Grant he must shut the fuck up'. Unsurprisingly she was too stressed to call the police."


 


> Sherborne also told the inquiry that the parents of Madeleine McCann "begged for restraint" from blatant intrusion into their private lives by the News of the World.
> He claimed that the now-defunct tabloid newspaper published Kate McCann's private letters to her missing daughter without consent and even before her husband Gerry had seen them.
> Charlotte Church will also give evidence as a core participant to the inquiry.
> Sherborne told the high court that Church had been hounded incessantly by photographers looking for a scoop – and as recently as a week ago was the subject of a "complete fabrication" published in one unnamed newspaper.
> He claimed that Church's mother attempted suicide shortly after the News of the World published a story in 2005 alleging that her father was having an affair. "This is the real, brutally real impact this kind of journalism has," Sherborne said.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 19, 2011)

Former Motorman lead investigator/ex-Special Branch detective/hackgate whistleblower Alec Owens raided by police today.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ed-the-dirty-tricks-of-the-press-6264591.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...News-World-journalists-computers-grinder.html



> ...Mr Owens contacted Lord Justice Leveson about his concerns over the way the matter was handled and is due to give evidence in person to the public inquiry on media standards on 30 November. Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner at the time of Operation Motorman, will appear before the inquiry the next day.
> 
> At 7.25am yesterday, two police officers from Wilmslow, Cheshire, armed with with a search warrant, knocked on Mr Owens' door. They demanded documents and electronic files and asked him to come to a police station to be questioned under caution.
> 
> ...



Plus it appears that _New Of The World_ computer hard drives were shredded last Autumn.


----------



## laptop (Nov 20, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Former Motorman lead investigator/ex-Special Branch detective/hackgate whistleblower Alec Owens raided by police today.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ed-the-dirty-tricks-of-the-press-6264591.html



That's scary... what else is there to come out from Motorman that (some) cops want to suppress, then?

Oddly, can't find the Guardian reporting this; not even a catch-up story.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 21, 2011)

> Sally Dowler said the hacking by a private detective had given the couple false hope over their missing daughter. Describing the moment she could access the previously-full voicemail she said: "I just jumped and said: 'She's picked up her voicemails... she's alive'."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15812762


----------



## two sheds (Nov 21, 2011)

Yes but in the NI lawyers' words ... let's not have a witch hunt, eh?


----------



## laptop (Nov 21, 2011)

two sheds said:


> Yes but in the NI lawyers' words ... let's not have a witch hunt, eh?



How come NI is borrowing from the Trot songbook?

"You said something I disagree with. It's a witch-hunt!!!"​


----------



## gabi (Nov 21, 2011)

Hugh Grant is playing himself to a T..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167512.stm

Bumbling 'loveable' fool


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 21, 2011)

not.


----------



## yardbird (Nov 21, 2011)

He makes many valid points.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2011)

yardbird said:


> He makes many valid points.


Indeed. You can dislike Hugh Grant for a number of reasons. But not this.


----------



## TheDave (Nov 21, 2011)

Literally tits and filth are the articles topping the Mail website at the moment. No mention of the Leveson Inquiry. Hmm? Quelle surprise!


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 21, 2011)

editor said:


> Indeed. You can dislike Hugh Grant for a number of reasons. But not this.



Whilst I agree his privacy has been grossly invaded and he has every right to be pissed off it's remarkably difficult to give a flying fuck about him to be honest.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 21, 2011)

watching Milly Dowler's family on BBC news - still shocking that someone deleted calls on her phone leading them to think she was still alive - Mulcaire denying it was him though.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 21, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Whilst I agree his privacy has been grossly invaded and he has every right to be pissed off it's remarkably difficult to give a flying fuck about him to be honest.



I don't give a flying fuck about him, but if can help to fuck over News Int' & the Daily Mail & General Trust I am interested & more than happy to support him in doing that.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 21, 2011)

marty21 said:


> watching Milly Dowler's family on BBC news - still shocking that someone deleted calls on her phone leading them to think she was still alive - Mulcaire denying it was him though.



Yeah, the suggestion is that Mulcaire was some sort of 'gatekeeper' of pin numbers, that he handed over to members of the press that then went on to use them, sort of shits on News Int' even more, doesn't it?


----------



## stavros (Nov 21, 2011)

I wanted to hear Dacre's unedited response to Grant's accusations. I suspect it would've made the opening of Four Weddings... seem like soft family entertainment.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 21, 2011)

marty21 said:


> watching Milly Dowler's family on BBC news - still shocking that someone deleted calls on her phone leading them to think she was still alive - Mulcaire denying it was him though.



Fucking unthinkable the anguish this caused to Milly's family 

Newsthump had it spot on, "Al Qaeda condems News of the World"


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 21, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> I don't give a flying fuck about him, but if can help to fuck over News Int' & the Daily Mail & General Trust I am interested & more than happy to support him in doing that.



More a means to an end, fair enough, every bit helps I suppose. That said I hope he disappears forever after this.


----------



## gabi (Nov 21, 2011)

Hugh Grant's agony is currently the lead news story on BBC News 24.

While Egypt Revolution 2.0 is kicking off.

I'm glad I don't pay a license fee.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 23, 2011)

More stirrings in Oz over Murdochs substantial Australian empire.



> Australian police are investigating a former senator's allegations that an executive from Rupert Murdoch's News Limited offered him favourable newspaper coverage and "a special relationship" in return for voting against government legislation.
> Bill O'Chee made the allegations in a nine-page statement to police and they were published on Wednesday by Fairfax Media newspapers, rivals of News Corp's Australian subsidiary.
> The newspapers reported that an unnamed executive of News Ltd asked O'Chee during a lunch on 13 June 1998 to vote against his conservative government's legislation on the creation of digital TV in Australia. The news group stood to profit from the legislation failing



more - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/23/murdoch-news-corp-senator-bribe


----------



## Dan U (Nov 23, 2011)

bingo!

James Murdoch resigns from board of directors for the sun and times

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-murdoch-quits-the-boards-of-sun-and-times.do

Edited for accuracy


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2011)

Just for papers mind.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 23, 2011)

This made me smile yesterday. Talking about Milly Dowler's phone:


> The private detective's solicitor, Sarah Webb, said "... [Mulcaire] confirms that he did not delete messages and had no reason to do so," she added in a statement.


It's nice to have that "confirmed" by the honest broker himself.

And making space for new messages by deleting old messages - in the hope of getting a headline from what the newer messages say - would obv. not be any kind of reason.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 23, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Just for papers mind.



BskyB meeting is next week i think. The cash cow


----------



## Asriel (Nov 23, 2011)

Apparently James Murdoch had stepped down as director of News International subsidiaries.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 23, 2011)

Asriel said:


> Apparently James Murdoch had stepped down as director of News International subsidiaries.



Resigned as director of the companies that publish The Times, The Sunday Times, and the Sun. This happened in September though and I think he is still chairman. Might be wrong?


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 23, 2011)

This is brilliant, again.   The loss of face finishes James I think and hopefully there can be charges too.

If Mulcaire didn't delete the messages, and I say this with no disrespect to the Dowler family at all, it's delicious...someone *has* to carry the can for that one, better someone much higher up than Mulcaire.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 24, 2011)

another arrest. from a grun live blog...



> This morning, Thursday, 24 November officers from Operation Tuleta arrested a 52-year-old man [1] on suspicion of Computer Misuse Act offences.
> The man is currently in custody at a Thames Valley Police station.
> Operation Tuleta is investigating a number of allegations regarding breach of privacy, received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) since January 2011, which fell outside the remit of Operation Weeting, including computer hacking.​


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 24, 2011)

As much as I appalled by what this enquiry is revealing I'm also appalled by the millions of people who bought this shit. Deep, down everyone knew it was wrong. If you are still reading a paper that vilified the landlord of Jo Yeates, or the McCanns, or regularly serves you lies about asylum seekers you are part of the problem.


----------



## gabi (Nov 24, 2011)

It's also worth pointing out that the NoTW did produce some very useful investigative journalism (cricket fixing, fergie selling access to andrew etc).

This is a dangerous time for press freedom.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 24, 2011)

gabi said:


> It's also worth pointing out that the NoTW did produce some very useful investigative journalism (cricket fixing, fergie selling access to andrew etc).
> 
> This is a dangerous time for press freedom.



I don't often find myself in agreement with your posts, but you are bang on the spot with this one.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 24, 2011)

gabi said:


> It's also worth pointing out that the NoTW did produce some very useful investigative journalism (cricket fixing, fergie selling access to andrew etc).
> 
> This is a dangerous time for press freedom.


Both the examples you cite have clear public interest dimensions, and would therfore be excluded from any right-to-privacy legislation.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 24, 2011)

gabi said:


> It's also worth pointing out that the NoTW did produce some very useful investigative journalism (cricket fixing, fergie selling access to andrew etc).
> 
> This is a dangerous time for press freedom.



Underwhelming. Cricket a bit whiffy? The Royal Family self serving privilege? It's hardly 'All the President's Men'.

What next, Bear shits in Wood?

The balance is hopelessly out of kilter. It must be possible to construct laws which allow the powerful to be brought to account without allowing the demolition of private individuals for little more than sport.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 24, 2011)

gabi said:


> It's also worth pointing out that the NoTW did produce some very useful investigative journalism (cricket fixing, fergie selling access to andrew etc).
> 
> This is a dangerous time for press freedom.



Underwhelming. Cricket a bit whiffy? The Royal Family self serving privilege? It's hardly 'All the President's Men'.

What next, Bear shits in Wood?

The balance is hopelessly out of kilter. It must be possible to construct laws which allow the powerful to be brought to account without allowing the demolition of private individuals for little more than sport.


----------



## chazegee (Nov 24, 2011)

The guardians coming out of this looking like a saint.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 24, 2011)

It appears to have respected reasonable boundaries is all.


----------



## chazegee (Nov 24, 2011)

All relative innit.


----------



## newbie (Nov 24, 2011)

chazegee said:


> The guardians coming out of this looking like a saint.


not according to the Times, which made a big thing today of a G apology for a story claiming that the Sun had doorstepped one the Leveson lawyers. Much high horsery about how the apology should have been on the front page and general finger pointing about shoddy journalism.

ps I read it in a coffee shop, just for the record, like.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Nov 29, 2011)

Ooh, blimey - have to admit that I've haven't heard about this angle on the whole thing before (and tbh, I haven't been looking so much at this thread, lately): http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/28/peter-hain-computer-private-investigators

What would be the News Of The World's "agenda" be in getting hold of sensitive Northern Ireland info, I wonder?  Speculation:  making out Labour to be "pro-IRA"?  Potential de-facto blackmail against Hain and Co?  Ensuring that any hacked info would "accidentally" fall into the hands of the more "respectable" Times?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 29, 2011)

When 15 Charlote Church was asked to wave her substnatial fee for singing at Rupe's birthday party in return for a promise of 'favourable coverage'. The clear implication is that if she didn't they would dip her in the shit.







'If you do a favour for me, then I do a favour for you'


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Nov 29, 2011)

^^^And then went ahead and did the "not long till she's 16 now!" thing anyway.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 29, 2011)




----------



## Ted Striker (Nov 29, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Ooh, blimey - have to admit that I've haven't heard about this angle on the whole thing before (and tbh, I haven't been looking so much at this thread, lately): http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/28/peter-hain-computer-private-investigators
> 
> What would be the News Of The World's "agenda" be in getting hold of sensitive Northern Ireland info, I wonder? Speculation: making out Labour to be "pro-IRA"? Potential de-facto blackmail against Hain and Co? Ensuring that any hacked info would "accidentally" fall into the hands of the more "respectable" Times?



No idea, but seems odd that the guy they try and snoop 'should' have (one of) the most secure/protected communication systems ofr necessary reasons.

Guardian guy (Nick Davies) on today has done very well. Next up is McMullan though, should be entertaining...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 29, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Next up is McMullan though, should be entertaining...



Straight off with the lulz: "Funnily enough I was a trainee with Michael Gove. I was top of my class. He was down near the bottom."

And then making good use of the platform to have a moan about his local fire safety officer not allowing him to let out the rooms on the top floor of his pub. "Let's stick to your journalistic experience, please, Mr McMullen..." "No, no, this is important!"


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 29, 2011)

On Muckymullen, of its type, this was genius:


----------



## two sheds (Nov 29, 2011)

I'm sort of wondering what the point of the Leveson enquiry is, apart from trying to postpone any action and defuse the situation so that the journos don't get sent down. Why not just have criminal investigations and trials? It sounds like plenty of existing laws have been broken.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 29, 2011)

two sheds said:


> I'm sort of wondering what the point of the Leveson enquiry is, apart from trying to postpone any action and defuse the situation so that the journos don't get sent down. Why not just have criminal investigations and trials? It sounds like plenty of existing laws have been broken.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveson_Inquiry#Scope_and_process


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Straight off with the lulz: "Funnily enough I was a trainee with Michael Gove. I was top of my class. He was down near the bottom."
> 
> And then making good use of the platform to have a moan about his local fire safety officer not allowing him to let out the rooms on the top floor of his pub. "Let's stick to your journalistic experience, please, Mr McMullen..." "No, no, this is important!"


I <3 paul mcmullen.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 29, 2011)

Is there a McMullan "toilet suite" facepalm internet meme graphic yet AND IF NOT WHY NOT?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 29, 2011)

"Privacy is the space bad people need to do bad things in. Privacy is for paedos, no one else needs it, it's evil."


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 29, 2011)

"I absolutely loved giving chase to celebrities. Before Diana died it was such good fun"; Paul McMullan


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 29, 2011)

TBF, when asked what it was like _after_ Diana's death, he said that was fun as well, and the only real change was that _NOTW_ togs were told to report for duty in the morning in a suit


----------



## teqniq (Nov 29, 2011)

What is it with this guy? He seems to have no concept of exactly how dreadful he sounds. Very entertaining in a ghastly sort of way.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Nov 29, 2011)

"I'm a sleazy, amoral guy who'd shoot his own Mum for a scoop....but why is everyone having a go at me?  It's just not fair!"


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 29, 2011)

He only got paid £60K a year - ah diddums
he's astoundingly inarticulate, considering he's supposed to be a journalist


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2011)

teqniq said:


> He seems to have no concept of exactly how dreadful he sounds.


do you really think that?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 29, 2011)

i think he must be relishing in appalling everyone


----------



## gabi (Nov 29, 2011)

the womanontheleft is looking quite fetching today


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 29, 2011)

it cut out at a very inopportune moment just then


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2011)

is this going to be on watch again, or will i have to make do with whatever edited highlights the news gives us tonight?


----------



## teqniq (Nov 29, 2011)

killer b said:


> do you really think that?



Not sure, but sometimes he gives the impression of that, heh, maybe it's just me being naive.


----------



## gabi (Nov 29, 2011)

this is extraordinary


----------



## gabi (Nov 29, 2011)

killer b said:


> is this going to be on watch again, or will i have to make do with whatever edited highlights the news gives us tonight?



i imagine the news will be giving this quite some extended coverage. he's spilling the beans good n proper here.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 29, 2011)

i like the way that the former features editor of NOTW says that even he wouldn't have bought the paper because of the nasty shit being printed.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 29, 2011)

If you need it - Muckymullen live:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167512.stm


----------



## gabi (Nov 29, 2011)

oh dear. hacking milly's phone was good journalism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> 'If you do a favour for me, then I do a favour for you'



Caption should be either:
"Like Bill & Ted said, 'be excellent to one another', or else you'll sleep with the fishes!"
or
"...and on air guitar, Mr. Marlon Brando!!!"


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 29, 2011)

This McMullan testimony is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen. The man is not well, not well at all.


----------



## gabi (Nov 29, 2011)

It was bonkers. I think he's just got to the point where he longer cares. Not sure if he's unwell.

A properly bizarre man though.


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 29, 2011)

He must have some sort of mental condition, absolutely bizarre, justifying every low down thing he has done.  With his attitude i can see how he got on in the trade for so long.  His contempt for the police was amusing though.


----------



## gabi (Nov 29, 2011)

He's got a fair point there in some ways. I suspect there are some more talented detectives working for NI than the Met.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 29, 2011)

> 4.22pm: McMullan says he regrets the stories he did on Jennifer Elliott, the daughter of actor Denholm Elliott.
> 
> She became a drug user and started begging following the death of her father and the News of the World exposed this.
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 29, 2011)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> The man is not well, not well at all.



Well, by his own account he was hit over the head with a lump of masonry. And he did "sniff around" a cocaine smuggling gang.

His daughter and the son of racist tram lady should set up a support group.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Nov 29, 2011)

^^^Truly, a man more humble than even the Divine Digger himself..

E2A: At London_Calling's quote of matey boy.


----------



## idumea (Nov 29, 2011)

no sense of decency.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 30, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Whilst I agree his privacy has been grossly invaded and he has every right to be pissed off it's remarkably difficult to give a flying fuck about him to be honest.



Whether you like him or not, he's clearly an intelligent man who as yardbird says makes a lot of valid points about (much of?) the tabloid press's cavalier attitude to privacy. Should we only care about the rights of people we "give a flying fuck about"?


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 30, 2011)

Alastair Cambell on classic form at Levenson:


> Senior executives and journalists from News International sent aggressive messages to Alastair Campbell in 2009 after the former Downing Street spin chief spoke out about phone hacking at the News of the World.
> 
> Campbell alleged in a written statement to the Leveson inquiry published on Monday that he received a series of "mildly threatening text and phone messages" from unnamed executives after he gave TV interviews about the Guardian's initial story on phone hacking at the News International title.


Err, right: where might they have picked up that technique from ....


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Nov 30, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Alastair Cambell on classic form at Levenson:
> 
> Err, right: where might they have picked up that technique from ....



Yeah - remember him walking into Channel 4 news demanding an interview with John Snow at the time of the Iraq dodgy dossier stuff?  (Which he got)


----------



## agricola (Nov 30, 2011)

Anyone surprised that neither BBC or Sky News are covering Alec Owens testimony live?


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2011)

the bbc are doing


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 30, 2011)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167512.stm


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 30, 2011)

agricola said:


> Anyone surprised that neither BBC or Sky News are covering Alec Owens testimony live?



Well the BBC is online (see link posted by LC), which I heard them flag-up a few times on the News Channel, and no I am not surprised the BBC & Sky are not covering it live today on their main services - there are bigger stories today, such as the strike & Iran.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 30, 2011)

agricola said:


> Anyone surprised that neither BBC or Sky News are covering Alec Owens testimony live?



Just use the Leveson Inquiry's own website:

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/hearings/


----------



## agricola (Nov 30, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Well the BBC is online (see link posted by LC), which I heard them flag-up a few times on the News Channel, and no I am not surprised the BBC & Sky are not covering it live today on their main services - there are bigger stories today, such as the strike & Iran.



I meant live as in on the channel, without interruptions (as the various celebrities were).  What Owens is giving evidence about is much worse than mere phone hacking, after all.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 30, 2011)

agricola said:


> I meant live as in on the channel, without interruptions (as the various celebrities were). What Owens is giving evidence about is much worse than mere phone hacking, after all.



And the fact the there's more important news going on today stands, if they were covering that live and ignoring the strike whilst doing so, there would be a lot more people complaining, and rightly so IMO.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 30, 2011)

agricola said:


> I meant live as in on the channel, without interruptions (as the various celebrities were). What Owens is giving evidence about is much worse than mere phone hacking, after all.



Aha, I see what you mean now.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 30, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Just use the Leveson Inquiry's own website:
> 
> http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/hearings/


A handy link for anyone wanting to go back over previous sessions (inc. Campbell this morning).


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2011)

agricola said:


> I meant live as in on the channel, without interruptions (as the various celebrities were). What Owens is giving evidence about is much worse than mere phone hacking, after all.


the biggest strike in this country for decades, election results in egypt, revolt in syria.  It's not really surprising that the on (and on and on) going inquiry isn't being covered 24/7


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 30, 2011)

Solicitor Mark Lewis' supplementary statement, talking about how News International, its lawyers and private investigators covertly spied on him, his ex-wife and their children.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74280104/Supplementary-Statement-of-Mark-Lewis


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 30, 2011)

I do wonder, just a little, if Lewis is being a bit dramatic. NI did have a genuinely held belief - wrong, but genuinely held - that Lewis was up to his own tricks (in relation to his client/s in cases where NI was the other party) and investigated him. This is not unusual.

They never tried to influence his work, never approached him, just looked into his life - NI employed investigators obv. went to far in looking at his family, and you can't blame Lewis for his reaction (his own daughters being filmed, really for no good reason), but there's far worse to be looking at in this inquiry.

This kind of thing only really becomes interesting when a party tries to influence events through coersion, manipulation, blackmail, etc.


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> NI did have a genuinely held belief - wrong, but genuinely held


why on earth do you think they were 'genuinely held'?


----------



## agricola (Nov 30, 2011)

belboid said:


> the biggest strike in this country for decades, election results in egypt, revolt in syria. It's not really surprising that the on (and on and on) going inquiry isn't being covered 24/7



The strike is non-violent and has been known about for weeks in advance, the Egyptian elections arent being covered that much, and FWIW neither is the Syrian revolt.  They also covered Campbell's testimony in considerably more detail, despite of course his own considerable sins when it comes to putting out false stories, bullying people and whatnot.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 30, 2011)

belboid said:


> why on earth ...


LOL.

Ed, please get the ignore function back ASAP.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 30, 2011)

agricola said:


> I meant live as in on the channel, without interruptions (as the various celebrities were). What Owens is giving evidence about is much worse than mere phone hacking, after all.


It's dynamite

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp.../11/Witness-Statement-of-Alexander-Owens1.pdf


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> LOL.
> 
> Ed, please get the ignore function back ASAP.


either answer the question, if you're capable, or show some self discipline and ignore me _all by yourself_


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 30, 2011)

Thanks for those choices. Really, I appreciate it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2011)

Mulcaire is arrested again.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Muclaire is arrested.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 7, 2011)

And Coulson is suing News International subsidiary over his legal fees.


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 8, 2011)

Though it's not on the front pages it still has legs


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 8, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> And Coulson is suing News International subsidiary over his legal fees.


Legal fees can soon mount up


----------



## newbie (Dec 8, 2011)

This has the makings of being the crucial battle.  Coulson argues that he was doing his job.  NI says his job didn't involve criminal acts.

If NI dig in Coulson will have to go for the jugular.  If they cave in they accept corporate responsibility and bye bye Murdoch.


----------



## laptop (Dec 10, 2011)

In the midst of creating a Euro-crisis, at 6pm on Friday, Cameron slips out that oops, he forgot, he had more meetings with Murdoch...


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 12, 2011)

Widely reported that Blunkett took the Murdoch bribe earlier this year rather than stand up and be counted at a time when it mattered - New Labour to his core:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk..._RB2SPCZ1VErnOK8w?docId=N0383991323558593961A


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

Odd that there's been so little comment on this correction added to the Guardian's original story on this two days ago:



> "Evidence secured by the police following the publication of this article has established that the News of the World was not responsible for the deletion of voicemails which caused Milly Dowler's parents to have false hope that she was alive."



So who _did_ delete those specific messages? The Police?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 12, 2011)

Stephen Glover gave it a good gloat in the I today, as did Paul Waugh in the Politics Home email. But "Guardian gets facts wrong" is an inside baseball story; doesn't have real legs.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

Nick Davies seems to be getting these things wrong quite often - wasn't he responsible for the Brown's child being targeted story as well?


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So who _did_ delete those specific messages? The Police?



To be specific:



> Evidence retrieved from Surrey police logs shows that this "false hope" moment occurred on the evening of Sunday 24 March 2002. It is not clear what caused this deletion. Phone company logs show that Milly last accessed her voicemail on Wednesday 20 March, so the deletion on Sunday cannot have been the knock-on effect of Milly listening to her messages. Furthermore, the deletion removed every single message from her phone. But police believe it cannot have been caused by the News of the World, which had not yet instructed private detective Glenn Mulcaire to hack Milly's phone. Police are continuing to try to solve the mystery.


Every message was deleted....

Two things struck me (a) that's not the MO of any of the known appalling leeches, and (b) it would be consistent with Milly Dowler's killer covering his tracks (say, if she was alive in the boot of a car or the back of a van, and had potentially used her phone in that period). I suppose, it could also have been incompetence by the police, though they would have gone via the phone company itself.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

I'd urge people to read that whole original article again with this 'correction' in mind - the definitive claims built out of suspicions, the word 'targeted' to imply 'actually did it' and so on...


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 12, 2011)

tbf to Nick Davies, even McMullen thought it was Mulcaire or one of the other bods, and he was working on the Features Desk at the time.

It's fascinating that that moment - the false hope/Dowler family kitchen table moment - was the tippng point for public sentiment and for everything that has since happened (literally, see this thread title and the posts that follow), and it was all predicated on the apparently false belief of who was responsible.

But for that, I suppose we have to think Murdoch would almost have BSkyB now and the political world would be very different ......jesus: Hoist by his own petard. Totally Shakesperian.


----------



## agricola (Dec 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> tbf to Nick Davies, even McMullen thought it was Mulcaire or one of the other bods, and he was working on the Features Desk at the time.
> 
> It's fascinating that that moment - the false hope/Dowler family kitchen table moment - was the tippng point for public sentiment and for everything that has since happened (literally, see this thread title and the posts that follow), and it was all predicated on the apparently false belief of who was responsible.



This, plus of course their actions since clearly seem to indicate that they (or at least those at the top) thought that their staff had deleted these messages as well.

Meanwhile, Neville Thurlbeck is doing his best "we did nothing wrong" impression. (edit) Which is shortly followed by him refusing to answer questions.



edit 2:  Thurlbeck's refusal to answer questions was in relation to questions about this


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

Nice glimpse into the 30s from Neville Thurlbeck. (He's got his back covered here - got them pocketed)


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2011)

so it wasn't hacked by the news of the world after all? wtf?


----------



## agricola (Dec 12, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> so it wasn't hacked by the news of the world after all? wtf?



It was hacked - they admit doing it - but the voicemail messages _may_ not have been deleted by them, though of course ex-NOTW and the rest of the guilty men insist that this change means that they were innocent, it was a fit-up job by the Guardian etc etc


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

They can all they like,won't wash now - too late. Who did deleted them - who else has access and how? And how shit is the guardians investigative team on responsibility.


----------



## agricola (Dec 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And how shit is the guardians investigative team on responsibility.



From their own article on today's events, it appears that they just reported what their source in Weeting told them, without checking it beyond talking to Mark Lewis and/or the Dowlers... though as I said above, the response of NI strongly suggests that even they thought they had actually done it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> From their own article on today's events, it appears that they just reported what their source in Weeting told them, without checking it beyond talking to Mark Lewis and/or the Dowlers... though as I said above, the response of NI strongly suggests that even they thought they had actually done it.



So unacceptably shit is the answer.


----------



## agricola (Dec 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So unacceptably shit is the answer.



More greedy than shit, and given that Nick Davies in particular had banged on about press malpractice for years without anyone giving two hoots you can perhaps forgive them for biting on this.  In any case, the story was still largely correct - the NOTW did after all listen to the voicemail message.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> More greedy than shit, and given that Nick Davies in particular had banged on about press malpractice for years without anyone giving two hoots you can perhaps forgive them for biting on this. In any case, the story was still largely correct - the NOTW did after all listen to the voicemail message.


The story was that they deleted them.

- the hacked bit...well who knows now after re-reading the original post.

This is what is said:



> In the last four weeks the Met officers have approached Surrey police and taken formal statements from some of those involved in the original inquiry, who were concerned about how News of the World journalists intercepted – and deleted – the voicemail messages of Milly Dowler.
> 
> The messages were deleted by journalists in the first few days after Milly's disappearance in order to free up space for more messages. As a result friends and relatives of Milly concluded wrongly that she might still be alive. Police feared evidence may have been destroyed.


----------



## Santino (Dec 12, 2011)

I read - can't remember where - that the phone might have been set to automatically delete messages a certain time after they had been opened. Has that been discussed?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> I read - can't remember where - that the phone might have been set to automatically delete messages a certain time after they had been opened. Has that been discussed?


So who opened them?


----------



## Santino (Dec 12, 2011)

NOTW, I presume.

But I sort of feel I've lost the thread at this stage.


----------



## agricola (Dec 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So who opened them?



The NOTW, another paper, Surrey Police, the phone company or even Levi Bellfield.  We know that the NOTW at least listened to them, and IIRC even published stories based on the content of those messages.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> I read - can't remember where - that the phone might have been set to automatically delete messages a certain time after they had been opened. Has that been discussed?



Yes. There were messages on the phone which would not yet have been deleted (at the time Mrs. Dowler thought that her daughter could still be alive) if the automatic deletion system had come into play.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> The NOTW, another paper, Surrey Police, the phone company or even Levi Bellfield. We know that the NOTW at least listened to them, and IIRC even published stories based on the content of those messages.



Who had the brains and opp = NOTW, Cops


----------



## agricola (Dec 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who had the brains and opp = NOTW, Cops



Surrey Police at least had a legitimate reason to monitor those messages.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

Also hang on...we don't know the storage capacity of the voice mail system either


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> Surrey Police at least had a legitimate reason to monitor those messages.



Not having a pop at them, just working through the possibilities.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 12, 2011)

If you were the killer, and you had a girl still alive in the boot, with a working mobile phone,  what would you do after you killed her?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

I bow to your vast experience


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 12, 2011)

I've never worked in a mobile phone shop.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

You just said that you'd kill a girl to save your skin btw.Ain't you a clever one?


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 12, 2011)

And I thought I just posed a question. Nabbed again by Inspector Clouseau.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> And I thought I just posed a question. Nabbed again by Inspector Clouseau.


About what to do after you killed her.

Just a question?


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 12, 2011)

Unless Bellfield puts his hands up and in a convincing way, no one will ever know how they came to be accessed - and therefore deleted. Not worth speculating.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Unless Bellfield puts his hands up and in a convincing way, no one will ever know how they came to be accessed - and therefore deleted. Not worth speculating.


What?


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2011)

gut feeling is that a vicious child killer would have more important things to worry about than checking her voicemails. i dunno though.

in case anyone missed it, here's nick davies' (rather defensive) take on what's happened

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/12/phone-hacking-milly-dowler?newsfeed=true


----------



## Ted Striker (Dec 12, 2011)

Is there not a delicious irony, that the whole paper got hanged on a story that wasn't strictly true then?


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2011)

yeah, i've been chuckling all day because of it - it makes everyone look shit. only note of caution is if anyone gets off the hook now as a result...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

Nick Davies doing a Blair on C4 -_all the evidence we had at that time led us to believe (they had WMDs ans were willing to use them within 15 mins) _-pathetic.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 12, 2011)

If the Features Desk at NotW thought it was Mulcaire or friends, and The Guardian wasn't buying info from phone company employees .....

What is your frame of reference for investigative journalism in the UK?


----------



## killer b (Dec 12, 2011)

perhaps 'if you aren't certain, don't say you're certain'.


----------



## agricola (Dec 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nick Davies doing a Blair on C4 -_all the evidence we had at that time led us to believe (they had WMDs ans were willing to use them within 15 mins) _-pathetic.



If you are going to use that business, then surely Davies is much more of a Gilligan here?  After all, his story was broadly right, it was just one small detail that he couldnt prove.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

I don't need to. Davies was wrong, embarrassingly so, militantly so-and the guardian's response has been pathetic.


----------



## marty21 (Dec 12, 2011)

Ted Striker said:


> Is there not a delicious irony, that the whole paper got hanged on a story that wasn't strictly true then?


yes


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I don't need to. Davies was wrong, embarrassingly so, militantly so-and the guardian's response has been pathetic.


In effect, the NotW was even more wrong on that exact point because they believed their own people must have done it - had they known otherwise, the Murdoch's would surely have said so, probably as a _fait acomplis_ at the Hoc Committee they attended - no doubt before insisting their bid for BSkyB be allowed and this witchhunt against them end.

Even worse for NotW, all this comes to light (now) from internal NotW emails. In other words, they could have handed Tom Watson and the whole show its own arse on a plate, missed it totally, closed NotW and lost BSkyB. Genius.

Huge facepalm for the Murdochs.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

The NOTW didn't publish a story saying that they had done. The guardian did.

Did the NOTW ever say yes they did delete them?


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The NOTW didn't publish a story saying that they had done. The guardian did.
> 
> Did the NOTW ever say yes they did delete them?


Do you think accepting the consequences - inc. the public humiliations, losing BSkyB, closing the NotW, etc - was other than an admission of responsibility? They lost all that for shit and giggles?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

What?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 12, 2011)

They could hardly say 'no we didn't delete the messages, we did all the illegal stuff with the hacking and bribes and blackmail and shit but we didn't delete the messages'.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What?


This your argument; Nick Davies is crap because

(a) he was unaware of information the Murdoch's themselves were not aware of (the emails that have recently come to light proving Mulcaire wasn't responsible for the tipping point deletions), and
(b) he believed what the NotW's own staff believed was the case (that they were responsible for the deletions)

In other words, you think Davies should have known what the Murdoch's themselves, and NotW, didn't know about their own practices.

Go and boil yer head.


----------



## agricola (Dec 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I don't need to. Davies was wrong, embarrassingly so, militantly so-and the guardian's response has been pathetic.



Not really sure why you are so anti-Davies on this.  He has _possibly_ been wrong about one aspect (albeit the one that sparked this whole conflagration) of this story, but right on the rest of it; plus of course it is almost entirely down to him (and a very small number of others) that any of this has been exposed at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> This your argument; Nick Davies is crap because
> 
> (a) he was unaware of information the Murdoch's themselves were not aware of (the emails that have recently come to light proving Mulcaire wasn't responsible for the tipping point deletions), and
> (b) he believed what the NotW's own staff believed was the case (that they were responsible for the deletions)
> ...



No. My argument is that Nick Davies was wrong a few key points.One of them being the key point about about this case in the public image  - the consistently wrong report you can read linked to above.

Neither of your points are really relevant to anything that i've posted.


----------



## laptop (Dec 12, 2011)

Ermmm...



> The Scotland Yard version was challenged by David Sherborne, representing the Dowlers. He pointed out that every single voicemail had been apparently deleted at once on 24 March 2002. *This could not have been the result of automatic deletions* of each message after 72 hours, he said, because the Dowlers had left a series of anxious messages on the phone in preceding days. Sherborne said someone else must have been accessing and deleting messages between 21 and 24 March. He pointed the finger at "a journalist at the NoW" who was also in possession of Milly's phone number and pin number: "The Surrey police know the identity of the journalist," he alleged.
> 
> *http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/12/leveson-inquiry-milly-dowler-voicemail*



So back to my first thought, when I'd read only the headline: this declaration is some kind of damage-limitation by (an element within) the Met. And, if the above is true, a false declaration.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No. My argument is that Nick Davies was wrong a few key points.One of them being the key point about about this case in the public image - the consistently wrong report you can read linked to above.


Say again, key points -specifics, please.

I don't want more and more fucking links, make your argument.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

1) The key point - the one in the public image-they they deleted specific messages
2 )That he  joined in with this pathetic guardian defence over the last two days

Again, tell me how your two points mean anything to anyone?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No. My argument is that Nick Davies was wrong a few key points.One of them being the key point about about this case in the public image - the consistently wrong report you can read linked to above.
> 
> Neither of your points are really relevant to anything that i've posted.


very tangential, but i did find his flat earth news book slightly hyperbolic, which is especially funny given his quest for the truth.


----------



## newbie (Dec 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Nick Davies doing a Blair on C4 -_all the evidence we had at that time led us to believe (they had WMDs ans were willing to use them within 15 mins) _-pathetic.



surprised you see no difference between a politician selling a war, a bit of daily journalism and making conclusions based on partial evidence emerging months later during a major investigation.

Personally I'm prepared to wait until all the public inquiry/prosecutions etc have established a reasonably definitive narrative before concluding that Davies should be charged with crimes against humanity.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2011)

newbie said:


> surprised you see no difference between a politician selling a war, a bit of daily journalism and making conclusions based on partial evidence emerging months later during a major investigation.
> 
> Personally I'm prepared to wait until all the public inquiry/prosecutions etc have established a reasonably definitive narrative before concluding that Davies should be charged with crimes against humanity.


Surprised that you imagine that similarity of defences implies equivalence of severity  of charges.

Not your best contribution to the thread newbie.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 13, 2011)

> *@Aiannucci*
> 
> Armando Iannucci
> 
> ...


----------



## teqniq (Dec 13, 2011)

my heart bleeds.


----------



## magneze (Dec 13, 2011)

So now James Murdoch said that he received the "for Neville" email, but didn't read it all.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2011)

Err..have you missed all the last month?


----------



## magneze (Dec 13, 2011)

Is this not new?


> James Murdoch has written a separate letter to the Culture Media + Sport Select Ctte acknowledging receipt of this email.
> 
> But he says Myler email w Crone attached was sent at the weekend + that "I am confident that I did not review the fiull email chain".​
> Crone appears to have told Murdoch about the 'for Neville email' via Colin Myler. Murdoch says he did not read the Crone note.​To be clear this email exchange of Saturday June 7 2008 led to the critical meeting of June 10 2008, where it was agreed to settle Taylor.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2011)

It's what he said to the cmtte - he looked at letter but didn't read the words.


----------



## magneze (Dec 13, 2011)

I understand that - missed it if it had been revealed earlier this month.  Seemed to be headline news on the Guardian today.


----------



## newbie (Dec 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Surprised that you imagine that similarity of defences implies equivalence of severity of charges.
> 
> Not your best contribution to the thread newbie.


nor yours, the comparison with Blair is unworthy.

I'm all in favour of holding people to the highest standards, but there needs to be context.  Why would anyone be surprised that daily journalism is riddled with mistakes?  Of course it is, goes with the territory.

Subsequent forensic examination, especially an examination with the resources of this one, will highlight errors. Much to the delight of the other papers.  Fair enough, but are we really to expect that journalists shouldn't publish until they have evidence to a public inquiry standard.  That just isn't realistic.

In the crowing piece I read today, even the Times was gracious enough to accept that the Guardian had been the first to publish that Davies got it wrong.  That alone makes the comparison with Blair unreasonable.


----------



## stavros (Dec 13, 2011)

> *@Aiannucci*
> 
> Armando Iannucci
> 
> ...



One can only hope that he's busy weaving Diggergate into the next series of The Thick Of It, which I hope will arrive soon.


----------



## magneze (Dec 14, 2011)

So I was thinking about this all a bit more. If the police know that the NOTW didn't delete the messages then they must know who did? How can they be so sure otherwise?

It doesn't really make sense.


----------



## newbie (Dec 14, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/13/milly-dowler-phone-hacking-story appears to be the Guardian defence of its reporting. Self-serving, natch. It'll be interesting to see what holes are picked in it.

As to who did delete the messages, and how and why, that goes back to my point about reaching conclusions based on partial evidence. We, the public, don't know. Leveson doesn't know (at least not officially). Maybe it's known within Weeting and they're waiting for the right moment to reveal what they know. Maybe they don't know.

The allegation that it was the NoTW appears, at this juncture, to be erroneous but there are a lot of strands of evidence that haven't yet been tied together. And it's worth bearing in mind that what we believe we know- like all the on-oath testimony that JM never knew about the 'for Nev' email- appears to have been wrong ('lies' might be more accurate), he did know he just didn't read it.


----------



## magneze (Dec 14, 2011)

It seems odd that the police, who have been in the pockets of NI for many years it seems, have been quick to say that NOTW didn't delete the messages but don't seem to be able to say why or who did.

Actually, it's not odd, it stinks. Again.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2011)

newbie said:


> nor yours, the comparison with Blair is unworthy.
> 
> I'm all in favour of holding people to the highest standards, but there needs to be context. Why would anyone be surprised that daily journalism is riddled with mistakes? Of course it is, goes with the territory.
> 
> ...


The comparison was with a method of of self-defence not the crimes and totally apt. Is Davies a mate of your or something?

Do you really think that there was no other way of writing that original story than making straight up claims that the NOTW had deleted specific messages? I can think of other ways - it seems that either of the authors or someone else did as well as if you examine it you'll find outright claims rubbing shoulders with more circumspect suggestions that this is what _may_ have happened. If that latter course had been followed all the way through then they wouldn't be left looking like such amateur plonkers right now. (See also Davies getting stitched up again over the Brown story).


----------



## laptop (Dec 14, 2011)

In their own defence, but still:



> A senior NoW executive, who later denied to a parliamentary committee all knowledge of illegality, wrote to Surrey police at the time specifically admitting Milly's phone had been hacked.
> 
> ...
> the family's solicitor, Mark Lewis... said of the Dowlers: "They have a clear recollection that the police told them that the News of the World had listened to their missing daughter's voicemail and deleted some of the messages."
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2011)

I suspect Surry plod were very happy that it was the NOTW hat became the focus of the story, not their own inaction or speculation as to why they 'in-acted'...


----------



## laptop (Dec 14, 2011)

Dunno - were they inactive, or just inresultatative?

Whatever, yes, between the lines of the above Leigh piece I'm seeing "but police *told* us the NotW had deleted messages" - and that did indeed get police off the hook of demands for resultitude, realistic or not, not least from the tabloids.


----------



## agricola (Dec 14, 2011)

magneze said:


> So I was thinking about this all a bit more. If the police know that the NOTW didn't delete the messages then they must know who did? How can they be so sure otherwise?
> 
> It doesn't really make sense.



It could be that the Weeting crowd thought that they had possibly done it, it was leaked to the Guardian who said (which was backed up by them speaking to the Dowlers and Lewis) that they had, and now Weeting think that they cant prove who did delete them.  In any case its a bit of a moot point, as everyone admits that the NOTW did listen to the voice messages anyway.


----------



## Ms T (Dec 14, 2011)

The point surely is that the NOTW did hack Milly's phone - it's not denying that.  Apparently a Daily Mail journo rang the Dowler's lawyer asking if they were now going to give their compensation back to News International.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2011)

It's _a_ point. It's not _the_ only point - certainly not the one under discussion in this strand of the thread - which is the guardian claiming definitively that they had deleted specific messages which they didn't. The guardian is standing by its claims on this false basis btw - that its claims only concerned hacking or targeting. You only need read the original article to spot this as the lie that it is though.


----------



## agricola (Dec 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's _a_ point. It's not _the_ only point - certainly not the one under discussion in this strand of the thread - which is the guardian claiming definitively that they had deleted specific messages which they didn't. The guardian is standing by its claims on this false basis btw - that its claims only concerned hacking or targeting. You only need read the original article to spot this as the lie that it is though.



Its a daft defence, but it is likely to succeed - after all, noone at NI is going to want to argue the toss over it.  Meanwhile, Myler looks to be gripping the rail a bit at the inquiry.


----------



## laptop (Dec 14, 2011)

agricola said:


> gripping the rail a bit



* steals *


----------



## agricola (Dec 14, 2011)

Myler's torture will resume at 10 am tomorrow.

edit: and the Mail's lawyer confirms their reporter did speak to Lewis, but they didnt intend to attack the Dowlers, just to find out what they were going to do.



edit2:  however the Mail have also claimed that Lewis has - by releasing his account of what their reporter said - subjected the Dowlers to further torment, and questioned his motives for doing so.


----------



## laptop (Dec 14, 2011)

agricola said:


> edit2: however the Mail have also claimed that Lewis has - by releasing his account of what their reporter said - subjected the Dowlers to further torment, and questioned his motives for doing so.



 One does rather have to assume that he's acting on his clients' instructions. At least that he's asked "and do you want me to raise this question?" Any suggestion otherwise would be defamatory of a solicitor in particular, as I'm sure Mark Lewis has spotted already


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 14, 2011)

agricola said:


> the Mail have also claimed that Lewis has - by releasing his account of what their reporter said - subjected the Dowlers to further torment, and questioned his motives for doing so.


the hypocrisy is gut-churning, but fortunately the chances of such sanctimonious cant by a tabloid being taken at such value are now greatly diminished, mainly thanks to phone-hacking


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 15, 2011)

Grauniad strikes back.   http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/james-murdoch-phone-hacking-cover-up



> On the evidence now published, James appears to have gone along with an attempt at a cover-up and then, when the cover-up failed, sought to wriggle out of involvement and blame his subordinates. The original cover-up was not a smart idea. The subsequent attempt at a cover-up of the cover-up will appear to many to have been even dumber.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 15, 2011)

On the issue/s of the day (the Dowler deletions, Guardian reporting) there was a lively exchange between Nick Davies and an ex-NotW Editor on Newsnight last night. First item in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b018b9kf/Newsnight_14_12_2011/


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Dec 15, 2011)

like this post if you dont believe in the holocaust.


----------



## Santino (Dec 15, 2011)

Some woman's been arrested over payments to police by NOTW.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2011)

Ex-NOTW Crime Editor Lucy Panton - married to serving SY detective, meals with Yates etc when he was Assistant Commissioner...


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 15, 2011)

aka Juicy Pants Down, in the parlance of her employer.


----------



## Santino (Dec 15, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> aka Juicy Pants Down, in the parlance of her employer.


Of the Hampshire Pants Downs?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2011)

Anyone read/got this story?



> Fascinating Journo/Police story in Private Eye
> 
> Linking the cop who threatened the Guardian with the Official Secrets Act - Peter Spindler; his erstwhile colleague Daniel Beck - a covert ops detective - and the tec's wife Lucy Panton; the now unemployed News of the World crime reporter (bought from The People some years ago).
> 
> ...


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 15, 2011)

Butchers - you'd love the (above) Newsnight link for last night; the NotW former Features Editor was channeling exactly your views of Davies/Guardian.



Santino said:


> Of the Hampshire Pants Downs?


There, but also Pornwall


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2011)

I did watch it - and it was Paxman that put forward the views closest to mine as regards the Guardian and Davies publishing speculation as stone cold fact. The NOTW features editor and Davies both just engaged in an extended game of _tu quoque. _So sorry, missed your target once more.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 15, 2011)

Nah, you and NotW rep were as one. It's not Paxman's job to have a view, he questions the view of others.

Nice company for you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Nah, you and NotW rep were as one. It's not Paxman's job to have a view, he questions the view of others.
> 
> Nice company for you.


As pointed out (and is easily available for all to see here) Paxman was the only person on that panel who put the same points as me - that the guardian printed speculation as fact, not the NOTW bloke - regardless of your bizarre and irrelevant claim that Paxman is not paid to have a view. The NOTW and Davies both just finger pointed at each other in way that had nothing whatsoever to do with any criticisms that i've made about the way the Guardian and Davies have handled this latest twist. Look it's quite clear what you're trying to do here - but, as ever, you've messed the attempted smear/attack up. Better luck next time Cato. (But maybe think about not providing the evidence that pulls the ground out from underneath you eh? Little tip there)


----------



## smokedout (Dec 15, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Nah, you and NotW rep were as one. It's not Paxman's job to have a view, he questions the view of others.
> 
> Nice company for you.



does this mean its impossible for a tabloid editor to be right, you have to be on the side of the guardian or you're some kind of traitor


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone read/got this story?


link to a known peados site... nice... got your number...


----------



## killer b (Dec 15, 2011)

wtf? are you calling butch a nonce?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 15, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> link to a known peados site... nice... got your number...


elucidate please garf


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> elucidate please garf


It's because the link to the possible private eye story is on jonathon king's forum. It's handy of garf to point out exactly the sort of smear that Cato's nasty amalgamation logic leads to though, so i'm grateful for that at least.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 15, 2011)

ahh I _seee_....


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's because the link to the possible private eye story is on jonathon king's forum. It's handy of garf to point out exactly the sort of smear that Cato's nasty amalgamation logic leads to though, so i'm grateful for that at least.



are you defending JK then butch...

why in fact would you even go near that site or that person or indeed grant any crediblity to anything they have to say or those associated with them have to say ...

you are chris langham I claim my 5 pounds...

btw it can only be a smear if the underlying facts are untrue or distorted JK was tried and found guilty of sexual abuse of a minor, possession of indecent images of a minor and did time for it...

you're citing it a sa credible source of information and indeed directly linking to it...

whilst it's not a hostile site you would have thought even your belligerent boneheadedness can see linking to a peados site is always going to place you in choppy waters to say the least...


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 15, 2011)

his musical is ace


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 15, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> his musical is ace



sure if putting money in the pockets of manipulative child rapists is your thang...


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 15, 2011)

it's free online


----------



## The Boy (Dec 15, 2011)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> you're citing it a sa credible source of information and indeed directly linking to it...



I know butchers can fend for himself, but I could swear that what he was doing is asking if anyone could verify that a story has appeared in Private Eye. And for all its faults I would PE as a credible source.

But you knew all that anyway.

edit:  didn't see the story in question when I had a quick look through.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Dec 15, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> it's free online


wasn't that his excuse in court...


----------



## laptop (Dec 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone read/got this story?



I took the recycling out on Tuesday :-(

You'll have to head to the library...


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 15, 2011)

Any comments on this Graun op-ed feature yet, please?

David Leigh is described as the Guardian's 'investigations editor' ..... he doesn't mention Nick Davies at all in that particular feature, but presumably Leigh still has some good points to make?

< Highly  about the recent direction this thread has taken, but I have to admit the thread is moving too fast for me  >


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 15, 2011)

Deafening silence from News Corp since the police announcement on the deletions aspect of the story .... perhaps they're still picking themselves up off the floor.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 16, 2011)

News of the World shut down, News International's bid for BskyB booted out and Murdochs hold on british politics irreversalbly broken - and the catalyst for all this was a sensationalised story that whipped up an unstoppable tide of moral outrage -  all based on 'facts' that turned out to be totally false.

How much more poetic can justice be?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 16, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> News of the World shut down, News International's bid for BskyB booted out and Murdochs hold on british politics irreversalbly broken - and the catalyst for all this was a sensationalised story that whipped up an unstoppable tide of moral outrage - all based on 'facts' that turned out to be totally false.
> 
> How much more poetic can justice be?


there once was a man name of murdoch,
he controlled the bulk of the press,
but now that the sly sop of cameron's in charge,
i really just couldn't care less.....


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 20, 2011)

Piers Morgan appearing today - albeit by video link, and if you can bear the slime and bullshit. He's first up, I believe (starts 10.00am).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/bbc_parliament/newsid_9640000/9640246.stm


----------



## two sheds (Dec 20, 2011)

Expert subject Insider Dealing?

Says it all that he didn't even get charged with that.


----------



## Limejuice (Dec 20, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Piers Morgan appearing today - albeit by video link, and if you can bear the slime and bullshit. He's first up, I believe (starts 10.00am).
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/bbc_parliament/newsid_9640000/9640246.stm


Should be any minute now - 3.35 pm


----------



## yardbird (Dec 20, 2011)

Piers Morgan ffs 
"I don't recall"
"I didn't know"

Bollocks


----------



## craigxcraig (Dec 20, 2011)

Just listening to this now on R5 - unbelievable, what a worm.


----------



## Dan U (Dec 20, 2011)

Squirmy

What a cunt


----------



## dirty dingus (Dec 20, 2011)

Hope this prick gets his just deserts, he's now saying he saved auld lizzie by sticking an undercover reporter in buck palace. I just hope later witnesses stick him right in and his smugness comes crashing down, a wee spell in the clink would be most pleasing.


----------



## Ted Striker (Dec 20, 2011)

When I see others work themselves up and shower such bile and abuse at some random famous sleb, I look at their posts with a sense of inability to understand that they can't look past the fact that they don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, and merely affect actions or words written about a world far away from any sphere that actually matters to theirs or mine.

And then I remember, like today, how much I really would punch the air if/when Moron gets it.

What a truly odious cunt. I can't say I use the word sparingly because I don't, but I mean it more when I talk about guys like him


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2011)

yardbird said:


> Piers Morgan ffs
> "I don't recall"
> "I didn't know"
> 
> Bollocks


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16259941

Morgan says it wasn't necessarily unethical for him to listen to the McCartnry message, and that he won't reveal his source.  He's basically saying Heather played it to him.  Which is probably true.


----------



## Ted Striker (Dec 21, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16259941
> 
> Morgan says it wasn't necessarily unethical for him to listen to the McCartnry message, and that he won't reveal his source. He's basically saying Heather played it to him. Which is probably true.



Yup, might be 'interesting'*

*Sadly predictable that it could well have been Heather, and another open goal for Piers


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 21, 2011)

Indeed.  It'd be nice for someone to bring him down.  But what with Mensch and Mills, it looks like the attacks are coming from lower in the gutter than even he is.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 21, 2011)

He certainly lived down to expectations.

You don't have to be an expert in body language to know what this means:






You sack of shit.

Also interesting to see the contrast between this kind of seemingly gentle grilling and filleting, and what the hopeless grandstanding circus of the HoC Committee managed.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

Related:

First police officer arrested over alleged payments from journalists



> The Metropolitan police have arrested a 52-year-old female serving police officer over payments from journalists, Scotland Yard has said.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

...and not good for those wanted a Mulcaire turns on the NOTW outcome:

Glenn Mulcaire wins legal fees battle with News of the World publisher



> News Group Newspapers had no right to cancel private eye's legal fees over alleged phone hacking, high court rules


----------



## laptop (Dec 21, 2011)

Meanwhile, "Piers talking bollocks" shock:



> Phone hacking appeared to be a "bog-standard journalistic tool" for gathering information, a former Daily Mirror financial reporter has said.
> 
> James Hipwell, who was jailed in 2006 for writing about firms whose shares he owned, said he witnessed repeated privacy infringements at the paper.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16283935



Not your ideal witness, but boy, does this story keep giving...


----------



## Limejuice (Dec 21, 2011)

Is it me, or are some of the lawyers attending the inquiry, especially the bouffant-haired chap representing the celebrities, insufferable pricks?


----------



## Ted Striker (Dec 21, 2011)

Limejuice said:


> Is it me, or are some of the lawyers attending the inquiry, especially the bouffant-haired chap representing the celebrities, insufferable pricks?



He let Piers basically call him a cunt yesterday. Oddly enough I was just looking him up to confirm he wasn't working on behalf of the newspapers.

The main guy (Jay) isn't so bad (he is the spit of a very good friend of mine, so maybe that's it!), though you'd wish they'd all have a bit more fire.

Leveson has an IMO charming way of pausing like an old Granparent nodding off in front of the fireplace mid speech.


----------



## Limejuice (Dec 21, 2011)

I quite like Leveson, generally. He can sometimes be a bit self-important, but I suppose the inquiry has his name above the door.

Yes, Jay is quite agreeable, but he does get snappy when witnesses don't answer the question. He gives me the impression of being a bit distant, forgetting perhaps that in the real world, many businesses are fluid and organic and not susceptible to cut and dried facts and yes or no answers. He seems frustrated when witnesses sort of shrug and say it was kind of like that.

The bouffant one come over as an argumentative so-and-so, who hasn't quite got it that it's an inquiry not a prosecution. I get the impression that he is grandstanding, aware maybe that his performance is being streamed live. So he's pushing up the "I'm dead clever" switch to a solid 10 and the "Adore me, I'm a dashing advocate chosen by the slebs" to 11.

Cracking entertainment at times, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

Coulsen loses same claim as Mulcaire


----------



## laptop (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Coulsen loses same claim as Mulcaire






			
				Hizonner said:
			
		

> His duties comprised only of lawful activities.



Judicial humour at its best?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

laptop said:


> Not your ideal witness, but boy, does this story keep giving...


I know James; there's worse than him.
e2a; edited for prudence


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

Don't say it on here then eh?


----------



## Ted Striker (Dec 21, 2011)

I think other people might be able to come to the same conclusion quite easily, in fairness (Assuming you're replying to Streathamite).

Also in the News, Mills fires back http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...played-voicemail-message-to-Piers-Morgan.html

(Though her choice of words is interesting - "never played Morgan tapes" <> "Never authorised Morgan to hear the tapes")


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Don't say it on here then eh?


My bad
tbf, he was an entirely respectable journo on _Business Age_ and other B2b mags


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Coulsen loses same claim as Mulcaire


interesting how Coulson's and Mulcaire's contractual rights have been interpreted quite differently


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 21, 2011)

An editor and a hack have different contracts.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

Mulcaire was an 'independent' PI


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 21, 2011)

So are you going to edit, or did you originally write something even more imprudent?


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 21, 2011)

Sorry, I was thinking of the esteemed journalist McMullen. Same point though.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> So are you going to edit, or did you originally write something even more imprudent?


sorry?


----------



## ymu (Dec 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> sorry?


Are you going to edit out the post that has been pointed out could be prejudicial to the proceedings? There's a reason no one's quoted it ...


----------



## Ted Striker (Dec 22, 2011)

ymu said:


> Are you going to edit out the post that has been pointed out could be prejudicial to the proceedings? There's a reason no one's quoted it ...



But it's (pretty much) common knowledge? He's been played as a disgruntled ex-employee all through.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 2, 2012)

*Gordon Brown's Downing Street emails 'hacked'...Computer crime by press may be as widespread as phone scandal*

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gordon-browns-downing-street-emails-hacked-6283985.html

Surely this sort of thing is a crime against the democratic process. Not that anything will happen but you'd think illegally accessing the Chancellor's communications would be covered by something like treason? Perhaps all this could end in some good beheadings after all.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 2, 2012)

Computer hacking is the dark horse in all of this; not as media-friendly but far more significant.

Can you imagine the market sensitive information on the Chancellor's computers - unbelievable.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 2, 2012)

Yes, I wonder whether any of the hackers were involved with buying and selling of stock. Oh please please pretty please let Morgan have been involved.


----------



## stavros (Jan 2, 2012)

He was editor of the Mirror when James Hipwell did his stock tipping and bought a lot of shares in the companies involved.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 3, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Gordon Brown's Downing Street emails 'hacked'...Computer crime by press may be as widespread as phone scandal
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gordon-browns-downing-street-emails-hacked-6283985.html
> 
> Surely this sort of thing is a crime against the democratic process. Not that anything will happen but you'd think illegally accessing the Chancellor's communications would be covered by something like treason? Perhaps all this could end in some good beheadings after all.



It's quite disturbing when you consider the Murdoch press as a huge, politicised blackmail racket, which I believe is the best way to understand its function in our society over the years.

We already knew this blackmail racket was being run in collusion with the cops but now we see that it was also apparently being run with the connivance of the security services.

Either that or they were too busy shagging/spying on harmless eco-hippies to do an elementary aspect of their fucking jobs ... i.e. preventing espionage against the most senior ministers of the government.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 3, 2012)

'quite disturbing' lol. 

disgusting more like.


----------



## stavros (Jan 3, 2012)

Anyone watch Hacks on C4 the other night? By a Drop the Dead Donkey writer and with a lot of the stylings of The Thick Of It, it had the tongue-in-cheak caveat at the end that "any resemblance to real life characters is purely coincidence".


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

47 year old woman arrested in essex in connection with phone hacking


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

Cheryl Carter. No idea.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 6, 2012)

'Executive Assistant at News International', "Rebekah Wade's long-standing secretary....."

8 August 2003


> Rebekah Wade's long-standing secretary Cheryl Carter is to write a column for the Sun's Woman pages from November.
> 
> Ms Carter, who has remained by Wade's side as she progressed from deputy editor of the Sun to editor of News of the World before becoming Sun editor in January, is expected to write a beauty column.
> 
> She already writes an advice column for the News of the World's Sunday magazine called Ask Cheryl, answering practical questions ranging from what to do if you lose your driving documents to how to remember a baby's early years.


.. and what to do if you want a front page story and a phone handy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

Brooks PA basically.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2012)

Being questioned over deletion of NI emails.

edit: and - the by now usual - suspicion of attempting to pervert the course of justice.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 6, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Computer hacking is the dark horse in all of this; not as media-friendly but far more significant.
> 
> Can you imagine the market sensitive information on the Chancellor's computers - unbelievable.



I'm calling boIIocks on this one. Gordon snatching facepalm from the jaws of epicness, or something.

a) If you had a direct link to GB's PC, you wouldn't have to sniff around for details of his sick kid and/or the bigotted woman would not have been the worst story against him
b) Doing Hugh Grants voicemail is one thing, but hacking the chancellors laptop is a whole different ballgame to convince a private eye to do.
c) If it was so easy, there's other parties (spies, basically) who would be doing this all day long.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 6, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> I'm calling boIIocks on this one..


Then you'd be wrong. To quote Smooth Lester Cool: "She's got legs". At least that's wot many closer to events than most of us believe.


----------



## agricola (Jan 6, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Then you'd be wrong. To quote Smooth Lester Cool: "She's got legs". At least that's wot many closer to events than most of us believe.



Doubt it.  In addition to what Ted Striker states above one shouldnt forget that GB's last "intervention" was shown to be bollocks, plus the identity of the others mentioned (Draper and Hain) shouldnt be grounds for anyone to automatically believe that this story is true.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 6, 2012)

Two things; invading the privacy via phone messages of victims of crime and celeb's is one thing, taking liberties with the state and individuals entire personal life (as per computer hard drives) another - and thinking you had complete immunity.

Second, we're into a different order of criminal offences, beginning with burglary and theft. We have no idea where that may go.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 6, 2012)

If it wasn't GB's rep for fucking things up I'd get excited.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 6, 2012)

Well, it's a slow burner but I do think we can reasonably hope for both a large *boom* and some busts.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 9, 2012)

From this morning: 10.27am: *Kelvin MacKenzie* has taken the witness stand...







Couldn't happen to a nicer fellar. Fwiw, I can see that anything of import came up during his 'evidence'.


----------



## stavros (Jan 9, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Couldn't happen to a nicer fellar.



They really do have an awesome parade of cunts, with McKenzie, Coulson, Brooks, Moron and Digger Junior and Senior. But which is the most cuntish? Only one way to find out....


----------



## teqniq (Jan 10, 2012)

> A former Scotland Yard officer has been arrested by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over allegations of unauthorised leaks to a journalist.
> 
> DCS Dave Cook, 52, is being questioned on suspicion of misconduct in a public office after being detained at his Berkshire home on Tuesday morning.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/10/scotland-yard-officer-arrested


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 11, 2012)

The IPCC can arrest police?  I was unaware of that, has it happened before?

Elizabeth Filkin, missed her involvement too.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 11, 2012)

The irony is Dave Cook may have been the only half-way decent copper to have investigated Morgan's murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Morgan_(private_investigator)


----------



## gabi (Jan 17, 2012)

Crackin day of the inquiry today. Ian Hislop at the moment. Very entertaining.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167512.stm


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 17, 2012)

Cheers for the reminder! (Takes my eyes off the cricket  )


----------



## gabi (Jan 17, 2012)

This is basically a weird episode of HIGNFY.

The lawyers appear to be slightly starstruck again.


----------



## Badgers (Jan 17, 2012)

gabi said:


> Crackin day of the inquiry today. Ian Hislop at the moment. Very entertaining.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167512.stm



He is doing okay I think


----------



## gabi (Jan 17, 2012)

Rusbridger's gettin a very easy ride here


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2012)

Suddenly, the establishment don't seem interested in protecting NGN. Awww, shucks.



> During legal discussions on Thursday before a civil trial scheduled for 13 February, the company failed to convince Mr Justice Vos that the search of three laptops assigned to senior employees and six desktop computers was "disproportionate".
> 
> Dinah Rose QC, for NGN, said the search was unnecessary because there had been "no policy of deliberate destruction" at the paper.
> But Vos said that if he had "acceded to [NGN] suggestions back in early 2011 that disclosure was not necessary because admissions had been made, the phone-hacking history might be very different".
> ...


----------



## scifisam (Jan 19, 2012)

Wait, he's complaining about laptops being searched? _He_'s complaining about invasion of privacy?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 19, 2012)

ymu said:


> Suddenly, the establishment don't seem interested in protecting NGN. Awww, shucks.





> Her claim was robustly rebutted by Vos. "The day you can say 'that's enough' is the day I give judgment – although you can't even say it then because of the number of other cases waiting in the wings."


lol...that's brilliant.   I was going to say he should've finished with 'bitch' but considering the masterchef thread...best not.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 20, 2012)

In amongst the 37 who settles with NI today was Christopher Shipman, son of Harold. There's a story here:



> Shipman was contacted by officers from Scotland Yard's Operation Weeting on 15 August last year and told they had evidence of the unlawful interception of his emails by the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire eight months after his father, Harold Shipman, killed himself in prison.





> Tamsin Allen, solicitor for Shipman, told the court the NoW "had unlawfully obtained the confidential access details to [Shipman's] email accounts, including his password, and had accessed his inbox".


We understand how phone hacking worked/works, but this..... "unlawful interception" .....is an enormous can or worms

This represents another step down the accessing computers avenue because NI have now paid out on it:


> Counsel for News Group Newspapers, the News International subsidiary that published the News of the World, offered its "sincere apologies" to Shipman for "the distress caused to him by the unlawful interception of his emails and obtaining his private and confidential information" and paid undisclosed damages.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/19/harold-shipman-son-now-email


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 20, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ernational-faces-FBI-phone-hacking-probe.html

FBI now seem to have something specific to investigate.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 20, 2012)

Andy Coulson sells his house and takes his kids out of private school

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/jan/20/andy-coulson-newsoftheworld

story is from here originally, with pics of his house

http://order-order.com/2012/01/19/exclusive-look-inside-the-world-of-andy-coulson/


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 20, 2012)

And he can't even grass up NI without incriminating himself; couldn't happen to a nicer feller.


----------



## 1%er (Jan 20, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> This represents another step down the accessing computers avenue because NI have now paid out on it:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/19/harold-shipman-son-now-email



Is this the first time email interception has been confirmed?


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 20, 2012)

In my knowledge it's the first time they've paid out on it (and by implication, though not expressly, admitted to it).

It's a little curious as there is potential for a criminal case here, as well. With a tariff greater than a fine and slapped hand.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2012)

It was admitted last tuesday at Leenson by the Times editor - presuming we're not restricting this to NOTW?


----------



## teqniq (Jan 20, 2012)

1%er said:


> Is this the first time email interception has been confirmed?


Complete confirmation as in admission by NI then yes but it's been talked about for quite some time (mentioned on this thread ages ago) and also been on Newsnight specials.

The case below was part of an investigation by Newsnight as well:



> The Independent has previously revealed that the Metropolitan Police's ongoing investigation into computer hacking, Operation Tuleta, has uncovered evidence that the former British intelligence officer Ian Hurst had his emails hacked as part of a NOTW commission. ....



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/we-hacked-emails-too--news-international-6292245.html


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 20, 2012)

The Times employed  one rogue email hacker, and he was disciplined.

That's alright then, we can all move along now.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> In my knowledge it's the first time they've paid out on it (and by implication, though not expressly, admitted to it).
> 
> It's a little curious as there is potential for a criminal case here, as well. With a tariff greater than a fine and slapped hand.


It looks like your slight fixation over PC hacking is paying off....


----------



## 1%er (Jan 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It was admitted last tuesday at Leenson by the Times editor - presuming we're not restricting this to NOTW?


I'm not but I can't speak for others. Thanks for the link.



teqniq said:


> Complete confirmation as in admission by NI then yes but it's been talked about for quite some time (mentioned on this thread ages ago) and also been on Newsnight specials.
> 
> The case below was part of an investigation by Newsnight as well:
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/we-hacked-emails-too--news-international-6292245.html


Thanks for the link, I only get newsnight on a weekend morning on BBC world if I'm awake  I think Christmas made me forget this thread is dealing with Leveson, I'll keep an eye on it from now on.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 20, 2012)

> The Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers, has lost its high court challenge to the Leveson inquiry over anonymous evidence from journalists.
> 
> On Friday the high court ruled that it would not grant a judicial review to Associated Newspapers in a bid to stop the Leveson inquiry accepting anonymous submissions from journalists. The application was supported by Telegraph Media Group.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/20/daily-mail-leveson-inquiry-anonymity

LOL. High Court judges being somewhat junior to Levenson (in his day job) and presumably not overly keen to step on his toes. The Mail could appeal it but it reads, you know, dead sensible like.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2012)

1%er said:


> I'm not but I can't speak for others. Thanks for the link.



More


----------



## laptop (Jan 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> More



Hmmm...




			
				Jack of Kent said:
			
		

> It would appear that a decision must have been made by a senior manager at the _Times_ not to tell the High Court and the defence about what was clearly a relevant and material matter to the injunction case. Even if the computer hacking was not known about on the date of the hearing of 4 June 2009 it was known by the date of the judgment of 17 June 2009, the day before the _Times_ published its story.



Since Night Jack can't be unnamed, what would be the remedy?

Ah, yes, possibly nothing for failing to inform the injunction proceedings - but criminal sanctions under Computer Misuse Act?


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 21, 2012)

I don't know who the author is or who he's relying on for his legal input, but I stumbled early on in his reasoning:


> First, the blogger's barrister was forced to concede crucially that the application would proceed on the basis that there had been no breach of any confidentiality or privacy right in the investigation


That clearly reads that the basis of the Application in the first place was flawed, quite possibly because of a non-discloure (of hacking) by The Times.

I just think, judicially, the complexion of the whole Application changes with that knowledge, with the possible consequence of something probably not worth appealing becoming something else. Quite how much the complexion changes hinges on whether the hacking is deemed a criminal act - and I'm out of touch with how that's developed. If it is deemed criminal then, imo, the next stage would be for NightJack to go back to the High Court with the admission from The Times and the criminal act.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> I don't know who the author is or who he's relying on for his legal input, but I stumbled early on in his reasoning:...



He's one of the most high-profile lawyers in the country.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 21, 2012)

Then he's just mischief making. The non-committal...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2012)

What do you mean?


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 21, 2012)

The tone:


> You would have thought...





> It is not clear if this actually was the case





> Perhaps we will never know.





> But what makes this entire incident especially problematic





> Would the _Times_ still have won the case had the computer hacking been disclosed? This is possible





> It may well be that there was no strict legal duty to disclose that information





> But no sensible person would dispute...


For one of "the most high-profile lawyers in the country" he seems a little coy.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 21, 2012)

the word 'squirming' comes to mind


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> The tone:
> 
> For one of "the most high-profile lawyers in the country" he seems a little coy.


So _why_ is that mischief making rather than point-making? He pretty clearly makes a series of argued and supported points in order to defend a wider conclusion

Do you think this is why he's been called to appear before Leveson over this issue? Because of his mischief-making?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> The tone:
> 
> For one of "the most high-profile lawyers in the country" he seems a little coy.


You know that thing where clever people couch strong arguments in a way designed not to get them in trouble?


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 21, 2012)

Indeed. As per my post at #8926.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Indeed. As per my post at #8926.


No not indeed. You argued that he was merely mischief making - i.e that there were no substantive points that he was making and used the above excerpts as supporting examples. Problem being (for you at least) is that these were devices used to _enable_ him to make a series of points and arguments. Which you seem to have missed entirely. Maybe he was _too_ clever.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 21, 2012)

It's really not that complicated. He can't criticise the judgment and he can only do so much to have what he sees an a possible/probable injustice reconsidered.

All in all, we know The Times management either lied or was economical with the truth.


----------



## laptop (Jan 21, 2012)

So the complaint against Jack of Kent is that he didn't write it "they're all cunts, obv!" online-stylee?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2012)

_Oi don't like all that clever talk._


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2012)

More  coyness on nightjack - this time he suggests that reading between the lines might be useful. Good advice for some of our posters.

A NightJack - and computer hacking - timeline


----------



## laptop (Jan 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> More coyness on nightjack - this time he suggests that reading between the lines might be useful. Good advice for some of our posters.
> 
> A NightJack - and computer hacking - timeline



Aye, and he's writing for lawyers now:



> *16 June 2009*
> 
> The judgment is handed down.
> 
> ...



While one cannot say that Mr Justice Eady was _wrong_, Hizonner himself may have reason to conclude that he decided the case on the basis of incomplete facts, even of lies by omission.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

Delayed surry plod report now released:



> News of the World journalists who hacked Milly Dowler's phone told a string of lies and interfered with the investigation into her disappearance in 2002, according to a Surrey police report released by a parliamentary committee.





> Today's published Surrey timeline, based on police logs from 2002, depicts a news organisation that tried to bully detectives into backing its own misguided theories, as police searched desperately for clues about the girl who went missing on March 21 2002.
> 
> According to the file, the reporters were so confident of their own power that they openly admitted the paper had obtained tapes of the voicemails on Dowler's phone. Their misinterpretation of the messages then made them mistakenly believe she was still alive.
> 
> Rather than tell her family and police of this important information, however, it appears they concentrated on getting a scoop. Reporters made calls to an employment agency with which they thought she had registered, and sent what the agency called "hordes" of reporters to harass them. Only on the Saturday immediately before publication, did they contact the authorities.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 23, 2012)

when I read that report, my disgust with NI reached new levels


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 23, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> For one of "the most high-profile lawyers in the country" he seems a little coy.


don't you think it's just that, like accountants, most lawyers tend towards the restrained and understated in their writing style?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 24, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> when I read that report, my disgust with NI reached new levels



Not just NI either ...



> Surrey Police knew for nine years that the News of the World had been hacking Milly Dowler's voicemails – and was even played a recording of one message by a journalist from the Sunday newspaper – but never took action about the law-breaking or told her anguished family.
> 
> The force, which was investigating the schoolgirl's disappearance and murder in 2002, has stayed silent for a decade despite repeatedly being given evidence of the NOTW illegally accessing the 13-year-old's mobile phone messages during the middle of its inquiries. Two other police forces also had knowledge of the hacking, it emerged yesterday in highly damaging evidence released by Parliament.
> 
> In a trail of logged exchanges between Surrey Police and journalists from the now-defunct Murdoch-owned tabloid – finally released yesterday after months of demands from this newspaper and another – officers and public relations officials from the force are shown to have been fully aware of how NOTW journalists illegally hacked into her mobile phone during 2002, and yet did and said nothing until late 2011.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-covered-up-dowler-hacking-6293669.html


----------



## two sheds (Jan 24, 2012)

It's because of this sort of thing that I'd agree with Hislop - we don't need new laws, we just need the laws that we have to be applied. If we get new laws they will undoubtedly actually just protect people like MPs and *still* not be applied when journos snuggle up to the police.

As we keep hearing for the rest of us, there should be stiff penalties for this sort of thing to act as a deterrent to others.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 24, 2012)

If I were Surrey Police I'd take my lead from Parliament, and if Parliament had ignored an admission of paying serving police officers for information, an admission of criminality - made by Wade directly to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in open session - I'd take that as a pretty strong indicator of which way the wind was blowing. That was in March 2003.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 24, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Not just NI either ...
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-covered-up-dowler-hacking-6293669.html


that is utterly outrageous. If I were the Dowlers, I'd sue them for millions.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 28, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/28/news-international-four-men-arrested
Its spread to the Sun! Four Sun hacks arrested 

But crucially this is" nothing to do with voicemail interception and solely relates to paying police for stories." I jumped the gun a bit there

ETA: IS this still the main phone hack thread?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2012)

This is just payments to the police for info - not hacking.


----------



## paolo (Jan 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This is just payments to the police for info - not hacking.



Just as much win though 

Bent cops and their feeders are arguably (well, not arguable  ) lower vermin than dodgy hacks.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 28, 2012)

It's still the privacy issue. For example, how many hundreds of people did NI undermine when those people had a legitimate cause but NI paid bent coppers for details of any previous - almost entirely unrelated - convictions (and spent convictions), and pasting up huge headlines about them...


----------



## paolo (Jan 28, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> It's still the privacy issue. For example, how many hundreds of people did NI undermine when those people had a legitimate cause but NI paid bent coppers for details of any previous - almost entirely unrelated - convictions (and spent convictions), and pasting up huge headlines about them...



I have a few friends who work on "the street of shame". One of them who I caught up with a week or so ago, a sub on a red top, was largely unrepentant about the trade, but was mortified about the collective 'justice' dished out to Christopher Jeffries.

That was massively fucked up. A contemporary case of why our press needs a good lasting legal kicking. (my view, not my friends, not that I asked)

[edit: name correction thanks to DaveCinzano]


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 28, 2012)

Christopher Jefferies I believe?


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2012)

http://nthurlbeck.blogspot.com/

I thought nev was firmly in the ni camp... When did this change?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 29, 2012)

http://nthurlbeck.blogspot.com/2012/01/news-internationals-crisis-of-trust.html



> I witnessed the coal-mines and shipyards of Sunderland closing down for good after centuries of proud, world famous history in the 1970s and 80s. Many serving and retired workers cried at the time. I now understand where their cries came from. It is a sense of failure that everything you have worked for all your life has suddenly turned to dust and didn’t work out.


"LOL"?


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2012)

Oh my.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 29, 2012)

killer b said:


> http://nthurlbeck.blogspot.com/
> 
> I thought nev was firmly in the ni camp... When did this change?



Loyalty to the company throughout this whole brouhaha does seem to have depended on whether the company continued paying the legal bills.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 29, 2012)

What the fuck is that supposed to be about? The man is a fool.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 29, 2012)

I had a 70s Glam Rock morning so pop pickers:

Neville, Neville, you should confess ...
Neville, Neville, your life is a mess...
Neville, Neville, you should have known...
Murdoch's cock, you loved it so.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 29, 2012)

Lots of insight into whats going on re The Sun from Nick Davies here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/29/data-pool-3-sun-arrests-murdoch

If I were a betting man (I am), Id bet that the Sun is going to be destroyed by this. Odds are good. The dirt is in there, they jut have to find it.

Best read it yourselves, but this seems the key bit:



> Under enormous legal and political pressure, Murdoch has ordered that the police be given everything they need. Whereas Scotland Yard began their inquiry a year ago with nothing much more than the heap of scruffy paperwork seized from the NoW's private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, Murdoch's Management and Standards Committee has now handed them what may be the largest cache of evidence ever gathered by a police operation in this country, including the material that led to Saturday's arrests.
> 
> They have access to a mass of internal paperwork – invoices, reporters' expense claims, accounts, bank records, phone records. And technicians have retrieved an enormous reservoir of material from News International's central computer servers, including one particularly vast collection that may yet prove to be the stick that breaks the media mogul's back. It is known as Data Pool 3.
> 
> ...



Goes on to say about deleted emails and how they've all been recovered


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 29, 2012)

What a great name 'Data Pool 3'. Totally Tinker, Tailor.


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Loyalty to the company throughout this whole brouhaha does seem to have depended on whether the company continued paying the legal bills.


i've not been following it too closely recently - when did he get thrown under the bus?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 30, 2012)

ska invita said:


> Lots of insight into whats going on re The Sun from Nick Davies here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/29/data-pool-3-sun-arrests-murdoch
> 
> If I were a betting man (I am), Id bet that the Sun is going to be destroyed by this. Odds are good. The dirt is in there, they jut have to find it.
> 
> ...


Lots of interest in that!



> The four men arrested on Saturday are not linked to the NoW. They come from the Sun, from the top of the tree – the current head of news and his crime editor, the former managing editor and deputy editor.



They felt they had enough shit to go straight to the top (well not _the_ top, but the top).



> At the outer reaches of possibility, police may find evidence of illegal activity by other private investigators, which could conceivably lead them to other news organisations who also hired them. Since Saturday morning, nothing is certain.



Could pretty much be the end of large parts of the newspaper industry.   And not much missed, most of it.  It's a defunct industry anyway.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 30, 2012)

killer b said:


> i've not been following it too closely recently - when did he get thrown under the bus?



For example:

http://nthurlbeck.blogspot.com/2012/01/news-internationals-crisis-of-trust_19.html



> ..In February, 2006, I was dispatched by a newsdesk executive to intercept Ms Crisan on a train and put to her an allegation that she had been conducting an affair with Fiennes.
> 
> I did so, alighted then wrote a few pars of copy. From memory she refused to comment.
> 
> ...


----------



## Badgers (Jan 30, 2012)

Does anyone think that The Sun will fall on the sword with this too?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 30, 2012)

killer b said:


> i've not been following it too closely recently - when did he get thrown under the bus?



When he broke cover in November to put his version of events into the purplest of prose for the _Press Gazette_ he was not exactly complimentary about his managers (though he did construct a narrative that removed blame from the shoulders of Brooks and Murdoch the Lesser).


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 30, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Does anyone think that The Sun will fall on the sword with this too?


NotW went as both Operation Elveden and the Public Inquiry (Levensen) were announced but remained unknown quantities, Weeting had been running for six months but was not yet seen as effective, public sentiment demanded a sacrifice, the political class abandoned Murdoch and so something had to give.

When it's actually in place, the 'mood' is generally inclined towards letting due process do its job, so my guess is The Sun is safe for now.

Perhaps it’s interesting to reflect that it's taken two Murdoch’s to be publically flogged by a Parliamentary Committee,the loss of the £10 billion Sky deal, two mammoth police operations, a 3-4 year PI and the demise of the words largest selling Sunday to satisfy the mood of that moment.

So far, so good


----------



## ska invita (Jan 30, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Does anyone think that The Sun will fall on the sword with this too?


 I think NOTW closed because of the plan to have the Sunday Sun (due out in spring I heard), so it didn't really dent the empire. I don't think they'll so easily ditch the Sun. The brand would have to be really badly damaged in the eyes of Sun readers for that to happen - something akin/ a lot worse to the Milly Dowler thing.

I bet there is dirt on people high up the food chain, but this won't necessarily topple the paper.There's every reason to believe that there are hundreds of potential infringements in Data Pool 3 cases, which could lead to endless settlements and court cases - the costs of that must add up, but News Int. aren't short of cash.  Maybe there is a chance that those not in the Murdoch circle will want to push him and his clan out, and they may not be so sentimental about the Sun, or the loss-making Times. It's fun to speculate


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jan 30, 2012)

Id be surprised if they get much out of the emails. Youd have to be pretty niaive to put anything truly incrminating in one on the NI servers.


----------



## stavros (Jan 30, 2012)

As a minor aside, I found out at the weekend that Mulcaire played and scored the first ever goal for AFC Wimbledon.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 30, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Id be surprised if they get much out of the emails. Youd have to be pretty niaive to put anything truly incrminating in one on the NI servers.


Jesus, I wouldn't take too many bets on that.

Fwiw, these four most recent arrests at The Sun were all based on these emails.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 31, 2012)

Some good to-ing and fro-ing between 2 lawyers today...Must admit (Sir) Christopher Meyer (former head of PCC) is winning on points


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2012)

It's wonderful to see Thurlbeck come out fighting and grassing: If this is now, imagine what it'll be like when the trials start


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2012)

and now http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16830084 it looks like Mulcaire will be forced to grass up NI


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 6, 2012)

Paul Dacre giving evidence live now:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/06/leveson-inquiry-sue-akers-paul-dacre-live


----------



## stavros (Feb 6, 2012)

Has he called Leveson a cunt yet?


----------



## stavros (Feb 7, 2012)

The police fucked up - official.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 7, 2012)

'flaws' 'errors'  'operational reasons' 'complete mystery'
aye...right


----------



## krink (Feb 11, 2012)

bye bye the sun!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16996275

but i read it here first:

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2012/0...-9-arrests-during-wappping-raid-this-morning/


----------



## Badgers (Feb 11, 2012)




----------



## T & P (Feb 11, 2012)

ETA... beaten to it ^


It's starting to look rather compromising for The Scum...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

Murdoch's defence squad do appear to have adopted the  grass others up slowly piece by piece and hope that'll do approach over the last month or so.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

These are serious people being arrested - picture editor John Edwards, chief reporter John Kay, chief foreign correspondent Nick Parker


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> chief foreign correspondent Nick Parke


 
OH NO, GROMIT, WE'VE FORGOTTEN TO PAY OFF THE KNACKERS!


----------



## ska invita (Feb 11, 2012)

What a beautiful day it is today 

I seem to remember something along the lines of when there was an official inquiry into malpractice in the press a few years back there was a chart produced of the worst offenders...didn't the daily mail come top of that list? If anyone knows what Im talking about could they post a link please. Thank you.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 11, 2012)

That's the Information Commissioner's 2006 report 'What Price Privacy Now?'

The list the _Mail_ topped was in reference to 'transactions', which would include also legal inquiries.


----------



## krink (Feb 11, 2012)

oh yes, imagine the sun and the mail both going - that would be just brilliant


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

ska invita said:


> What a beautiful day it is today
> 
> I seem to remember something along the lines of when there was an official inquiry into malpractice in the press a few years back there was a chart produced of the worst offenders...didn't the daily mail come top of that list? If anyone knows what Im talking about could they post a link please. Thank you.


I think you mean the table that was in the Information Commissioners Office's follow up report to What Price Privacy? called What Price Privacy now? both based on Operation Motorman - this is just transactions for personal info though, it doesn't say with who or what info:


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 11, 2012)

Interesting that an MOD employee has been arrested as well, and a Surrey police officer


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 11, 2012)

Obv. Elveden again. Proper offences as well, none of that phone hacking slebs malarkey:


> The journalists, aged between 45 and 68, were arrested at addresses in London, Kent and Essex on suspicion of corruption, aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office, and conspiracy in relation to both these offences.


Lovely.

Prob not unrelated to 'Data Pool 3'.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

wtf is Best Magazine?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 11, 2012)

Don't be coy, we all know you subscribe:


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

Ah one of those. I guess their 'transactions' are celeb related then.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 11, 2012)

No flies on you today.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Murdoch's defence squad do appear to have adopted the grass others up slowly piece by piece and hope that'll do approach over the last month or so.


I'd say it's more that the crooks have all fallen out, it's every scumbag for themselves, and they're all grassing each other - equally good fun


----------



## teqniq (Feb 11, 2012)

I read somewhere about a month ago that NI may well completely pull out of the U.K. Speculation rumor or a leak - I can't remember, but I hope this hastens the day.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> I'd say it's more that the crooks have all fallen out, it's every scumbag for themselves, and they're all grassing each other - equally good fun


This is top-down i think. Management led and driven.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 11, 2012)

Trying to create a fire break between his doomed UK blackmail/corruption/propaganda (and occasionally news) operation and his ops in other countries, especially in the US.


----------



## moochedit (Feb 11, 2012)

krink said:


> oh yes, imagine the sun and the mail both going - that would be just brilliant


 
It would be even better if Murdoch himself gets arrested    *crosses fingers*


----------



## moochedit (Feb 11, 2012)

> The Sun's editor, Dominic Mohan, said: "I'm as shocked as anyone by today's arrests


----------



## two sheds (Feb 11, 2012)

GOTCHA as Sun headline on Monday?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 11, 2012)

two sheds said:


> GOTCHA as Sun headline on Monday?


 
*FIVE GET ARRESTED:*
_END BLIGHT ON_
_NEWSCORP CORRUPTION?_

*LASHINGS OF GINGER & PIERS*
_MURDOCH INSIDER: "Culture perpetuated by editors like Brooks, Morgan"_


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Murdoch's defence squad do appear to have adopted the grass others up slowly piece by piece and hope that'll do approach over the last month or so.


Are these people being put up as sacrifices


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 12, 2012)

Pretty much ...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 12, 2012)

> Legal experts speculate that the bribery allegations could lead to the broadcasting watchdog, Ofcom, reviewing Murdoch's stake in Sky television.   Any evidence suggesting News International titles were engaged in the corruption of officials could also trigger an investigation by the US authorities into breaches of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) which prohibits corrupt payments to foreign government officials.
> It is this – the threat of the cancer spreading outside the UK and eating away at an empire that includes Fox News and 20th Century Fox film studios, and last year had revenues of $34bn (£21.5bn) – that really worries Murdoch's lieutenants.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/11/rupert-murdoch-media-empire-scrutiny

this story just keeps on giving doesn't it?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 12, 2012)

> Legal experts speculate...


Classic shit stirring by The Guardian. They're absolutely loving this, and milking it for all it's worth.




Streathamite said:


> I'd say it's more that the crooks have all fallen out, it's every scumbag for themselves, and they're all grassing each other - equally good fun


 
I think so. The likelihood of a containing strategy in this mess is ...optimistic. NI  have next to no control over events.

It's basically over for whoever did what at NI. It's just going to take years for the police/CPS/Courts/HMPS to get to everyone, but that most def includes Brookes and Coulson.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 12, 2012)

Helpful background:




> The scale of any penalties that flow from the FCPA investigation would be based on a calculation of how much benefit the company derived from any corruption.* Against that, mitigating factors would be taken into account such as the extent of co-operation given to the investigating authorities by the company.*
> 
> That helps explain why News Corp has bent over backwards in recent months to assist the police by handing over evidence of possible wrongdoing, to the dismay of some of its own journalists.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/11/news-corp-us-investigation-fcpa


----------



## T & P (Feb 13, 2012)

Absolutely jaw-dropping article by The Scum's Trevor Kavanah today on the "Soviet-style witch-hunt" targetting News International

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...behind-ex-Soviet-states-on-Press-freedom.html


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2012)

that's interesting for it's kick out at the Murdochs beneath the cover of an attack on the liberal press


----------



## ddraig (Feb 13, 2012)

T & P said:


> Absolutely jaw-dropping article by The Scum's Trevor Kavanah today on the "Soviet-style witch-hunt" targetting News International
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...behind-ex-Soviet-states-on-Press-freedom.html


 diddums!
they want to try being an activist/protestor


----------



## two sheds (Feb 13, 2012)

No I agree with him, where would the country be if newspapers couldn't bribe a copper without having their collars thumbed?

For too long the Sun has promoted this wishy washy liberal approach to locking people away.


----------



## Gingerman (Feb 13, 2012)

T & P said:


> Absolutely jaw-dropping article by The Scum's Trevor Kavanah today on the "Soviet-style witch-hunt" targetting News International
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...behind-ex-Soviet-states-on-Press-freedom.html


The shear brass neck of the cunt ,his shitty paper knows all about witch-hunts,for years the Scum has harressed,belittled,bullied and humiliated individuals they disliked or suspected of being wrong 'uns without a smigin of evidence,now that the shoe's on the other foot they have the nerve to squeal like stuck pigs,Kavanagh can go and get fucked!!!


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 13, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> His shitty paper knows all about witch-hunts,for years the Scum has harressed,belittled and humiliated individuals they disliked,now that the shoe's on the other foot they have the nerve to squeal like stuck pigs.....


 
That's always the way it is with bullies.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 13, 2012)

He's the former political editor of The Sun - no oxymoron there - and now an 'associate editor' e.g kicked upstairs and  effectively now Murdoch's mouthpiece. He's worked at The Sun for 35 years. Marvellous.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> He's the former political editor of The Sun - no oxymoron there - and now an 'associate editor' e.g kicked upstairs and effectively now Murdoch's mouthpiece. He's worked at The Sun for 35 years. Marvellous.


Yes, that's why he attacked Murdoch. Catch up ffs you racist cunt.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 13, 2012)

Is the sun still Britain's favorite newspaper, meaning the biggest seller?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, that's why he attacked Murdoch. Catch up ffs you racist cunt.


Have another drink why don't you.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 13, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> He's the former political editor of The Sun - no oxymoron there - and now an 'associate editor' e.g kicked upstairs and effectively now Murdoch's mouthpiece. He's worked at The Sun for 35 years. Marvellous.


did you even read the article? he's trying to distance himself and his staff from his masters


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Have another drink why don't you.


Why did  "Murdoch's mouthpiece." attack murdoch you racist cunt? Well done, you now also look like a lazy cunt commenting on links that you cant' be bothered to read. On top of the racism.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 13, 2012)

I guess the Sun on Sunday is out of the question now


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> did you even read the article? he's trying to distance himself and his staff from his masters


The "witch hunt" is against News International, the disproportionate police raids are against News International employees, there is a "vendetta" against News International, etc, etc: Listen to him

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17008614


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> The "witch hunt" is against News International, the dispropotiante police raids are against News International employees, there is a "vendetta" against News International, etc, etc: Listen to him
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17008614


Mein gott, this is an example of how to read something wrong. It's in the fucking SUN and he still didn't dumb it down enough for you.

Any kiddy teachers want to walk this racist cunt through what it means?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 13, 2012)

Meanwhile, at Comrades.com UK offices it's been another tough day:


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2012)

'Murdoch's mouthpiece' attacking murdoch and he still doesn''t get it. 

Star.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 13, 2012)

I loved this line ...



> ... its journalists are being treated like members of an organised crime gang.


 
No shit shergar ....


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 13, 2012)

Is the Sun about to set. Good fucking riddance.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 14, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> The "witch hunt" is against News International, the disproportionate police raids are against News International employees, there is a "vendetta" against News International, etc, etc: Listen to him
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17008614


 
trevor said...



> At any other time the treatment of the journalists would have caused uproar at Parliament and among civil liberty and human rights campaigners, he said.


 
And at this time too, trevor.   There certainly would be an uproar if there was unjust treatment of....journalists.

Sun going down in 5....4....3....

Isn't it wonderful.


----------



## elevendayempire (Feb 14, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I loved this line ...
> 
> "... its journalists are being treated like members of an organised crime gang."
> 
> No shit shergar ....


lol. 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/sun-to-be-produced-in-prison-for-prison-201202144893/


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 14, 2012)

elevendayempire said:


> lol.
> 
> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/sun-to-be-produced-in-prison-for-prison-201202144893/


 


> A spokesman said: "The Sun has always catered to an audience obsessed with violence and masturbation.​
> "Who else could possibly want photos of the TOWIE girls out on the town apart from some banged-up nutter who hasn't seen a woman in years?​​


----------



## Gingerman (Feb 14, 2012)

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/02/the-sun-dawn-raids-hacking/
Aint that the truth.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2012)

*Sun staff line up human rights challenge*



> Senior journalists atthe Sunare preparing to launch a legal challenge to theNews Corporationunit that disclosed confidential sources to the police, leading to the arrest of nine of the paper's current and former staff this month.
> 
> Journalists at theNews Internationalred-top have approached the National Union of Journalists with a view to hiring the leading human rights lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson QC, to question the legality of parent company News Corp's management and standards committee.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 15, 2012)

Amazing how time and time again those who have spent years challanging the exisistence of human rights laws suddenly find them useful when they are in the shit.


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 15, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Amazing how time and time again those who have spent years challanging the exisistence of human rights laws suddenly find them useful when they are in the shit.


 
The other irony being that, if it were a couple of dozen people from some other profession being rousted out in dawn raids and having their professional and private lives put through the wringer, the same hacks who are currently whimpering about it would be doorstepping the detainees neighbours, friends and family, harassing them with intrusive and unsolicited phone calls, letters and emails, photographing them without their consent (or even their knowledge, more than likely) and possibly offering their friends and family large amounts of cash to dig up anything dirty on them, be it past or present, while presenting the detainees as the scum of the earth and themselves as the moral guardians of the nation.


----------



## Gingerman (Feb 15, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Amazing how time and time again those who have spent years challanging the exisistence of human rights laws suddenly find them useful when they are in the shit.


 As a certain right-wing DM columnist with a small dick would say " You could'nt make it up"


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 15, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> As a certain right-wing DM columnist with a small dick would say " You could'nt make it up"


 
Would that be the same under-endowed right-wing DM columnist who rants endlessly vile and increasingly incoherently frothing rants about how the country he loves so much is going to hell in a handcart and how devastated he is, while living the majority of his life in Florida, perchance?


----------



## Gingerman (Feb 15, 2012)

Bakunin said:


> Would that be the same under-endowed right-wing DM columnist who rants endlessly vile and increasingly incoherently frothing rants about how the country he loves so much is going to hell in a handcart and how devastated he is, while living the majority of his life in Florida, perchance?


 Aye,the one and only Richard Littledick


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 15, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> Aye,the one and only Richard Littledick


 
No, no, no.

You mean 'The one and only Richard 'I'm definitely, absolutely, positively NOT GAY, but I'm definitely suspiciously curious' Littledick.'

Allegedly.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 15, 2012)

Ah but it's interesting. If they can show that newscorp covered up inf to protect higher-ups and then divulged inf to fuck these journos over then they have some kind of case, surely. This is all about america now, anyway. Is it the FCA act or something about paying off people in other countries? Newscorp will throw everything overboard to keep the US and TV market, both of which require high moral standards.   #Which means it doesn't even survive as itself, hopefully.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 15, 2012)

@ dexter  contender for the longest hashtag ever?  #Whichmeansitdoesntevensurviveasitselfhopefully.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 16, 2012)

I was eating a dary-lea dunkable


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 16, 2012)

1%er said:


> Is the sun still Britain's favorite newspaper, meaning the biggest seller?


Yes it is but has lost a lot of readers but so have all the others check the ABC's on media guardian.i wonder how low readership can drop before some title's have to shut


----------



## teqniq (Feb 16, 2012)

apols


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 16, 2012)

Had 5 packets now...can't be good.   nom

shag I think the change in media/technology only the most upright and recognisably honest have any chance of some form of survival.   It's good that tis lot go first though...it's appropriate.

So many ripples.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 16, 2012)

The ABC's for january 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2012/feb/10/abcs-national-newspapers


----------



## ymu (Feb 16, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Amazing how time and time again those who have spent years challanging the exisistence of human rights laws suddenly find them useful when they are in the shit.


Like when the NotW journalists were complaining about losing their jobs just as they had been handed the golden opportunity to live it up on benefits.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 16, 2012)

NUJ now launching campaign to get News International Staff Association (NISA - Murdoch puppet body) derecognised, and NUJ chapel officially recognised.  Needs 10% of journo's at NI to call for recognition.  Thurlbeck saying it could open the way to biggest print union disputes since Wapping.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 16, 2012)

Since Wapping!


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

articul8 said:


> NUJ now launching campaign to get News International Staff Association (NISA - Murdoch puppet body) derecognised, and NUJ chapel officially recognised. Needs 10% of journo's at NI to call for recognition. Thurlbeck saying it could open the way to biggest print union disputes since Wapping.


Fuck the journalists from the NotW and the Sun they are the cunts who wrote the shit in the first place, only following orders will not cut it.

No one I know who was involved in Wapping would piss on them if they were on fire


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 16, 2012)

More stuff here, there have long been rumours about NDS

http://afr.com/p/world/murdoch_man_in_new_hacking_row_dPQccMmpprjwaqwreDQV6N


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 16, 2012)

the good old sun:


----------



## articul8 (Feb 16, 2012)

Blame the owners/management/editorial bosses


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 16, 2012)

There is an exhibit commemorating the 25th anniversary of Wapping at the Bishopsgate Institute at the moment.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 17, 2012)

Those poor journos at the Sun.... Those poor footballers at Rangers....
The tears are rolling down my face.


----------



## gosub (Feb 17, 2012)

Murdoch just announced the Sun on Sunday


----------



## Lord Camomile (Feb 17, 2012)

Was that less than a year?

Will it play, or will people see through it?


----------



## gosub (Feb 17, 2012)

said it again in email where he unsuspended all the people he grassed up to the dibble


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 17, 2012)

Is anyone organising a serious Boycott campaign at the moment? It seems like a golden opportunity. This issue has stirred up such widespread distaste that a boycott campaign could be knocking at an open door if it was properly organised.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 17, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> Is anyone organising a serious Boycott campaign at the moment? It seems like a golden opportunity. This issue has stirred up such widespread distaste that a boycott campaign could be knocking at an open door if it was properly organised.


hard to boycott something you don't buy already


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 17, 2012)

On the contrary, that is very easy.  The next step is a campaign to stop others from buying.


----------



## newbie (Feb 18, 2012)

did droves of people stop buying the NOTW?  I thought it was advertisers not wanting to be tarnished by association that sank it, not the readers deserting.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2012)

It was both - and it doesn't take much imagination to realise that they were related responses. All the Murdoch titles lost loads of readers at the height of this


----------



## articul8 (Feb 18, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> Is anyone organising a serious Boycott campaign at the moment? It seems like a golden opportunity. This issue has stirred up such widespread distaste that a boycott campaign could be knocking at an open door if it was properly organised.


Whilst I'd fully support one, I'm not sure how well it would work - people that still regularly by The Sun have proved pretty hard to shift if they're still getting it.  I'm guessing price is still a key factor.  Targetting the advertisers is another approach but it's a bit chicken-and-egg since they'll only budge with swelling tide of consumer opinion [was the Milly Dowler thing that really tipped the balance last year].


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 18, 2012)

Has there been an effort to shift people though since Wapping and Hillsborough?  This isn't just about the people getting The Sun either, apart from the other papers, Sky TV and internet are probably worth a lot more to the Murdoch empire.


----------



## stavros (Feb 19, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> Sky TV and internet are probably worth a lot more to the Murdoch empire.


 
And HarperCollins possibly?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 20, 2012)

The big bucks come from the US (and increasinly Asia) - Fox network/movies, Star network etc - News International is small fry by comparison.  Sky is a decent money-spinner but they only have a 40% share.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 20, 2012)

More, computer hacking this time

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/20/news-world-hacking-suspect-conspiracy


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 21, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> More, computer hacking this time
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/20/news-world-hacking-suspect-conspiracy


Lots of stuff in that article. It almost deserves its own thread, I don't know where to start.

The Coulson stuff should be taken up straight away by the Scottish Courts in respect of possible perjury in the Sheridan perjury case. That's my first reaction.

Again the police are incompetent or complicit, in other paragraphs - imo.   If they had the slightest hint of anyone hacking ex-army intelligence and didn't pass it to (army intelligence) heh fucking hell.   That would cause a world of shit we'd never hear about.



> At Leveson, Sue Akers, who is leading the Met investigations into hacking, confirmed details about Operation Kalmyk, a sub-inquiry of Tuleta.
> Kalmyk is investigating the allegations in the BBC Panorama programme.
> "This relates to illegal accessing of computers belonging to others for financial gain and this is the one of them that has been a full investigation as a result of the scoping exercise that Tuleta has undertaken," Akers said.


 
I _suppose_ that this is a separate remit to hunt out corruption in the police and _not_ the full extent of their remit re investigation into possible computer hacking.   There's no way the police would cut their own throat just now with this.

The police will probably turn into the weapon of the people, in this case.   Mad.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 21, 2012)

You're right, that article is like a flow chart exploding over a venn diagram.

So, concentrating on the Murdoch empire, we knew NotW hacked computers - this was admitted last month - but now we know  how (NoTW used computer virus's to access emails, etc on personal computers).

Coulson (at least) is alleged to have been one of the NI link men, and possibly a commissioner of the virus technique. The veracity of this overview is supported by the fact of Mulcaire showing  Christopher Shipman - in 2004 - copies of emails from his own pc.

Beyond slebs, the suggestion is Alex Marunchak - who worked directly under Coulson at NotW - commissioned the computer hacking of at least one army intelligence officer (with implications for national security) as well as  ... the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If true, the latter is obviously extraordinary.

I would imagine all of that has given the people looking at Data Pool 3 some fresh keywords to trawl for.

I'm not reading any new actual evidence against NI/NotW, just a further fleshing out?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 21, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> Has there been an effort to shift people though since Wapping and Hillsborough? This isn't just about the people getting The Sun either, apart from the other papers, Sky TV and internet are probably worth a lot more to the Murdoch empire.


 
I suspect the main value of the Sun/NotW to Murdoch and his cronies in the police and cabinet, was as a political blackmail tool rather than a revenue stream.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 21, 2012)

Did notw ever use on-line stuff with its readers?   These viruses would only have been specifically targeting people, not a mass trawl of everyone?


----------



## xes (Feb 21, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Did notw ever use on-line stuff with its readers? These viruses would only have been specifically targeting people, not a mass trawl of everyone?


it wouldn't supprise me in the least. Its not like a virus can distinguish between someone who is "famous" and someone who is just a normy. Just another reason to NEVER visit their websites. (like we needed another one)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)

Start of module two today (police and press links) and the doors have been well and truly blown off the Sun (and NI) - presumably forewarning that this was going to happen today was behind the decision to rush the sunday Sun out...


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 27, 2012)

Tom Watson and colleagues on the Select Committee may find themselves too busy today to comment...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)

Apart from Tom Watson commenting all day. And, given that all the stuff akers has been questioned on and revealed today is an _update_ of the investigation since the Committee concluded its business last time around i.e what she revealed today was not known to the Elevenden team until recently, what are you suggesting the Committee should have done?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 27, 2012)

Had some bollocks at some point between March 2003 and last year - it's only been 9 years now:


----------



## two sheds (Feb 27, 2012)

Oo my word

The Sun had 'culture of illegal payments to sources', Leveson inquiry told

now a 'culture' of illegal payments goes right to the top.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 27, 2012)

See above. it went 'right to the top' 9 years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Had some bollocks at some point between March 2003 and last year - it's only been 9 years now:


Ah yes, they could have made up the results of Operation Elevenden, or better still have carried out the work that the 40+ Elevenden team have been doing for the last 8 months and that's now revealing the extent of this? How? What do you think a select committee can do?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 27, 2012)

@ LondonCalling: he said it was 'within the law' though (yes you're right of course they're lying bastards), this is a proper accusation of illegal payments.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 27, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What do you think a select committee can do?


About someone admitting to them they've bribed serving police? Oh I dunno, have them arrested, maybe?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> About someone admitting to them they've bribed serving police? Oh I dunno, have them arrested, maybe?


You think they have the power of arrest?


----------



## editor (Feb 27, 2012)

The disgusting scumbags have now had to pay £600k damages to Charlotte Church. They stalked her and hacked her phone when she was 16. 



> Ms Church said she had discovered that, despite an apology the paper "was prepared to go to any lengths to prevent me exposing their behaviour".
> 
> "It seems they have learned nothing, and I would have learned nothing more from an actual trial since it was clear that no-one from News International was prepared to take the stand to explain their actions," she said.
> 
> ...


----------



## ohmyliver (Feb 27, 2012)

well, lets hope that the full weight of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is brought down on Murdoch, and News Corp...​


----------



## gabi (Feb 27, 2012)

I was watching this on the news. WTF was with the anti-nuclear prostestors trying to get their banners into shot while Church was talking about the Sun co-ercing her mum into revealing she'd tried to commit suicide..?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 27, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You think they have the power of arrest?


 
I know it's somewhere between the teenager-with-attitude and the snarly drunk, but what time is it  the grown up internet persona is on shift?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> I know it's somewhere between the teenager-with-attitude and the snarly drunk, but what time is it the grown up internet persona is on shift?


The answer is no, they don't have the power to arrest people. So your suggestion that they arrest people is a bit silly.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)

Little bit of taunting about the timing of todays testimony and the (3 million+) 'success' of the Sunday Sun.




			
				murdoch said:
			
		

> As I've made very clear, we have vowed to do everything we can to get to the bottom of prior wrongdoings in order to set us on the right path for the future. That process is well underway. The practices Sue Akers described at the Leveson inquiry are ones of the past, and no longer exist at the Sun. We have already emerged a stronger company.


----------



## Balbi (Feb 27, 2012)

Brooks and Coulson were warned about hacking in 2006  Their string of denials are now comical.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Brooks and Coulson were warned about hacking in 2006  Their string of denials are now comical.


Bit confused by the attention on this this one as it shows was that they were told in 2006 of an ongoing prosecution of Mulcaire and the other one who were then convicted in 2007. The whole email only points to Mulcaire and Goodman. This isn't a smoking gun.


----------



## laptop (Feb 27, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Bit confused by the attention on this this one as it shows was that they were told in 2006 of an ongoing prosecution of Mulcaire and the other one who were then convicted in 2007. The whole email only points to Mulcaire and Goodman. This isn't a smoking gun.


 
I think we're being invited to read between the lines of the reported warning: "We're going only after these two so far and you don't need to worry if you're nice to us" yes?

If I were approached by cops keen to tell me they were not prosecuting me I'd certainly be reading between the lines!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)

I can't see any suggestion of this though - and i have looked and looked again. There just doesn't seem to be any external refs at all.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 27, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Bit confused by the attention on this this one as it shows was that they were told in 2006 of an ongoing prosecution of Mulcaire and the other one who were then convicted in 2007. The whole email only points to Mulcaire and Goodman. This isn't a smoking gun.


 
I don't know.  First the very fact that the Met are giving a running commentary on what evidence they have found that back-up criminal prosecutions (and what won't stack up) with senior NI management is dodgy for a start.  The quantitiy of victims is clearly known to be higher than the met or NI were publically admitting at the time. And the last line seems to imply that there was some covert agreement between RW and the met not to look to hard beyond GM and Goodman.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't know. First the very fact that the Met are giving a running commentary on what evidence they have found that back-up criminal prosecutions (and what won't stack up) with senior NI management is dodgy for a start. The quantitiy of victims is clearly known to be higher than the met or NI were publically admitting at the time. And the last line seems to imply that there was some covert agreement between RW and the met not to look to hard beyond GM and Goodman.


We don't know it's running or a one off and the last line seems to suggest they want to see if she wants to grass up CG and GM.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 27, 2012)

Seems dodgy that this kind of info is getting back to Coulson, given that should be part of what's being investigated (as - arguably - should Brooks).  The last line seems to hint at something beyond going after Goodman and Mulcaire - it seems to suggest that they know there's more out there but hinting to RW that they can probably get away with letting it rest at the "rogue reporter" stage.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)

This last line?



> 10: they are going to contact RW [presumed to be a reference to Rebekah Wade] today to see if she wishes to take it further."


 
Given it's coming from crone 'take it further' should not be read as a threat. More, if she wants to add to burying the two we have...


----------



## articul8 (Feb 27, 2012)

I read the "it" being the investigation not criminal charges?  ie. the police are saying " - do you want us to bottom out how far this goes in your organisation, or do you want us to close it down and limit it to what we've got on the two (and hope that lances the boil for you)".


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I read the "it" being the investigation not criminal charges? ie. the police are saying " - do you want us to bottom out how far this goes in your organisation, or do you want us to close it down and limit it to what we've got on the two (and hope that lances the boil for you)".


I don't. I read it  - and remember you're reading crone's version of what the police told RW - as  meaning they'll be contacting her to see if she will grass up the people she later grassed up. It's not the OB saying _what shall we do as you are in control_ - as the later 2007 conviction shows.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 27, 2012)

I don't see there is ever any question of not hanging Goodman and Mulcaire out to dry by this stage - RW had lost control of it to that extent.   It's just a question of how far it implicates the rest of the operation. No wonder Coulson wanted to know what was being discussed.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 27, 2012)

Good piece by Brian Cathcart:
http://hackinginquiry.org/comment/revealed-a-true-mafia-moment


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't see there is ever any question of not hanging Goodman and Mulcaire out to dry by this stage - RW had lost control of it to that extent. It's just a question of how far it implicates the rest of the operation. No wonder Coulson wanted to know what was being discussed.


In that email? No.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Good piece by Brian Cathcart:
> http://hackinginquiry.org/comment/revealed-a-true-mafia-moment


That's excellent, cheers.

Did anyone post the guardian editorial?  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/27/leveson-inquiry-police-news-international

It's all far too much to digest sometimes...

...off to watch newsnight about it now


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 28, 2012)

laptop said:


> I think we're being invited to read between the lines of the reported warning: "We're going only after these two so far and you don't need to worry if you're nice to us" yes?
> 
> If I were approached by cops keen to tell me they were not prosecuting me I'd certainly be reading between the lines!


 
Could work the other way. You'd feel that way, but would a professional blackmailer who had dirt on said cops have the same interpretation?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 28, 2012)

Yesterday rather put Trevor Kavanagh's bleatings about a witch hunt, etc in context.

Seems somehow more than a few months since Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt was minded to approve the takeover of BSkyB....


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 28, 2012)

two sheds said:


> @ LondonCalling: he said it was 'within the law' though (yes you're right of course they're lying bastards), this is a proper accusation of illegal payments.


It' was always an oyxmoron. You cannot pay police officers 'within the law'. She admitted criminal acts to a Parliamentary Select Commitee in 2003, and which _now_ people are putting up their hands in horror about.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Bit confused by the attention on this this one as it shows was that they were told in 2006 of an ongoing prosecution of Mulcaire and the other one who were then convicted in 2007. The whole email only points to Mulcaire and Goodman. This isn't a smoking gun.


I don't think the important thing was the warning, it was that she was assured the situation was being 'managed' at The Met and the investigation would be limited to those two, and would not be allowed to get out of tight control.

eta: On that back of that assurance from with The Met, NI obv. developed a strategy which stood up for several years (the 'rogue reporter').


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 28, 2012)

Can't do c+p on my phone but met police confirmed they loaned a horse to Brooks for 2008-10. Ffs


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 28, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Can't do c+p on my phone but met police confirmed they loaned a horse to Brooks for 2008-10. Ffs


Yes, just heard it on the news, lacking much detail just now but it could be a delicious side-issue.   Any more gifts shared between mps and ni?   Most fucking likely, I'd guess.


----------



## gosub (Feb 28, 2012)

Surprised no one mentioned the witness protection data, if they aren't seen to throw the book at all involved, will fuck up countless future trails for all range of serious shit.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 28, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Can't do c+p on my phone but met police confirmed they loaned a horse to Brooks for 2008-10. Ffs


 
Heh excellent. Mind you, if it was a retired horse that's not so bad - it's a bugger to home them. It's a gift that keeps on taking, too.

Also some decent jokes on twitter:

@TheMediaTweets "Why the long face?" "I've been loaned to Rebekah Brooks."


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 28, 2012)

I think the horse story was intended to distract from the other evidence about the Daniel Morgan case, interfering with a police investigation


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 28, 2012)

This tweet made me laugh:


> #*Leveson*: Police collusion with NOTW to subvert murder inquiry. Met: HORSE! HORSE HORSE HORSE, LOOK AT THE HORSE! Murdoch: *silence*


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 28, 2012)

The interesting q is why? Why would Brookes borrow a knackered retired horse from the Met when she's married to a racehorse trainer with a large stable.

The answer is probably, like the eager-to-please junior reporter they had change his name by deed poll to 'Harry Potter', because she could:



> At 5pm I approached Ms Wade's office, without broomstick or wand, to find her and and several other News International executives sat around seemingly awaiting my magical appearance as the schoolboy wizard. It was only when an aggrieved deputy editor Andy Coulson demanded to know where my outfit was that I realised this was no joke. I spluttered something out about leaving it in the photo studio. Coulson declared: "You should have your Harry Potter costume with you at all times. There could be a Harry Potter emergency."


It sometimes feels they believed they were invincible, like emperors. People were play things, they asked for things to prove they could ask for anything.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...-your-harry-potter-costume-on-now-640911.html


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 28, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> The interesting q is why? Why would Brookes borrow a knackered retired horse from the Met when she's married to a racehorse trainer with a large stable.


 
It might have made a nice wee cozy article in the Saturday mag? "What happens to hero horses when they retire?". Her husband certainly has the facilities to look after a few extra elderly nags. It's a nothing story, but as sleaterkinney said above, the timing of the "revelation" is intriguing, given that there seems to have been a murder investigation compromised.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 28, 2012)

Hmm dp


----------



## Dan U (Feb 28, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> I think the horse story was intended to distract from the other evidence about the Daniel Morgan case, interfering with a police investigation



Agreed. It's going to get the headlines 

Tom Watson is saying a lot in parliament tomorrow about Morgan according to the Daniel Morgan campaign twitter account.


----------



## laptop (Feb 28, 2012)

Dan U said:


> Agreed. [The horse is] going to get the headlines
> 
> Tom Watson is saying a lot in parliament tomorrow about Morgan according to the Daniel Morgan campaign twitter account.


 
And there was me just thinking that, daft though it is, it could do damage.

Envy. Woman can keep horses. Cops give her horse. For why?


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 28, 2012)

laptop said:


> And there was me just thinking that, daft though it is, it could do damage.
> 
> Envy. Woman can keep horses. Cops give her horse. For why?


it was a gift horse. for her not to look in the mouth. perhaps they should have blinded it too.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 28, 2012)

What have a Trojan Horse and the Queen got in common?


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 28, 2012)

they've both had greeks inside them


----------



## ymu (Feb 28, 2012)

> In a meeting with her husband, she said Brooks "repeated the unconvincing explanation that the News of the World believed we were having an affair". Hames said: "I believe that the real reason for the NoW placing us under surveillance was that suspects in the Daniel Morgan murder inquiry were using their association with a powerful and well-resourced newspaper to try to intimidate us and so attempt to subvert the investigation."
> 
> She told the inquiry that it was impossible not to conclude that there had been "collusion between people at the News of the World and people who were suspected of killing Daniel Morgan".
> 
> ...


 
Dynamite.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 28, 2012)

ymu said:


> Dynamite.


 
Yeah - for me this element of the story  represents the ugly reality of just how posionous and deep rooted  NI's infection of the body politic was. This is not really about the phone hacking of murder victims  in pursuit of headlines (odious though that is), its about News International's mafia/stasi like hold over the police and the political system achived via surveilance, blackmail and bribery.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

ymu said:


> Dynamite.


I expect  Alex Marunchak is starting to feel the heat somewhat right now with his name being brought up in connection with the Hames/Cook stuff (he was working for the met bang in this period) _and_ being shown to have commissioned Philip Campbell Smith to hack an ex-Army intelligence officers computer (got four months yesterday) whilst he was a NOTW executive. He always seems to just...be there.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 29, 2012)

Bloody Ukrainians, coming over here, stealing our voicemails, getting involved in axe murders...


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 29, 2012)

In relation to Marunchak's interest in Ian Hurst's computer, it would be nice to think  that somewhere down the road it would be handy that Marunchak is one of the few  journalists  to have signed the OSA.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 29, 2012)

I wouldn't think it really makes that much difference, everyone is subject to the OSA whether or not they have signed it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 29, 2012)

It's now being contended by the Polis that the horse was returned in a 'poor' state. If that doesn't suggest the love in is over don't know what would. 

Somewhat ironic that Brooks is now subject to the kind of innuendo NI papers excelled in.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> I wouldn't think it really makes that much difference, everyone is subject to the OSA whether or not they have signed it.


Might effect sentencing though...


----------



## articul8 (Feb 29, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Yeah - for me this element of the story represents the ugly reality of just how posionous and deep rooted NI's infection of the body politic was. This is not really about the phone hacking of murder victims in pursuit of headlines (odious though that is), its about News International's mafia/stasi like hold over the police and the political system achived via surveilance, blackmail and bribery.


 
Tom Watson has called an adjournment day debate on the Morgan case this afternoon.


----------



## coltrane (Feb 29, 2012)

I just heard on Radio 5 Live that James Murdoch has stepped down as Executive Chairman of News International.


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 29, 2012)

On Guardian ticker too


----------



## Lord Camomile (Feb 29, 2012)

Sorry, haven't been keeping track of this as much as I should lately. Is that the move that was kind of always expected, or did that happen sometime last year?

I always thought there was a story about James that wasn't quite as big as it might sound, because it had been planned for a while and wasn't necessarily due to the NotW stuff.


----------



## belboid (Feb 29, 2012)

confirmed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...nternational/2012/02/29/gIQALwc6hR_story.html


----------



## Lord Camomile (Feb 29, 2012)

News Corporation statement:


> News Corporation today announced that, following his relocation to the company's headquarters in New York, James Murdoch, deputy chief operating officer, has relinquished his position as executive chairman of News International, its UK publishing unit. Tom Mockridge, chief executive officer of News International, will continue in his post and will report to News Corporation president and COO Chase Carey.
> 
> "We are all grateful for James' leadership at News International and across Europe and Asia, where he has made lasting contributions to the group's strategy in paid digital content and its efforts to improve and enhance governance programs," said Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive officer, News Corporation. "He has demonstrated leadership and continues to create great value at Star TV, Sky Deutschland, Sky Italia, and BSkyB. Now that he has moved to New York, James will continue to assume a variety of essential corporate leadership mandates, with particular focus on important pay-TV businesses and broader international operations."
> 
> "I deeply appreciate the dedication of my many talented colleagues at News International who work tirelessly to inform the public and am confident about the tremendous momentum we have achieved under the leadership of my father and Tom Mockridge," said James Murdoch. "With the successful launch of the Sun on Sunday and new business practices in place across all titles, News International is now in a strong position to build on its successes in the future. As deputy chief operating Officer, I look forward to expanding my commitment to News Corporation's international television businesses and other key initiatives across the company."


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

_relinquished_


----------



## Santino (Feb 29, 2012)

Not enough relinquishing is done these days.


----------



## Ted Striker (Feb 29, 2012)

Bizarre story - Brooks (when Sun editor) herself was hacked by NotW...http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/brookss-phone-hacked-weekly

Not sure what to make of it. Would go in her favour to bolster her deniability of the practice.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

This all said at lev today?



> Robert Jay QC, counsel to the press standards inquiry, said today: "Rebekah Wade, as she then was, was one of the most accessed since 2005, twice a week."
> 
> Tom Crone, the News of the World's head of legal, summarised the information Ms Brooks received from police in an email headed "strictly private and confidential" to the paper's then-editor Andy Coulson on September 15 2006.
> 
> ...


 
What does "counsel to the press standards inquiry," mean exactly?


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What does "counsel to the press standards inquiry," mean exactly?


http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/people/counsel-to-inquiry/


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

Ta. So he's questioning here. So who is he saying this too? Who is he explaining it to?


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ta. So he's questioning here. So who is he saying this too? Who is he explaining it to?


If I understand your question, he is talking to the judge and through the judge, the public.

I think what he is doing is reading into evidence so it is "on the record", if it is not challenged it is taken as fact.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

I get reading in. But he's doing more than that isn't he? He's commenting and making judgements.


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I get reading in. But he's doing more than that isn't he? He's commenting and making judgements.


sorry I edited my last post to add "if it is not challenged it is taken as fact", I think that covers your point.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

Ta again, but i'm nor sure that you're right here.


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Feb 29, 2012)

At the end of evidence the judge will look at everything, many witnesses who have given evidence have made assertions, inferences and speculations as well as providing facts with supporting evidence.

I understood that evidence given to an inquire that is not challenged is taken as being correct and facts with-in that evidences therefore accept.

I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

Buzz sw9 said:


> At the end of evidence the judge will look at everything, many witnesses who have given evidence have made assertions, inferences and speculations as well as providing facts with supporting evidence.
> 
> I understood that evidence given to an inquire that is not challenged is taken as being correct and facts with-in that evidences therefore accept.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer.


But he's not giving evidence - see what i mean?


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> But he's not giving evidence - see what i mean?


He is not giving evidence as a witness but his job is to ensure the inquire gets all the evidence it needs to come to a judgement.


----------



## coltrane (Feb 29, 2012)

Tom Watson has managed to get a debate in the HOC on Daniel Morgan murder (axe in back of head in Penge pub car park) at 4pm today.

http://twitter.com/#!/tom_watson

"I'm with Alastair Morgan. His brother was murdered 25 years this March 10th. There's a debate at 4pm. Nothing else can get in the way of it."


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

I'm sure it is, but he's saying:



> Robert Jay QC, counsel to the press standards inquiry, said today: "Rebekah Wade, as she then was, was one of the most accessed since 2005, twice a week."
> 
> Tom Crone, the News of the World's head of legal, summarised the information Ms Brooks received from police in an email headed "strictly private and confidential" to the paper's then-editor Andy Coulson on September 15 2006.
> 
> ...


 
which is far beyond that.


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Feb 29, 2012)

Are you referring to the comments by jay about halfway down?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

Yes.


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Feb 29, 2012)

Evidence to his first words ""This relates to a formal complaint that Rebekah Wade might make in her capacity as victim" is evidenced by Detective Chief Superintendent Philip Williams, "You're a potential victim, would you like to join our prosecution?'"

I can only assume he included this "It is not the more sinister interpretation, whether she wishes to take the investigation into News International further" because someone has asserted in evidence that this could be another interpretation.

But I would hope we are going to hear more evidence on this in due course.


----------



## ymu (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I expect Alex Marunchak is starting to feel the heat somewhat right now with his name being brought up in connection with the Hames/Cook stuff (he was working for the met bang in this period) _and_ being shown to have commissioned Philip Campbell Smith to hack an ex-Army intelligence officers computer (got four months yesterday) whilst he was a NOTW executive. He always seems to just...be there.


It also seems possible that their involvement in the Daniel Morgan murder case started before the Hames/Cook harrassment stuff. Morgan's brother says he was about to blow open a police corruption racket, and at the time he was working with John Rees, prime suspect and a private detective who was supplying the NoTW with lots of juicy shit from corrupt coppers ...

That is, obviously, speculation too far right now, but just on what they have now, Marunchak must be looking at serious time, along with a fair few others.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I get reading in. But he's doing more than that isn't he? He's commenting and making judgements.


I haven't seen it but the chances are he is leading, as he is trained to do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

Leading who? Who is he questioning?


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Feb 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Leading who? Who is he questioning?


I think what he is doing in the text you quote above is, reading into evidence that which he has been asked to read by a core participant or others.

Counsel to the inquire is the voice for everyone and the conduit for evidence, I'm not sure he is making Judgements, I think leveson will be doing that 

Could you explain a little more what your concern about the text is, if it hasn't been addressed fully?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

He's giving an opinion - not testimony. You cannot read that in. You can read it in as it's a thing that's been said,_ but not as fact._


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Feb 29, 2012)

He is giving an opinion, whose opinion it is we are not sure off. How much weight, if any, will be given to that opinion at the end of it all, is anyone's guess.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 29, 2012)

I'd have assumed he's responsible for making statements to the press. Presumably being very careful what they say so they don't prejudice any trials.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 29, 2012)

Wasn't Brooks being hacked mentioned by one of the coppers giving evidence today? 

At 12:42
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/29/leveson-inquiry-williams-maberly-surtees-live


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

two sheds said:


> I'd have assumed he's responsible for making statements to the press. Presumably being very careful what they say so they don't prejudice any trials.


So who is he giving statements surmising what RW said to? The press? In that case it's not his job to say that is it? The hearing? Again, not his job.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 29, 2012)

Good old Met

Met to review Daniel Morgan murder over claims of News of the World link



> He revealed that the Morgan murder – one of the Met police's most notorious unsolved killings – was now being overseen by the assistant commissioner _*Cressida Dick, *_


----------



## ymu (Feb 29, 2012)

> After Morgan's death Fillery became Rees's partner in Southern Investigations. Watson told MPs Morgan had been about to take his story about police corruption to the News of the World and its crime reporter Marunchak at the time he was killed and had been promised £40,000 for the story.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Very, very serious. This is very close to an allegation that they were involved in the murder, not just the cover-up.


----------



## laptop (Mar 1, 2012)

ymu said:


> This is very close to an allegation that they were involved in the murder, not just the cover-up.


 
So it might appear.

Bloody hell...


----------



## ymu (Mar 1, 2012)

Useful titbit here. If you ever get raided y the Met: obstruct them, make them think you might turn violent and they'll just give up and let your solicitor fob them off. Established procedure, apparently. 



> News International "obstructed" the original inquiry into criminal activity at the News of the World, refusing to hand over evidence to police of phone-hacking and thwarting a raid on its east London offices, senior detectives have told the Leveson inquiry into press ethics.
> 
> Keith Surtees, an investigating officer with the Metropolitan police hacking inquiry in 2006, told Lord Justice Leveson how officers were photographed and feared they might be attacked when they searched the newspaper for evidence.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 1, 2012)

ymu said:


> Useful titbit here. If you ever get raided y the Met: obstruct them, make them think you might turn violent and they'll just give up and let your solicitor fob them off. Established procedure, apparently.


 
Yes. I too was a bit puzzled by that.

Wouldn't the Met normally call in a bunch of riot police to kick the living shit out of anyone obstructing them en-masse like that?


----------



## ymu (Mar 1, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Yes. I too was a bit puzzled by that.
> 
> Wouldn't the Met normally call in a bunch of riot police to kick the living shit out of anyone obstructing them en-masse like that?


Yes. Brian Paddick said as much at Leveson. Which is nice. Lib Dem in 'has uses' shock.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

ymu said:
			
		

> Yes. Brian Paddick said as much at Leveson. Which is nice. Lib Dem in 'has uses' shock.



His whole thing is very useful and will have people picking through it for a while. Ill link to his typed statement when i get on a proper computer later.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 1, 2012)

Looking forward to Yates and hayman today.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 1, 2012)

Andy Hayman and John Yates today....should be interesting.  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167512.stm  livelink


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> His whole thing is very useful and will have people picking through it for a while. Ill link to his typed statement when i get on a proper computer later.


Here (non pdf)


----------



## ymu (Mar 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Here (non pdf)


Had that on my list to hunt down later. Thanks!


----------



## two sheds (Mar 1, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Yes. I too was a bit puzzled by that.
> 
> Wouldn't the Met normally call in a bunch of riot police to kick the living shit out of anyone obstructing them en-masse like that?


 
I think you'll find the NI people were armed with rolled up newspapers  that makes it a health & safety issue.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

32 year old woman arrested after NI management grass up...come on, war, make war.


----------



## Santino (Mar 1, 2012)

I can't figure out that the NI Management Standards Committee is. I'd assumed that it was just a way of putting things at an arms length from Murdoch. Is it really doing anything that he hasn't told it to do? Or has he said 'Do what must be done', because exposing the whole truth is the only way forward now?


----------



## ymu (Mar 1, 2012)

Santino said:


> I can't figure out that the NI Management Standards Committee is. I'd assumed that it was just a way of putting things at an arms length from Murdoch. Is it really doing anything that he hasn't told it to do? Or has he said 'Do what must be done', because exposing the whole truth is the only way forward now?


They're jettisoning everything to do with UK newspapers, and possibly all newspapers, asap in order to try and save the much bigger NewsCorp empire. They're co-operating like fuck because of the US Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act. They have to be seen to be doing this right or they potentially lose everything.

Guardian had an article in yesterdays homepage bundle on Murdoch, if you want to find it. Was quite in depth on internal reorganisation away from newspapers etc.


----------



## coltrane (Mar 1, 2012)

From

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/01/leveson-inquiry-yates-hayman-clarke-live-live#block-85

"2.22pm: Yates says it was pointless pursuing Mulcaire again as he has already served time for phone hacking.
"I took the view, rightly or wrongly, that more evidence against Mulcaire would actually take us nowhere at all. He was never going to stand trial again for phone hacking. He had been
dealt with, sentenced and that process had been complete.""



Would i be correct in interpreting this as implying that if i had committed as series of bank robberies and i had been charged and sentenced for one bank robbery then Yates is of the view that i shouldn't be charged with the other bank robberies if new evidence emerged that i had committed them?​


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 1, 2012)

Catching up....


> Mr Watson, the MP for West Bromwich East, alleged former News of the World reporter Alex Marunchak was overheard saying he was paying police public relations for information about the Soham deaths in 2002.
> 
> "I believe the Met [Police] is sitting on an intelligence report from late 2002 that claims a police contact overheard Marunchak claim he was paying the relatives of police officers in Cambridgeshire for information about the Soham murders," Mr Watson said.
> 
> "As far as we know, those allegations have not been investigated."





> "I do not know whether the intelligence reports are accurate, but I do know that Alex Marunchak was involved in writing stories about how the Manchester United tops of those young girls were found," he said


Lots of stuff there, inc. Mr Marunchak again, alleged payments to police beyond the Met and potential Dowler scale public reaction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-17217685


----------



## ymu (Mar 1, 2012)

coltrane said:


> From
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/01/leveson-inquiry-yates-hayman-clarke-live-live#block-85
> 
> ...


Yup. I'm amazed the CPS hasn't published this guidance more widely. How many dawn raids have we tolerated, how many years of punishment-free recidivism have we wasted, all through sheer ignorance of how the law really works.


----------



## agricola (Mar 1, 2012)

Santino said:


> I can't figure out that the NI Management Standards Committee is. I'd assumed that it was just a way of putting things at an arms length from Murdoch. Is it really doing anything that he hasn't told it to do? Or has he said 'Do what must be done', because exposing the whole truth is the only way forward now?


 
One would imagine they are exposing absolutely every piece of information that demonstrates that Rupert and James had nothing to do with it and that it was all the fault of various underlings.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 1, 2012)

coltrane said:


> Would i be correct in interpreting this as implying that if i had committed as series of bank robberies and i had been charged and sentenced for one bank robbery then Yates is of the view that i shouldn't be charged with the other bank robberies if new evidence emerged that i had committed them?


 
Or he's saying that he didnt think phone hacking was that bigger a deal, illegal yes but way down the scale, he had far more important things to be getting on with. Its a line he's used throughout and one that I've heard from other coppers. They did an investigation, they caught the man, he got punished, now off to do some proper policing.

tbf its a line which could have had some credability if it was just about celebs secrets being revealed, however given everything that has come out he now looks like a complete mug or worse.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2012)

agricola said:


> One would imagine they are exposing absolutely every piece of information that demonstrates that Rupert and James had nothing to do with it and that it was all the fault of various underlings.


Yes. That's what i was struggling to say earlier.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 1, 2012)

BBC news reporting Virginia wheeler sun defence editor arrested


----------



## ymu (Mar 1, 2012)

National security re-enters stage left.

Juicy.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 1, 2012)

> She is the 11th Sun journalist to be arrested since last November. According to her profile on the Sun's website, Wheeler is the Sun's first female defence editor.
> 
> Thursday's arrest was made under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office (contrary to common law) and conspiracy in relation to both offences.
> 
> In a statement, the Met Police said that: "The operation is the result of information provided to police by News Corporation's management standards committee."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/01/met-arrests-32-year-old-woman


----------



## agricola (Mar 1, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Or he's saying that he didnt think phone hacking was that bigger a deal, illegal yes but way down the scale, he had far more important things to be getting on with. Its a line he's used throughout and one that I've heard from other coppers. They did an investigation, they caught the man, he got punished, now off to do some proper policing.
> 
> tbf its a line which could have had some credability if it was just about celebs secrest being revealed, however given everything that has come out he now looks like a complete mug or worse.


 
Not that it is an argument that they have ever advanced, and I apologise for repeating myself from earlier in the thread, but it is perhaps the case that the Met looked at the scale of this, realised what would be involved in terms of taking it on properly (as we are seeing now, its more than a hundred experienced officers working on a lengthy and complex enquiry), noted who they would be going up against - Murdoch, the various members of the political class (none of whom had any reason in 2004-6 to actually oppose Rupert), most of the rest of the media who were to a greater or lesser extent up to much the same thing as the NI papers - and the lawyers that all of those would take on, and remembered how little the previous trials into press malpractice (Motorman and the trial in Devon) had managed to achieve, and decided that it was not worth all the bother when the likely outcome (at least then) was to attract a considerable amount of grief for no likely reward.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 1, 2012)

agricola said:


> Not that it is an argument that they have ever advanced, and I apologise for repeating myself from earlier in the thread, but it is perhaps the case that the Met looked at the scale of this, realised what would be involved in terms of taking it on properly (as we are seeing now, its more than a hundred experienced officers working on a lengthy and complex enquiry), noted who they would be going up against - Murdoch, the various members of the political class (none of whom had any reason in 2004-6 to actually oppose Rupert), most of the rest of the media who were to a greater or lesser extent up to much the same thing as the NI papers - and the lawyers that all of those would take on, and remembered how little the previous trials into press malpractice (Motorman and the trial in Devon) had managed to achieve, and decided that it was not worth all the bother when the likely outcome (at least then) was to attract a considerable amount of grief for no likely reward.


 
Oh come one -  Murdoch and the met were in each other pockets right up to the highest level.


----------



## contadino (Mar 1, 2012)

two sheds said:


> I think you'll find the NI people were armed with rolled up newspapers  that makes it a health & safety issue.


 
I think it was the Guardian piece that says the police were obstructed by photographers. I was under the impression that photographing police officers is a terrorism offence nowadays, no? They'll arrest foreign tourists and minors for it, but not a bunch of papparazzi..?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2012)

contadino said:


> I was under the impression that photographing police officers is a terrorism offence nowadays, no?


 
No.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 1, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> No.


 
Only when there's nobody looking.


----------



## agricola (Mar 1, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Oh come one - Murdoch and the met were in each other pockets right up to the highest level.


 
Perhaps - certainly the apparent inaction when two of their own officers were being stalked by the paper suggests something was deeply wrong - but it is surely too simplistic to suggest that they did nothing.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 1, 2012)

contadino said:


> I think it was the Guardian piece that says the police were obstructed by photographers. I was under the impression that photographing police officers is a terrorism offence nowadays, no? They'll arrest foreign tourists and minors for it, but not a bunch of papparazzi..?


No it is NOT an offence to photograph police officers although some of them would like to persuade amateur photographers that this is the case. Please don't spread this impression around because it helps them to be bully boys.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 1, 2012)

two sheds said:


> I think you'll find the NI people were armed with rolled up newspapers  that makes it a health & safety issue.


 
If they had rolled up newspapers, why weren't they shot by firearms officers?

I mean, double standards or what?


----------



## newbie (Mar 1, 2012)

agricola said:


> Not that it is an argument that they have ever advanced, and I apologise for repeating myself from earlier in the thread, but it is perhaps the case that the Met looked at the scale of this, realised what would be involved in terms of taking it on properly (as we are seeing now, its more than a hundred experienced officers working on a lengthy and complex enquiry), noted who they would be going up against - Murdoch, the various members of the political class (none of whom had any reason in 2004-6 to actually oppose Rupert), most of the rest of the media who were to a greater or lesser extent up to much the same thing as the NI papers - and the lawyers that all of those would take on, and remembered how little the previous trials into press malpractice (Motorman and the trial in Devon) had managed to achieve, and decided that it was not worth all the bother when the likely outcome (at least then) was to attract a considerable amount of grief for no likely reward.


The inquiry needs to see the minutes of that meeting.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 1, 2012)

agricola said:


> Not that it is an argument that they have ever advanced, and I apologise for repeating myself from earlier in the thread, but it is perhaps the case that the Met looked at the scale of this, realised what would be involved in terms of taking it on properly (as we are seeing now, its more than a hundred experienced officers working on a lengthy and complex enquiry), noted who they would be going up against - Murdoch, the various members of the political class (none of whom had any reason in 2004-6 to actually oppose Rupert), most of the rest of the media who were to a greater or lesser extent up to much the same thing as the NI papers - and the lawyers that all of those would take on, and remembered how little the previous trials into press malpractice (Motorman and the trial in Devon) had managed to achieve, and decided that it was not worth all the bother when the likely outcome (at least then) was to attract a considerable amount of grief for no likely reward.


 
This actually does make sense as one potential reason for not doing anything.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that there also was a clique of very senior officers and managers (or whatever you'd call Fedorico in polite company) who were right up the arse of the Murdoch press, received all kinds of considerations like cushy jobs after leaving the force, and who may well have had anything from deep criminal involvement in, to guilty awareness of, a substratum of actually corrupt officers colluding with Murdoch scum and turning a blind eye to routine criminality by Murdoch stooges.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 1, 2012)

Was it not reported (heh) a while back that there were 47 ex-plod working for notw?

If that is so (if it is so, I think it is so) .. we can reasonably worry from what has happened that this could actually be nigh on systemic.

Hayman and Yate's testimony was (deliberately) boring and entirely unreliable imo. One wonderful bit that doesn't seem to have been picked up.



> At a meeting in the Oriel restaurant Hayman spent £47 on a bottle for someone he recalls was from the paper and was possibly a female, although he could not recall their name.


Fuck off.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> One wonderful bit that doesn't seem to have been picked up...


 
Really?


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 1, 2012)

That mail link is excellent. So is the beeb one.

However I haven't heard of it reported on radio/tv so I still contend the point has not been picked up, so far, as being as striking as it appears to me.

(eta everything)


----------



## Ted Striker (Mar 1, 2012)

Slice of twitter gold from Prescott on Wednesday...

*John Prescott* ‏ @*johnprescott*

 *Reply* 
 *Retweet* 
 *Favorite* 
· Open
.@*rupertmurdoch*. Will the last Murdoch to leave Wapping please turn out the lights #*itsthesonwotlostit*


----------



## two sheds (Mar 1, 2012)

Private Eye had it as Sun on Sunday headline: Will the last Sun journalist escorted off the premises by the police please turn out the lights?


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2012)




----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 2, 2012)

ymu said:


>


 

 David Cameron: I did ride ex-police horse lent to Rebekah Brooks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/02/david-cameron-police-horse-rebekah-brooks

Another point and laugh moment.


----------



## Santino (Mar 2, 2012)

It can only be a matter of time before he has to fuck a pig on live TV.


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 2, 2012)

> "It was not a meeting," the spokesman said. "The prime minister does not have meetings on horses"


 
Veering from the deadly serious to the sublimely ridiculous every day


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2012)

Tom Watson on the Daniel Morgan case:
http://www.publications.parliament....20229/halltext/120229h0002.htm#12022953000004

Fucking hell  How come people don't know more about this - police involvement in murdering someone about to blow the whistle on corruption, Murdoch journalists spying on the detective leading a murder inquiry?  Same guy mysteriously getting info on the Soham murders and publishing it ahead of any trial?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 2, 2012)

David Pearce's Red Riding but nastier?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Tom Watson on the Daniel Morgan case:.
> http://www.publications.parliament....20229/halltext/120229h0002.htm#12022953000004
> 
> Fucking hell  How come people don't know more about this - police involvement in murdering someone about to blow the whistle on corruption, Murdoch journalists spying on the detective leading a murder inquiry? Same guy mysteriously getting info on the Soham murders and publishing it ahead of any trial?


Look at who it concerns - that's how


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> David Pearce's Red Riding but nastier?


reality beats fiction for weird nasty shit every day


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

I wonder where the polices 6 months bugging of rees has gone? Have they managed to lose it yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2012)

Remeber rees = coulson=cameron


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 2, 2012)

I was just wondering whether there is a liklehood of Cameron getting dragged back into this.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 2, 2012)

I'm waiting for someone to reveal that the Met supplied the cocaine for ruling-class parties (possibly even beast-orgies given known proclivities) in Chipping Norton.


----------



## Buzz sw9 (Mar 2, 2012)

Any of these people who are giving evidence next week likely to say anything interesting?

Roger Baker (HM Inspectorate of Constabulary)
Elizabeth Filkin
Sir Paul Stephenson (former MPS)
Lord Condon (former MPS)
Chief Constable Lynne Owens (Surrey Police and former MPS)
Lord Stevens (former MPS)
Lord Blair (former MPS)
Tim Godwin (former MPS)
Bob Quick (former MPS)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2012)

Yes.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Remeber rees = coulson=cameron


Coulson is multiply fucked and will probably go down - but can anything be pinned to Cameron other than shocking judgement?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2012)

How much did the Blair government know?:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/02/tony-blair-phone-hacking-police?newsfeed=true


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 2, 2012)

Loads, it looks like.   Jowell and Blunkett refused to co-operate with plod - Jowell in charge of media at the time!

Again - Tony Bliar never used a mobile whilst in office.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> How much did the Blair government know?:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/02/tony-blair-phone-hacking-police?newsfeed=true


Enough to keep its trap shut.

Does anyone really think, for example, Peter Mandelson wasn't phoned hacked to death - anyone seen a word from him?

Scared to fucking death of NI, always were.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 2, 2012)

Blunkett is more interesting because we know he was hacked and he's consistently said he aint that bothered about it.  Of course its purely coincidental that he got a nicely paid column in The Sun (or was it the screws?) after leaving office.

Its worth bearing in mind that Blunkett was home secretary at this point, yet again national security looms into view.  Of course Blunkett's not going to say a thing the self serving fucking coward.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 2, 2012)

RE Blunkett: where do you think information came from about the affair with the married woman and his son, and even more information as it unfolded?


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 2, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> RE Blunkett: where do you think information came from about the affair with the married woman and his son, and even more information as it unfolded?


 
He was hacked, it seems very straight forward to me and to most I think.  Was he not?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 2, 2012)

Of course. And what did Blunkett, as serving Home Sec, have to say about where the information was coming from?

That indicates the hold Murdoch had over a UK Government.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 2, 2012)

Can't remember, sorry.  I suspect you might.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 2, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Does anyone really think, for example, Peter Mandelson wasn't phoned hacked to death - anyone seen a word from him?


 
Mandelson was probably not dumb enough to keep a default voicemail password.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> How much did the Blair government know?:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/02/tony-blair-phone-hacking-police?newsfeed=true


 


> The Blair government and its spin doctor Alastair Campbell had a policy of cultivating close links with the Murdoch papers, including the News of the World, which had supported the party at past general elections. According to Prescott and others, they were unwilling to challenge the behaviour of the Murdoch press.
> 
> Police failed to turn over to the Leveson inquiry the secret report they had sent to the home secretary. When Clarke disclosed its existence during his testimony, Leveson called for the inquiry to be supplied with it.


----------



## binka (Mar 2, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Mandelson was probably not dumb enough to keep a default voicemail password.


isnt the default password thing a myth? i was under the impression people who had changed their pin also got hacked (via info paid for from people working at the phone companies)


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2012)

binka said:


> isnt the default password thing a myth? i was under the impression people who had changed their pin also got hacked (via info paid for from people working at the phone companies)


Yeah. Some of the early stories implied that the hacking was just about default pins being tried, and some people still seem to think that's all it was. Which is extraordinary given the column inches since then. Maybe they only read the Murdoch press? Or just don't read.


----------



## laptop (Mar 2, 2012)

Buzz sw9 said:


> Any of these people who are giving evidence next week likely to say anything interesting?
> 
> Roger Baker (HM Inspectorate of Constabulary)
> Elizabeth Filkin
> ...


 
All of them, if interrogated properly?

Surrey police evidence should be v. interesting wrt the Dowler stuff.

If the inquiry QC grills Stevens & Blair on the contents of Paddick's statement, things could get very uncomfortable indeed for them.

Condon - was he in charge during a large part of the Daniel Morgan murder investigation? Stephens too? I'm only a bit better on Chief Constables than queens and kings...


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 2, 2012)

binka said:


> isnt the default password thing a myth? i was under the impression people who had changed their pin also got hacked (via info paid for from people working at the phone companies)


 
I think the default password was the main conduit for the kind of phone hacking we've heard of so far. I haven't really thought about anything beyond that, to be honest. There should be no way that a regular employee of the phone company can tell what a changed PIN is - standard security stuff - but then again the phone company will need access to stored messages for legal reasons, I guess. Hmmm. Anyone know?


----------



## laptop (Mar 2, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> David Cameron: I did ride ex-police horse lent to Rebekah Brooks
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/02/david-cameron-police-horse-rebekah-brooks
> 
> Another point and laugh moment.


 
Michael White:
*David Cameron and the horse: sometimes funny proves fatal*

As I said: the horse thing is daft, but has legs.

So to speak


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 2, 2012)

ymu said:


> Yeah. Some of the early stories implied that the hacking was just about default pins being tried, and some people still seem to think that's all it was. Which is extraordinary given the column inches since then. Maybe they only read the Murdoch press? Or just don't read.


 
What other vector do you think was being used? In intercepting phone messages I mean, there's obviously loads of other stuff here?


----------



## laptop (Mar 2, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I think the default password was the main conduit for the kind of phone hacking we've heard of so far.


 
Nah, I think that's just in the reporting. The 15-digit code that allows you to reset the 4-digit password has a long name that doesn't fit in the narrow column of a news page, so it goes under-reported.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 2, 2012)

laptop said:


> Nah, I think that's just in the reporting. The 15-digit code that allows you to reset the 4-digit password has a long name that doesn't fit in the narrow column of a news page, so it goes under-reported.


 
IMEI number then? Doesn't that need physical access to the phone, or is that available easily to phone company employees?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 2, 2012)

This thread is an excellent reminder of how half-remembered half-truths and half-facts linger wholly formed in public consciousness.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 2, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> This thread is an excellent reminder of how half-remembered half-truths and half-facts linger wholly formed in public consciousness.


 
Sorry  Too much news lately


----------



## laptop (Mar 2, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> *IMEI* number then?


 
Unless it's the *IMSI* number you need? Dunno, never hacked a phone.



TheHoodedClaw said:


> Doesn't that need physical access to the phone, or is that available easily to phone company employees?


 
I'd have thought they both had to be available to the billing system - in fact that there was a


```
SELECT * FROM subscriber AS S INNER JOIN equipment AS E ON S.imei=E.imei
```
relation at the heart of it.

So: yes, available to some phone company employees.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 2, 2012)

laptop said:


> So: yes, available to some phone company employees.


 
Ok, so IMEI identifies the actual physical device, IMSI is used to manage the device interaction with the various networks it is capable of interacting with. How does this help accessing voicemails? I mean, who has access to the voicemail passwords?


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I think the default password was the main conduit for the kind of phone hacking we've heard of so far. I haven't really thought about anything beyond that, to be honest. There should be no way that a regular employee of the phone company can tell what a changed PIN is - standard security stuff - but then again the phone company will need access to stored messages for legal reasons, I guess. Hmmm. Anyone know?


What is the point of commenting on a story you haven't been following?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/907/90706.htm


----------



## laptop (Mar 2, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Ok, so IMEI identifies the actual physical device, IMSI is used to manage the device interaction with the various networks it is capable of interacting with. How does this help accessing voicemails? I mean, who has access to the voicemail passwords?


 
All I *know* is that there were better-informed reports early in this saga saying that *some* hacking involved supplying a 15-digit number which allows the person holding it to *change* the voicemail password.

There's so much, it'd be hard to dig out references, and it's time to go home. And is the "search thread" function hiding from me, or missing?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 2, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Mandelson was probably not dumb enough to keep a default voicemail password.


That was in the very early days - the Royals.

Before long, it didn't matter what the password was, they paid people at the Telecomms as well. It didn't matter if you changed your provider, either. You could have 8 phones, Mulcaire and friends had the details of every one of them.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 2, 2012)

Apparently the most recently arrested sun journo has tried to top herself, according to twitter anyway


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 2, 2012)

ymu said:


> What is the point of commenting on a story you haven't been following?
> 
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/907/90706.htm


 
Soa lot of it was done via default passwords. Thanks for pointing me to paragraph 98.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 2, 2012)

Dan U said:


> Apparently the most recently arrested sun journo has tried to top herself, according to twitter anyway


 
Is that the one who "moved to Japan"?


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2012)

laptop said:


> All I *know* is that there were better-informed reports early in this saga saying that *some* hacking involved supplying a 15-digit number which allows the person holding it to *change* the voicemail password.
> 
> There's so much, it'd be hard to dig out references, and it's time to go home. And is the "search thread" function hiding from me, or missing?


No search thread function on Xenforo yet. You can do it through google by adding site:urban75.net/forums/threads/missing-milly-dowlers-voicemail-hacked-by-news-of-the-world.277146 to your search.

The Hansard transcript I posted above has what you're looking for, I think.


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Soa lot of it was done via default passwords. Thanks for pointing me to paragraph 98.


You still don't like reading then?

Can't be arsed with lazy fuckers.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 2, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Is that the one who "moved to Japan"?



The defence one. Forget her name right now.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 2, 2012)

ymu said:


> You still don't like reading then?
> 
> Can't be arsed with lazy fuckers.


 
Please educate me. That's what I was asking for, after all.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 2, 2012)

Dan U said:


> The defence one. Forget her name right now.


 
Aye, that's the one I think


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 2, 2012)

I'm telling you, it's an appalling witch hunt, police coming to their houses and everything ...


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Please educate me. That's what I was asking for, after all.


I gave you the link to the information. You skim read the first screen and declared that it proved you right all along. You're not interested in being educated, and if you're unable to admit that you got something wrong, you will never be able to learn anything anyway, so what is the point of me wasting my time?


----------



## Dan U (Mar 2, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> I'm telling you, it's an appalling witch hunt, police coming to their houses and everything ...



They should have booked some photographers to go with them for the full front page of the sun effect


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 2, 2012)

ymu said:


> I gave you the link to the information. You skim read the first screen and declared that it proved you right all along. You're not interested in being educated, and if you're unable to admit that you got something wrong, you will never be able to learn anything anyway, so what is the point of me wasting my time?


 
Ouch touchy. Best not ask for any guidance from you again! Which bit was I wrong about?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 2, 2012)

I think you'll find the photgraphers just happened to be there.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 2, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> I think you'll find the photgraphers just happened to be there.



PM Harry Redknapp for info


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Ouch touchy. Best not ask for any guidance from you again! Which bit was I wrong about?


Still not keen on reading? Extraordinary.


----------



## laptop (Mar 3, 2012)

ymu said:


> No search thread function on Xenforo yet. You can do it through google by adding site:urban75.net/forums/threads/missing-milly-dowlers-voicemail-hacked-by-news-of-the-world.277146 to your search.
> 
> The Hansard transcript I posted above has what you're looking for, I think.


 
Ta. That suggests only vanilla blagging - impersonating the hackee, audio-stylee.

Let's see... http://www.itworld.com/security/181313/how-hack-cell-phone-voice-mail-better-news-world

Refers to good old Auntie in 2002: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1966381.stm

Still looking for the reference to how they changed PINs... blagging, IMEI spoofing in hardware, or supplying the IMEI to the mobile service provider to make it look like a legit request?


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 3, 2012)

laptop said:


> Still looking for the reference to how they changed PINs... blagging, IMEI spoofing in hardware, or supplying the IMEI to the mobile service provider to make it look like a legit request?


Thousands and thousands of them though. Pretty much access to anyone's phone at any time. And most most if not all other communications media.

They had a military guy hacking emails, didn't they - did he have access to military shit to do this? They had (were?) the police, politicians, they had every power imaginable if they wanted to lean on you. They had the whole fucking country in their pocket. Murder seems to have been involved. Deliberately fucked up investigations and trials, lies told to the highest levels of Inquiry and an arrogance that comes from being...

untouchable


----------



## 1%er (Mar 3, 2012)

Buzz sw9 said:


> Any of these people who are giving evidence next week likely to say anything interesting?


PM-me por favor com a fofoca sobre os gêmeos


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 3, 2012)

ymu said:


> I gave you the link to the information. You skim read the first screen and declared that it proved you right all along. You're not interested in being educated, and if you're unable to admit that you got something wrong, you will never be able to learn anything anyway, so what is the point of me wasting my time?


 
It would have been quicker for you to be helpful than type this. But, apology from me about being so combative/dense. Drink is no excuse.


----------



## agricola (Mar 5, 2012)

Some interesting developments today, especially the repeated attempts by Kit Malthouse to downsize the investigation, and the very spot on testimony of Elizabeth Filkin.


----------



## laptop (Mar 5, 2012)

agricola said:


> Some interesting developments today, especially the repeated attempts by Kit Malthouse to downsize the investigation, and the very spot on testimony of Elizabeth Filkin.


 
Hmmm. From the above:



> 12.51pm: Information about the private lives of senior officers was kept out of the media who received an exclusive story "as a trade," says Filkin.


 
In English, that sounds an awful lot like blackmail.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 6, 2012)

ferrelhadley said:


> These apparently the people who featured in the Gillard Flynn book
> 
> Names that seem to crop up form time to time in the hacking.
> 
> ...


 
[Post is at http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...s-of-the-world.277146/page-192#post-10295476]

FYI

The Flynn/Gillard book is at last being reprinted - Bloomsbury is putting it out in April.


----------



## laptop (Mar 6, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Flynn/Gillard


 
So: what's the connection to their _magnum opus_ on corruption and the Lawrence investigation in the _Indy_ today? I'm prepared to make a modest bet there is one...

[Goes to look for other threads.]


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 6, 2012)

IIRC Flynn is working in South Africa at the moment. Gillard has had some articles in the _Times_/_ST_ recently.

Norris/Davidson, SERCS, Plumstead, Lawrence murder, Lawrence Inquiry, _News Of The World_, Southern Investigations, Daniel Morgan murder, Rees, Fillery, Yates, Hayman, screwing, fake informants, senior Met management feuds, evidence planting - all these things were being dug into by Flynn & Gillard in the late 90s up until Harry Potter sacked them. They have - I would imagine - an awful lot of useful information.

There has been a lot of interest in a reprint for several years, but Leveson has certainly given Bloomsbury a great commercial imperative to get it out quickly (the last of the sub-£100 second hand editions having gone).


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 6, 2012)

Senior Sun journos are trying to top themselves now according to Evening Standard. 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...ers-feared-to-be-in-suicide-bids-7541864.html

gotcha indeed.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 6, 2012)

Blimey.


----------



## 1%er (Mar 6, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Senior Sun journos are trying to top themselves now according to Evening Standard.
> 
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...ers-feared-to-be-in-suicide-bids-7541864.html
> 
> gotcha indeed.


I hope they reap what they sow, Karma is a great leveler


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 6, 2012)

"...apparently..." "...appeared..." "...sources said..." Bollocks.

Reuters version:


> Three sources close to the company told Reuters on Tuesday the two journalists at the Sun daily appeared to have tried to take their own lives.


Not exactly journalism, is it.


----------



## agricola (Mar 7, 2012)

Its been "Attack John Yates" day at Leveson so far today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/07/leveson-inquiry-blair-godwin-quick-live


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 7, 2012)

agricola said:


> Its been "Attack John Yates" day at Leveson so far today:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/07/leveson-inquiry-blair-godwin-quick-live


 
It couldn't happen to a more deserving person.


----------



## agricola (Mar 7, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It couldn't happen to a more deserving person.


 
Perhaps, though there does seem to be a campaign for him to end up being held to account for this when its at least as likely that others - Blair, Quick, various senior Labour figures, Gus O'Donnell (all of whom are pointing the finger at Yates) - were perhaps more responsible than he was for the actual scandal (as opposed to Cameron's vain attempt to cover it up to protect Coulson), plus of course at least some of them have reasons to go after Yates for reasons totally unconnected to phone hacking.

Though I concede that my view of Yates is coloured by the belief that he appears to be the only person in this argument of ex-senior officers who isnt actively engaged in trying to privatize bits of the same service (which of course will mean disposing of the officers and staff (and reduced incomes for the rest)) that they led for much of their careers.


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 7, 2012)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though there does seem to be a campaign for him to end up being held to account for this ............


 
My dislike for Yates goes back to the cash-for-honours scandal, and his inept and possibly criminal handeling of it.


----------



## agricola (Mar 7, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> My dislike for Yates goes back to the cash-for-honours scandal, and his inept and possibly criminal handeling of it.


 
Because he wasnt able to prove what went on, or because he tried to?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 7, 2012)

This looks like a cunning stunt:

"The attorney general is examining whether the head of Scotland Yard's investigation into illegal news gathering has prejudiced fair trials for any journalists involved through her evidence to the Leveson inquiry.  ...

Akers is the head of three linked inquiries into phone hacking, alleged bribes and computer hacking. She said that the Sun newspaper was responsible for creating a "network of corrupted officials" and creating a "culture of illegal payments" to officials from the police, Ministry of Defence and other public bodies."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/06/leveson-inquiry-concern-police-evidence

Clearly, nobody should say that anyone did anything naughty to the enquiry since this will only confuse things.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 7, 2012)

> In 2000, Quick, then part of Scotland Yard's anti-corruption command, wanted to investigate newspapers after a covert operation revealed corrupt payments to police officers for information.
> Quick added that it struck him at the time as possible that newspaper organisations were aware of the reasons for the payments and were themselves complicit in making corrupt payments to police officers.
> His report was submitted to his then boss, *Andy Hayman*, but no action was taken, the inquiry heard.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/07/leveson-inquiry-tory-pressure-damian-green-leak

bold by me


----------



## Lock&Light (Mar 7, 2012)

agricola said:


> Because he wasnt able to prove what went on, or because he tried to?


 
Nothing "went on" that hadn't been going on under every other administration since even before Lloyd George.


----------



## Gingerman (Mar 7, 2012)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...-chief-on-day-she-was-lent-horse-7543580.html
"Lord Blair also said his 15-year-old son did some work experience at The Sun" oh aye 
The new ES website is fucking awful by the way.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 9, 2012)

Ofcom to look into wether James Murdoch is a fit and proper person to run BskyB
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/08/ofcom-james-murdoch-fitness-bskyb



> The media regulator set up a dedicated group of seven or eight staff under the name Project Apple at around the turn of the year as part of an assessment that is also taking in whether News Corporation is a fit and proper controlling investor in the satellite broadcaster
> If Ofcom concluded that either Murdoch or News Corp were not appropriate owners, the regulator could revoke Sky's licence to broadcast in the UK, forcing it to switch off its channels, unless Murdoch stepped down from the board or News Corp sold its 39.1% stake.


----------



## 1%er (Mar 11, 2012)

Anyone other than Dick Fedorcio worth looking at in next weeks evidence? Witness list here

I see Cressida Dick is on the list but she isn't likely to rock the boat, is she?


----------



## yardbird (Mar 13, 2012)

Just heard - six more arrested, Sun people.
Not on BBC website yet.

On the Breaking strip now


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2012)

Brooks and husband amongst those arrested on suspicion of perverting course of justice.


----------



## Santino (Mar 13, 2012)

Fucking A, as the kids say.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 13, 2012)

Its all the rage these days.  You are a no one in society unless you have been arrested for perverting the course of justice.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 13, 2012)

> The Met police said a 43-year-old woman was arrested at home in Oxfordshire;....


(((Data Pool 3)))

45 arrests under Weeting alone now.

(((witch hunts)))

Not Coulson?


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 13, 2012)

I wonder what time-period these arrests are for.  During the hacking heyday, during the cover up or much more recently?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 13, 2012)

They seemingly relate to aspects of the 'cover up', of what stage we obv. don't know.


----------



## yardbird (Mar 13, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> I wonder what time-period these arrests are for. During the hacking heyday, during the cover up or much more recently?


I would think that more recently would be the more interesting


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 13, 2012)

It might even concern the (attempted) mass deletion of emails themselves (which is Data Pool 3) rather than something the police have found in it i.e try to get rid of the evidence.

Also, if he isn't among those arrested, it might suggest a timescale post-Coulson. Not necessarily, but at least possibly...


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 13, 2012)

> Police said the arrests did not result from information passed to them by News Corporation's management and standards committee. A number of past arrests followed News Corp's MSC, which is reviewing internal emails and documents, passing suspicious-looking ones to the Weeting team.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/13/phone-hacking-six-arrested.  Can't recall if MSC had the data pool 3 stuff.

Oh how the mighty are falling.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 13, 2012)

If brooks goes down  - I hope they put her on the nonce wing for her own protection.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 13, 2012)

bit weird they've arrested Mr Brooks.

in a different world, Cameron would get fucking nailed over this in parliament tomorrow. but i am sure he won't..

friends of his nicked.. again..


----------



## Santino (Mar 13, 2012)

Dan U said:


> bit weird they've arrested Mr Brooks.


David Cameron's schoolfriend Mr Brooks, as I must insist you call him.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2012)

Dan U said:


> bit weird they've arrested Mr Brooks.


 
Remember the palaver about his lost/dumped/etc bag?



> Former NI chief executive's husband denies bag – containing computer, paperwork and phone – belonged to his wife


 
Always had a suspicion we hadn't heard the last of that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2012)

No Cheltenham for this pair this year.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 13, 2012)

So the 'arrested' scorecard against Mrs Brookes currently reads - I think:

Suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications
Suspicion of corruption
Suspicion of perverting course of justice


----------



## Dan U (Mar 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Remember the palaver about his lost/dumped/etc bag?
> 
> 
> 
> Always had a suspicion we hadn't heard the last of that.


 
yes, i do now. that was an odd story. thanks


----------



## contadino (Mar 13, 2012)

Anyone know where James Murdoch was this morning? Two 39 year old men in the list...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 13, 2012)

Yeah - I was thinking of the mysterious bag dumping episode - a botched attempt to dispose of evidence?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 13, 2012)

Not in London that's for sure. He's a tv exec now, presumably he's at HQ in New York.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 13, 2012)

I doubt James Murdoch will be seen in this country for a very long time.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 13, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/13/rebekah-brooks-arrested-phone-hacking-investigation



> This morning's arrests happened between 5am and 7am on Tuesday morning at addresses in London, Oxfordshire, Hampshire and Hertfordshire by officers from Operation Weeting


 
Dawn raid. No 'make an appointment and come down the cop shop' this time.
Oh dear. Must have been a terrible experience for her.


----------



## cantsin (Mar 13, 2012)

Dan U said:


> bit weird they've arrested Mr Brooks.
> 
> in a different world, Cameron would get fucking nailed over this in parliament tomorrow. but i am sure he won't..
> 
> friends of his nicked.. again..


 
Dave's a few thou. miles away getting sunshine blown up his ass by Obama conveniently enough


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 13, 2012)

I wonder if they took the horse back, as well...

That would have been an amusing procession going back down the M40.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2012)

RB was due to answer bail this week regarding the original hacking stuff, which might suggest this is new stuff.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 13, 2012)

She'll be livid those Sun jounos got the 'I'm feeling suicidal' thing in first.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 13, 2012)

Max Clifford's team will be working on something for her as we speak.  "My arrest horror bought on Athlete's Foot".


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2012)

Another one of the arrested is Mark Hanna, director of group security at NI - a role specially made for him. Potentially very interesting


----------



## Schmetterling (Mar 13, 2012)

Fantastic! In my opinion the only reason she had a child was to barter/garner sympathy with; i.e. a lesser sentence for the good of the child.  Oh, please, please, please, please let it all tumble down. 
Sometimes we need to see someone get their just deserts.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Another one of the arrested is Mark Hanna, director of group security at NI - a role specially made for him. Potentially very interesting


 



> *Mark Hanna*
> 
> Director Group Security at News International
> Current
> ...


 
With language skills like that I'm surprised Rebekah didn't offer him a job on the paper.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 13, 2012)

"It is often our own actions that prevent us from moving forward which can make the difference between doing what is right or expected, to those that make us victims of our own doings...it is often those of the individuals who seem to blatantly ignore the basic elements of their role that need reviewing at every level, from site-based staff through to senior management."

Mark Hanna - PROPHET!


----------



## Schmetterling (Mar 13, 2012)

Arrests were co-ordinated: suggests to me the police wanted to ensure there was no alerting one another!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 13, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Max Clifford's team will be working on something for her as we speak. "My arrest horror bought on Athlete's Foot".


 
I suspect  the 'attacks on poor rebecca motivated by sexism' line will be trotted out in due course.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 13, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> I suspect the 'attacks on poor rebecca motivated by sexism' line will be trotted out in due course.


 
Gingerism is akin to racisim...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 13, 2012)

Schmetterling said:


> Arrests were co-ordinated: suggests to me the police wanted to ensure there was no alerting one another!


 
Yeah - dawn raid, co-ordinated arrests (houses searched?) - this looks like the cops being pretty serious. After whetting our appetites like this I will be very dissapointed if there are no charges.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2012)

And whose up at leveson today who might fancy having a bit of heat taken off?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 13, 2012)

And just to remind us of what a sweet innocent thing she is, Chris Bryant on when he met her: 

"She came up to me and said, 'Oh, Mr Bryant, it's after dark -- shouldn't you be on Clapham Common?" At which point Ross Kemp [her then husband] said, 'Shut up, you homophobic cow'."


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 13, 2012)

from the graun ..



> Charlie Brooks had been hoping to attend the Cheltenham festival today, writing in his column for the Daily Telegraph that "the happiest moment of my year" is about three hours before the first race


 
Oh dear. Not this year its not Charlie.


----------



## Gingerman (Mar 13, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/13/rebekah-brooks-arrested-phone-hacking-investigation
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shame there wasn't a few tabloid  photographers on hand to record the event,wonder how much coverage the Sun will give this story,between zero and nil I reckon.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 13, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> from the graun ..
> 
> Oh dear. Not this year its not Charlie.


 
How has the prat got himself mixed up in this?  

'Charlie, I'm in a spot of bother can you get rid of this laptop please?'   'No Rebecca go fuck yourself, this is your mess'


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 13, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> from the graun ..
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear. Not this year its not Charlie.


Ha!


----------



## Santino (Mar 13, 2012)

I really, really, really hope that the phrase 'treated like common criminals' is going to be used soon.


----------



## coltrane (Mar 13, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> Shame there wasn't a few tabloid photographers on hand to record the event,wonder how much coverage the Sun will give this story,between zero and nil I reckon.


 
Sun in Restrained, Measured Reporting Shocker

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4191308/Six-arrested-in-hacking-probe.html

From the article:

"Today's arrest come after her lawyer, Stephen Parkinson, said evidence given by Sue Akers at the Leveson Inquiry had brought "much prejudicial material" into the public domain."

The poor, put upon lady ain't gonna get a fair trial. There, there dear.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 13, 2012)

Freddie Star ate my habeas corpus


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Remember the palaver about his lost/dumped/etc bag?
> Always had a suspicion we hadn't heard the last of that.


 
I always thought that was well dodgy too - who was the supposed 'friend' for a start? It was all a bit


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 13, 2012)

hmmm - dunno what to make of this. Hes arguing that holding the levenson enquiry prior to the police completing the investigation may make it impossible for crimanal trials to proceed agasint the likes of brooks - because their trial will be prejudiced by the enquiry proceedings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/13/rebekah-brooks-fair-trial-leveson-inquiry




> Prejudicial media coverage does not always impede the progress of criminal justice. The reporting of the Tommy Sheridan perjury case was also prejudicial – as a prominent Scottish QC agreed when I sought his opinion – but the trial continued and Sheridan was convicted. However, Brooks is better placed than Sheridan ever was. Despite this morning's dramatic developments, I still find it difficult to believe that she will ever walk into a dock.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 13, 2012)

A Jock on a wind up. Toilet paper.

He scuppers his own point by citing the Sheridan case, but if he's still worried about prejudicing potential trials he could reflect on, for example, Daily Mail headlines (and bad press in general) in relation to the recent Dobson/Norris retrial.

Also, by the end of this they should have Brooks on so many counts it won't matter - proper criminal stuff, not the sleb hacking. If she doesn't go down, I'm Raisa the horse.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 13, 2012)

Wind up toilet paper?


----------



## weltweit (Mar 13, 2012)

Bored with all these arrests and bails, when is there going to be some charging?


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 14, 2012)

You have to wade through the evidence to know what to charge them with - inconveniently, it's not an episode of Law and Order.

This is going to go on for years yet.


----------



## coltrane (Mar 14, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> hmmm - dunno what to make of this. Hes arguing that holding the levenson enquiry prior to the police completing the investigation may make it impossible for crimanal trials to proceed agasint the likes of brooks - because their trial will be prejudiced by the enquiry proceedings.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/13/rebekah-brooks-fair-trial-leveson-inquiry


 

Has any person arrested in these investigations been charged yet? Not any to my knowledge.

Considering what the press speculate about and sensationalise in other investigations prior to charges being laid, i reckon a judge led inquiry is small beer in terms of prejudicing fair trials.

This investigation is getting nowhere near the coverage that other more salacious stories get. As long as "Horsegate" is kept out of any trial, i reckon a jury of twelve will be easily found who have no preconceived ideas about the subject - just like most other trials.


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

Wouldn't it be lovely if Murdoch has to close another Sunday rag within weeks of launching it, along with it's elderly parent. 

Good run down of the story so far. Sabbagh/Graun



> Colin Myler, NoW editor, told the Press Complaints Commission in August 2009: "Our internal inquiries have found no evidence of involvement by News of the World staff other than Clive Goodman in phone-message interception beyond the email transcript which emerged in April 2008 during the Gordon Taylor litigation."


Parse that sentence carefully, and he told no provable lie. Sneaky bastard.

Ooh, maximum sentence for perverting the course is life. 



> the couple spent at least 12 hours being questioned by detectives in different police stations, in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, regarding an offence that carries a theoretical maximum term of life. In practice, however, nobody found guilty has received a jail term of greater than 10 years for it in the last century. The two were released on bail until a date in April. Four others were also released on bail.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/13/rebekah-brooks-and-husband-arrested-phone-hacking


----------



## newbie (Mar 14, 2012)

coltrane said:


> Considering what the press speculate about and sensationalise in other investigations prior to charges being laid, i reckon a judge led inquiry is small beer in terms of prejudicing fair trials.


 
We, the Great British Public, are not entirely stupid. We can tell the difference between (sections of) the press on a witchhunt and a very senior police officer detailing known facts, on oath, before a judicial inquiry.

Parading both evidence and informed, detailed understanding in front of Leveson before any criminal proceedings almost inevitably prejudices subsequent trials, particularly high profile, politically charged, ones. The narrative link is clear- as evidence is being given in one paragraph, arrests are being made in another, they jockey (ha!) for main headline, day after day. I think you'd have problems finding anyone who doesn't think Brookes, Coulson etc are guilty as sin.


----------



## paolo (Mar 14, 2012)

Steve Bell from a few weeks back. What I'm liking is that his current cartoons still have the reins on. Will condom-head ever shake them off, or has Bell got them stuck on for good? 







7


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 14, 2012)

newbie said:


> The narrative link is clear- as evidence is being given in one paragraph, arrests are being made in another


 
To my knowledge, nothing said at Leveson has directly - or indirectly - contributed to any arrests.That would be the very worst case scenario - something Leveson himself is in place not only to prevent, but to make sure the inquiry steers very wide of.

Look again at the terms of ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveson_Inquiry#Terms_of_reference

If you've got anything, please cite it?


----------



## Santino (Mar 14, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> You have to wade through the evidence to know what to charge them with - inconveniently, it's not an episode of Law and Order.
> 
> This is going to go on for years yet.


 
I might wait for the boxed set.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 14, 2012)

Well, the reconstructed Data Pool 3 alone is the size of a full set of Encyclopedia Britannica - multiplied by 500 i.e. a monster big library. They're trawling it for evidence by keyword search but nonetheless...

Huge scale corporate crime init, not bringing down the Barksdale gang.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 14, 2012)

I have lost track of this. 
So Rebekah Brooks is being thrown to the wolves? 
No sympathy for her but Rupert and James going to just swan off scott free?


----------



## Dan U (Mar 14, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> To my knowledge, nothing said at Leveson has directly - or indirectly - contributed to any arrests.That would be the very worst case scenario - something Leveson himself is in place not only to prevent, but to make sure the inquiry steers very wide of.
> 
> Look again at the terms of ref:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveson_Inquiry#Terms_of_reference
> ...


 
this Leveson prejudicing court cases is just smoke from those with a vested interest in discrediting the process imo

the implication from the current arrests is that they were made in conjunction with the CPS and did not even come from information gleaned from that unit working within News Intl.

these arrests read to me as being all about NI's disposal of evidence - pc's/laptops and email historys etc. this is obviously just my speculation.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 14, 2012)

Well yes, hence the nature of the 'suspicion' on which they've been arrested (perverting the course of justice) - attempting the disposing of evidence. As mentioned, this is the start of the serious criminality, and someway past phone hacking Sienna Miller's shaggarati.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 14, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Well yes, hence the nature of the 'suspicion' on which they've been arrested (perverting the course of justice) - attempting the disposing of evidence. As mentioned, this is the start of the serious criminality, and someway past phone hacking Sienna Miller's shaggarati.


 
Aye, despite all the press coverage at the start of Levesson things are far more serious now with perhaps serious criminality by senior execs and who knows perhaps senior officers in the met?


----------



## ymu (Mar 14, 2012)

paolo said:


> Steve Bell from a few weeks back. What I'm liking is that his current cartoons still have the reins on. Will condom-head ever shake them off, or has Bell got them stuck on for good?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kinda


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 14, 2012)

Yep, collusion would be nice.

Might settle for coersion (on the part of NI exec's in relation to Met officers), although we do know - from Tom Watson's Select Committee members who were subject to it - that 'threats' often came indirectly through others. But who knows ... anything's possible at this point.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 14, 2012)

i wonder if Brooks will be spared prison cos she's just bought a baybee


----------



## elbows (Mar 14, 2012)

Chortle, as usual the coverup is dropping people in shit even more than the original crimes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17373545




> *A former News of the World journalist has been arrested in connection with suspected intimidation of a witness.*
> The arrest of Neville Thurlbeck, by police investigating phone hacking, also related to an allegation of encouraging or assisting an offence.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 14, 2012)

But the Rose! The Rose! Who shall review plays at the Rose? Has no one thought of the consequences to the _Surrey Comet_? This is an assault too far on the Fourth Estate.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 14, 2012)

LOL. It's like Christmas every day; naughty Nev! perverting justice - and by intimidating a witness.

Ding!

Going down!


----------



## 1%er (Mar 14, 2012)

Peter Tickner (formerly of the MPS and the MPA) Anyone know about the guy?

It looks like he is going to put the cat among the pigeon, the lawyer for the met police is not happy that he is giving evidence and claims that he timed making (putting in) his statement so he can make unproven and unsubstantiated remarks about other senior police officers after they have given evidence and will not have the right of reply.

It seems he may have an axe to grind, but he comes from the met police and the met police authority?


----------



## elbows (Mar 14, 2012)

1%er said:


> Peter Tickner (formerly of the MPS and the MPA) Anyone know about the guy?


 
Looks like he is a former auditor who already dropped them in the shit by investigations seniors and later talking to the press last summer about details that would be in his book:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...nners-with-News-of-the-World-journalists.html




> Mr Tickner, in his forthcoming book - the Successful Frauditor's Casebook - writes: "It was patently clear to me that the senior officer had treated the Met's credit card as an accessory for whatever purpose he deemed fit, including buying food and alcohol for journalists and entertaining his management team at a restaurant at public expense where the cost of alcohol equalled the cost of food.
> "In one twenty-four hour period, he had used the card on three separate occasions to buy alcohol.
> "First, an evening meal for himself and his female staff officer away from London on official business, then the following lunchtime to buy alcohol and food at what I suspected was a farewell lunch for a member of his senior team.
> "Finally, much later that same evening he had used the card to buy a bottle of champagne, although according to his official diary he was meeting a female journalist for a one-to-one briefing.
> "It wasn't fraud but it certainly wasn't a proper use of public funds."


----------



## 1%er (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks,I guess it is old news to some


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 14, 2012)

Dan U said:


> i wonder if Brooks will be spared prison cos she's just bought a baybee


Doubt it.


----------



## coltrane (Mar 15, 2012)

elbows said:


> Looks like he is a former auditor who already dropped them in the shit by investigations seniors and later talking to the press last summer about details that would be in his book:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...nners-with-News-of-the-World-journalists.html
> 
> "Finally, much later that same evening he had used the card to buy a bottle of champagne, although according to his official diary he was meeting a female journalist for a one-to-one briefing."


 
Perhaps it was a one-to-one de-briefing.


----------



## Ted Striker (Mar 15, 2012)

So Murdoch's are back in the box on the 23rd April...


----------



## 1%er (Mar 15, 2012)

It seems they have pulled Peter Tickner evidence today, but I didn't hear why and can't seem to find anything on Google. Anything in the UK news about this?


----------



## elbows (Mar 15, 2012)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/eviden...rd-is-delayed-after-force-complaint-1-2173791


> SCOTLAND Yard’s former head auditor has had his Leveson Inquiry appearance postponed after the force complained he was being allowed to air “very serious” allegations about top officers in public.
> 
> Peter Tickner, who investigated corporate credit card and expenses fraud among Metropolitan Police staff, was told his evidence session scheduled for today has been cancelled.
> The move came after a lawyer for the Met objected to claims about senior officers in Mr Tickner’s written statement for the inquiry.
> ...


----------



## 1%er (Mar 15, 2012)

Neville Thurlbeck arrested on suspicion of having intimidated a witness.

Last week Thurlbeck used a blog to post part of the home address of an executive working on the management standards committee at News International
​These people are not very bright are they, stop digging Neville ​


----------



## Dan U (Mar 15, 2012)

you can read the 'intimidation' here

http://www.nevillethurlbeck.com/2012/03/60000-hits-and-tanks-are-on-my-cabbage.html

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=48914&c=1

it would appear that Will Lewis threw a hissy fit and got his friends at the Met to nick Neville.


----------



## 1%er (Mar 15, 2012)

So you don't except that publishing the street name was a concern to his family?

If Thurlbeck has an axe to grind I'm sure he could put things in the public domain that could fuck NI, why drag innocent family members into it.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 15, 2012)

It's quite nice when scum fall out.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 15, 2012)

1%er said:


> So you don't except that publishing the street name was a concern to his family? ......


 
Sorry to be a grammar nazi but do you mean ? you don't "accept" ?


----------



## yardbird (Mar 15, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Sorry to be a grammar nazi but do you mean ? you don't "accept" ?


Sorry to be a pedant, I think that you are pointing out spelling and not grammar.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 15, 2012)

1%er said:


> So you don't except that publishing the street name was a concern to his family?
> 
> If Thurlbeck has an axe to grind I'm sure he could put things in the public domain that could fuck NI, why drag innocent family members into it.


 
apparently its fairly normal journalistic practice to name a street. Lewis would have edited many articles that did so. also, he is on the electoral register so anyone could find his house number as well (according to a journo on twitter at any rate)

he did remove it when asked as well.

so i am pretty meh about it tbh. cunts being cunts to cunts. bizarre the police got involved though.


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Sorry to be a pedant, I think that you are pointing out spelling and not grammar.


It's not a spelling mistake, it's a malapropism.

Triple pedant points, I win, unapologetically.


----------



## elevendayempire (Mar 18, 2012)

Fan, meet shit:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-up-investigation-into-news-corp-7576425.html


----------



## ymu (Mar 18, 2012)

Come on, that needs a quote!


> The FBI has told Scotland Yard it is "prepared to step in" if the Metropolitan Police fails to investigate the full extent of impropriety in the Murdoch empire. The warning came at a meeting between the transatlantic law enforcement groups at the Ministry of Justice in London.
> 
> Every piece of evidence surrendered by News Corporation to Scotland Yard is also being passed to US investigators. The disclosures, which prompted more than 20 arrests, including Sun journalists, have also sparked a separate FBI inquiry into whether News Corporation bribed officials in Russia. US investigators are collecting evidence given to the Leveson inquiry and parliamentary select committees.
> 
> "The FBI made it perfectly clear that if the British police drop the ball on this they will pick it up and run with it," said one legal source familiar with the US investigation.


Looks like the Met are trapped between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 18, 2012)

> said one legal source familiar with the US investigation


 i.e. no one.

Quiet week. Reheated generalisms cobbled together with a couple of quotes and an update on James' increasingly post-UK 'alignment'. Indie not exactly blazing the trail on this. Onwards.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 18, 2012)

"Every piece of evidence surrendered by News Corporation to Scotland Yard is also being passed to US investigators. "


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 19, 2012)

Ex SOCA officer claims this morning at Leveson that the NOTW impeded/jeopardised the Ipswich murders investigation by shadowing the investigating team.


----------



## Ted Striker (Mar 19, 2012)

ymu said:


> Come on, that needs a quote!
> 
> Looks like the Met are trapped between a rock and a hard place.


 
Just not enough likes in the world. You can just imagine 2 "I'm Agent Johnson, this is Special Agent Johnson...No relation" types wanting to make a name for themselves with the bureau (and with a sincere sense of oneupmanship to their British 'rivals') by tearing News Inc apart


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2012)

She's been at MK copshop today being questioned over payments to MOD bods.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 21, 2012)

Nothing treasonous I hope


----------



## elbows (Mar 26, 2012)

I await the 'Murdoch murdered monkey' headlines:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17494723




> *A News Corporation company recruited a pay-TV "pirate" to post hacked details of a rival's secret codes online, BBC Panorama has found.*
> Lee Gibling set up a website in the late 1990s known as The House of Ill-Compute or Thoic.
> He said NDS, a pay-TV smartcard maker, then funded expansion of the Thoic site and later had him distribute the set-top pay-TV codes of rival ITV Digital.



Bonus:



> NDS manufactures smartcards for all News Corporations' pay-TV companies across the world.
> Its UK security unit was 50% funded by Sky. But the satellite broadcaster, chaired by James Murdoch, told the programme it had no involvement in how the unit was run and was not aware of Thoic.
> Two former senior policemen ran the NDS UK security unit. Ray Adams had been head of criminal intelligence at the Metropolitan Police and Len Withall, who had been a chief inspector in the Surrey force.
> Both men were secretly filmed by Panorama.
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2012)

Seen one already. This is old news I'm afraid though, 10 years at least. Though it will be interesting to see people dig up the Tron suicide in relation to Adams other connections with suicides and Norris
...


----------



## newbie (Mar 26, 2012)

> *Commander Ray Adams*
> 
> By 1993, Ray Adams was a police commander in the south London area where Stephen Lawrence was murdered.
> His only documented involvement – and he insists his only involvement – in the case was to sign a letter to the Lawrence family, one week after the murder.
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/16/stephen-lawrence-inquiry-questions-remain


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 27, 2012)

Hugely interesting to now have evidence supported by stand-up witnesses in this area:



> Panorama's emails appear to state that ONdigital's secret codes were first cracked by NDS, and then subsequently publicised by the pirate website, called The House of Ill Compute (THOIC)


 


> Lee Gibling, operator of THOIC, says that behind the scenes, he was being paid up to £60,000 a year by Adams, and NDS handed over thousands more to supply him with computer equipment.
> 
> He says Adams sent him the ONdigital codes so that other pirates could use them to manufacture thousands of counterfeit smart cards, giving viewers illicit free access to ONdigital, then Sky's chief business rival.


The BBC effectively saying 'Sue me' to the Murdochs.

Ugly weekend; first Murdoch shafts Cameron via the Sunday Times, and a day later the BBC kicks Murdoch in the nuts.

People may notice the slight absence of police interest at this stage. Presumably it's all just one rogue employee and nothing to worry about.... lets see what else Ofcom and the BBC can come up with ...


----------



## ymu (Mar 27, 2012)

Has there been time to notice a lack of police interest yet? It seems vanishingly unlikely that they wouldn't be interested to me. The FBI are paralleling the Met's investigations, and there is at least one US company with an identical story to tell (NI hacked into a start-up advertising company's computers, stole their client list, got sued, and eventually settled by buying out the company once it was desperate enough for cash).

But then again, you don't believe that the FBI are breathing down the Met's neck on this one because the source for the story wasn't named.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2012)

From the Graun article on this, something that could be interpreted as an oblique admission of culpability:



> In 2002 Canal Plus, which supplied ONdigital with its smart card system, sued NDS in a US Court, alleging that NDS had hacked its codes. But no evidence about a link to ONdigital emerged: the case was dropped following a business deal under which Murdoch agreed to purchase some of Canal Plus's assets.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/26/news-corp-ondigital-paytv-panorama


----------



## ymu (Mar 27, 2012)

That's not an admission of culpability - that's their business strategy. Destroy rival companies until they are better off selling up to NewsCorp than they are trying to pursue justice in the courts.

I'll go find a link for the advertising company thing they pulled - it's a virtually identical story. Which is what might help nail them, on this and possibly a large number of other cases that have been settled but are now a matter for criminal investigation.


----------



## ymu (Mar 27, 2012)

Here we go - NewsCorp hacks company, then buys it


----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2012)

Well ok, maybe it's a bit of both though? On the face of it, it look like Murdoch has bought them off in an effort to keep it out of the courts. It is a win/win strategy though, buying some shares in order to shut someone up was probably small beer.

E2A thanks for the link, so this is SOP for NI


----------



## ymu (Mar 27, 2012)

Oh yeah - absolutely, I'm not really disagreeing with you, just putting some more flesh on what this might mean. It's the established MO thing that I think is important. They have a history of settling court cases by buying out the (rival) company concerned, having already crippled the company's finances through their actions. If this is investigated properly - and I see no way that it can't be (Murdoch has few friends across the pond who can help him here) - it could very well bring NewsCorp down entirely.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 27, 2012)

ymu said:


> But then again, you don't believe that the FBI are breathing down the Met's neck on this one because the source for the story wasn't named.


I don't what? The 'story' you found so interesting was an attempt by the Indie to represent itself as investigative and on the ball, when it was actually just the usual no name 'sources' and reheated filler. I made no comment on the FBI investigation at all.


----------



## ymu (Mar 27, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> i.e. no one.
> 
> Quiet week. Reheated generalisms cobbled together with a couple of quotes and an update on James' increasingly post-UK 'alignment'. Indie not exactly blazing the trail on this. Onwards.


I'm fairly sure that the FBI demanding copies of all the evidence and saying that they'd take over if the Met failed to do it properly was new news when it was reported by the Indie. In that context, you were very much commenting on the FBI investigation. But if I misread you, I apologise.

If you do accept that the FBI are keeping a very close eye on this, why do you think the lack of a police press release about it indicates that they'll try not to investigate it?


----------



## Dan U (Mar 27, 2012)

ymu said:


> That's not an admission of culpability - that's their business strategy. Destroy rival companies until they are better off selling up to NewsCorp than they are trying to pursue justice in the courts.
> 
> I'll go find a link for the advertising company thing they pulled - it's a virtually identical story. Which is what might help nail them, on this and possibly a large number of other cases that have been settled but are now a matter for criminal investigation.


 
according to the press today Canal took Murdoch to court in the US over hacking of smart cards. The case was dropped when NewsCorp bought some Canal assets....


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 27, 2012)

ymu said:


> If you do accept that the FBI are keeping a very close eye on this, why do you think the lack of a police press release about it indicates that they'll try not to investigate it?


For the Indie to talk in terms of 'stepping in' - I'm sorry, not the Indie but "according to one legal source" - is bogus. The FBI will be investigating News Corp in the context of US law. That will be concurrent with anything TMP is doing. Indeed, the entire premise of the FCPA is dependent on international cooperation among police forces:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act


----------



## laptop (Mar 27, 2012)

Fnigers crssoed for one or more Murdochs to do time over this hacking...

For years, in the context of arguments about enforcing copyright, I've been saying "the pirate I'm most worried about is called Rupert". I wasn't aware how accurate this was...


----------



## ymu (Mar 27, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> For the Indie to talk in terms of 'stepping in' - I'm sorry, not the Indie but "according to one legal source" - is bogus. The FBI will be investigating News Corp in the context of US law. That will be concurrent with anything TMP is doing. Indeed, the entire premise of the FCPA is dependent on international cooperation among police forces:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act


NewsCorp are handing over the emails and other evidence that drops them in it to the Met precisely because they have to be seen to be cooperating with the investigation to try and avoid prosecution under the FCPA. There is nothing at all strange or unbelievable about the Indie report when the police force that is investigating the corruption is itself in the frame for being part of that corruption.

In the current context, suggesting that the police might try to avoid investigating accusations of hacking a commercial rival to death makes no sense whatsoever. Murdoch's power has gone, and with it his ability to silence critics.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 27, 2012)

ymu said:


> strange or unbelievable


I'd assume you quoted the wrong post, but I don't think anyone else has written in terms of "strange or unbelievable" either so, umm, good luck with whoever you think you're talking to. Ftr, I merely wrote that the FBI will be concurrently investigating News Corp within the context of US law.


----------



## laptop (Mar 27, 2012)

Please let there be a US connection to the hacking story. Does it count as a corrupt practice? I'm so wanting the extradition story...

Meanwhile, I'm trying to think of a Belgian connection too - those are the courts you'd want to go to to sue the Murdochs for breach of authors' and performers' rights in the TV programmes, if not for a massive US-style jail sentence. And for some reason "Rupert battles extradition to Belgium" appeals to me as a headline.


----------



## laptop (Mar 27, 2012)

One to watch at Leveson: Kit Malthouse (Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime) - Thursday 29 March, probably after lunch. (So did he try to rein in the Met for Boris?)

This week's witness list.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 27, 2012)

laptop said:


> And for some reason "Rupert battles extradition to Belgium" appeals to me as a headline.


 
*WALLOONACY!*

*King Rupert in vile sin extradition shocker*

*Liège not denied a prisoner*


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 27, 2012)

Tie this Walloonacy down, sport
Tie this Walloonacy down


----------



## laptop (Mar 27, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> *WALLOONACY!*


 


Meanwhile, according to the Standard, Murdoch _fils et pere_ due back on Leveson in the week of 23 April...


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 27, 2012)

I wonder what the new version  of 'This is the most humble day of my life' might be...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Mar 27, 2012)

"You'll never take me aliiiiiiiive!"

One can hope...


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 27, 2012)

> *Breaking news:* Scotland Yard releases ex-News of the World US editor James Desborough from bail after arrest in connection with phone hacking last year. More details soon ...


 
From bail 

Not sure what this means atm... bail relating to the charges from last year ..


----------



## ymu (Mar 27, 2012)

That states that he's been released from the bail conditions imposed after his arrest last year - no mention of his being re-arrested.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 27, 2012)

You're right, I was getting excited over a possible arrest in relation to the US.


----------



## ymu (Mar 27, 2012)

I can empathise with that! 

It'll come. I think NewsCorp could go under before the dust (and money) settles on these cases


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 27, 2012)

More NDS stuff here:

http://www.afr.com/p/business/marketing_media/pay_tv_piracy_hits_news_OV8K5fhBeGawgosSzi52MM


----------



## teqniq (Mar 27, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> More NDS stuff here:
> 
> http://www.afr.com/p/business/marketing_media/pay_tv_piracy_hits_news_OV8K5fhBeGawgosSzi52MM


 
That has made my head spin!  If NI are are not toast over this in some way or another it will be a most miraculous escape. There should be jail time a-plenty all round.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 27, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> More NDS stuff here:
> 
> http://www.afr.com/p/business/marketing_media/pay_tv_piracy_hits_news_OV8K5fhBeGawgosSzi52MM


Stunning.   And also....timely.   

In the waters that murdoch and henchmen/women swim...those two are rarely coincidental together.

Looking good.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2012)

Australia update:  Federal police join News probe



> The Australian Federal Police has revealed it is working with UK police investigating the News Corporation phone hacking scandal in a statement hours after The Australian Financial Reviewexposed News’s role in high-tech piracy that sabotaged its pay TV rivals and damaged Australian operators such as Austar.
> 
> The Gillard government described the pay TV piracy claims raised in the Financial Review yesterday as “serious” and called for “any allegations of criminal activity” to be referred to the AFP


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 28, 2012)

How did they get hold of that hard drive, I wonder....

Didn't do anything illegal though, News Corp - not as far as we currently know. Australian law was behind the curve on piracy.

I suppose it might feed into the 'fit and proper' test vis a vie Ofcom and BSkyB. MIght have more luck down under following that (known) single case of phone hacking.


----------



## magneze (Mar 28, 2012)

Evidence emerging of shady practices at the Fail? Lovely stuff. 


> The Daily Mail spent an estimated £143,000 asking a private eye to make 1,728 potentially illegal requests to unearth phone numbers and addresses of public figures over a three-year period, including personal details of the young Kate Middleton and her sister Pippa.
> Journalists at the newspaper asked for private information on average more than once a day, and occasionally asked for individual criminal record checks. Its reporters demanded roughly twice as many searches as was previously thought, according to research conducted by ITV News.
> The tabloid demanded the private information between 2000 and 2003 from Steve Whittamore – whose targets for a range of newspapersincluded the union leader Bob Crow, the family of the murder victim Holly Wells, members of the England football team and the singer Charlotte Church.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/28/daily-mail-requests-private-detective


----------



## Lord Camomile (Mar 28, 2012)

Throughout all of this I can't stop thinking that The Guardian must be _really_ confident of their own practices, otherwise the schadenfreude will be merciless.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 28, 2012)

I saw a PDF of a report that stated that they were all at it, including the Guardian.
It's on this thread somewhere


----------



## laptop (Mar 28, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> I saw a PDF of a report that stated that they were all at it, including the Guardian.
> It's on this thread somewhere


 
It's the Motorman report and it says they were all at it except the _Guardian_ - but including the _Sunday Guardian, _aka the_ Observer._


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2012)

Now out of date due to the ITV news research (edit: this is from one of the Information Commissioners two reports based on Motorman - motorman is now falling to pieces)


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 28, 2012)

Well, yes. The Observer is to The Guardian as NoTW was to The Sun.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2012)

This is the full ITV breakdown, substantially different from the ICO table above (Observer £13,270 ON 201 REQUESTS btw)

(check the url on that link as well)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2012)

And the potential link between Motorman and the wider hacking issue (not to mention Leveson and others reluctance to look again or release the Motorman info) - this from Leveson (Owens was senior investigating officer at the ICO during Motorman)



> Robert Jay QC:You tell us in 5.2 [of your written evidence] you read about Glenn Mulcaire’s arrest which we know took place on 8 August 2006. You say you certainly never associated it with Operation Motorman. Do you now associate it in some way with Operation Motorman, Mr Owens?
> 
> Alec Owens: Yes.
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 28, 2012)

> Previous figures published by the ICO in their 2006 report “What Price Privacy Now” are in some cases well below our figures. We believe this is because the ICO has failed to count requests where no paper is explicitly named in the books.


 
http://www.itv.com/news/2012-03-28/backgrounder-do-not-publish-do-not-publish/


----------



## laptop (Mar 28, 2012)

ITV.com said:
			
		

> backgrounder-do-not-publish-do-not-publish/


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 29, 2012)

> *Met Police press chief Dick Fedorcio resigns*


 


> The communications chief at the Metropolitan Police, Dick Fedorcio, has resigned after proceedings for gross misconduct were started against him.
> 
> The Independent Police Complaints Commission launched an inquiry last year after it emerged he had contracted out work to a PR firm run by ex-News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis.
> 
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17548876


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17548876


 
Which is pretty much an _admission_ of gross misconduct.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 29, 2012)

Yep, obv. in fear of that hard-hitting, rooting-out-wrongdoing  organisation the, erm,  IPCC.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 29, 2012)

And another one down and another one down another one bites the dust.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Yep, obv. in fear of that hard-hitting, rooting-out-wrongdoing organisation the, erm, IPCC.


 
Indeed. If his gross misconduct was _so_ gross that even the IPCC couldn't find a way to cover it up.


----------



## agricola (Mar 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And the potential link between Motorman and the wider hacking issue (not to mention Leveson and others reluctance to look again or release the Motorman info) - this from Leveson (Owens was senior investigating officer at the ICO during Motorman)


 
Its not that surprising that the same names appear in both lists, given that many of the targets are going to be celebrities / political figures / sportspeople etc.

It will be interesting to see if Leveson keeps on at the Motorman evidence though - the allegations are much more serious than mere phone-hacking and, unfortunately for the hacks involved, none of the people who commissioned the corruption (as opposed to Whittamore who ran it, and three of the corrupted employees who used their access to obtain the data requested) ever faced court action, so charges could be still be brought against them.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2012)

Sure, but the key bit was _the Dowlers_ numbers being in both lists.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 29, 2012)

I've only just remembered a slightly curious piece - in parts - from Michael White a couple of days ago:




> So there's a worry that sooner or later Murdoch or his successors will cut their losses in Britain and sell their remaining newspapers – the Sun, Times and Sunday Times – creating greater instability all round. Who will buy them? Russian oligarchs? Middle Eastern sovereign funds? It isn't just about lost jobs or choice of newspaper, it's also about press freedom.
> 
> *The diligent and well-meaning Lord Justice Leveson, still in over his head* the last time I paid a trip to court 73, is also a real worry. He could botch the new regulatory framework to the detriment of the wider public interest and the benefit of the rich and secretive, people like Murdoch himself.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/mar/27/rupert-murdoch-prices-values


----------



## savoloysam (Mar 29, 2012)

Check out C4 news now, it's getting even more dirtier.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2012)

savoloysam said:


> Check out C4 news now, it's getting even more dirtier.


 
The "secret" police corruption report?


----------



## savoloysam (Mar 29, 2012)

Yup, can't say it surprises me.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2012)

Summary - criminal gangs rather than press.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Summary - criminal gangs rather than press.


 
Although Murdoch has clearly been doing his best to blur the distinction


----------



## savoloysam (Mar 29, 2012)

They did hint at some private investigators working for News International earlier in the report.


----------



## agricola (Mar 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Summary - criminal gangs rather than press.


 
Maybe, though such activity would also explain how much of the information on various industry blacklists came to be there.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 29, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Although Murdoch has clearly been doing his best to blur the distinction


 
Yes - when they said 'criminal gangs' NI did pop into mind.

and Jesus: "The eight-page report, which has been passed to the Leveson inquiry into police corruption and media ethics, warns of "rogue" private investigators "providing organised crime groups with counter-surveillance techniques" and attempting to discover the identities of informants and witnesses under police protection."


----------



## two sheds (Mar 29, 2012)

Must be a follow up to Secret Policeman's Balls.


----------



## laptop (Mar 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Summary - criminal gangs rather than press.


 
I'm betting at least one of the gangs turns out to involve matey-boy whose son was convicted for Stephen Lawrence.


----------



## laptop (Mar 29, 2012)

Whoa...




			
				C4 News said:
			
		

> *Under the heading Perverting the Course of Justice, the report records two operations providing:*
> 
> "examples of private investigator activities which threaten to undermine the criminal justice system, as follows:
> 
> ...


 
And that's just two "operations".


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 29, 2012)

I missed this from the Independent a few days ago.   



> The Independent has learnt that officials from the Department of Justice have also been monitoring the court case in Sicily. Although Sky Italia and NDS have no formal involvement in the proceedings, and there is no suggestion that the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act apply in a case concerned with the hacking and piracy of television encryption technology, the legal antennae of the DoJ's lawyers are now tuned to any allegations even tangentially linked to the Murdoch empire.​That sensitivity applies to News Corp itself.* It is most likely coincidence, but after the phone-hacking scandal accelerated last July with the revelations surrounding Milly Dowler – and Tom Mockridge was sent to London to clean up Wapping – a decision was taken to begin off-loading News Corp's share in NDS.*​


 
Bold by me.  link is http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...could-hit-murdoch-where-it-hurts-7586371.html


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 29, 2012)

> monitoring the court case


Fascinating, Indie.


> It is most likely coincidence


Yeah.


> NDS have no formal involvement in the proceedings


Then.... never mind.

Just more reheated nothings cobbled together by the Indie - really a little too desperate to make itself seem relevant and investigative.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 30, 2012)

So the BBC's implicit invitation (via Monday's Panorama) to Murdoch to sue has generated the predicted and voluminous .... hot air:


> The BBC has defended itself against accusations that it "grossly misrepresented" Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation


http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2012/mar/29/bbc-accused-manipulating-email-pay-tv


Marvellous. This is up there with the "witch hunt" of those poor NotW reporters. Also, can't help but think back to 2009 and James' rant at the Edinburgh TV Festival:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/28/james-murdoch-bbc-mactaggart-edinburgh-tv-festival

It felt chilling at the time, seems even more so given what we now know for fact. A very different landscape to where we are now ...


----------



## laptop (Mar 30, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> So the BBC's implicit invitation (via Monday's Panorama) to Murdoch to sue has generated the predicted and voluminous .... hot air...


 
Still, Murdoch's tweets have effect: I'm holding a report of the _Panorama_ allegations to the last minute, to see whether it's not hot air...


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 30, 2012)

Maybe, but when was the last time a Murdoch said anything what wasn't proven to be disingenuous... If anything, I find the strength of the reaction (to the broadcast) encouraging.

In both degree of criminality and personal exposure (of the Murdochs) things are edging in the right direction. Way, way past sleb phone hacking now ...


----------



## laptop (Mar 30, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Maybe, but when was the last time a Murdoch said anything what wasn't proven to be disingenuous...


 
When Rupert put his arm round Rebekkah and said "this one" was his priority?



London_Calling said:


> If anything, I find the strength of the reaction (to the broadcast) encouraging.


 
Yes. But. He might choose to launch a libel action if he calculated it made the BBC _seem_ rash.

With any luck it'd be his Reading Gaol moment, but there'd be a lot of grief on the way.


----------



## coltrane (Apr 3, 2012)

James Murdoch is stepping down as Chairman of SKY.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/03/james-murdoch-bskyb-live?newsfeed=true

The rat is on the run.

e2a: Though apparently he will still rermain on the board of SKY.


----------



## yardbird (Apr 3, 2012)

"I am aware that my role as chairman could become a lightning rod for BSkyB and I believe that my resignation will help to ensure that there is no false conflation with events at a separate organisation."


----------



## Dan U (Apr 3, 2012)

jump before the Select Committee report comes out.

according to t'radio, it has been delayed until after Easter now as the Tories argue against JM being accused of misleading Parliament and Labour argue for. I guess we know how that one will go.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 3, 2012)

Module 3 coming up:


> #*leveson* module 3 will start after local elections on may 3 and continue up to end of June





> #*leveson* newspaper proprietors to give evidence in week April 23 and in week May 8. (Expect Murdoch, lebedev, barclays, rothermere)


 
Plus:


> #*leveson* Rebekah Brooks applying for core participant status to enable her to get advance notice of the evidence given by other witnesses


I suggest a legal 'fuck you' from LJ Leveson.


----------



## Schmetterling (Apr 3, 2012)

Smither's will be making cheese or farming sheep within a year!


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 3, 2012)

The Murdochalypse rumbles on.


----------



## killer b (Apr 3, 2012)

NI accounts are overdue. wonder what the delay is?


----------



## Dan U (Apr 3, 2012)

Ppffttt they are only overdue by a couple of days. HMRC won't even fine them more than 100 quid iirc. 

It's a story when it's a bit longer imo although it is a bit embarrassing obviously


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 3, 2012)

It's not HMRC that's looking, it's the stock market and the investors.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 3, 2012)

Same justice from steven lawrwence should apply to Charlene Downes


----------



## Dan U (Apr 3, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> It's not HMRC that's looking, it's the stock market and the investors.



Yeah I see that. But until HMRC or NI confirm they aren't submitted its not much.


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 3, 2012)

I don't think just now it would take much.

I'm not saying late filing will bring down newsint, just saying that everything is interesting just now.


----------



## laptop (Apr 3, 2012)

killer b said:


> NI accounts are overdue. wonder what the delay is?


 
Um, that link goes to *PAUL KEYWORTH LIMITED  *


----------



## killer b (Apr 3, 2012)

Apparently you have to do a new search each time (company number is 00081701).


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 3, 2012)

yardbird said:


> "I am aware that my role as chairman could become a lightning rod for BSkyB and I believe that my resignation will help to ensure that there is no false conflation with events at a separate organisation."


 Apparently he couldn't hack it


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 4, 2012)

killer b said:


> Apparently you have to do a new search each time (company number is 00081701).


Oh...they changed their company name 31/05/11.

NI Group Ltd now.

What's that about?


----------



## killer b (Apr 4, 2012)

a month's extension, apparently.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 5, 2012)

I think this is what James Murdoch referred to as "another organsation" in his resignation letter the other day:


> Sky News has admitted that one of its senior executives authorised a journalist to conduct email hacking on two separate occasions that it said were "in the public interest" – even though intercepting emails is a prima facie breach of the Computer Misuse Act, to which there is no such defence written in law.


Right, a rogue reporter....

The law:



> Intercepting emails is an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, and there is no public interest defence written in law. Theoretically, however, any email hacking charges would have to be brought at the discretion of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which could weigh up whether any intrusions could be justified. The role of the CPS in this area is untested, and Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, told the Leveson inquiry in February that he intended to issue guidance to clarify the issue.
> 
> Danvers Baillieu, a specialist internet lawyer with Pinsent Masons, said that while there was no public interest defence "it doesn't mean that a jury would convict a person, or a judge would punish them, because there is usually a discretion in such cases". However, he added that "the difficulty for news organisations is the question of where do you draw the line: would it be legitimate to break into somebody's house who is suspected of committing a crime? The issue with computer offences is that people can do it from their offices, and believe it is a lesser offence than any other type of intrusion."


WTF a lawyer is doing speculating on what any random jury may or may not do ... I have no idea. Running off at the mouth for no reason: criminal act: charge them and let the judge and jury bang the pair of 'em up.



> Tubb's authorised email hacking contrasts with another example of a potentially illegal email access, conducted by Patrick Foster while he was employed by the Times. Foster accessed emails belonging to the anonymous police blogger Nightjack to out him as the serving Lancashire police officer, Richard Horton, but his actions were not authorised by any executive.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/05/sky-news-hacking-emails-canoe-man


----------



## savoloysam (Apr 5, 2012)

I cannot believe they thought it was alright because the people were _suspected_ criminals. Well can we all start hacking into your Sky's shit then under the same pretense?


----------



## Dan U (Apr 5, 2012)

Coincidentally the journo concerned at Sky retired today after 17 years service


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 5, 2012)

The C4 News Home Affairs Correspondant seemed to miss the key argument; while there is, in law, no Public Interest defence, Sky are claiming some kind of legitimacy based on what they discovered. But that (bogus) legitimacy itself presupposes the police had been/would be so inept as to not look at the emails of husband and wife during the course of their investigation.

That's all Sky did - not even basic 'investigative journalism', they just bought the email account passwords for the (online) pop email addresses from a corrupt employee somewhere for a small fee.


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 5, 2012)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/uk/murdochs-239m-for-shutting-news-of-world-7621631.html


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 9, 2012)

Interesting - seems the Motorman files have leaked and are being released at midnight.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting - seems the Motorman files have leaked and are being released at midnight.


 
Oh my, that should be good for a few chuckles


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2012)

Why are all the papers being so quiet over this?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 10, 2012)

What do you mean by "released"? If you mean Guido Fawkes was thinking of putting out details of Steve Whittamore's jobs, he's probably had second thoughts.

Depends what you mean though...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2012)

He's released the blue book section that lists all the News International entries and the services requested from Whittamore.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 10, 2012)

Obv. every news org has that information. I presume the reason no other has "released" is so to not get in the way of the on going Leveson.

Guido Fawkes has already got in the way of Leveson (over Campbell's witness statement) and reminds me a little of, say, The Indie - trying very hard to appear relevant and significant.

So he publishes what everyone else knows already, and then expressly states "Guido is not commenting further for the moment".

Perhaps what Guido Fawkes wants is for Leveson to pull him up short: 'fuck the legal niceties/process, it's about meeee'.

/best guess


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2012)

Everyone else already knows? You? You knew all these names and what sort of action they paid Whittamore for?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 10, 2012)

No time for your silly  bollocks today but, no, I'm not a news org.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2012)

So then why are you saying everyone else already knew? Is somehow the entirely of the country constituted by news organisations? If not why even begin to go down the road that you did?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 10, 2012)

Look,  you got excited by a two-bob blogger. It's no big deal. Move on.


----------



## elbows (Apr 10, 2012)

I don't think people are talking about it right now because of rather large potential legal issues. Apparently Guido went to Ireland before releasing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Look, you got excited by a two-bob blogger. It's no big deal. Move on.


The more i look at the logic of your above posts the odder they appear - something is not a revelation if someone else knew it before. Ok.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2012)

elbows said:


> I don't think people are talking about it right now because of rather large potential legal issues. Apparently Guido went to Ireland before releasing it.


That almost certainly is part of it - may well be other motivations as well. The ICO have't said they're def going to the police or anything mind...


----------



## elbows (Apr 10, 2012)

One of the only stories I've seen about this so far:

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/ha...leaks-are-inevitable-guido-fawkes/s2/a548697/


----------



## two sheds (Apr 10, 2012)

The last time people have been directly accused of something fraudulent was by that policewoman who was then accused of prejudicing any potential criminal cases.

I wonder if that is it - in which case this is a juiciness meter. If there's evidence of actual fraud, bribery, blackmail etc then Leverson can't hear it.

And if is this is right, errrm what is the point? Apart from possibly allowing him to come out at the end saying "I have heard no evidence of fraud, bribery ...." so there's no need for any criminal trials. Just what was ordered, sir  .

Private Eye commented on the ex. Met lawyer (? again, sorry I'll swear they all had names but I can't remember them) who was told to go away because he was making accusations that were unfair because the police couldn't counter. The latest issue suggested that this came not from a cover-up but  because Leveson is swimming in information and is finding it difficult to handle more.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 10, 2012)

elbows said:


> I don't think people are talking about it right now because of rather large potential legal issues. Apparently Guido went to Ireland before releasing it.


It's actually a rather large potential legal _process_ - for which most have, in this instance anyway, respect because (a) it is a full scale Public Inquiry and (b) it's about them - about the role of the media.

So the media are hugely keen to play by the rules - thus demonstrating (to Leveson) a new-found capacity for restraint. Which is the finding they want Leveson to make (that they can self-regulate). Unless you're a two-bob attention seeker.

At the same time Leveson is aware that if he somehow avoids an important area, he will be reminded (as the media have the means example: Motorman). But even where Leveson may _currently_ go is partially contrained by the newly earnest, and heavily investigating, Met.

A reminder of Leveson Part 2 - which can't begin until the Met (and others) have finished their investigations:


> *Part 2* of the inquiry will address:
> "the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other media organisations or other organisations. It will also consider the extent to which any relevant police force investigated allegations relating to News International, and whether the police received corrupt payments or were otherwise complicit in misconduct."[5]


 

So this is about a process, one thing before another, in the appropriate order.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 10, 2012)

Yes that makes more sense than my version.

In which case the process presumably carries on its appropriate order until a judge remarks on the fragrance of the defendants' wives and husbands and considers that they've all suffered enough, really.


----------



## agricola (Apr 10, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Yes that makes more sense than my version.
> 
> In which case the process presumably carries on its appropriate order until a judge remarks on the fragrance of the defendants' wives and husbands and considers that they've all suffered enough, really.


 
That is what most public inquiries are set up to achieve.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 10, 2012)

On this Motorman business, The Guardian finally crafted an artful piece of, erm, 'objective and balanced' reportage:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/10/operation-motorman-guido-fawkes


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> On this Motorman business, The Guardian finally crafted an artful piece of, erm, 'objective and balanced' reportage:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/10/operation-motorman-guido-fawkes


Finally? Yeah - you got excited by a two-bob blogger


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 10, 2012)

No.  Nothing here except Paul Staines acting the tosser.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> No. Nothing here except Paul Staines acting the tosser.


No revelation of names and who did what? Pretty solid names.


----------



## agricola (Apr 10, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> No. Nothing here except Paul Staines acting the tosser.


 
Not really - he is doing his usual self-promotion thing, but as Hacked Off has said the Motorman files should be released to the public, in as full and clear a manner as possible, minus necessary redactions (but enabling victims to identify themselves and come forwards).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 10, 2012)

> Christopher
> John
> Stephen
> Taff


 

Weren't they all in the Bravo 20 team, along with Jocko, Fucknugget, Dave and Smithy?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No revelation of names and who did what? Pretty solid names.


Last weeks chip wrapper.

I mean.. it's hacking Hugh Grant and shit. Moved on somewhat. And the Mail and others are already completely in the frame vis-a-vie the various Met investigations and Leveson P2.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 12, 2012)

"News of the World phone-hacking cases launched in US" - BBC


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 12, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> "News of the World phone-hacking cases launched in US" - BBC


 
A well known sportsman either resident or travelling through the US?  Thats Beckham I reckon.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 12, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> A well known sportsman either resident or travelling through the US? Thats Beckham I reckon.


He's certainly one of the few I could name.  But I wouldn't use that as your measure.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 12, 2012)

> The cases they will be exploring are understood to relate mainly to celebrities who have come to the US and had their phones hacked while they were in the country. That could constitute a violation of US telecommunications and privacy laws.
> 
> It is also understood that *a US citizen* had his or her phone hacked *while in America* as a result of hacking into the transatlantic conversation of a foreign-based celebrity who was a friend of the victim.


We're gonna need a bigger Venn diagram. And more arrows, lots more arrows; both graphic and aerodynamic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/11/news-international-lawyer-phone-hacking


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2012)

Everyone read this yet? Its a bit long, but worth it imo

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/04/times-nightjack-hack-leveson


----------



## two sheds (Apr 13, 2012)

Interesting - thanks.

I love the exchange between Brett the Times Legal manager and Leveson:

_LEVESON (reading Foster's statement after Foster had pretended to work out the blogger's identity when he'd actually hacked his e-mail account): “I began to work under the assumption” -- “that if the author was, as claimed, a detective, they probably worked . . .” et cetera. Same question: that simply isn’t accurate, is it?_

_BRETT: My Lord, we’re being fantastically precise._

_LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Oh, I am being precise because this is a statement being submitted to a court, Mr Brett._

_BRETT: Yes._

_LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Would you not want me to be precise?_

---

A good phrase for a burglar to remember when caught climbing out of someone's window with a bag marked 'swag'. "My Lord, we're being fantastically precise".


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 13, 2012)

and so this strand also moves into the courts >>>



> *NightJack blogger files claim against the Times over email hacking*
> 
> Detective seeks aggravated damages from paper for breach of confidence, misuse of private information and deceit


Fair play. Civil court standard, remember.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/13/nightjack-blogger-times-email-hacking


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2012)

looks like perjury to me.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 13, 2012)

Perjury! Perjury! They've all got i-... Oh, hang on a minute...


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 18, 2012)

Lovely - no pressure, Keir Starmer:




> *Police refer journalists' cases to prosecutors*
> 
> Journalists are among 11 suspects – who also include one police officer – whose cases the CPS is considering


 


> The announcement came as Britain's top prosecutor published guidelines setting out how journalists may have broken the law.
> 
> Starmer said the new rules would help lawyers with the "very difficult decisions".
> 
> ...


 


> A CPS spokeswoman said: "We have received:
> 
> one file for charging advice relating to one journalist and one police officer with relation to alleged offences of misconduct in public office and the Data Protection Act
> one file for charging advice relating to one journalist and six other members of the public with relation to alleged offences of perverting the course of justice
> ...


Anyone in there by the name of Neville, per chance?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/18/police-refer-journalists-cases-prosecutors


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 19, 2012)

New info:


> Starmer noted *there were now five police operations relating to the fallout from phone hacking*, including two previously unknown: Operation Sacha, which relates to the Brooks arrest, and Operation Kilo, looking at leaks from the phone-hacking investigation Operation Weeting.
> 
> The remaining police operations are Operation Elveden, looking at corrupt payments made to public officials, and Operation Tuleta, looking at computer hacking by journalists and non-journalists.


 
And on the new (prosecution) guidelines:


> The announcement came as Britain's top prosecutor published interim guidelines setting out how he would decide whether to prosecute the cases involving journalists. In every instance, the CPS will make its decision based on weighing "the public interest served" by the nature of the news being revealed against "the overall criminality" committed to obtain the required information.
> 
> *Examples provided were broad, given the lack of case law in the area*, but Starmer said that the public interest could be defined by conduct capable of disclosing that "a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed, or is likely to be committed," or that a person is failing to comply with "any legal obligation". As to whether it was right for journalists to expose sexual misconduct, Starmer referred to another potential definition, namely that it could be in the public interest for reporters to be "raising or contributing to an important matter of public debate".
> 
> The public prosecutor refused to discuss hypothetical examples, but noted that there were instances where it had previously been deemed that the public interest in a news story outweighed any illegal methods used, including a decision taken by the police not to prosecute the Daily Telegraph for publishing MPs expenses data that was stolen from parliament.


Hmmm.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/18/met-phone-hacking-files-cps


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 19, 2012)

> Starmer referred to another potential definition, namely that it could be in the public interest for reporters to be "raising or contributing to an important matter of public debate".


 
How charming of dear Keir to so generously throw together a bit of new law on the hoof like that.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 19, 2012)

Murdochs should be up in the next couple of weeks, shouldn't they? 


> Lord Justice Leveson said media proprietors will give evidence in the weeks beginning 23 April and 8 May.​


Is there anywhere you can look at who's attending when? Could only find details of previous hearings on the Inquiry website.


----------



## laptop (Apr 19, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Murdochs should be up in the next couple of weeks, shouldn't they?
> Is there anywhere you can look at who's attending when? Could only find details of previous hearings on the Inquiry website.


 
AFAIK they only publish the official schedule the week before (as do Parliament and the courts - usually Thursday before).

The date for the Murdoch appearance is based on rumour/leak.


----------



## Santino (Apr 19, 2012)

Bunch of people arrested this morning.


----------



## elbows (Apr 19, 2012)

Confirmed that Murdochs are appearing again next week.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 19, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Murdochs should be up in the next couple of weeks, shouldn't they?
> Is there anywhere you can look at who's attending when? Could only find details of previous hearings on the Inquiry website.


http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-List-23-26-April-2012.pdf

James Murdoch Tue 24 all day
Rupert Murdoch Wed & Thur (tbc) 25 and 26 all day


----------



## elevendayempire (Apr 20, 2012)

Ah, what a pleasant thing to wake up to:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...the-net-tightens-on-the-murdochs-7661722.html


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 20, 2012)

1%er said:


> http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-List-23-26-April-2012.pdf
> 
> James Murdoch Tue 24 all day
> Rupert Murdoch Wed & Thur (tbc) 25 and 26 all day


Cheers, much obliged


----------



## 1%er (Apr 20, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Cheers, much obliged


Your welcome.

I'll be getting up early to watch JM spar with Jay


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 20, 2012)

I just emailed a colleague to see if he wants to come watch it on my PC on our lunchbreak 

Obviously we're the cool kids at work


----------



## laptop (Apr 23, 2012)

What, no mention of
*Ofcom to probe Sky email hacking?*




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> The regulator has a range of potential sanctions for breaches of its code, varying from a warning, through to a fine or the revocation of a licence in the most serious circumstances.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

Sky continue to say: 'it's okay if we conduct an investigation beside that of the police, but we'll just put what we find in the public domain instead of in front of a jury (breaking the criminal law along the way, and risking mistrials). But we're great because.... it's in the public interest'.

The police are obv. a bit fik at times but, Jesus Christ, to imply the police wouldn't look at the emails of husband and wife and they had to do it instead ....

Another of the most humbling days of Rupert's life, I feel sure.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Apr 24, 2012)

The Strand is packed solid with grip trucks, satellite vans and hard-faced people with good hair.


----------



## past caring (Apr 24, 2012)

Huge numbers of journos outside Coulson's house this morning, too. Oddly, though, it appears that Coulson has come to some sort of arrangement with at least some sections of the media - there was actually a gazebo set up on his front drive under which a TV crew were offloading stuff from a truck.....


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

> James Murdoch arrived at the high court just before 9am, a full hour before he is due to take the witness stand, according to the Financial Times correspondent Ben Fenton.


----------



## Santino (Apr 24, 2012)

I bet Ben Fenton is fed up of people shouting 'Jesus Christ!' at him.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

Very keen to see how lawyers get stuck into JM, as opposed to those out-of-their-depth, self-aggrandising .... types on the Select Committee.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

Nice. Leveson pipes up and gives Robert Jay a small break, and then they come back at JM two-handed. Be interesting to see if this is repeated at the end of each section of questioning.


----------



## gabi (Apr 24, 2012)

Murdoch looks truly rough. And beaten.


----------



## gabi (Apr 24, 2012)

He's recovered a bit. Anyone know if Cameron can be called to this inquiry btw? That seems to be the angle Jay is taking...


----------



## Dan U (Apr 24, 2012)

not looking great for the politicians here

enjoyed hearing Jay swearing live on 5Live and Bacon frantically apologising!


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 24, 2012)

Dan U said:


> not looking great for the politicians here
> 
> enjoyed hearing Jay swearing live on 5Live and Bacon frantically apologising!


 
In what context?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 24, 2012)

he was reading out an email about NOTW paying people to 'fuck off' or summat like that


----------



## Dan U (Apr 24, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> In what context?


 
from the guardian



> Murdoch says it seemed like "people were speaking out of different sides of their mouth" about the BSkyB takeover bid.
> The inquiry hears that Jeremy Hunt was "very frustrated" that he received "strong legal advice" not to meet James Murdoch about the bid. Murdoch says he was "displeased" with this.
> Michel advised Murdoch to "have a chat with him [Hunt] on his mobile, which is fine". Murdoch says "not to my mind" was this a surreptitious phone call. Hunt later called Murdoch to apologise for a cancelled meeting, he says.
> Jay reads another email from Murdoch to Michel in which Murdoch says "you must be fucking joking. I will text him and find a time" to meet and avoid legal obstacles.
> Murdoch tells Jay: "As I said earlier, I was displeased."


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 24, 2012)

Ta and ta.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 24, 2012)

The Hulture Secretary, Jeremy Cunt, is in a fucktonne of trouble. St Vince must be laughing himself silly. More tory shambles.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 24, 2012)

Balbi said:


> The Hulture Secretary, Jeremy Cunt, is in a fucktonne of trouble. St Vince must be laughing himself silly. More tory shambles.


 
isn't he just.

also Murdoch Jnr admitting that he had discussed the bid with Cameron over one of their jolly get togethers in the Cotswolds. Which iirc Number 10 have either denied or avoided answering.

Imagine Murdoch Snr is going to put the boot in as well. His twitter account has basically been an attack on the Tories every few days, including this morning


----------



## Santino (Apr 24, 2012)

According to Twitter, Ladbrokes have suspended betting on whether Hunt will leave the cabinet next.


----------



## binka (Apr 24, 2012)

it was only yesterday that cameron was declaring that the tory fightback starts now


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 24, 2012)

Dan U said:


> isn't he just.
> 
> also Murdoch Jnr admitting that he had discussed the bid with Cameron over one of their jolly get togethers in the Cotswolds. Which iirc Number 10 have either denied or avoided answering.
> 
> Imagine Murdoch Snr is going to put the boot in as well. His twitter account has basically been an attack on the Tories every few days, including this morning


 
The Sun and Times have taken a noticibly hostile stance towards Cameron of late, so yes Murdoch snr might let a few things slip.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

Sl_eeeee_aze.

Ken might have liked this to have happened next week.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 24, 2012)

It's great stuff


----------



## Dan U (Apr 24, 2012)

> In an email on 11 January 2011, Michel said Hunt "wants us to take the heat with him in the next two weeks" and "he shared our objectives", the inquiry hears.
> Murdoch was given a detailed briefing on what Hunt was planning to say to parliament on 23 January.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 24, 2012)

binka said:


> it was only yesterday that cameron was declaring that the tory fightback starts now


 
As fightbacks go, you couldn't get much more Sun Tzu than this.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 24, 2012)

Hunt is toast


----------



## Dan U (Apr 24, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Hunt is toast


 
isn't he just

Paddypower suspended betting now as well.



> Murdoch maintains he was "very worried" about the prospect of the BSkyB bid, despite the positive signals he was receiving from the office of Hunt.
> In another email on 23 January 2011, Michel says: "He [Hunt] is keen for me to work with his team on the [Hunt] statement ... and offer some possible language".
> Separately Michel says he has managed to get some information about Hunt's proposed statement "although absolutely illegal".
> To gasps in the courtroom, Murdoch stresses that this is a joke, but he is "not so sure" whether this is illegal.
> Jay describes it as a "sneak preview" as the secretary of state's planned statement to parliament.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 24, 2012)

Some tories might be wondering why an inquiry that Cameron himself essentially set up and set the terms for is now blowing up in his face.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 24, 2012)

Murdoch  - "can't remember what was confidential or not"


----------



## Dan U (Apr 24, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Some tories might be wondering why an inquiry that Cameron himself essentially set up and set the terms for is now blowing up in his face.


 
i think the relationship between him and Murdoch has deteriorated since he set this up

i wonder if Cameron is frantically trying to cut a deal in the background with Murdoch Snr to save his own bacon tomorrow.


----------



## veracity (Apr 24, 2012)

O this has cheered me right up today. Looks like the Murdochs are going to take a few down with them... next stop Cameron?


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2012)

veracity said:


> O this has cheered me right up today. Looks like the Murdochs are going to take a few down with them... next stop Cameron?


 
Everyone at the top of British politics since 1997 will be in the frame, if this continues.  Lets face it, they all nuzzled up to the Murdoch teats.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

But this is specifics; dates, times, names, details of background/secret/even illegal contact between an organisation looking to influence Gov decision on a hugely important issue (the BSkyB bid) and a Minister. That's the difference.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 24, 2012)

agricola said:


> Everyone at the top of British politics since 1997 will be in the frame, if this continues. Lets face it, they all nuzzled up to the Murdoch teats.


That's what I was thinking, if it's only this government that gets hit it will be remarkable. Though I guess it's arguable how much people will bother with those not in power, which would be rather apt I suppose.


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> But this is specifics; dates, times, names, details of background/secret/even illegal contact between an orgainsation looking to influence Gov decision on a hugely important issue (the BSkyB bid) and a Minister. That's the difference.


 
Yes, but as I argued much earlier in the thread - and which has been obliquely referred to at the inquiry - there is a good chance that a worse (though much more successful) use of undue influence occured under Labour when Goodman and Mulcaire got banged up.  

Also for all the closeness between NI and the Tories under Cameron, Labour were much closer to them and for a far longer period of time - for instance Blair's trips out to see Murdoch, the leaking of election dates, the leaking of Hutton, the pro-Iraq war cheerleading etc etc


----------



## veracity (Apr 24, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> That's what I was thinking, if it's only this government that gets hit it will be remarkable. Though I guess it's arguable how much people will bother with those not in power, which would be rather apt I suppose.


Yet another thing for Bliar to claim amnesia about no doubt.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

And Blair flew 'across the world' to meet Murdoch, yada yada.

It means nothing without evidence. This is evidence.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 24, 2012)

I can't see Murdoch even laying a glove on Blair tbh. What is his motivation? He is angry with this lot, they've fucked him over (in his head). Blair gets invited to his Jesus like christening of his child on the Jordan ffs


----------



## Santino (Apr 24, 2012)

binka said:


> it was only yesterday that cameron was declaring that the tory fightback starts now


"When your back's against the wall, it's time to turn round and fight". - John Major


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 24, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> And Blair flew 'across the world' to meet Murdoch, yada yada.
> 
> It means nothing without evidence. This is evidence.


 
Also, so what?  The worse that will happen to any of the current government is that they will have to resign as a minister.  What will happen to the new labour bunch?  What will happen to Blair?  A black mark against their reputation at most.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 24, 2012)

its on Salmond a bit as well



> Murdoch says he wanted Jeremy Hunt to understand that News Corp shareholders were restive over the length of the transaction period.
> In another email, the News Corp executive Fred Michel refers to a dinner with Alex Salmond and the editor of the Scottish Sun, which had just decided to back Salmond at the next Scottish election.
> In the email, Michel says: "Alex [Salmond] was keen to see if he could help smooth the way for the process", referring to the BSkyB takeover bid.
> Ben Fenton, the FT correspondent, has just tweeted:
> ...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 24, 2012)

Thing is, it far more difficult to make a direct link between Blair and Rupes exchange of favours. Blair would have promised not to introduce any laws regulating the power of the media - i.e. rules on things like ownership - but how do you prove that? Even if rupert comes out and says it, Blair and co can jsut deny it and spin it and it all happened over 10 years ago. I doubt there are e-mails setting this out.

The BSkyB stuff is current and is also well within the realm of highly illegal and backed up with solid evdidence.

And can I just say 'lol'.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Also, so what? The worse that will happen to any of the current government is that they will have to resign as a minister. What will happen to the new labour bunch? What will happen to Blair? A black mark against their reputation at most.


what are you talking about?

It's not a history lesson. You want to bring in Thatcher, as well? The Inquiry has a specific remit. Stay focused.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 24, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> what are you talking about?
> 
> It's not a history lesson. You want to bring in Thatcher, as well?


 
Eh? What the fuck are you on about?

I'll spell it out, yes this is evidence against the current government but so what if Blair is put in the frame as well, it doesnt matter anymore because they have nothing of note to resign from.  Hunt will resign, Cameron may yet have to, what would be the action against former ministers if they are implicated?


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2012)

Dan U said:


> I can't see Murdoch even laying a glove on Blair tbh. What is his motivation? He is angry with this lot, they've fucked him over (in his head). Blair gets invited to his Jesus like christening of his child on the Jordan ffs


 
Murdoch wouldnt, but Cameron would.  If this starts to look like it is going to bring him down then his only real choice (assuming has a choice - that he doesnt get sidelined by someone who the Tories put up to replace him) is to start pointing out and providing evidence that (a) everyone was at it (which is largely true), and (b) that he at least did something about it (though admittedly by accident).


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

<sigh>

Onwards >>


----------



## Dan U (Apr 24, 2012)

> On 7 July, James Murdoch was given private information about a meeting between David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt to discuss setting up the Leveson inquiry.


 
DOH!


----------



## Dan U (Apr 24, 2012)

agricola said:


> Murdoch wouldnt, but Cameron would. If this starts to look like it is going to bring him down then his only real choice (assuming has a choice - that he doesnt get sidelined by someone who the Tories put up to replace him) is to start pointing out and providing evidence that (a) everyone was at it (which is largely true), and (b) that he at least did something about it (though admittedly by accident).


 
i'd love for it to happen, i really would. I am just not seeing it tbh. Blair even now seems like half a lifetime away


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

#9549 above: Exactly: specifics, dates, names, times, places, discussion details.


----------



## Schmetterling (Apr 24, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Eh? What the fuck are you on about?
> 
> I'll spell it out, yes this is evidence against the current government but so what if Blair is put in the frame as well, it doesnt matter anymore because they have nothing of note to resign from. Hunt will *resign, Cameron may yet have to*, what would be the action against former ministers if they are implicated?


 
If he does, shall we have an Urban75 Leaving Party for him?  I might even give up anonymity for that and attend. 
Or we could organise a 'send-off' at the gates of Downing Street to wave and chant a slow Bye-Bye (slow clap style).


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> #9549 above: Exactly: specifics, dates, names, times, places, discussion details.


 
Leveson already has evidence that Reid was briefed by Yates about the Goodman and Mulcaire investigation.  You would think he would want to know when that was, what was said, and what Reid did with that information.  Records should exist that would allow him to answer all of those questions.


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2012)

Also I should point out that what Hunt was doing - getting much too close to the businesses he was meant to oversee - is something that is sadly endemic across government.  Railway Eye pointed out an especially shameful example of this only last week.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

Almost literally, everyone in the country *knows* that. It means nothing. Again, this is about evidence, something you can act on - not what we all *know*.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 24, 2012)

agricola said:


> Also I should point out that what Hunt was doing - getting much too close to the businesses he was meant to oversee - is something that is sadly endemic across government. Railway Eye pointed out an especially shameful example of this only last week.


 
Without a shadow of doubt.  Its almost a rites of passage thing for a minister upon leaving government to take up at least one highly paid job in the industry they were overseeing just a short time ago.


----------



## ymu (Apr 24, 2012)

agricola said:


> Murdoch wouldnt, but Cameron would. If this starts to look like it is going to bring him down then his only real choice (assuming has a choice - that he doesnt get sidelined by someone who the Tories put up to replace him) is to start pointing out and providing evidence that (a) everyone was at it (which is largely true), and (b) that he at least did something about it (though admittedly by accident).


Precisely.



Teaboy said:


> Also, so what? The worse that will happen to any of the current government is that they will have to resign as a minister. What will happen to the new labour bunch? What will happen to Blair? A black mark against their reputation at most.


This is a bit more important than bringing a few cunts to justice, lovely as that would be. This is one of many small chinks of light in the bleak neoliberal landscape. Labour cannot be allowed off the hook or it's back to business as usual.


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> We - literally - all know that. Almost literally, everyone in the country *knows* that. Again, this is about evidence, something you can act on - not what we all *know*.


 
That evidence almost certainly exists, though.  Just because Hunt has been put in the frame by someone who wants to save his own skin doesnt mean that Leveson (or the rest of us) should focus on just him (or him and Cameron), especially when the likely successors to Hunt, Cameron and the rest of the coalition are the party that were even further up the Murdoch canal than the Tories were.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

Interesting. Leveson himself mooting the idea of more than one regulator.... slicing up the media landscape along print and digital lines...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 24, 2012)

And we've still got Rupert, potentially for 1.5 days, to go


----------



## Wilf (Apr 24, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> And we've still got Rupert, potentially for 1.5 days, to go


Probably a long session of 'I don't remember', 'I don't deal with that' etc. Will be interesting to see how copes with the silky tones of the inquiry QC as opposed to the more aggressive stuff he got from a couple of those on the Select Committee. Somehow I doubt they'll get much out of him, though his only defence will be to portray himself as remote and ignorant about what was going on in his company. Mind, that was pretty much how his _*son*_ has had to portray himself.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 24, 2012)

He'll turn up in a Bath chair with a tartan blanket over his legs and a Carry On-style nurse in attendance to administer Very Important Medicines (that may or may not have memory-affecting side effects).


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 24, 2012)

Cameron has come out said he has 'full confidence in hunt'. Which is suprising because I cant see how he can possibly survive and you would have thought that he want to put clear water between himself and hunt - "I am shocked, utterlly shocked, to find out that Jeremy was Murdoch's bitch" etc.

Unless (tantalising) hunt has threatened to dish the dirt on cameron being the bigger bitch ....


----------



## Badgers (Apr 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:
			
		

> He'll turn up in a Bath chair with a tartan blanket over his legs and a Carry On-style nurse in attendance to administer Very Important Medicines (that may or may not have memory-affecting side effects).



Ignorance is innocence?


----------



## Balbi (Apr 24, 2012)

I think Rupes is going for broke - breaking Cameron that is.


----------



## ymu (Apr 24, 2012)

Interesting pre-election 2010 anecdote from Simon Kelner (editor of the Indy): The day James and Rebekah revealed the arrogant Murdoch way of business


----------



## ymu (Apr 24, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Cameron has come out said he has 'full confidence in hunt'. Which is suprising because I cant see how he can possibly survive and you would have thought that he want to put clear water between himself and hunt - "I am shocked, utterlly shocked, to find out that Jeremy was Murdoch's bitch" etc.
> 
> Unless (tantalising) hunt has threatened to dish the dirt on cameron being the bigger bitch ....


Exactly what he did with Coulson, Fox and Harrison (of A4E). His having "full confidence" in him looks like bloody bad news for Hunt to me.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 24, 2012)

ymu said:


> Interesting pre-election 2010 anecdote from Simon Kelner (editor of the Indy): The day James and Rebekah revealed the arrogant Murdoch way of business


 


> • For legal reasons, this article will not be opened to comments


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 24, 2012)

Funny, it was only this morning that I posted on the London Mayor Election thread that I thought Boris was beginning to suffer because of the series of shambolic Cameron episodes of late.  If this Hunt thing blows up into a 'will he won't he resign' fiasco it could be fatal for Boris's campaign.

Cameron should have lanced this boil immediatly, he's in serious danger of fucking up yet again.


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Cameron should have lanced this boil immediatly, he's in serious danger of fucking up yet again.


 
No, Cameron should continue to deal with this in the manner that he has been - its way they have handled this (badly, at least to them) that is exposing all this stuff to long-overdue scrutiny and criticism. These fuckups are the best things that could happen, IMHO.


----------



## killer b (Apr 24, 2012)

yeah, let him drag it out over the next few days before booting him. we don't want cameron to appear decisive or principled, we want him to look like a clueless fuckwit.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 24, 2012)

Another one for the 'tory cock-ups' thread methinks.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 24, 2012)

Bet Vince Cable wishes he hadn't done his bit of 'macho boasting in front of the young female reporters' thing. If he'd done anything like his stated intention of fucking Murdoch over (_and I'm far from sure he ever would_) he'd be competing with Tom Watson as the brave fighter for truth and justice. But he didn't. And he's a cunt. And a LIb-Dem. And a politician. So, fuck him.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 24, 2012)

They all say they have the fullest confidence in people just before they are for the door......

Happens all the time.


----------



## killer b (Apr 24, 2012)

so, how long before he jumps? tomorrow teatime?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 24, 2012)

killer b said:


> so, how long before he jumps? tomorrow teatime?


Labour are calling for his head
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17829360


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 24, 2012)

Hopefully before the 10pm news tonight.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 24, 2012)

weltweit said:


> They all say they have the fullest confidence in people just before they are for the door......


Whilst anecdotally true, it's always struck me that it puts those who genuinely _do_ have their fullest confidence in who/whatever in a bit of a bind. If you tell the truth, it looks like you have no confidence, if you keep quiet, it looks like you have no confidence.

Poor bastards


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Bet Vince Cable wishes he hadn't done his bit of 'macho boasting in front of the young female reporters' thing. If he'd done anything like his stated intention of fucking Murdoch over (_and I'm far from sure he ever would_) he'd be competing with Tom Watson as the brave fighter for truth and justice. But he didn't. And he's a cunt. And a LIb-Dem. And a politician. So, fuck him.


 
Its a shame that Tom Watson is seen as the "brave fighter for truth and justice" in all of this - if anyone deserves that accolade its Nick Davies.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 24, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Hopefully before the 10pm news tonight.


 Sometimes with resignations there has to be a 'decent interval' between the original expression of confidence and the actual departure.  If nothing else, Cameron looks like/more of a complete clown if he goes today or tomorrow.


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2012)

killer b said:


> so, how long before he jumps? tomorrow teatime?


 
Perhaps - though its worth bearing in mind that the evidence that has kicked all this off came almost exclusively from NI itself, who have a strong interest in (at least as much as possible) making the story not about them.  (edit) Its possible that Hunt will try to put out his own version of events when he appears at Leveson (or in Parliament itself).


----------



## Wilf (Apr 24, 2012)

agricola said:


> Its a shame that Tom Watson is seen as the "brave fighter for truth and justice" in all of this - if anyone deserves that accolade its Nick Davies.


True. Whilst I admire Watson's personal resilience in all of this, his strategy was pretty poor at the Select Committee and he didn't get anything out of them (from memory). Looked like he was a bit hyped up to be honest and after some kind of coup de grace. Needed to be a bit more forensic, which to be fair to him he was in the months before the hearing.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

Hunt is also the Olympics minister so it will be very damaging for him to go just before they start.

I heard Iain Dale say on the radio something along the lines of "I was told that Rupert Murdoch said he will do for Hunt and Cameron" he may say more in his own show that starts soon. 

Will be interesting to hear what RM has to say tomorrow.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 24, 2012)

Hands up who's looking forward to PMQs?


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

Looks like Hunt is going to try and hang around, he is claiming that some of the phone calls and meetings JM spoke about in his evidence did not take place.

So its all down to some PR gilding the lily


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

Iain Dale has just confirmed that he was told Rupert Murdoch said "he was going to get Cameron and Hunt", he is well connected and right more then he is wrong.

Tomorrow RM could really fuck Cameron, what Cameron knew when is going to be really important, this time tomorrow he may be under pressure to go.


----------



## laptop (Apr 24, 2012)

1%er said:


> So its all down to some PR gilding the lily


 
The name of an adviser who's actually called "Adam Smith" has come up. Sources close to laptop were "not surprised"


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

laptop said:


> The name of an adviser who's actually called "Adam Smith" has come up. Sources close to laptop were "not surprised"


You couldn't make it up


----------



## ymu (Apr 24, 2012)

1%er said:


> Looks like Hunt is going to try and hang around, he is claiming that some of the phone calls and meetings JM spoke about in his evidence did not take place.
> 
> So its all down to some PR gilding the lily


He's going to try to blame the civil service. The people who can really bury him if they want to. Bless those stupid Tory boys. 

Same mistake Murdoch made trying to blame his staff. The arrogance of power can be a beautiful thing to behold.


----------



## laptop (Apr 24, 2012)

1%er said:


> You couldn't make it up


 
Appeared so, er, _fresh_ out of PPE at Magdalen that "spotty youth" was likely to be an _aspiration_ for his future... friends of laptop said.

And not a civil servant - probably a member of Hunt's staff. Such people _speak for_ their bosses. And frequently _think_ for them too. No get-out for Hunt there - just the option of denumciation.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

I think tomorrow Murdoch will make more of Hunts speech being sent to News Corp the day before he gave it. The NC lawyer said in an email "it is highly illegal for me to receive this", is there any criminality involved here?


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

laptop said:


> Appeared so, er, _fresh_ out of PPE at Magdalen that "spotty youth" was likely to be an _aspiration_ for his future... friends of laptop said.
> 
> And not a civil servant - probably a member of Hunt's staff. Such people _speak for_ their bosses. And frequently _think_ for them too. No get-out for Hunt there - just the option of denumciation.


I think he is being called a "special adviser"


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 24, 2012)

I think we can all agree that it's time to call a spad a spad.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 24, 2012)

TBF Kelner certainly seems comes over as a fucking fuckwit.


----------



## laptop (Apr 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> I think we can all agree that it's time to call a spad a spad.


 


<steals>


----------



## ymu (Apr 24, 2012)

1%er said:


> I think he is being called a "special adviser"


Who are purely political animals, appointed directly by the ruling party.

*sings*
_There may be trouble ahead ... but while there's Murdochs and Cameron, and Hunt, all those cunts ... they'll face the music while we dance_


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

One of the email from here

_Tot_
_Co:_
_From:_
_Sent:_
_Subject:_
_Anderson, Matthew’~_
_Michel, Frederic_
_Mon 15/11/2010 11:32:42 AM_
_Hunt meeting - urgent_
_Jeremy tried to call you. He has received very strong legal advice not to meet us today as the current_
_process is treated as a judicial one (not a policy one) and any meeting could be referred to and jeopardize_
_the entire process. Jeremy is very frustrated about it but the Permanent Secretary has now also been_
_involved._
_My advice would be not to meet him today as it would be counter-productive for everyone, but you could_
_have a chat with him on his mobile which is completely fine, and I will liaise with his team privately as well._
_Let’s discuss_
_Fred -.._
_Fred_
_Frederic Michel_
_Director, Public Afi~airs, Europe_
_News Corporation_
_tel:_
_mob:’!_

So don't have a meeting that will be recorded and minuted just give him a ring and keep it off the record


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

From: Michel, Frederic
Sent: 24 January 2011 15:21
To: JRM
Co: Anderson, Matthew; Palker, Jeff; Appella, Andrea; Macandrew, Alice
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - JH STATEMENT
Managed to get some infos on the plans for tomorrow [ although absolutely
illegal..>!]
Press statement at 7.30am and Parliament statement at 9.30am [ identical]
Lots of legal issues around the statement so he has tried to get a version which
helps us by qualifying the threats identified by Ofcom
He will thus confirm that Ofcom recommended him to refer.
JH will announce that "he is minded that maybe the case that a merger may
operate against the public interest and it’s in his own right that he wishes to look at
any undertaking that have the potential to prevent the potential threats of media
plurality identified in the Ofcom report"
He will then say that News Corp wished for him to consider a UIL and he has
asked Ofcom and OFT to assist him in that process
He will also say that once the UIL is satisfactory [ not final language], he will call
for a public consultation which will run for 15 days
He won’t give a deadline for Ofcom and Q F.,T consultation but wants it to be done
very fast
He is keen to see JRM on Wednesday or Thursday to finalise the viability side of
the UIL
The documents will be posted-0n the DCMS website when the Parliament
statement is published
He said that the key for us tomorrow was to be able to sustain the heat around
Ofcom recommending a referral and making sure we put our arguments from the
submissions out.


----------



## newbie (Apr 24, 2012)

conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

This is damning as it clearly shows he was speaking to JH and not his advisers unless his advisers were also at the swan lake unless Frederic Michel is telling lies

To:
Cc_=
Andrea
From: Michel, Frederic
8e~: Wed 09/02/20lt 7:24:52 PM
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - JR - CONFIDENTIAL
as agreed on the call, I have managed to get JH quickly before he went in to see Swan Lake....and have
further chat:
- he really feels this Ofcom letter is the ultimate weapon for them to bIock the deal., it’s the last threwof
the dice for Ed. he agreed re-my earher comment to him that this was something Colette and Ed were
floatilg already in september and their ultimate trophy.
- he understands this is a deal stopper for us and shat~es our ~ustration -" we all know what Ofcom’s
intentions are and have been from the start on this". He said that in truth, this was a very bureaucratic
layer to be added and that even though on princtples we were not at all on board with it, it might be a
price worth paying for the deal to get a green light in 2 weeks.
- he can’t instruct his officials to get back to Ofcom as he is not supposed to be aware that we have
received the letter and its content....so we have to be very careful on this.
- he feels that we should take a contradan view ~md despite being rightly outraged by Ofcom’s
suggestions, we should look at the longer-term view
- no one would expect us to accept such art undertaking with the structural remedy we have proposed: us
accepting this or a middle-way would absolutely kill the public debate still
- he asked whether we would be prepared to negotiate at all. he mentioned that if needed, there is
another week potentially to be adoed to the timetable for further negotiations with OFT and Ofcom
- he wants to think it overnight and get back first thing tomorrow morning, he doesn’t want us to jump to
conclusions too fast . ¯ ¯ " ¯
-1 told’him he had to stand for something ultimately s;n.d this was his chance, to d,sm, t ss, Ofc.?~StlVtsVOFT _
and show he had some backbone¯ he said he couldn t ignore Ofcom, ne iRacl urougn[me:n
process to get some cover and in public debate, he wou[d get absolutely killed if he did sucil a thing,
Frederic Michel
Director, Public Affairs, Europe
News Corporation
Tel:
Mob:


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

What _precisely _ can you pin on Hunt?


----------



## pesh (Apr 24, 2012)

Watergate


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

For those who can not wait until tomorrow, it seems Leveson site has published lots of Rupert Murdoch stuff here.

I'll wait until tomorrow


----------



## laptop (Apr 24, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> What _precisely _ can you pin on Hunt?


 



			
				News International's Frederic Michel said:
			
		

> - he [Hunt] can’t instruct his officials to get back to Ofcom as he is not supposed to be aware that we have
> received the letter and its content....so we have to be very careful on this.
> - he feels that we should take a contradan view ~md despite being rightly outraged by Ofcom’s
> suggestions, we should look at the longer-term view
> ...


 
That's at the very least, very improper: the Minister _offering_ advice on dealing with a quasi-judicial process that he's not supposed to know about.

Can we ask GCHQ to leak the actual phone call, illegally but in the public interest?

Seriously, the questioning of Hunt on this alone should be a high-temperature day.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> What _precisely _ can you pin on Hunt?


Unless the people in these emails are telling lies he was clearly engaged in dubious contacts with people he should not have been in contact with.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

pesh said:


> Watergate


Clever. Just letting you know I got it.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 24, 2012)

If you're looking for an actual criminal offence, imo it feel kinda like insider dealing. I wonder if it could apply in this?


----------



## newbie (Apr 24, 2012)

I can't.  obv. 

However these emails appear to show that he made explicit reference to his own actions being unlawful, yet he carried on doing them. As did Michel and JM.  Certainly enough there to warrant a full investigation.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

It's all third party and/or hearsay. Mr Michel obv. misunderstood, was too keen to impress, etc.

Atm, there is nothing you can pin to Hunt that I'm aware of.

A Whitehall leak would be helpful....


----------



## newbie (Apr 24, 2012)

teqniq said:


> If you're looking for an actual criminal offence, imo it feel kinda like insider dealing. I wonder if it could apply in this?


as we were told at the time, and is repeated in the emails, Hunts role was judicial not political.  The real judiciary seem to take a dim view of people taking the piss with their game.


----------



## newbie (Apr 24, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> It's all third party and/or hearsay. Mr Michel obv. misunderstood, was too keen to impress, etc.
> 
> Atm, there is nothing you can pin to Hunt that I'm aware of.
> 
> A Whitehall leak would be helpful....


or both Michel and Hunt being called before leveson.

Of course, a proper investigation will include all phone records...


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

Hunt will of course appear anyway. It is an Inquiry though, not a court.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

The damning emails are here I don't need to post them all 

But we don't know if the content is true or not


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

So, daming but may not be true. Cheers.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 24, 2012)

It might be enough for a criminal prosecution, but his credibility as a minister is utterly shredded - he cant survive.


----------



## ymu (Apr 24, 2012)

Nick Davies, on how this will very likely kill Hunt's political career and possibly bring down the government


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> So, daming but may not be true. Cheers.


Who has claimed he is guilty of anything yet? We will not know until Hunt gives his version of events.

An interesting timeline here


----------



## laptop (Apr 24, 2012)

BBC said:
			
		

> A spokesman for the prime minister's office said Mr Cameron stood by comments that he had no inappropriate conversations with James Murdoch about the BSkyB bid and "had done nothing wrong."
> 
> here


 
What an interestingly _specific_ denial.

Has Cameron issued separate denials for the rest of the family, and for each of their respective lieutenants and consiglieres?


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

ymu said:


> Nick Davies, on how this will very likely kill Hunt's political career and possibly bring down the government


This is where Rupert Murdoch could really drop them in it tomorrow

Quote"
Cameron can become embroiled in two ways. First, he faces questions about whether he had any kind of involvement in handling the bid for BSkyB, particularly during the quasi-judicial process from June 2010 to July 2011. For the first timeon Monday, it was disclosed that Murdoch had raised the bid with him when they met at Rebekah Brooks's house two days before Christmas 2010. Previously, Cameron had refused to answer direct questions about what was discussed on this occasion. His opponents will be interested to know whether he really did keep his distance even as last year the bid was swept up in the political tornado around the phone-hacking scandal.

Second, and potentially even more serious, the prime minister would be in jeopardy if the alleged support for the BSkyB bid proved to be part of a bigger deal between the Conservative leadership and News Corp. In its crudest form, the suggestion is that the Murdochs used the Sun to make sure that Gordon Brown was driven out of Downing Street so that the incoming Conservative government could deliver them a sequence of favours – a fair wind for them to take over BSkyB; the emasculation of the much resented Ofcom; and a severe funding cut to their primary broadcasting rival, the BBC. End quote

This really is bullshit by JM
This was the core of the toughest exchangeson Monday, as Robert Jay QC, for the inquiry, laid out fragments of evidence that suggest this big deal was made, and concluded: "It all falls together, doesn't it?" In reply James Murdoch passionately denied that he would ever link his newspaper's endorsement of a political party to the commercial interests of his company. "I simply wouldn't do business that way."


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

ymu said:


> Nick Davies, on how this will very likely kill Hunt's political career and possibly bring down the government


That's a ridiculous characterisation of that  article  Have you no shame.

People are just a little over-excited over 'your people talking to my people and getting their wires crossed'.


----------



## ymu (Apr 24, 2012)

If your reading comprehension is that fucked, is there any point responding to your bone idle cynicism?

The article lays out the circumstantial evidence of a pre-election deal and notes that the terms of Leveson allow him to go hunting for hard evidence. I have not mischaracterised it at all, you're just too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend it.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

It is strange that they took this away from Cable because he said he had declared war on Murdoch and then gave it to Hunt who says on his website that he is a cheerleader for Murdoch 

I'd love to see Cameron's fingers in this, British politics nowadays has turned into a good old Ealing comedy


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 24, 2012)

A couple of bookies have closed the book on hunt resigning lol


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

dp


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

> *Nick Davies, on how this will very likely kill Hunt's political career and possibly bring down the government*





ymu said:


> I have not mischaracterised it at all, you're just too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend it.


Jesus Christ


----------



## ymu (Apr 24, 2012)

Incisive analysis there, L_C. Right up to your usual standard.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 24, 2012)

I have a healthy dislike of Lawyers but i hope this is true.
At 1pm, as Lord Justice Leveson rose for lunch and James Murdoch stepped off the stand to make a break for the high court loos, Robert Jay QC spun on his heels and mouthed to a colleague: "This is so much fun!"

Jay has given me hours of fun over the last few months


----------



## laptop (Apr 24, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> A couple of bookies have closed the book on hunt resigning lol


 
Capitalism has spoken 

Honestly "casino" capitalism, anyway.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 24, 2012)

Comment from the spectator comments section -

"The whole thing beggars belief.
Hunt and his SPAD are complete fools if the story is even half true.
Leveson is a completely uncontrollable circus. Cameron was an idiot to create it.
Cameron is I fear heading for oblivion. As is this country when Miliband becomes PM.
I despair."

Lol.


----------



## ymu (Apr 24, 2012)

They can't get away from the fact that those emails reveal details and timings of statements that had not yet been made and which were commercially sensitive and strictly confidential. It is irrelevant whether it was Hunt or his SPAD - although the Swan Lake email nails Hunt pretty well - cock-up or conspiracy have the same outcome as far as Hunt's political survival is concerned. Fox hung on for a week. Hunt might manage to use his appearance at Leveson to delay the inevitable, but he is surely fucked.

And that's just after Murdoch Jnr. Murdoch Snr really knows how to stick the boot in.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 24, 2012)

Cameron had to be 'decisive' - Miliband occupied the 'I never schilled for Murdoch's support' ground swiftly in the wake of the Dowler and other hacking affair stuff.

It's frankly, all, entirely, fucking hilarious.


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Cameron had to be 'decisive' - Miliband occupied the 'I never schilled for Murdoch's support' ground swiftly in the wake of the Dowler and other hacking affair stuff.


 
TBH Dave probably assumed that Miliband would do the logical thing and not highlight this issue because of Labour's own considerable complicity in what went on, and he hasnt yet managed to understand that the best way to deal with this is to drag it - all of it - out into the open, and see who gets the most blame.  He might have to boot out Hunt and Osborne, but he would probably do a lot more damage to Labour as they were kicked off the moral high ground that they have so hypocritically occupied. 

Then he could start on about rendition.


----------



## laptop (Apr 24, 2012)

agricola said:


> TBH Dave ...  might have to boot out Hunt *and Osborne*


 
Ooooh.

Do tell?


----------



## agricola (Apr 24, 2012)

laptop said:


> Ooooh.
> 
> Do tell?


 
From the evidence so far it seems the three people most involved in the Tory - NI negotiations were Osborne, Hunt and Cameron - assuming he doesnt sack himself, and assuming that Cameron kept a respectful distance whilst others did the actual negotiation, that just leaves the other two.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 24, 2012)

Cameron is up to his neck in shit. How these sleazy cunts can stay in power much longer seems more and more unlikely.


----------



## laptop (Apr 24, 2012)

agricola said:


> From the evidence so far it seems the three people most involved in the Tory - NI negotiations were Osborne, Hunt and Cameron...


 
I somehow missed Osborne's role. This is getting better...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 24, 2012)

God Rhys Mogg jnr on newsnight is like something from 1952.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 24, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> God Rhys Mogg jnr on newsnight is like something from 1952.


 
Perfect representative for this government.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 24, 2012)

this is probably why they introduce that fixed-term rule. the cunts. Is there really no way we can get them out before 2015?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 24, 2012)




----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 24, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Cameron is up to his neck in shit. How these sleazy cunts can stay in power much longer seems more and more unlikely.


They have arrogantly ignored the people and got on and done so much shit that I somehow just expect him to get off Scott free.
Those slimey bastards, I want to see them squirm.


----------



## killer b (Apr 24, 2012)

he's an odd-looking cove, no doubt. have they ever wheeled him out before?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


>


Butchers on the way to the offie?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 24, 2012)

killer b said:


> he's an odd-looking cove, no doubt. have they ever wheeled him out before?


He's often on Newsnight. He's a cunt.


----------



## laptop (Apr 24, 2012)

> *Now Jeremy Hunt must resign*
> 
> Jeremy Hunt's cosy relations with News Corp executives shocked even cynical Leveson watchers
> 
> ...


 
Searchable Shakespeare's a wonderful thing


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 24, 2012)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...hat-shook-government-to-its-core-7675196.html


> "I would like to resolve this issue as soon as possible which is why I have today written to Lord Justice Leveson asking if my appearance can be brought forward. I am very confident that when I present my evidence the public will see that I conducted this process with scrupulous fairness."​


Hunt goes on the attack (to save his job)


----------



## Wilf (Apr 24, 2012)

Will Rupie have his ninja wife to batter the QC if it gets a bit rought this time?


----------



## Wilf (Apr 24, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...hat-shook-government-to-its-core-7675196.html
> 
> Hunt goes on the attack (to save his job)


Will be interesting to see if Leveson agrees to that, a sign that he'd be willing to let political convenience get in the way of his own inquiry. Let the fucker dangle say I.  Presumably though, the fact he's made his request public suggests it's already been agreed.  Channels and all that.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 24, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Butchers on the way to the offie?


Naughty! Nah, Jacob's genetically unable to stop playing the Eton Wall Game. Feels compelled to clamber atop every time he encounters any dividing structure.

Doctors have a name for this sad condition: he's a Tory cunt.


----------



## elbows (Apr 25, 2012)

1%er said:


> Who has claimed he is guilty of anything yet? We will not know until Hunt gives his version of events.
> 
> An interesting timeline here


 
The timeline is quite hilarious 

Dennis Potter would probably have enjoyed seeing this stuff emerge and get a good airing.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 25, 2012)

Triple crown today: GDP, PMQ's and Murdoch Snr.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 25, 2012)

The Guardian photo makes him look like some strange crazed alien creature whose body is off somewhere looking for a head.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 25, 2012)

Should be some performance from the Evil Genius today - proper Shakesperian stuff.

OI! Rupes! No one believes a fucking word.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

It is an odd experience to be almost rooting for RM  Hopefully he'll take both himself and a good handful of the cabinet down with him.

And Alan Green, if at all possible.


----------



## yardbird (Apr 25, 2012)

Ruby baby , please, please, put foot in mouth!


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 25, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> It is an odd experience to be almost rooting for RM


 
Hmmm, there is certain something that I'm a little uncomfortable about. One of the more positive things that was coming out of this whole affair was the dismantaling of the grip the Murdoch press had had over our elected leaders, an influence which was wholly unhealthy for the country. Yet here we are talking about whether the Murdochs could possibly bring the government down.

Its great fun watching the mess the the tories are in and no doubt its going to get a lot funnier, I'm just a tiny bit uncomfortable about the possibility (however slight) of Murdoch snr playing kingmaker yet again.


----------



## yardbird (Apr 25, 2012)

Hunt is going to make a statement in the house after PMQs


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 25, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> View attachment 18477





London_Calling said:


> Butchers on the way to the offie?


 
No, he's the Minster for Silly Walks.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 25, 2012)

BBC Newsflash that Adam Smith, Jeremy Hunt MP's 'Special Adviser' is stepping down, ie jumping before pushed.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

"....................." will be the big soundbite of the day


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 25, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> BBC Newsflash that Adam Smith, Jeremy Hunt MP's 'Special Adviser' is stepping down, ie jumping before pushed.


a desperate move in an attempt to save Hunt's job......I think Hunt is fucked already though.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 25, 2012)

A little unfortunate Rupes couldn't remember the dinner (at all) at Chequers with (only) Madge, Dennis and Ingham, esp. as it was here he made his big pitch for what was by any reckoning the most important deal of his entire career.

Still, he's just an elderly Gentleman now; memory can fade. Best go easy on him...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 25, 2012)

*SABOTAGE FUCKS HUNT*
MINISTER UP SHIT CREEK WITHOUT SPADDLE
*Adam doesn't believe it*


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 25, 2012)

Adam Smith is taking the bullet for Hunt.



> While it was part of my role to keep News Corporation informed throughout the BskyB bid process, the content and extent of my contact was done without authorisation from the Secretary of State. I do not recognise all of what Fred Michel said, but nonetheless I appreciate that my activities at times went too far and have, taken together, created the perception that News Corporation had too close a relationship with the department, contrary to the clear requirements set out by Jeremy Hunt and the permanent secretary that this needed to be a fair and scrupulous process.


----------



## laptop (Apr 25, 2012)

laptop said:


> The name of an adviser who's actually called "Adam Smith" has come up. Sources close to laptop were "not surprised"


 
And he's gone.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 25, 2012)

*"IT'S A BALLET NIGHTMARE"*
_SPAD KEEPS DIGGING_


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

This is not the explosive courtroom action Hollywood had led me to expect


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 25, 2012)

The last two hours of evidence on anything other than broad generalisations and the depiction of a wider context can be summerised thus: "I can't remember, just dunno".

It is interesting how, whenever talking about the UK, he still always says "we"; 'we'd had many years of x, y, etc'.


----------



## laptop (Apr 25, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> It is interesting how, whenever talking about the UK, he still always says "we"; 'we'd had many years of x, y, etc'.


 
There's a small switch behind his left ear that he turns as the plane comes in to land.

So he's "we" in Australia and the US too... so long as he remembers the right setting.


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

Osborne not sitting next to Dave at PMQs...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

"Oh, 'GB' is Gordon Brown is it?"


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 25, 2012)

Jesus, that's a sight - sitting in a row; three utter wrong un's Michael Fabricant, Hunt and Oliver Letwin.


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

I dont think I have ever seen Cameron so angry at PMQs.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

Bollocks, doesn't PMQs start at 12.30pm?


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Bollocks, doesn't PMQs start at 12.30pm?


 
No, it finishes then.  1230 is when the Hunt Show starts, though.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

Shows how long it's been since uni and I could watch it every week


----------



## Balbi (Apr 25, 2012)

agricola said:


> I dont think I have ever seen Cameron so angry at PMQs.


 
He's got to do righteous anger, while hiding behind Leveson.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 25, 2012)

A summary of Jeremy Cunt's statement to the House today: "Not me guv".


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 25, 2012)

i wish they would stop saying kwarzy-judicial. it sounds totally wrong.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

I bloody missed it because the BBC's live iPlayer went down 

Watching it on the News Pages now, seems to be more stable


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> i wish they would stop saying kwarzy-judicial. it sounds totally wrong.


I thought I was the only one who that would annoy


----------



## Balbi (Apr 25, 2012)

Harman's on form, which isn't great but still good.


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

Hunt now falling back on the "You lot were as bad" tactic, which is probably better than what he was doing.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 25, 2012)

Hahaha, Bercow just tl:dr'd Hunt's Labour based rant.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

agricola said:


> Hunt now falling back on the "You lot were as bad" tactic, which is probably better than what he was doing.


 
Can't help thinking it's a bit of a fair point - I'd be a bit fucked off about them taking the moral high ground over this too.

Of course, I'd never find myself in such a position in the first place...


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 25, 2012)

Hunt just said quasi correctly. All is forgiven.


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Hahaha, Bercow just tl:dr'd Hunt's Labour based rant.


 
Another reason to dislike Bercow then, Hunt has a point.


----------



## Ted Striker (Apr 25, 2012)

Bercow's doing a shit job tbf on this one


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 25, 2012)

agricola said:


> Hunt now falling back on the "You lot were as bad" tactic, which is probably better than what he was doing.


When I write to my MP about shit things he is doing that is his go to response. "Well labour sort of did a bit of that sort of thing too you know."
Oh right, well if everyone is being naughty then I guess it's alright then. If Labour jumped off a cliff would you follow them?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 25, 2012)

Hunt looks really under pressure...he's only just holding it together.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

Was that a little Lewinsky nod?


----------



## 1%er (Apr 25, 2012)

Ministerial Code says this:
All special advisers must uphold their responsibility to the Government as a whole, not just their appointing Minister. The  responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment. Individual Ministers will be accountable to the Prime Minister, Parliament and the public for their actions and decisions in respect of their special advisers. It is, of course, also open to the Prime Minister to terminate employment by withdrawing his consent to an individual appointment.

He really can't pass the buck if the above is correct


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> When I write to my MP about shit things he is doing that is his go to response. "Well labour sort of did a bit of that sort of thing too you know."
> Oh right, well if everyone is being naughty then I guess it's alright then. If Labour jumped off a cliff would you follow them?


 
No, but if they were criticizing one for doing something they spent years doing themselves, one would point it out.

Chris Bryant now having a go at Hunt.  Perhaps - in the spirit of examining links between private business and government ministers - its time for the government to release papers relating to the failed Defence Training establishment at St Athan?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 25, 2012)

1%er said:


> He really can't pass the buck if the above is correct


Yes....but he's trying to.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 25, 2012)

Hunt's not doing too badly.


----------



## ymu (Apr 25, 2012)

Dennis Skinner: now that you've lost your SPAD, doesn't it just prove that when posh boys are in trouble, they sack their servants?


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

1%er said:


> Ministerial Code says this:
> All special advisers must uphold their responsibility to the Government as a whole, not just their appointing Minister. The responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment. Individual Ministers will be accountable to the Prime Minister, Parliament and the public for their actions and decisions in respect of their special advisers. It is, of course, also open to the Prime Minister to terminate employment by withdrawing his consent to an individual appointment.
> 
> He really can't pass the buck if the above is correct


 
FWIW that doesnt mean he is responsible for the conduct of the SPAD, just that he is responsible for how SPADs are dealt with.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 25, 2012)

agricola said:


> Hunt now falling back on the "You lot were as bad" tactic, which is probably better than what he was doing.


 
You rightly keep pointing out that Labour were worse but I don't think it matters much in political terms.  If I was on Labour's front bench now I'd be brass necking it big time as well, Blair and Brown are a lifetime ago in political terms plus Ed Milliband does reasonably dissasociate himself with those regimes.

Its in the here and now that matters to voters and whilst morally you are correct I think politically its a weak defence.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 25, 2012)

agricola said:


> FWIW that doesnt mean he is responsible for the conduct of the SPAD, just that he is responsible for how SPADs are dealt with.


I interpret this to read they are responsible, may be I've got that wrong:
Individual Ministers will be accountable* to the Prime Minister, Parliament and the public for their actions and decisions in respect of their special advisers.

*_ac·count·a·ble_/əˈkountəbəl/
Adjective: 

(of a person, organization, or institution) Required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 25, 2012)

I thought that was extraordinary drama; I don't like the man anymore that most on here but I have to admire how he fought - under that pressure, in that cauldron - for his political career.

The BSkyB ref was still a rubber-stamping exercise though.

As per my mantra from yesterday: in the absensce of evidential proof, fuck the hysterics and leave it to Leveson.


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

1%er said:


> I interpret this to read they are responsible, may be I've got that wrong:
> Individual Ministers will be accountable to the Prime Minister, Parliament and the public for their actions and decisions in respect of their special advisers.


 
The key bit being:



> for their actions and decisions in respect of their special advisers


 
and not



> for the actions and decisions of their special advisers


 
What Hunt is responsible for is what he does in relation to the SPAD.  Where Hunt may be in trouble is if he has directed the SPAD to do any of this.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 25, 2012)

A crashed SPAD earlier:


----------



## 1%er (Apr 25, 2012)

I think I quoted the wrong bit
The responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment.


----------



## gabi (Apr 25, 2012)

How in god's name is Hunt still in a job?  I'm not complaining, his toxicity will pollute the Tory brand still further, but wtf is Cameron doing by not sacking him?


----------



## 1%er (Apr 25, 2012)

gabi said:


> How in god's name is Hunt still in a job?  I'm not complaining, his toxicity will pollute the Tory brand still further, but wtf is Cameron doing by not sacking him?


I think it is because he is also minister for the Olympics and it would be very embarrassing for the government to lose him so close to the games


----------



## laptop (Apr 25, 2012)

gabi said:


> wtf is Cameron doing by not sacking him?


 
Waiting. I think.

Check the drawers of Hunt's desk for loaded pistols...


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 25, 2012)

bit tired of this knee jerk hysteria now.

/backsawayforabit


----------



## laptop (Apr 25, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> bit tired of this knee jerk hysteria now.
> 
> /backsawayforabit


 
So Cameron's waiting, to attempt to avoid the impression of a jerking knee.

The matter in hand is, however, politics, not judicial process, and hysteria is at its core.

E2A: Westminster party politics, I mean. Of course.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 25, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> bit tired of this knee jerk hysteria now.
> 
> /backsawayforabit


But if this is correct Hunt is responsible:
The responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment.

I read that as, Hunt is the person with whom the buck stops with regard to his advisers


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

1%er said:


> I think I quoted the wrong bit
> The responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment.


 
The bit after that is a powerful qualification to that, though.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 25, 2012)

agricola said:


> The bit after that is a powerful qualification to that, though.


We seem to be interpreting the codes differently 

This is from section 3.3 of the Ministerial Code and section 4 of the Special Advisers code (no qualification in the Special Advisers code), they need to be read separately, I'm looking them up now


Sorry for the edits


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 25, 2012)

I think Hunt is done-for already....this will rumble on and on (like Liam Fox/Werrity) and eventually the tories will make him step down to avoid further political damage.


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

Hunt refusing to answer questions as to whether he put Smith up as the point of contact between himself and NI, claiming that the departments Permanent Secretary approved of the process, so everything is ok.

So clearly he did then - (edit) and its that which will screw him in the end.


----------



## ymu (Apr 25, 2012)

Like appointing judges to inquiries, you don't appoint a SPAD who needs to be told what to do, you appoint one that does not need telling.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

I really do barely understand any of what's going on  But it seems like people I probably don't like might be in trouble for doing bad things, so hurrah for that.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 25, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> bit tired of this knee jerk hysteria now.
> 
> /backsawayforabit


 
If only everyone was as brilliant and insightful as you. 

Please don't stay away long who's going to tell us we are being stupid or wrong? Who is going to patronise us?  Who is going to provide the correct interpretation and lead us into the future?

Stay safe my friend.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

blah blah... you did naughty
blah blah... well so did you
blah blah... don't pick on my mate
blah blah... well your mate did naughty
etc
etc
etc


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

Hunt's statement has finished.  Started badly, perked up after Harman spoke, then slowly started to sink again once several Labour backbenchers started to question him as to how Smith became the liasion with NI.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

Think I'm going to switch back to Rupes.

e2a: oh, they're on a lunch break  Ooh, highlights package!


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

Chris Bryant suggesting in a point of order that Rupes has apparently said he met Cameron far more often than Cameron has thus far admitted.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 25, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Think I'm going to switch back to Rupes.
> 
> e2a: oh, they're on a lunch break  Ooh, highlights package!


Commentators seem to think this afternoon will be the good bit 

I'm fucked already as it started at 6am here and I'm ready to go back to bed


----------



## ymu (Apr 25, 2012)

They're back.

False alarm - was the start of another recorded session.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 25, 2012)

So we have had the one rogue reporter defense and now we are getting the one rogue adviser defense, no coincidence there then


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

I'm surprised John Terry hasn't employed the one rogue knee defence.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 25, 2012)

David Cameron has asked the Cabinet Secretary to write to government departments clarifying the procedures for handling quasi-judicial cases.






Wheres the horse


----------



## 1%er (Apr 25, 2012)

From the telegraph:
His performance in the Commons this morning has led Twitter to christen Jeremy Hunt the '*Black Knight of British Politics*'. "Your arm's off!" "Tis but a scratch!".


----------



## gabi (Apr 25, 2012)

the woman on the left is looking very fetching today


----------



## ymu (Apr 25, 2012)

gabi said:


> the woman on the left is looking very fetching today


For fuck's sake, is that necessary? Can't a woman, just for once, do her job on camera without getting blokes commenting on her appearance? 

Grow up, you fucking tool.


----------



## gabi (Apr 25, 2012)

get fucked


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

Good ol' Uncle Rupes, all these toasty warm relationships with the likes of Brown and Salmond


----------



## gosub (Apr 25, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I think Hunt is done-for already....this will rumble on and on (like Liam Fox/Werrity) and eventually the tories will make him step down to avoid further political damage.


True but he's also deflecting double dip stories


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 25, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> I'm surprised John Terry hasn't employed the one rogue knee defence.


He did, sorta


"The player checked his run and piled into the back of me. He put his weight on the back foot, that’s why my knee went up."


----------



## ymu (Apr 25, 2012)

gabi said:


> get fucked


It's all I'm good for, right?

Prick.


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

Today finished, Rupert will probably have to do quite a bit tomorrow as well.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

Ho-hum, more tomorrow...


----------



## 1%er (Apr 25, 2012)

I was hoping Jay would get pissed off and that would trigger Murdoch


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 25, 2012)

I'm still waiting for

"I WANT THE TRUTH!! "
"......um.... what.... what page are we on...?  "


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 25, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Good ol' Uncle Rupes, all these toasty warm relationships with the likes of Brown and Salmond


looks bad for salmond ,would like to hear some comment from scots posters about how it is going down in scotland


----------



## Wilf (Apr 25, 2012)

1%er said:


> I was hoping Jay would get pissed off and that would trigger Murdoch


 Must admit I'm only an occasional obsever of the hearings and haven't seen that much today, but it seems like Jay isn't getting anywhere with the Murdochs.  Particularly today it has been dry urbane questioning, followed by Murdoch choosing to answer in whatever fashion he wanted - with no follow up.  Nothing too forensic and Murdoch dictating the pace of the contest.  In fact yesterday was junior using the hearings to stir things up for Cameron/Hunt.  All a bit bloodless.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 25, 2012)

Aide to Rupe: "It's not going as well as we'd hoped, sir. I think tomorrow we may have to resort to Plan B..."

*TOMORROW:*


Murdoch: "Eggplant! Verruca sock! Generic 'Nam flashback! I wish I could just jump in the water and live like a fish.."

B Jay Barrister: "I ain't going up in no private aeroplane with you, fool!"


----------



## 1%er (Apr 25, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Must admit I'm only an occasional obsever of the hearings and haven't seen that much today, but it seems like Jay isn't getting anywhere with the Murdochs. Particularly today it has been dry urbane questioning, followed by Murdoch choosing to answer in whatever fashion he wanted - with no follow up. Nothing too forensic and Murdoch dictating the pace of the contest. In fact yesterday was junior using the hearings to stir things up for Cameron/Hunt. All a bit bloodless.


I can't see any smoking gun but I'll wait until he finishes with Murdoch to decide.

I'm wondering if all the shit that has hit the fan since Jr yesterday has made them pull back a bit, how funny would it be if an inquiry set up by the PM wound up bringing that PM down, kind of yes minister on steroids


----------



## 8115 (Apr 25, 2012)

So, I've just got home to discover that Jeremy Hunt acted with scrupulous honesty during the whole BSkyB process while his special advisor (for reasons presumably best known to himself) was desperately trying to get News Corporation to win.  Well I never.

From the BBC:

But Frederic Michel, head of public affairs at News Corp, has said his references to "JH" in emails were actually shorthand for Mr Hunt's special adviser, Mr Smith.

That's hilarious. I'm not really a fan of people falling on their swords generally, I think it's a bit pointless, but I hope Hunt does go.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 25, 2012)

"Right," said Fréd, "Both of us together
One on each end and steady as we go."
Tried to rewrite it, but no one would bite it
We was getting nowhere
And so we had a cuppa tea


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

Brown has released a statement:



> Mr Rupert Murdoch has today made a serious allegation that, in a telephone call when The Sun declared for the Conservative Party, I told him I had declared war on his company. He is wholly wrong.
> 
> As the Leveson Inquiry heard, The Sun declared for the Conservatives on the 30th of September 2009. I did not phone Mr Murdoch or meet him, or write to him about his decision.  The only phone call I had with Mr Murdoch in the last year of my time in office was a phone call specifically about Afghanistan and his newspaper's coverage of the war. This was in the second week of November after his newspaper, The Sun, printed a story in the second week of November about the death of a soldier and his mother's complaints . I hope Mr Murdoch will have the good grace to correct his account.


 
Does this mean Brown will authorise the release of his records of when he had contact with Murdoch?


----------



## 8115 (Apr 25, 2012)

He's very specific, I'd be surprised if he's lying.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 25, 2012)

8115 said:


> So, I've just got home to discover that Jeremy Hunt acted with scrupulous honesty during the whole BSkyB process while his special advisor (for reasons presumably best known to himself) was desperately trying to get News Corporation to win. Well I never.
> 
> From the BBC:
> 
> ...


Yes as if JH could be mistaken for AS ,these people are unbelievable


----------



## ymu (Apr 25, 2012)

I wanna know if and when Jeremy Hunt went to see Swan Lake.


----------



## killer b (Apr 25, 2012)

8115 said:


> He's very specific, I'd be surprised if he's lying.


Yeah, it also didn't really sound right to me, being practically the exact same words Vince cable used in his discussions with those telegraph reporters some months later. I think Rupert may be misremembering...


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

ymu said:


> I wanna know if and when Jeremy Hunt went to see Swan Lake.


 
Perhaps there was a performance behind a certain tree (link from Guido's website).


----------



## Dan U (Apr 25, 2012)

agricola said:


> Perhaps there was a performance behind a certain tree (link from Guido's website).


 
that is just incredibly fucking weird


----------



## Wilf (Apr 25, 2012)

8115 said:


> So, I've just got home to discover that Jeremy Hunt acted with scrupulous honesty during the whole BSkyB process while his special advisor (for reasons presumably best known to himself) was desperately trying to get News Corporation to win. Well I never.


... and after this betrayal   by his SPAD he ends up saying he didn't want him to resign!


----------



## 8115 (Apr 25, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> Yes as if JH could be mistaken for AS ,these people are unbelievable


 
Did he say that under oath in parliament?  Lying under oath is a criminal offence, right?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 25, 2012)

Wilf said:


> ... and after this betrayal   by his SPAD he ends up saying he didn't want him to resign!


Mine Ehre heisst Treue indeed.


----------



## agricola (Apr 25, 2012)

8115 said:


> Did he say that under oath in parliament? Lying under oath is a criminal offence, right?


 
Lying in the chamber of the Commons isnt a criminal offence, sadly.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 25, 2012)

agricola said:


> Lying in the chamber of the Commons isnt a criminal offence, sadly.


 


Hunt is going in front of the inquiry.  I fail to see how he can not lie.  (Allegedy, in my opinion etc etc).


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 25, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Aide to Rupe: "It's not going as well as we'd hoped, sir. I think tomorrow we may have to resort to Plan B..."


----------



## ymu (Apr 25, 2012)

D'oh! All this time and I never realised Dacre's real name was Hugh Trevor-Roper. Was wondering why Murdoch would be consulting him about the Hitler Diaries. 

Article about how the fuckwit proved what a great historian he really is ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...rt-murdoch-bravado-publication-hitler-diaries



> "There once was a fellow called Dacre
> Was God in his own little acre.
> But in matters of diaries was quite ultra vires,
> And just could not spot an old faker."


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 25, 2012)

ymu said:


> D'oh! All this time and I never realised Dacre's real name was Hugh Trevor-Roper. Was wondering why Murdoch would be consulting him about the Hitler Diaries.
> 
> Article about how the fuckwit proved what a great historian he really is ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...rt-murdoch-bravado-publication-hitler-diaries
> 
> ...


The Hitler Dairies fiasco sullied his reputation a tad.


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2012)

Former editor of The Times points out some of Murdoch's lies today

The Tory MO hasn't changed any more than Murdoch's:



> First, the pretence is that Murdoch was afforded a private meeting with Thatcher so she could be briefed on the takeover battle. That's absurd enough, given the coverage in the press and the responsibilities of the Department of Trade. The larger absurdity is that the prime minister's redundant "briefing" is being done by only one bidder, and by one who has an urgent interest in rubbishing his competitors.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 26, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...urdoch-rebekah-brooks-simon-kelner-independen
Man I would have enjoyed kicking them out  if they burst into my place like that,if Kelner had any balls he would have gotten building security to chuck them out onto their arses on the pavement with as much force as legally possible.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 26, 2012)

Read in full here

Mr Hunt, the Culture Secretary, spent five days in the US holding meetings with News Corp.......

Downing Street may have failed to declare five occasions where Mr Cameron met Rupert Murdoch at social events (this will come out at leveson tomorrow I guess)

Mr Hunt exchanged text messages with the News Corp lobbyist Fréd Michel while adjudicating on the bid...........

Adam Smith, Mr Hunt's adviser, communicated with Mr Michel via a private email account that could not be read by civil servants responsible for ensuring the probity of communications.

The involvement of the FSA, which is understood to be concerned that emails to News Corp from Mr Smith contained financially sensitive information, will be a major concern for the Government.

*Ministerial code*

* Failing to take responsibility for the actions of his adviser, whose communications with News Corp he admits were "not appropriate" during a quasi-judicial process on the takeover

* Not giving accurate and truthful information to parliament when he said in March 2011 he had published "all the documents relating to.... all the exchanges between my department and News Corp"

* Not announcing decision on the bid in January last year to parliament by tipping off News Corp in advance.

The text messages and some other stuff that I think has already been mentioned here in the link above.


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2012)

Private email accounts are another thing this government has form for. Gove got into (far too little) shit over that too.

Nice big hole they're digging here. Big enough to fit all of them pretty soon.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 26, 2012)

Oo that's interesting - in which case you'd imagine all their private e-mails would also have to come under scrutiny *just in case*.


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2012)

David Cameron's five secret meetings with Rupert Murdoch



> The chairman and chief executive of News Corporation provided details of diary entries to the Leveson Inquiry which showed that the two men had met on at least seven occasions since Mr Cameron became Prime Minister.
> 
> Downing Street has previously acknowledged only that the Prime Minister had met the media tycoon twice since May 2010 and the contents of Mr Murdoch’s diary will add to concerns about Mr Cameron’s relationship with News Corporation executives.
> 
> In the wake of the phone hacking scandal, the Prime Minister published details of his meetings with media executives and editors. In the House of Commons, he pledged to MPs that “every contact” had been made public.


Dave caught out lying again. Oh dear.


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2012)

Will Rupert and James Murdoch topple David Cameron?

Telegraph says: mebbe



> At this stage the evidence is only circumstantial, but the charge that the Cameron government has done commercial favours for the Murdochs in return for political support is very serious. This, if true, would amount to corruption. Certainly, if proven, it would force the resignation of Mr Hunt. But it is not impossible that the Government would fall. Mr Hunt is one of Mr Cameron’s closest friends in the Cabinet, and would never have set out on the course he did without the agreement of the Prime Minister.


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2012)

Jay appears to be using yesterday's answers to give Murdoch a much harder time today. He's also patronising him a lot in an attempt to make him angry, I think.

"David Yelland. Do you remember him?" in the kind of gentle voice you'd use for someone with dementia. 

"You said yesterday that if we want to know your political views, we should read The Sun. Now you are saying that you never exerted any influence over the editorial line.." <extended line of questioning on this>

More of a forensic barrister than an attack dog. Looks like it might pay off today.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 26, 2012)

Do you think Jay always intended to take this into the second day, and was using yesterday to feel Murdoch out, see how best to deal with him, and then work on him harder today? Think they finished a good 1.5/2 hours earlier than their scheduled time.


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2012)

Could be. If he'd got enough to set up his questions for today he'd want as much time as possible to prepare. He's on a strict limit of 70 hours a week on this inquiry.

Think Murdoch just insulted him - caught an apology and "It's OK Mr Murdoch, I am very thick-skinned."

Getting him angry is what he needs to do I think. Get him over this amnesia schtick. Clever, if that is what he's doing - seems to be working.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 26, 2012)

Problem for Murdoch is that he can't lay it on to heavy with the doddery old man with bad memory thing because then his position at the top of a multi billion dollor global corporation begins to look a bit absurd; shareholders will be watching.


----------



## gabi (Apr 26, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Do you think Jay always intended to take this into the second day, and was using yesterday to feel Murdoch out, see how best to deal with him, and then work on him harder today? Think they finished a good 1.5/2 hours earlier than their scheduled time.


 
Yep. He's very very good. He's weaving a web around the old boy.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

The further Jay/Leveson force Rupes to distance himself from the NotW culture - as they're doing, the greater becomes the issue of corporate governance, and the stonger the case for fundamental reform.


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2012)

Typically crap article from Martin Kettle about Cameron:



> The second crucial figure is David Cameron. The humbling of the Murdochs has exposed two very different sides of the prime minister. The first is the one who schmoozes with Rupert Murdoch, rides with Rebekah Brooks and hires Andy Coulson, and his endorsement of the BSkyB bid and other strands of the Murdochs' wider agenda – including the diminution of the BBC – goes back to the years of opposition before the Sun's endorsement of the Tories in 2009.
> 
> The other, too easily overlooked by his enemies, is the Cameron who actually set up the Leveson inquiry, and gave it wide terms of reference whose full impact is only now becoming clear. No recent prime minister before Cameron would have dared set in motion a process whose predictable outcome is a structure of media – and media market – regulation that inescapably does decisive harm to the Murdoch empire's UK ambitions. Major, Blair and the paranoid Brown described by Murdoch on Wednesday would not have dared. Thatcher would not have wanted to.
> 
> ...


On the bolded bit - it hasn't occurred to him that this explains both of his observations.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 26, 2012)

ymu said:


> Could be. If he'd got enough to set up his questions for today he'd want as much time as possible to prepare. He's on a strict limit of 70 hours a week on this inquiry.


That's what I was thinking - no point wasting time yesterday when he'd got all he needed and could prepare his strategy for today. Maybe even get home in time for the football 

Still not really following all the details, but it's interesting (in a certain definition  ) all the same


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

Fwiw, the issue of corp gov is behind pretty much every line of questioning.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 26, 2012)

It's definitely a bit more testy than yesterday. Think they're only scheduled for half a day today though, over at 1pm?


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2012)

I think he can be recalled if necessary.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 26, 2012)

Let's hope they have better success recalling him than he does recalling anything.

Ugh, that was laboured


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 26, 2012)

Is that a _serious_ answer, Mr Murdoch?

/highly-renumerated barristerly tones


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 26, 2012)

He's doing a decent job of keeping Murdoch on point. It's like arguing with my dad


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

Right on the central point, Leveson squeezes Rupes bollocks. And it hurt.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 26, 2012)

It's like superannuated wrestling, with Leveson as a Commissioner leaping into the ring to tag in from Jay onto über-heel Rupe. Somebody hand his a folding chair!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 26, 2012)

Damnit, just got back to hear people laughing! What was the funny?!


----------



## gabi (Apr 26, 2012)

Leveson made a funny about Murdoch causing his legal team to have heart attacks when he said 'im under strict instructions not to say this, but..'


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 26, 2012)

And...? What did he say?!


----------



## gabi (Apr 26, 2012)

Just tried to lay into Paul Dacre, but was pulled back on track


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 26, 2012)

Cheers


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

What rubbish acting, Rupes. I've never heard someone so obv. spounting bollocks "I should have thrown the lawyers out and spoken to Goodwin one-on-one". You utter cock. It's embarrassing to see an old man like this.


----------



## gabi (Apr 26, 2012)

The bit where he was complaining about the paparazzi outside his house when he was with Rebekah was priceless.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 26, 2012)

Murdoch laying into all the execs etc now - Jay's strategy has worked well. Not incriminating though, until someone else contradicts it and presents evidence.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

Jay's spectrum (ethical > civil > criminal) indicates the start of pulling the various corp gov strands together: Act Three begins...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 26, 2012)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...l-parliament-the-truth-yesterday-7681804.html

Top civil servant was asked 10 times if the culture secretary's statement to Commons was the truth, 10 times he refused to answer...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Apr 26, 2012)

But did he threaten to overrule him?

(I know, I know...)


----------



## agricola (Apr 26, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...l-parliament-the-truth-yesterday-7681804.html
> 
> Top civil servant was asked 10 times if the culture secretary's statement to Commons was the truth, 10 times he refused to answer...


 
Hodge should have asked him whose idea it was to pick Smith as the conduit between NI and the DCMS, what he (Smith) was told to do, and by whom.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...l-parliament-the-truth-yesterday-7681804.html
> 
> Top civil servant was asked 10 times if the culture secretary's statement to Commons was the truth, 10 times he refused to answer...


He didn't refuse at all. He explained his /the departments position repeatedly in various ways. It's hardly his fault if Margaret Fucking Hodge wants to jump on the bandwagon and gain herself (even more) attention:



> I am very sorry. These are very important matters. They are rightly the subject of interest of Parliament. That’s why the Secretary of State made a full statement yesterday and answers questions. I have come ready to speak about the Olympics. I have made clear the position set out in various statements yesterday and I think I need to stand on that without any implications being drawn whatsoever. I was not given any notice of these questions.


Yeah, fuck off Hodge.


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2012)

Incisive and convincing as usual. The bone-idle comedy cynic strikes again.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 26, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> He didn't refuse at all. He explained his /the departments position repeatedly in various ways. It's hardly his fault if Margaret Fucking Hodge wants to jump on the bandwagon and gain herself (even more) attention:
> 
> 
> Yeah, fuck off Hodge.


It's not jumping on the bandwagon, he was asked to back up what the minister had said to Parliament and didn't. Are these things not important?. should he just have been asked about the Olympics?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

Of course. That's what he was asked to do, that's what he prepared for.

That's the Public Accounts Committee.  Fuck all to do with Leveson.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 26, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Of course. That's his job, thats what he was asked to do, that's what he prepared for.


His job is the senior civil servant at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport so this very much does fall under his remit, why shouldn't he be questioned?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

Oh go away. Fucking Independent is a nonsense again.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 26, 2012)

ymu said:


> Incisive and convincing as usual. The bone-idle comedy cynic strikes again.


indeed


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2012)

Remarkable.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

Right. Margaret Hodge.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 26, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> He didn't refuse at all. He explained his /the departments position repeatedly in various ways. It's hardly his fault if Margaret Fucking Hodge wants to jump on the bandwagon and gain herself (even more) attention:
> 
> .


Evidence that words came out of his mouth isn't evidence that he answered the question. Or, to put it another way... if he did answer the question whether he approved the SPAD talking to Murdoch, _*what was the answer?*_


----------



## two sheds (Apr 26, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> He didn't refuse at all.


 
Errm the second quote you gave in that post explains *why* he refused. Whether he was right to refuse or not, he refused.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

Of course he didn't answer what the self-serving, opportunist Hodge wanted him to. His answer was 'fuck the fuck off'  ten different ways, which in the circs was correct.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 26, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Of course he didn't answer what the self-serving, opportunist Hodge wanted him to. His answer was 'fuck the fuck off', which in the circs is the correct answer.


 Yes, we get it - Margaret Hodge is a waste of space - but using that irrelevance to support your assertion that the civil sevant 'answered the question' rather than 'refused to answer the question' is weopons grade bollocks.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

I didn't know there was a 'we'. Who else is in your 'we'?

She's not a waste of space


----------



## Wilf (Apr 26, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> I didn't know there was a 'we'. Who else is in your 'we'?
> 
> She's not a waste of space


You must be really bored if you want to play that sort of game.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

Relatively speaking, she's done okay work, perhaps esp. in relation to Defence industry procurement and contracts.

The clue with regard Leveson and associated matters, however, is in the title of the Committee of which she is Chair.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 26, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...l-parliament-the-truth-yesterday-7681804.html
> 
> Top civil servant was asked 10 times if the culture secretary's statement to Commons was the truth, 10 times he refused to answer...


The graun gives a different slant on this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/26/jeremy-hunt-civil-servant-bskyb


----------



## 1%er (Apr 26, 2012)

I'm just watching Murdoch now and it seems clear to me that what Jay is getting at is, the price for the sun supporting Cameron in the election was the BskyB bid getting through.

That is the time line he is setting out and I think the meetings support that.


----------



## gabi (Apr 26, 2012)

NO SHIT?!


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

Welcome to 2010.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 26, 2012)

LOL my point, not very well put, was that he Jay, has set it out very clearly in his timeline and meeting scheduled so that there is little room for any other conclusion even for the most disinterested person.


----------



## laptop (Apr 26, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's not jumping on the bandwagon, he was asked to back up what the minister had said to Parliament and didn't. Are these things not important?. should he just have been asked about the Olympics?


 
How does the Guardian geadline this? Er:

*Jeremy Hunt's top civil servant refuses to back him over BSkyB*



> Jeremy Hunt's political career has received another blow after his most senior civil servant declined 10 times to confirm the secretary of state's version of his role in the BSkyB affair.
> Jonathan Stephens, the permanent secretary at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), said he would neither confirm nor deny his alleged role in allowing Adam Smith, Hunt's special adviser, to speak to James Murdoch's office.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 26, 2012)

1%er said:


> LOL my point, not very well put, was that he Jay, has set it out very clearly in his timeline and meeting scheduled so that there is little room for any other conclusion even for the most disinterested person.


 
Why didnt Murdoch just cut the deal with new labour, as has been said on this thread they were far more in bed witth NI anyway.  It is my understanding (and my source for this is private eye so bear with me) that Murdoch jnr and Brooks convinced old man murdoch to switch sides against his better judgment because they were mates with Cameron.  So whilst the takeover is a factor it can't be the only reason the sun came out for the tories.


----------



## laptop (Apr 26, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> So whilst the takeover is a factor it can't be the only reason the sun came out for the tories.


 
It'd be a _condition_ of the switch... 

(Presumably Labour were all ready to nod it through if elected?)


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 26, 2012)

Cheers, that makes sense.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 26, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Why didnt Murdoch just cut the deal with new labour, as has been said on this thread they were far more in bed witth NI anyway. It is my understanding (and my source for this is private eye so bear with me) that Murdoch jnr and Brooks convinced old man murdoch to switch sides against his better judgment because they were mates with Cameron. So whilst the takeover is a factor it can't be the only reason the sun came out for the tories.


Because that would have meant dealing with G Brown (I thought their relationship had broken down by then) and I assume his backbenchers would be more hostile that Camerons.

I thought Labour were fuck before the last election in the UK and couldn't win even with his support (I don't live there).


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 26, 2012)

1%er said:


> I thought Labour were fuck before the last election in the UK and couldn't win even with his support (I don't live there).


 
There is some truth is that the sun likes to back the most likely winner, but the likely result of the election was a lot more in the balance then that.


----------



## elbows (Apr 26, 2012)

1%er said:


> Because that would have meant dealing with G Brown and I assume his backbenchers would be more hostile that Camerons.
> 
> I thought Labour were fuck before the last election in the UK and couldn't win even with his support (I don't live there).


 
They were in bad shape due to length of time in office, mistakes made, wider economic issues, and Browns failure to be able to interact with the media convincingly.

However since the Tories failed to win, Labour were not so fucked that Murdoch support would have been futile. It could well have been a difference maker.

Having said that Im pretty sure that one factor that influences Murdoch political support choices is who is most likely to win. There are several reasons why they'd want to back the winner, and sticking with Labour for that election would have been quite a risk.


----------



## agricola (Apr 26, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> There is some truth is that the sun likes to back the most likely winner, but the likely result of the election was a lot more in the balance then that.


 
At the time it wasnt - they were 12 points behind Cameron in the polls, and Blairites (always closer to NI than the Brownites were) were making a series of laughably shit attempts at getting rid of the PM. Add to that your probably correct belief that Cameron was favoured because of the Brooks / Coulson / Smithers connection, and the rewards on offer, and it was an easy decision for Murdoch to make.  What he probably didnt expect was that Labour would have the nerve to point out what went on under their watch (albeit whilst not pointing out that it was their watch).


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 26, 2012)

agricola said:


> At the time it wasnt - they were 12 points behind Cameron in the polls, and Blairites (always closer to NI than the Brownites were) were making a series of laughably shit attempts at getting rid of the PM. Add to that your probably correct belief that Cameron was favoured because of the Brooks / Coulson / Smithers connection, and the rewards on offer, and it was an easy decision for Murdoch to make. What he probably didnt expect was that Labour would have the nerve to point out what went on under their watch (albeit whilst not pointing out that it was their watch).


 
Do you think its likely that come next election time the sun won't back either party?  Maybe just slag them both off?


----------



## agricola (Apr 26, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Do you think its likely that come next election time the sun won't back either party? Maybe just slag them both off?


 
TBH I wouldnt be surprised if Murdoch's plan is to break the coalition, force an early election and support Labour again. That way, a lot of the political heat would dissapate and - assuming it worked - the incoming government would have a strong incentive to bury this whole process before anyone important went to prison.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 26, 2012)

laptop said:


> How does the Guardian geadline this? Er:
> 
> *Jeremy Hunt's top civil servant refuses to back him over BSkyB*


At this stage it's hard to know whether it was a 'pointed refusal' to back the minister or just obeying orders not to talk about it full stop.  We might get hints in the next day or two if we hear comments from friends of friends of ex-senior civil servants on this.  It's always interesting to see the point when someone who takes on a job as senior courtier finds they want to make the tiniest objection to all that being a senior courtier entails.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 26, 2012)

agricola said:


> TBH I wouldnt be surprised if Murdoch's plan is to break the coalition, force an early election and support Labour again.


 
Nick Clegg: does that mean, sob, that I'll have to send the car and my shiny hat back? Erm, Ed, can I be _your_ friend?


----------



## 1%er (Apr 26, 2012)

Murdoch is anti-europe isn't he? If the main parties are no good what are the chances of him pushing UKIP?

Is the UK electorate anti-europe?


----------



## elbows (Apr 26, 2012)

agricola said:


> TBH I wouldnt be surprised if Murdoch's plan is to break the coalition, force an early election and support Labour again. That way, a lot of the political heat would dissapate and - assuming it worked - the incoming government would have a strong incentive to bury this whole process before anyone important went to prison.


 
The process cannot be buried with any credibility, but its remit can be kept narrow. We have already seen that despite plenty of mud not a lot has stuck to the other big media players, so although the focus of the inquiry is supposed to be quite broad, its actually self-limiting in the usual establishment way. Attempting to bury it to an even greater degree would be too risky, instead we will see it trundle on with a few people made examples of, and some adjustments to the rules & regulations in order to draw a line under it. 

The current state of the coalition should be of concern to 'business leaders'. I expect they are not impressed with the level of ineptitude on offer from the Tories, and may be pining for the greater credibility that new Labour offered, better cover to get through favourable policies without such a stink. However this is secondary compared to the actual policies on offer, many of which will have businesses drooling. If these were 'normal times' and the economic woe was specific to the UK, I could imagine them supporting the coalition for long enough to get a load of these policies onto the books, and then switch support to an alternative if it looks like thats whats required to cement these policy gains and not see them undone by unrest on the streets. However since much of the instability of these times is global, its rather questionable as to whether other parties will be seen as being able to offer this level of stability and cover.


----------



## laptop (Apr 26, 2012)

1%er said:


> Murdoch is anti-europe isn't he? If the main parties are no good what are the chances of him pushing UKIP?
> 
> Is the UK electorate anti-europe?


 
Asked the question, "Do you like Brussels interfering?", probably.

Stupidly, I don't recall anyone asking, "Do you like holiday pay and sick leave (more than you'd have if it weren't for Brussels)?"


----------



## belboid (Apr 26, 2012)

laptop said:


> Stupidly, I don't recall anyone asking, "Do you like holiday pay and sick leave (more than you'd have if it weren't for Brussels)?"


Remember the tories' ad for the euro elections with the slogan 'Do You Want Socialism By The Backdoor?'

Most people apparently thought it was an ad for Labour, and voted accordingly


----------



## Wilf (Apr 26, 2012)

belboid said:


> Remember the tories' ad for the euro elections with the slogan 'Do You Want Socialism By The Backdoor?'
> 
> Most people apparently thought it was an ad for Labour, and voted accordingly


Egalitarian bumsex - it's win win.


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 26, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Nick Clegg: does that mean, sob, that I'll have to send the car and my shiny hat back? Erm, Ed, can I be _your_ friend?


 
If there is another hung parliament, and the LibDems hold the balance again with however few seats, then Ed will be the one asking to be Nick's friend.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 26, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> If there is another hung parliament, and the LibDems hold the balance again with however few seats, then Ed will be the one asking to be Nick's friend.


I think clegg and the other orange bookers won't be considered in an alliance with labour


----------



## 8115 (Apr 26, 2012)

I think all of this is going to backfire slightly in the local elections.  Freedom of the press is not a concern of the average man in the street, and looks a bit like a leftwing conspiracy.  And it's keeping other stuff out of the papers.  Mind you, I don't anticipate the tory/ lib dem vote being anything other than dire, luckily.


----------



## 1%er (Apr 26, 2012)

Having watched all of Murdoch Sr's evidence, if I was a share holder in any of his companies I'd have sold already. The guy is about 81 and entitled to have the odd senior moment, but he just didn't seem to grasp or understand many of the questions and his ramblings didn't do him any good at all, I think he said things that would have raised an eyebrow or two with-in the inquire room.

It would also appear that he is kept in the dark on many very serious issues, if he is to be believed.

I am amazed that he wasn't briefed on the evidence that had been given to leveson with regard to his tittles, I can only think he wasn't interested, but he is meant to be the boss and should be on top of this, he claims it has cost the company $100 of millions, how come he knows fuck all about what has gone on

Also that no-one made him aware of justice Edies (spelling?) remarks with regard to "blackmail" by one of his most senior Journalists as well as all the internal inquires that failed to find anything wrong.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 26, 2012)

What? He knew exactly what was going on and was being circumspect so as not to incriminate himself. I don't think he gave the impression of a doddery old fool at all. Quite the opposite. Sly, sharp and slippery.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 26, 2012)

LOL. The day after James lands one of Dave's biggest Cabinet buddies in the deep shit, OFCOM announces its widening its investigation to include whether BSKYB is a 'fit and proper' body to hold a broadcast license. Pure coincidence, I feel certain....

They used to be such friends


----------



## Lock&Light (Apr 26, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> If there is another hung parliament, and the LibDems hold the balance again with however few seats, then Ed will be the one asking to be Nick's friend.


 
I can't see Clegg hanging on to his seat, so the LibDems could well move away from the right with a new leader. Labour wouldn't want to have to work with the LD's but would do so if it meant getting back into government.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Apr 27, 2012)

1%er said:


> Having watched all of Murdoch Sr's evidence, if I was a share holder in any of his companies I'd have sold already. The guy is about 81 and entitled to have the odd senior moment, but he just didn't seem to grasp or understand many of the questions and his ramblings didn't do him any good at all, I think he said things that would have raised an eyebrow or two with-in the inquire room.


 
I think, from his point of view, he played a blinder. He is getting on a bit obviously, but he was much more, I dunno, capable (?) than his son seems to be.* But I do agree with what you are saying about share holdings, I'd be worried about how the succession is going to work.

* Edit: By that I mean he just took things in his stride, threw out a couple of soundbites about wishing the NotW had been shut down earlier, and deflected a load of questions. Some mea culpa and strategic forgetfulness.


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 27, 2012)




----------



## Balbi (Apr 27, 2012)

Bell's been having a riot recently.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 27, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I think, from his point of view, he played a blinder. He is getting on a bit obviously, but he was much more, I dunno, capable (?) than his son seems to be.* But I do agree with what you are saying about share holdings, I'd be worried about how the succession is going to work.
> 
> * Edit: By that I mean he just took things in his stride, threw out a couple of soundbites about wishing the NotW had been shut down earlier, and deflected a load of questions. Some mea culpa and strategic forgetfulness.


Moving forward, the single great issue is corp gov, and whether self-regulation can deliver the moral and ethical standards required by OFCOM and any other bodies that may come to have oversight.

Murdoch did his cause - self-regulation - nothing but harm by repeatedly stating he didn't know what was going on (esp. as his son didn't either). He didn't have a great choice tbf, but he did have a choice.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 27, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Bell's been having a riot recently.


----------



## gabi (Apr 27, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> I think, from his point of view, he played a blinder. He is getting on a bit obviously, but he was much more, I dunno, capable (?) than his son seems to be.* But I do agree with what you are saying about share holdings, I'd be worried about how the succession is going to work.
> 
> * Edit: By that I mean he just took things in his stride, threw out a couple of soundbites about wishing the NotW had been shut down earlier, and deflected a load of questions. Some mea culpa and strategic forgetfulness.


 
He didnt have a great day yesterday in all honesty. Went off script, seemed to particularly let his guard down once Jay was done with him and the NUJ guy took a couple of shots.

But on reflection on  Rupert - credit HAS to be given to him for such a mental career trajectory. To play puppetmaster to every single PM (and arguably a couple of US presidents) since the late 70s is pretty amazing, from a relatively humble background... leaving aside any moral issues for a second. No?


----------



## Santino (Apr 27, 2012)

gabi said:


> But on reflection on Rupert - credit HAS to be given to him for such a mental career trajectory. To play puppetmaster to every single PM (and arguably a couple of US presidents) since the late 70s is pretty amazing, from a relatively humble background... leaving aside any moral issues for a second. No?


 
Humble beginnings such as inheriting a media company from his father.


----------



## gabi (Apr 27, 2012)

A relatively minor company compared to the behometh he now owns. afaik, his dad owned one minor newspaper in australia. he now controls a very large chunk of the world's media.

just sayin.

yes, he's a cunt, but it's quite an incredible rise.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 27, 2012)

But what has that rise been based on? Misery and exploitation, mainly.


----------



## gabi (Apr 27, 2012)

That's a simplistic view


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 27, 2012)

I bow to your profound knowledge.


----------



## gabi (Apr 27, 2012)

Oh please..


----------



## ymu (Apr 27, 2012)

Santino said:


> Humble beginnings such as inheriting a media company from his father.


And PPE at Oxford. The old fraud.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 27, 2012)

Son of a Sir, who was a mate of Prime Ministers and himself a govt member.


----------



## ymu (Apr 27, 2012)

Jnr likes to think of himself as a self-made man too. Heh.


----------



## Santino (Apr 27, 2012)

Apparently the man hotly tipped to be our next monarch was brought up in state-provided accommodation near Slough.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 27, 2012)

Santino said:


> Apparently the man hotly tipped to be our next monarch was brought up in state-provided accommodation near Slough.


 
Yup, struggled to find employment before having to join the forces.  Economic conscription.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 27, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Yup, struggled to find employment before having to join the forces. Economic conscription.


Been quite difficult for him personally too - didn't his Dad murder his first wife?  Amazing how he's come through it all so well adjusted.


----------



## Santino (Apr 27, 2012)

A lone parent, bringing up two children on handouts from the state.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 27, 2012)

Santino said:


> A lone parent, bringing up two children on handouts from the state.


He's gonna be fucked by the £26,000 a year cap on benefits though. Just when he was finally getting himself together.


----------



## laptop (Apr 27, 2012)

gabi said:


> and the NUJ guy took a couple of shots.


 
Ta for heads-up.




> *Q.* That staff association, News International's staff association, made an application to the public official who deals with these matters for a declaration or a certificate of independence, which failed, because the certification officer found that the organisation was under the influence of the employer. Is that right?
> 
> *A.* I don't know.
> 
> transcript


 
That denial beggars belief, given Rupert M's personal crusade to get rid of the unions.

Way off-topic for Leveson, but it should not be hard to establish whether that is perjury...


----------



## big eejit (Apr 27, 2012)

There once was a minister called Hunt,
Whose SPAD took a bit of a punt,
Or at least that's the story, 
That this shameless Tory,
Wants us all to believe, silly cunt.


----------



## magneze (Apr 27, 2012)

Leveson has said that the Hunt affair has nothing to do with his inquiry.

Oh dear Dave, going to have to get your hands dirty are ya?


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 28, 2012)

This made me smile, The Guardian's nudging-come-baiting of Louise Mench in the final two paras - the whole is worth reading:


> *Tom Watson to ask MPs if they have been bullied by News International*
> 
> Labour MP to write to colleagues after Max Mosley offers legal funds for any MP wanting to report alleged intimidation


 
And then the invitation to Ms Mench:


> Shortly after the appearance of the Murdochs before the select committee in July 2011, committee member and Conservative MP Louise Mensch said she was emailed by a journalist called David Jones threatening to expose past misdeeds including taking drugs. The email was copied to the Conservative chairman and the Conservative chief whip. Mensch then issued a statement to the media confessing to the accusations and concluding: "I have not the slightest intention of being deterred from asking how far the culture of hacking and blagging extended in Fleet Street."
> 
> The true identity of David Jones was never established but colleagues on the select committee say that Mensch has kept a low profile on the subject of News International and phone hacking ever since.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/28/tom-watson-news-international-bullying-claim


----------



## agricola (Apr 28, 2012)

"_Colleagues on the select committee_" my arse. Do the Guardian not check their own paper?


----------



## two sheds (Apr 29, 2012)

*Hunt on the brink as he is accused of misleading Parliament *


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...accused-of-misleading-parliament-7687530.html



> Mr Hunt appears to have misled the Commons on three occasions in his handling of News Corp's takeover bid of BSkyB.
> 
> In what could turn out to be the final blow to the under-fire Culture Secretary, a letter written by his permanent secretary, Jonathan Stephens, seen by this newspaper, challenges Mr Hunt's version of events.
> 
> ...


 
It looks as if Hunt used Smith specifically to distance himself from the deals being done.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 29, 2012)

^ A decent contribution by the Indie - well played Jane Merrick.

This is quite nice:


> There is even the prospect that the Prime Minister himself has broken the ministerial code by failing to order an independent inquiry into Mr Hunt's conduct. Section 1.3 of the code makes clear that once a prime minister has acknowledged an investigation is warranted, he must refer it to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Apr 29, 2012)

Oh god please let it be so.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 29, 2012)

Excuses are looking a bit thin on the ground. *fingers crossed*


----------



## laptop (Apr 29, 2012)

agricola said:


> "_Colleagues on the select committee_" my arse. Do the Guardian not check their own paper?


 
Eh? That story is her raising it. Have they run a story about Mensch *not* raising it any more, which is what the "colleagues" say?


----------



## agricola (Apr 29, 2012)

laptop said:


> Eh? That story is her raising it. Have they run a story about Mensch *not* raising it any more, which is what the "colleagues" say?


 
That was my point - and perhaps the Guardian would be so kind as to identify who these "colleagues" were, given that they appear to have been coming out with stuff that is demonstrably untrue?*

* though its not hard to guess


----------



## elbows (Apr 29, 2012)

Cameron going on the telly is a sign of concern, lol his firewall is breached.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 29, 2012)

ffs, Andrew Marr's entertainment show though...


----------



## laptop (Apr 29, 2012)

agricola said:


> That was my point - and perhaps the Guardian would be so kind as to identify who these "colleagues" were, given that they appear to have been coming out with stuff that is demonstrably untrue?


 
Ah, re-done the date arithmetic... November isn't "shortly after" July after all...

Suspect we've narrowed down the "colleagues" to one who talks to journalists while in his cups


----------



## Wilf (Apr 29, 2012)

elbows said:


> Cameron going on the telly is a sign of concern, lol his firewall is breached.


Yes, it's getting closer to home, but still a long way from getting 'traction'.  Killing the economy and NHS are his bigger worries.  No sign the libdems are going to cause much trouble, apart from the odd muted squeal.  Lab are still too compomised to lead any kind of crusade on this (or indeed anything).  My money would still be on limping along till 2015.  Just the possibility that the lib dem 'left'  (or indeed any of the libdems) start to peel off in a couple of years is they see there's going to be no upturn that allows them to keep their seats.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 29, 2012)

I suspect I know the answer to this but did the entertaining Andrew Marr mention the Indie artice, or co-opt any questions crystalised therein?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2012)

Bercow has just pissed off the tories by allowing the tabling of an urgent question on Hunt, they'll pretty much have to put up Cameron to answer.


----------



## Santino (Apr 30, 2012)

Cameron really hates that guy.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2012)

I must say, he's not been the sort of speaker i expected.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 30, 2012)

Statement to the House by Disco Dave "at about 3.30" - available on your usual 24-hours news channels.


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 30, 2012)

Dave's fucked either way.  This is a good thing.   Wonder what line he'll take in the Commons?

Bercow's been a good Speaker imo.  A _Telegraph_ poll today has over 80% saying Hunt should be referred.   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Hunt-questions-in-Commons-this-afternoon.html


----------



## co-op (Apr 30, 2012)

Wilf said:


> My money would still be on limping along till 2015. Just the possibility that the lib dem 'left'  (or indeed any of the libdems) start to peel off in a couple of years is they see there's going to be no upturn that allows them to keep their seats.


 
The lib-dem 'left' can peel off and the coalition can still limp on til 2015. The tories only need 19 lib-dems for a majority (and that's not counting Ulster Unionists) so they can ditch 40 LDs and still hang on. I wonder if it's just a co-incidence that 20 LDs have been given government posts? It certainly stitches up the numbers they need.

I mean it'd still be bad PR of course if loads of LDs flounce. But it's going to be 2015 unless some weird shit happens.


----------



## co-op (Apr 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Bercow has just pissed off the tories by allowing the tabling of an urgent question on Hunt, they'll pretty much have to put up Cameron to answer.


 
I get what you say about Bercow but I don't know that he really had any option on this one. It's clearly an issue that 'should' be addressed in the House - even a patsy speaker might have struggled to nix it.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2012)

co-op said:


> The lib-dem 'left' can peel off and the coalition can still limp on til 2015. The tories only need 19 lib-dems for a majority (and that's not counting Ulster Unionists) so they can ditch 40 LDs and still hang on. I wonder if it's just a co-incidence that 20 LDs have been given government posts? It certainly stitches up the numbers they need.
> 
> I mean it'd still be bad PR of course if loads of LDs flounce. But it's going to be 2015 unless some weird shit happens.


 I agree (on it probably being 2015). If some sort of self interested dissent started to develop amongst the libs, it would then be a calculation for the party about whether to stand up to the tories and thus bring about an election (rather than let their own party split). However any of that works out it'll be 90% self interest and at most 10% genuine distaste at the cuts that will be inspiring any lib dissenters.  Suppose there's _just_ the chance that 1 or 2 (literally) will jump ship to labour in a couple of years - though that will equally be an act of seat preservation, with the promise of ministerial posts in a Miliband government.*

*This may be the first time in recorded history that anyone has used the phrase 'Miliband government'.


----------



## co-op (Apr 30, 2012)

I'm not sure if anything can stop the LDs splitting now. Historically there have been four previous Liberal/Whig coalitions (not including wartime); all have been with the tories, all have resulted in a split with a small rump joining the tories. I presume the first time was tragic and the second farcical but I'm not sure what the third, fourth and fifth have been/will be. Possibly "tediously predictable", "tediously predictable", and "will you please just fuck off into the dustbin of history now"?


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I must say, he's not been the sort of speaker i expected.


Tories well pissed off, they can't do much about him ATM without looking like a bunch of spiteful losers, but if they get the chance I think they'll try and nobble him.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 30, 2012)

You'd expect some Tories to use it as an opportunity to berate Bercow, but given the PM refuses to employ the Ministerial Code it's not a difficult call.

This is still actually about Cameron, Hunt and the Murdochs.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2012)

_Come friendly bombs and fall on Chipping Norton_.


----------



## agricola (Apr 30, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Dave's fucked either way. This is a good thing. Wonder what line he'll take in the Commons?
> 
> Bercow's been a good Speaker imo. A _Telegraph_ poll today has over 80% saying Hunt should be referred. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Hunt-questions-in-Commons-this-afternoon.html


 
Bercow has been an awful speaker, though in his defence he was elected by an awful House of Commons who selected him specifically because of his awfulness.


----------



## agricola (Apr 30, 2012)

Daves on now.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 30, 2012)

I doubt we will hear anything that hasn't already been said TBH.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2012)

agricola said:


> Bercow has been an awful speaker, though in his defence he was elected by an awful House of Commons who selected him specifically because of his awfulness.


Awful in terms of what? Not being a neutral proper speaker?


----------



## agricola (Apr 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Awful in terms of what? Not being a neutral proper speaker?


 
More in terms of how he handles MPs in the Commons, though he also appears to enjoy annoying certain Tories, and the way in which he went about getting elected has left a bit of a sour taste in the mouth.

TBH he also should ask himself why he allowed this emergency question in the first place - it would be right to have the PM questioned on his actions, but all that Miliband has done is deliver a set speech, which is what Miliband always does on such occasions.  Emergency questions shouldnt be used for Labour to make it look as if they are doing something, or the value of them is lost.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 30, 2012)

milliband doing his angry nerd bit well.


----------



## agricola (Apr 30, 2012)

Jack Straw now criticizing Cameron for allowing Hunt to hide behind his SPAD.  Careful Jack, you might want to use that argument yourself soon enough.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 30, 2012)

This afternoon in the commons has been a bit of a waste of time really.  It does however seem that Cameron will defend Hunt till the bitter end.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2012)

agricola said:


> More in terms of how he handles MPs in the Commons, though he also appears to enjoy annoying certain Tories, and the way in which he went about getting elected has left a bit of a sour taste in the mouth.
> 
> TBH he also should ask himself why he allowed this emergency question in the first place - it would be right to have the PM questioned on his actions, but all that Miliband has done is deliver a set speech, which is what Miliband always does on such occasions. Emergency questions shouldnt be used for Labour to make it look as if they are doing something, or the value of them is lost.


These are not awful things for me. See why you might.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 30, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> This afternoon in the commons has been a bit of a waste of time really.


 
Did you seriously expect it to be anything else?


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 30, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> Did you seriously expect it to be anything else?


 
No.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 30, 2012)

FFS, the media are applying more pressure than a less than forensic Labour party.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2012)

Doesn't seem to have been much strategy on the Labour side for this debate.  Didn't see Miliband, but most of the subsequent questions seem to be variations on a theme and doing the job of making Cameron sound reasonable.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> FFS, the media are applying more pressure than a less than forensic Labour party.


Yep.
Edit: that one was slightly better (about who approved the SPAD to negotiate in the first place).


----------



## Dan U (Apr 30, 2012)

telling Dennis Skinner to take his pension - didn't catch it all but he sounded a bit rattled (cameron not skinner)


----------



## agricola (Apr 30, 2012)

Finally someone asks Cameron why the SPAD was used to be in contact with NI.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2012)

Dan U said:


> telling Dennis Skinner to take his pension - didn't catch it all but he sounded a bit rattled (cameron not skinner)


 I used to like Skinner's one liners, but he's got like a comic who has lost his timing.  Might have been better to do something serious about masses of people facing redundancy and food parcels while he dines with the Chipping Norton set and chats with Murdoch about approving his takeover.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2012)

Wonder what happens to SPADs when the shit hits the fan - this one, that Werrity bloke who used to dress like his boss and the rest? Is there is a SPADs holding area where they shelter till the storm abates (well, mild breeze when it's being dished out by Miliband)?  Perhaps there's a departmental Tardis that transports them to the future where they can graze on their on their new defence and media contracts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Tories well pissed off, they can't do much about him ATM without looking like a bunch of spiteful losers, but if they get the chance I think they'll try and nobble him.


 
They've been briefing against him since before he became Speaker, because he dared take some of his wife's (frankly champagne socialist) views on board, and because he said he wanted a return to a neutral speakership, after the farrago of Speaker Martin.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Awful in terms of what? Not being a neutral proper speaker?


 
He's a fuckload more neutral than Martin was, tbf.


----------



## laptop (Apr 30, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Wonder what happens to SPADs when the shit hits the fan.


 
Prediction: at least one of them ends up working for Burson-Marsteller


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2012)

Suppose you have to be an elite level SPAD to be entrusted with negotiating the future of UK TV ownership with Rupert Murdoch. Worthy of great respect in the SPAD community, the kind of thing any young SPAD dreams of from the age of 5. 

God bless the SPADs, without whom corruption would run_ just that bit less smoothly_.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 30, 2012)

Isn't it about time this thread was renamed?


----------



## Badgers (Apr 30, 2012)

weltweit said:
			
		

> Isn't it about time this thread was renamed?



No, leave it be. It is part of the furniture now.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 30, 2012)

Badgers said:


> No, leave it be. It is part of the furniture now.


 Yep, keeping that title is a useful reminder of what Murdoch's shabby little band actually _did_.


----------



## Badgers (Apr 30, 2012)

Wilf said:
			
		

> Yep, keeping that title is a useful reminder of what Murdoch's shabby little band actually did.



Yup. The enquiry seems a bit spineless if you focus on the corruption that has always been there not the people affected.


----------



## Lock&Light (May 1, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Yep, keeping that title is a useful reminder of what Murdoch's shabby little band actually _did_.


 

Despicable as the Milly Dowler phone hack clearly was, the effect of the Murdoch virus was such as to bring the whole of what we accept as democratic civilization into danger of annihilation. That, I submit, should be reflected in the title of this fascinating thread.


----------



## Balbi (May 1, 2012)

Report declares Murdoch as not fit and proper to hold a broadcast license. 6 - 4 split on the committee, the Tories voted against it. Going to the commons for a vote. Means if Cameron whips against approval, he's supporting Murdoch. Watson's having more fun.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

He didn't want that i think - certainly didn't want the tories on the committee calling his report 'partisan' and 'improper'.


----------



## Balbi (May 1, 2012)

Lib Dem voted for it, if that extends out into HoC - it'll be Tories supporting sleaze etc. Political theatre.


----------



## Wilf (May 1, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Lib Dem voted for it, if that extends out into HoC - it'll be Tories supporting sleaze etc. Political theatre.


Now this *will* be difficult for Cameron - certainly more difficult than responding to Miliband (unless he discovers a procedural route to avoid the issue being put in the commons in the same terms it was voted on in the committee).


----------



## DexterTCN (May 1, 2012)

Mensch now sticking up for newsint on the news.


----------



## London_Calling (May 1, 2012)

She really isn't.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 1, 2012)

Of course she is!   She said Murdoch is one of the greatest newspaper people ever and the report was made across party lines.


----------



## weltweit (May 1, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Of course she is! She said Murdoch is one of the greatest newspaper people ever and the report was made across party lines.


That isn't what I heard.


----------



## gosub (May 1, 2012)

so the tories on the committee agree that the accused wrongdoing that lead to the investigation happened, and also agree  that NI went out of its way to cover it up and even lie to them, but carry on Rupert


----------



## contadino (May 1, 2012)

Balbi said:


> 6 - 4 split on the committee, the Tories voted against it.


 
To me that reads like the Murdochs have still got plenty of shit about the Tories waiting to be revealed, and the Conservative representation on the committee got told what they could and could not agree on. Discrediting the report along party lines seems like an ideal outcome for the Murdochs.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 1, 2012)

weltweit said:


> That isn't what I heard.


Very informative post.


----------



## gosub (May 1, 2012)

gosub said:


> so the tories on the committee agree that the accused wrongdoing that lead to the investigation happened, and also agree that NI went out of its way to cover it up and even lie to them, but carry on Rupert


 
1.37pm Ed Miliband has given his reaction to BBC news: 

I take extremely seriously what the committee is saying. It was a thorough investigation and a considered verdict. I think now what needs to happen is the regulator Ofcom needs to come to its own conclusions.

Reading between the lines on that and other reactions, perhaps the fit and proper comment was too barbed, should have just called for Ofcom to reassess. Ofcom being the body that decides such stuff


----------



## Balbi (May 1, 2012)

A tiny bit more onto Cameron's shoulders though, another stress reaction for his heart to take. Brown losing the election's going to look like a masterstroke if this keeps up.

Carry on Tories.


----------



## ymu (May 1, 2012)

gosub said:


> ...
> Reading between the lines on that and other reactions, perhaps the fit and proper comment was too barbed, should have just called for Ofcom to reassess. Ofcom being the body that decides such stuff


The 'fit and proper' question has been floating around since before the BSkyB bid was withdrawn. There always was the potential for it to spill over into the rest of News Int's operations. I think it's good that the committee have come out and said it. Much easier for Ofcom to say it now that it's been said, iyswim.


----------



## Balbi (May 1, 2012)

Unless they don't, then partisan politics hits Labour and denigrates the name of Govt. committees - which will adversely affect their image over the Hulture Secretary.


----------



## London_Calling (May 1, 2012)

It seems a nice report, etc, etc, esp. given their partial knowledge and scope. Given the Murdoch's strategy has always been to concede lack of oversight (failure of corp gov) in favour of admitting knowledge (potential criminal liability), not sure why the media reaction is quite so dramatic.

This is still the same group of people cowered since at least 2003 by Murdoch, and it's still the Committee that failed to act when Rebekah Brooks admitted a criminal offence in front of them in 2003.

I can't think of another Parliamentary Committee that's been quite so staffed by self-important drama queens.

It'll be more interesting to consider what's beyond the headlines of this report, partic on the relationship between press, police, CPS and politicians.

/Back to Leveson


----------



## ymu (May 1, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Unless they don't, then partisan politics hits Labour and denigrates the name of Govt. committees - which will adversely affect their image over the Hulture Secretary.


 
I find it hard to believe that anyone without a vested interest could find it remotely partisan, though.


----------



## Balbi (May 1, 2012)

Watch flashman lay the blame at Watsons feet in future.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

Hey, we might get an apology to parliament out of this!


----------



## gosub (May 1, 2012)




----------



## agricola (May 1, 2012)

ymu said:


> The 'fit and proper' question has been floating around since before the BSkyB bid was withdrawn. There always was the potential for it to spill over into the rest of News Int's operations. I think it's good that the committee have come out and said it. Much easier for Ofcom to say it now that it's been said, iyswim.


 
I have only scan-read full report but this "_not a fit and proper person to run an international company_" bit is somewhat curious; its as if the Committee is deliberately framing a conclusion that it knows it has no way of enforcing. 

After all, they appear to have not called for an OFCOM review into whether broadcasting licences should be granted to Murdoch-ran firms (where there actually is a fit and proper persons test of sorts), nor have they called for legislation requiring proprietors of media outlets to have a limited number of outlets.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 1, 2012)

I think/hope the biggest impact will be shareholder support. After all, Monty's not done too bad with his lot, and steered the ship reasonably well through the current shitcreek so may run with the loyalty he's built up, but no board will approve Smithers being allowed near any media company ever again.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

Well the share price is rising.


----------



## agricola (May 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Well the share price is rising.


 
Of course it is, they (the Committee) have just loudly threatened to do nothing to NI and the Murdochs.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

agricola said:


> Of course it is, they (the Committee) have just loudly threatened to do nothing to NI and the Murdochs.


You must have missed the big news, there's a possibility that people who testified and who may have misled the committee may be called to apologise to parliament!


----------



## London_Calling (May 1, 2012)

They've pretty much wrapped a turd up in a copy of The Sun, put it on the doorstep of Murdoch Mansions, lit it and run away.

Which is more than most hoped, I suppose.


----------



## ymu (May 1, 2012)

agricola said:


> I have only scan-read full report but this "_not a fit and proper person to run an international company_" bit is somewhat curious; its as if the Committee is deliberately framing a conclusion that it knows it has no way of enforcing.
> 
> After all, they appear to have not called for an OFCOM review into whether broadcasting licences should be granted to Murdoch-ran firms (where there actually is a fit and proper persons test of sorts), nor have they called for legislation requiring proprietors of media outlets to have a limited number of outlets.


The basis for it seems to be the cover-up:



> Why we believe Rupert Murdoch is not fit to head News International
> 
> There are many examples of questionable practices at the News of the World, all in the public domain – from the Operation Motorman inquiry into the use of private detectives, to the judge's comments about blackmail in the newspaper's sting on Max Mosley.
> 
> Yet no action was taken. "This culture," we considered, "permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International." We concluded, therefore, "that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company".


 
On media plurality, I don't think the committee is in a position to comment directly - they've not looked at it AFAIK, but Leveson is. The trail leads straight back to Thatcher's fudge when she facilitated The Times takeover, which involved Murdoch making various undertakings to protect editorial independence. That was always a sick joke, and it's one of the lines Jay was clearly pursuing with Murdoch last week.


----------



## London_Calling (May 1, 2012)

Really, you think.


----------



## gosub (May 1, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> They've pretty much wrapped a turd up in a copy of The Sun, put it on the doorstep of Murdoch Mansions, lit it and run away.
> 
> Which is more than most hoped, I suppose.


 
Checked the Sun website, sadly headlines are england manager, man u v man city, bloke got erection from a motorbike, Posh Spice once forgot her kids ......    move along nothing to see here


----------



## Teaboy (May 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You must have missed the big news, there's a possibility that people who testified and who may have misled the committee may be called to apologise to parliament!


 
Fingers crossed for this.


----------



## claphamboy (May 1, 2012)

OFCOM didn't need them to go as far as declaring Murdoch not 'fit & proper', there's no love lost between OFCOM and Murdoch, if anything this could make things harder for OFCOM, as they could now be accused of rolling over to political pressure if they come with the right conclusion themselves.


----------



## agricola (May 1, 2012)

ymu said:


> On media plurality, I don't think the committee is in a position to comment directly - they've not looked at it AFAIK, but Leveson is. The trail leads straight back to Thatcher's fudge when she facilitated The Times takeover, which involved Murdoch making various undertakings to protect editorial independence. That was always a sick joke, and it's one of the lines Jay was clearly pursuing with Murdoch last week.


 
The thing is though that they arent really in a position to comment on whether Rupert is a fit and proper person to run an international business either, and yet they have chosen to do so; indeed that conclusion has emerged as the headline statement of this committee report.  My query is to wonder why they have chosen to do that, when there was a conclusion - asking OFCOM to revoke licences (or at least asking them to look at it whilst mentioning that in their opinion he and his firm werent fit and proper) - that would be more relevant (given that they have admitted getting Sky News to break the law), more effective (given the potential cost to the Murdochs of losing licences) and more reasonable based on all the evidence.


----------



## agricola (May 1, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> OFCOM didn't need them to go as far as declaring Murdoch not 'fit & proper', there's no love lost between OFCOM and Murdoch, if anything this could make things harder for OFCOM, as they could now be accused of rolling over to political pressure if they come with the right conclusion themselves.


 
If OFCOM even looked like they are considering taking licences off of Murdoch-controlled businesses then they will need all the help that they can get.

(edited for a couple of typos)


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

This committees task was simply to decide if the previous committee had been misled by news international. That's all. A number of people are assuming it was conducting some wider sort of investigation or that it had some wider remit or powers.


----------



## ymu (May 1, 2012)

agricola said:


> If OFCOM even looked like they are considering taking licences off of Murdoch-controlled businesses then they will need all the help that they can get.


 
Yeah, I think this is just unknown territory, really. People getting used to the idea that Murdoch is not invincible. Whatever Ofcom officials might privately prefer, finding Murdoch unfit to own broadcasters and newspapers would have been unthinkable a couple of years ago.

There are shades of Watson over-reaching himself, but it was 7-4 with one Tory siding with the majority, so I'd think there was a bit more to it than the committee grand-standing (although that is undoubtedly part of it). Should be interesting watching the fallout.


----------



## articul8 (May 1, 2012)

The "not fit" is significant though given the OFCOM review


----------



## claphamboy (May 1, 2012)

agricola said:


> If OFCOM even looked like they are considering taking licences off of Murdoch-controlled businesses then they will need all the help that they can get.
> 
> (edited for a couple of typos)


 
OFCOM has called News Int' to account on several occasions, not least making them reduce their share in ITV and forcing Sky to sell rights to their channels to other platforms at a reduced cost, these cases & others have seriously pissed-off the Murdochs over the years, hence their hatred of OFCOM. 

There was enough evidence & pressure on OFCOM anyway, they didn't need this report to go as far as it has, this could actually back-fire.


----------



## agricola (May 1, 2012)

articul8 said:


> The "not fit" is significant though given the OFCOM review


 
It would be if they had come to that conclusion, instead they have come up with something considerably more nebulous and which they have no way of actually enforcing (or even influencing).


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

It's very odd - it's even buried away in the section on Graham Taylor - it's not even in the conclusions. I suppose that would have been overstepping the remit far too clearly and Watson would have been far too easy a target then.


----------



## gosub (May 1, 2012)

gosub said:


>


Glad that was screen grabbed when it was, headline now "MP's split over "Murdoch unfit" verdict.  If they had kept the original headline I might have bought a copy tommorrow


----------



## London_Calling (May 1, 2012)

US stockbroker BTIG has put out an analysts' note:



> We continue to believe News Corp being declared "unfit" to own/control media assets in the UK would ultimately be viewed positively for News Corp shareholders...
> 
> Divest UK Newspapers:* Investors would love to see News Corp sell off their UK newspapers*. The business has become significantly less profitable since the closure of News of the World (replaced to a less profitable extent by the recently launched Sun on Sunday), with overhead bloated relative to the division's remaining revenues.
> 
> ... However, with it looking increasingly doubtful that News Corp will be able to resuscitate a transaction at any time in the foreseeable future, *we believe News Corp shareholders would benefit from reducing their BSkyB stake* (39%). News Corp has never received full credit for the value of its unconsolidated BSkyB investment and an auction of News Corp's voting control stake in BSkyB would likely generate meaningful incremental value to News Corp investors.


 
From pretty much all sides, the Murdoch's continue to be edged towards the exit door  of UKplc...

​


----------



## magneze (May 1, 2012)

Interesting that it's split down party lines. Tories in the pocket of Murdoch. Could they shoot themselves in the foot any more?


----------



## London_Calling (May 1, 2012)

magneze said:


> Interesting that it's split down party lines. Tories in the pocket of Murdoch. Could they shoot themselves in the foot any more?


The Committee was split on one sentence only - on the expression of an opinion beyond its remit. That's also the sentence that's grabbing all the headlines.

It was agreed on absolutely everything else in the 86 (?) pages.


----------



## magneze (May 1, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> The Committee was split on one sentence only - on the expression of an opinion beyond its remit. That's also the sentence that's grabbing all the headlines.
> 
> It was agreed on absolutely everything else in the 86 (?) pages.


Untrue:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17911991


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> The Committee was split on one sentence only - on the expression of an opinion beyond its remit. That's also the sentence that's grabbing all the headlines.
> 
> It was agreed on absolutely everything else in the 86 (?) pages.


No, that's not true - the formal minutes (p.100 onwards) show many such divisions.


----------



## London_Calling (May 1, 2012)

magneze said:


> Untrue:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17911991


Okay, from the final report:

"simply astonishing": One dissenter


Any more?


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

Have you even actually looked at the report?


----------



## laptop (May 1, 2012)

gosub said:


> Glad that was screen grabbed when it was, headline now "MP's split over "Murdoch unfit" verdict.


 
Subeditor is now "set to run whelk stall" but has a warm glow to keep them going


----------



## stavros (May 1, 2012)

The 'fit and proper' test is shite anyway and Ofcom don't have a bollock between them. If they did, they wouldn't have let Britain's premier pornographer Richard 'Dirty' Desmond buy Channel 5 two years ago.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 1, 2012)

gosub said:


>


 
What we've all known for years, finally makes it into the newspapers. Better late than never I suppose.


----------



## alfajobrob (May 1, 2012)

It just keep's on giving and giving...should have happened 30 years ago though.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 2, 2012)

Good to see the Tories are still backing Rupert, the grovelling little shits.


----------



## claphamboy (May 2, 2012)

stavros said:


> The 'fit and proper' test is shite anyway and Ofcom don't have a bollock between them. If they did, they wouldn't have let Britain's premier pornographer Richard 'Dirty' Desmond buy Channel 5 two years ago.


 
I would normally agree with that, another example is OFCOM allowing Global Radio to virtually kill off dozens of profitable local radio stations and replace with the Heart & Capital brands, networked most of the time from London.

However, OFCOM has proved several times that when it comes to dealing with Murdoch/News Int/BskyB they somehow manage to find their balls.


----------



## London_Calling (May 2, 2012)

The full scores on the door:


> *Wilful blindness - 7 for, 3 against*
> ‘News International and its parent company News Corporation exhibited wilful blindness for which the companies’ directors – including Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch – should ultimately be prepared to take responsibility’
> 
> *Unfit person - 6 for, 4 against*
> ...


And:


> *Old bastard attacked by useless shower of piss*


My sentiment exactly:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...acked-by-useless-shower-of-piss-201205025183/

Finally:


> News Corp shares closed up 0.9 per cent at $19.79.


----------



## Balbi (May 2, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/02/leveson-phone-hacking-inquiry

 I see the cost thing, and obviously Hunt can still be screwed by Part 1 - but the 'move along, nothing to see here' approach won't lend transparency.


----------



## Balbi (May 2, 2012)




----------



## sleaterkinney (May 2, 2012)

Cameron now

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/02/david-cameron-bskyb-news-corp



> A senior aide to David Cameron discussed Rupert Murdoch's takeover bid for BSkyB with a News Corporation lobbyist at a Downing Street meeting, the Guardian has learned.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 2, 2012)

You're not suggesting Cameron is fibbing about it?   You're not saying it's troubling that he goes horse-riding with Rebecca, has Murdoch up the back door when he was elected, had Coulson as his Communications Direcor?

It's coincidence.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 2, 2012)

Sorry, I was replying to a statement Dave has not even made yet, that it was all above board.   heh


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 2, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> You're not suggesting Cameron is fibbing about it? You're not saying it's troubling that he goes horse-riding with Rebecca, has Murdoch up the back door when he was elected, had Coulson as his Communications Direcor?
> 
> It's coincidence.


I love this paragraph at the end



> The Downing Street denied Number 10 "could have been feeding information to DCMS" about the what to do on the deal because of the Chinese wall and because "nobody in Number 10 was informed [about the deal]".


 Oh. That's believable.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 2, 2012)

I was actually going to quote that.

(   partly for the grammar)


----------



## gosub (May 2, 2012)

If there was a Chinese wall then there's a a set of written rules.. Rules I'd guess Osborne breached due to his chats on the subject with murdoch jnr


----------



## DexterTCN (May 2, 2012)

When did they start saying chinese wall instead of firewall btw?


----------



## ymu (May 3, 2012)

US Senate (committee on commerce, science and transportation) takes its first official steps:


> In his letter to Leveson, Rockefeller asks whether some of the more than 5,000 potential victims of phone hacking by the now-defunct News of the World may have been American. "I am concerned about the possibility that some of these undisclosed victims are US citizens, and the possibility that telephone networks under the jurisdiction of US laws were used to intercept their voicemail messages."
> 
> He adds that he wants to know whether any News Corp business had "used hacking, bribing, or other similar tactics when operating in the US".
> 
> ...


Jolly good.


----------



## ymu (May 3, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> When did they start saying chinese wall instead of firewall btw?


I don't think they're being used interchangeably, are they? The media has talked a lot about firewalls to protect Cameron et al - chucking some people to the wolves (Coulson) and keeping others in place (Hunt). Chinese walls are based on the idea that a company or organisation can engage in a blatant conflict of interest by simply stating that people working on opposite sides of the same deal won't talk to each other about it (honest guv).


----------



## ymu (May 3, 2012)

Louise Mensch is lying toerag shock!



> A Conservative member on the committee, Louise Mensch, criticised Labour colleagues for inserting the incendiary sentence, saying the committee had "not for one moment" discussed it before the final vote on Monday, the day before the report was published.
> 
> But the Guardian has seen a copy of papers circulated to committee members on 20 March that first set out the Labour MP Tom Watson's amendment, including the conclusion that Murdoch was "not a fit and proper person to have the stewardship of a major international company".
> 
> ...


----------



## ymu (May 3, 2012)

Superb.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2012)

Watson and Bagshawe have had a twitter spat this morning during which the former pretty much accused the latter of passing on the committees private discussions to James Murdoch.


----------



## killer b (May 3, 2012)

this is going to end badly for someone isn't it?


----------



## Santino (May 3, 2012)

Some kind of arrest made this morning.


----------



## laptop (May 3, 2012)

Santino said:


> Some kind of arrest made this morning.


 
"Former police officer", over corrupt payments (Elveden): BBC


----------



## laptop (May 3, 2012)

Bloomberg business news take on Select Committee may not be unconnected with short-term share price movements:



> Yesterday’s split among lawmakers on the U.K. Parliament’s Culture Committee over whether to criticize Rupert Murdoch highlighted again the closeness between News Corp. and Prime Minister David Cameron’s Tory party.
> Conservative panel members insisted their refusal to support a finding in a report on phone hacking scandal that Murdoch was “not a fit person” to run News Corp. was based on a lack of evidence he knew anything about illegal activities within the company. The danger for Cameron, facing local elections tomorrow, is that voters may conclude that his party is siding with the media mogul.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...to-tories-highlighted-by-split-on-report.html


----------



## London_Calling (May 3, 2012)

I may have suggested this once or twice before but....



> *tom_watson* ‏ @*tom_watson*
> The only way to resolve the @*louisemensch* allegations is publish the original draft of the report, all tabled amendments + list hospitality.


 
 ... what a complete shower that CMS Committee is.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2012)

killer b said:


> this is going to end badly for someone isn't it?


 
News Corp was given private committee details, suggests Tom Watson




> Watson, replying to Mensch during a Twitter spat following the Tory MP's appearance on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Thursday morning, said a letter sent by James Murdoch, News Corp deputy chief operating officer, "seemed uncannily to answer concerns raised in private discussions" by committee members.


----------



## London_Calling (May 3, 2012)

Helpful article from Peter Oborne in The Telegraph. This titbit is worth repeating:


> A fresh embarrassment concerns Rebekah Brooks, who providentially retained the text messages she received from the Prime Minister, *which I’m told could exceed a dozen a day.*
> 
> These may now be published, a horrible thought. Next year it is possible that some of Mr Cameron’s closest allies and friends, including Andy Coulson, the former Downing Street director of communications, will go on trial. Apart from anything else, these reminders of the Prime Minister’s poor judgment will reinforce the popular belief that he is arrogant, louche and only comfortable as a member of some elitist set.


Summary:


> Here are the News International crowd: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson, David Miliband, David Blunkett, John Reid, Tessa Jowell, Michael Gove, George Osborne, William Hague. David Cameron, John Whittingdale and Jeremy Hunt (as well as Mr Hunt’s brainless sidekick, Ed Vaizey) should also be added to this list.
> 
> And here are the refuseniks: Vince Cable, Tom Watson, George Galloway, Iain Duncan Smith, Owen Paterson, Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke. This is a much shorter list. My hunch is that their integrity has paid off and we are coming to the end of the Murdoch era, which was based around a cult of celebrity, collusion, criminality and deceit.
> 
> Something wonderful may be happening to British politics: the air at Westminster is becoming cleaner and fresher. Mr Miliband, always under-rated as Labour leader, has woken up to this defining story of our age much faster than Mr Cameron and his amoral strategists. That is why he has been able to convert the News International phone hacking and corruption scandal into Tory sleaze. The Conservatives need to wake up fast.


 
A good read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Conservative-Party-sleaze-but-it-is-now.html


----------



## Teaboy (May 3, 2012)

God I really hope this brings Cameron down, I've taken a personal dislike to him greater then any other British politician I can think of, even Blair and he's a fucking war criminal.  Amazing really.


----------



## magneze (May 3, 2012)

Can't happen soon enough.


----------



## London_Calling (May 3, 2012)

I think you can tell Cameron knows how exposed he potentially is; the man is rattled, he's lost control of events and something very large and fast may be heading in his direction.

Of course none of this is due to the work of the CMS Committee over 5-10 years, though that is not their fault it's a reminder of the importance of how things are framed and how they appear.


----------



## Balbi (May 3, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/02/david-cameron-bskyb-news-corp

So Michel was in No.10 - talking to an aide of Cameron - but they didn't talk to Hunt about it.

FUCK OFF.

(Also, today's a good day to bury bad news)


----------



## Schmetterling (May 3, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Helpful article from Peter Oborne in The Telegraph. This titbit is worth repeating:
> Helpful article from Peter Oborne in The Telegraph. This titbit is worth repeating:
> A fresh embarrassment concerns Rebekah Brooks, who *providentially retained the text messages* she received from the Prime Minister, *which I’m told could exceed a dozen a day.*
> 
> ...


 
Eurgh!  Do you think there are any dresses she kept? a la Lewinsky!


----------



## laptop (May 3, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Helpful article from Peter Oborne in The Telegraph.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-Conservative-Party-sleaze-but-it-is-now.html


 
Oooh, ta. Tory infighting always good.



> Here are the News International crowd: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson, David Miliband, David Blunkett, John Reid, Tessa Jowell, Michael Gove, George Osborne, William Hague. David Cameron, John Whittingdale and Jeremy Hunt (as well as Mr Hunt’s brainless sidekick, Ed Vaizey) should also be added to this list.
> 
> And here are the refuseniks: Vince Cable, Tom Watson, George Galloway, Iain Duncan Smith, Owen Paterson, Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke. This is a much shorter list. My hunch is that their integrity has paid off and we are coming to the end of the Murdoch era, which was based around a cult of celebrity, collusion, criminality and deceit.


 
So who does Oborne back for new Tory leader? He nearly ignored Osborne in the above villainology, but implied in November that Cameron would have to sack Osborne...


----------



## London_Calling (May 3, 2012)

I suspect no one has a clue where this will all lead, or where things will end up.

Westminster Village is going to look like one of those mass pie fights from the silent movie era for the foreseeable...


----------



## laptop (May 3, 2012)

Oh, and no surprise that Oborne omits Thatcher from the list of miscreants...


----------



## London_Calling (May 3, 2012)

Yep, it's a bit random


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2012)

> Vince Cable, Tom Watson, George Galloway, Iain Duncan Smith, Owen Paterson, Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke.


 
A list that just screams personal integrity.


----------



## Wilf (May 3, 2012)

Dominic Grieve and Iain Duncan Smith - winner and runner up in the annual Cold Fish of the Year Award.


----------



## frogwoman (May 3, 2012)

Dominic grieve is my MP


----------



## London_Calling (May 3, 2012)

> Andy Coulson is to appear at the Leveson inquiry next week along with his former boss Rebekah Brooks. More details soon …


It'll be fine because, you know, they'll be under oath...

Thurs: Brooks
Friday: Coulson

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-List-7-11-May-2012.pdf

Cameron may need a change of underwear by Thurs lunchtime.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 3, 2012)

"I don't remember", "I can't recall"


----------



## teqniq (May 3, 2012)

"I got no memory of anything at all"


----------



## London_Calling (May 3, 2012)

People are entitled to not incriminate themselves. The rest of us can draw the obv. conclusions.

Brooks has also been charged with criminal offences so that's also problematic for Leveson. Coulson .. is he on a chrage yet - he'll presumably get it in the neck eventually for Tommy Sheridan, at least.

I presume these appearances will focus on the chain of command and corp gov.


----------



## Balbi (May 3, 2012)

Please, for once in my life, let me get what I want.

Leveson should request all texts and communications between Brooks and Cameron/Coulson and Cameron/Coulson and Brooks. And then let Robert Jay work his way through them, slowly.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 3, 2012)

Looks like Watson's out-played Mensch.   He's quite good at this stuff.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/03/watson-accuses-mensch-pro-murdoch-amendments



> Watson told the Guardian: "Now that Louise has felt the need to breach the convention that our private deliberations remain that way, we might as well have it out."
> *He said the best solution was to have the draft report published, which would show a timeline of all amendments proposed by Conservative and Labour committee members as the report was drafted and redrafted over three months.*
> "In helping the public form a judgement, I would support the chairman of the committee were he to publish the original draft of the report and all amendments tabled by all members of the committee," Watson said.
> "People will make up their own mind as to the integrity and motives of the committee members. It might also help the public debate were all committee members to publish their meetings with employees of News International and BSkyB as well as all hospitality and social invitations."


----------



## London_Calling (May 3, 2012)

They're a complete shambles.

/Back to Leveson


----------



## laptop (May 3, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Leveson should request all texts and communications between Brooks and Cameron/Coulson and Cameron/Coulson and Brooks. And then let Robert Jay work his way through them, slowly.


 
Typing with fnigers corssed here...


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Please, for once in my life, let me get what I want.
> 
> Leveson should request all texts and communications between Brooks and Cameron/Coulson and Cameron/Coulson and Brooks. And then let Robert Jay work his way through them, slowly.


Can they?


----------



## agricola (May 3, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Looks like Watson's out-played Mensch. He's quite good at this stuff.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/03/watson-accuses-mensch-pro-murdoch-amendments


 
Not really - in fact it was probably Watson who (wrongly) suggested Mensch had been keeping a low profile with regards to News International and phone hacking at the start of the week.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 3, 2012)

If he's manoeuvring to get the drafts into the public domain, he'll have good reasons for it.


----------



## laptop (May 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Can they?


 
I believe Leveson can.

Whether he'd be persuaded that this would prejudice potential later criminal proceedings is a different matter.


----------



## laptop (May 3, 2012)

agricola said:


> it was probably Watson who (wrongly) suggested Mensch had been keeping a low profile with regards to News International and phone hacking at the start of the week.


 
My money's on Farrelly for that one. After a beer or three.


----------



## Balbi (May 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Can they?


 
I believe Leveson can request the information.


----------



## London_Calling (May 3, 2012)

Leveson, Part One:


> "the culture, practices and ethics of the press, including contacts between the press and politicians and the press and the police; it is to consider the extent to which the current regulatory regime has failed and whether there has been a failure to act upon any previous warnings about media misconduct"


So: "including contacts between the press and politicians".

It’s difficult to see how regular, direct contact between the Editor of the  biggest selling paper and the PM would not be germane.

 But… would it step on the Met’s toes in relation to existing charges or on going investigations, is Leveson in receipt of other materials more relevant to its remit (perhaps emails), and is the actual content of the texts deemed sufficiently relevant to the terms of ref…


----------



## ymu (May 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Can they?


Think so. Cameron's already promised to produce it all too, IIRC.


----------



## two sheds (May 3, 2012)

He said he'd provide them if Leveson requested them IIRC.


----------



## London_Calling (May 3, 2012)

> The revelation in today’s Sunday Times, that Rebekah Brooks stands ready to disclose all emails and text messages between her and David Cameron is game changing.
> 
> If Lord Justice Leveson really does want to fully undertand the apparatus constructed by Rupert Murdoch’s executives, then the conversations that were meant to be forever private is the way to get there.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2012/04...her-private-emails-and-texts-to-david-cameron


----------



## agricola (May 3, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2012/04...her-private-emails-and-texts-to-david-cameron


 
Ed Miliband must be somewhat concerned, and I suppose the rumoured comeback of King Tony will be put on hold as well.


----------



## Lock&Light (May 4, 2012)

agricola said:


> ..........I suppose the rumoured comeback of King Tony will be put on hold as well.


 
You must be referring to Tony Blackburn or possibly Tony Robinson. I can think of no way that any other King Tony could make a comeback.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 4, 2012)

I've just received my copy of _Untouchables_, bit of a brick of a book, and disappointingly there is no index. Could have done with better picture reproduction as well, and perhaps a zippier editor. But no matter.

An interesting titbit mentioned in the new introduction, which draws one's attention to Bob Quick's Leveson evidence.*

Here's paragraph 14 from his written statement:



Sounds intriguing!

Here's Mr Jay making a somewhat oblique reference to it whilst examining Quick on 7 March (pp90-91 of the morning transcript):



> Paragraph 14 we're not going to deal with at all, Mr Quick, because there are too many issues about that, if I can put it neutrally without indicating what the issues are...


 
With words like "conspiring", "misleading" and "influence the jury" one might reasonably infer that the freelance journalists in question were in some way invested in limiting Jonathan Rees' and Southern Investigations' exposure to detailed criminal investigation with regards the Daniel Morgan murder, right?

How queer, then, that the journalists in question were in fact the ones digging the deepest to uncover links between corrupt police officers, bung-happy hacks and bent private eyes!

And how queer that the _Guardian_ - using its advance sight of the Quick evidence under core participant status - moved so (if I may) _quickly_ to have the paper's name redacted, and the names of Flynn and Gillard struck out from the public record.

Could it be that Rusbridger's wobbly tummy over investigating the police in 2000 (he sacked Flynn and Gillard following a letter from Quick's boss Andy Hayman complaining about their critical coverage of the Met's unaccountable 'anti-corruption' cops and their dubious supergrass system, remember) doesn't fit too well with the Grauniad narrative of being the lone crusader for justice?

* From 1999-2001 Bob Quick was Detective Superintendent (Operations) at CIB3 (the Met's Anti-Corruption Squad, later Anti-Corruption Command), and subsequently its Commander, before being made Chief Constable at Surrey. He worked variously under Andy Hayman, John Yates and Paul Stephenson.


----------



## London_Calling (May 4, 2012)

I know Quick has spoken a lot about police corruption and payments - all this comes under Elveden at the mo, doesn't it?


----------



## London_Calling (May 4, 2012)

​Oh dear, Jezza:


> Jeremy Hunt faces renewed pressure after he failed to declare thousands of pounds of donations from media and arts companies which sponsored a series of networking events before the 2010 general election.
> 
> The culture secretary is to amend his entry in the House of Commons register of members' interests after what aides described as a "miscommunication" with his deputy, Ed Vaizey.


----------



## Badgers (May 4, 2012)

London_Calling said:
			
		

> Oh dear, Jezza:



I read that last night. Thought that it may be old news as it is hard to keep up. Can he ride this one out?


----------



## London_Calling (May 4, 2012)

Given forthcoming appearances at Leveson, his time next week Hunt may be small potatoes...


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

Govt has just applied for core participant staus at leveson. Hmmm


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2012)

I saw that. What's it actually mean in practice?


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> I saw that. What's it actually mean in practice?


Don't know exactly - some legal bods reckon it puts them in a stong(er) postion to argue for censoring material for public release.


----------



## two sheds (May 4, 2012)

like Cameron's e-mails? Would be nice if the problems are reaching too close to home for comfort.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Don't know exactly - some legal bods reckon it puts them in a stong(er) postion to argue for censoring material for public release.


That's certainly what it sounds like. Does anyone know who they are applying _to_?
I've only seen the Guardian ticker mention it so far.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> That's certainly what it sounds like. Does anyone know who they are applying _to_?
> I've only seen the Guardian ticker mention it so far.


Leveson himself  - hearing at 2.


----------



## two sheds (May 4, 2012)

> Core participant status gives those who have it advance copies of all written statements submitted along with attached material – evidence such as the 164 pages of emails written by Frédéric Michel to James Murdoch describing the success or otherwise of his lobbying in favour of the BSkyB takeover by News Corp.
> Such participants are also able to apply for material to be redacted, which could have given the culture secretary the chance to propose redactions to the Michel emails. Currently the list of core participants include News International, the Met Police, phone-hacking victims and the owners of the Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Daily Mirror and Daily Mail.
> The inquiry is expected to hear some of its most controversial evidence shortly, amid suggestions that Brooks has retained her text commnications with Cameron, messages that it has been suggested are as frequent as 12 a day.
> Evidence from senior Labour figures, such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, is expected in the next few weeks, as well as from Cameron as the Leveson inquiry turns towards module three, which is dealing specifically with the relationship between the press and politicians.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/04/leveson-inquiry-rebekahwade

12 texts a day has to be down to the level of "I'm going to the toilet now"


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

Why apply today i wonder?


----------



## laptop (May 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Why apply today i wonder?


 
Ooooh, from what might they want to distract the _Guardian_'s attention?


----------



## ymu (May 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Don't know exactly - some legal bods reckon it puts them in a stong(er) postion to argue for censoring material for public release.


Gives them advance sight of all written statements to Leveson, and the right to apply for redactions in the published material, I think.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

Hearing here


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

The people the govt wants recognised as core participants:

Cameron, Hunt, May, Gove, Clegg, Cable.

I stand by by hmmm


----------



## agricola (May 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The people the govt wants recognised as core participants:
> 
> Cameron, Hunt, May, Gove, Clegg, Cable.
> 
> I stand by by hmmm


 
TBH its amazing that they didnt ask for core participant status for Cameron, Hunt and Cable from the off.  This probably explains why they have been so far behind the curve for such a long time - Labour have (thanks to Bryant (who has CP status) and Watson) this access and can be demonstrated to have used it (Bryant got a telling off last week for quoting testimony that Rupert hadnt actually said at that point).


----------



## ymu (May 4, 2012)

Core participants are victims or perpetrators, in the main.

Victims: May is on the 'was hacked list', I think. Cable claims intimidation by NI.

Perpetrators: Cameron, Hunt and Gove have all been fingered for being too close to NI.

Not sure why Clegg would be on there.


----------



## killer b (May 4, 2012)

are the guardian there as victims or perpetrators?


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

agricola said:


> TBH its amazing that they didnt ask for core participant status for Cameron, Hunt and Cable from the off. This probably explains why they have been so far behind the curve for such a long time - Labour have (thanks to Bryant (who has CP status) and Watson) this access and can be demonstrated to have used it (Bryant got a telling off last week for quoting testimony that Rupert hadnt actually said at that point).


I think if they asked before - and for those people in particular -  it would betray panic and get people sniffing.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 4, 2012)

Unlike now, of course.


----------



## agricola (May 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think if they asked before - and for those people in particular - it would betray panic and get people sniffing.


 
Maybe, though people were already sniffing and - given that he set this inquiry up - Cameron should have at least recognised the possibility that he would be questioned about his links with NI.  He should also have realised that some people who do have CP status could reasonably be expected to use that access for their own ends.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Unlike now, of course.


Well, a year of it or a day of it? A year of people digging or this?


----------



## agricola (May 4, 2012)

Sounds like a no to the request.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 4, 2012)

Dave had better text Bex and beg a crib of hers.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

agricola said:


> Maybe, though people were already sniffing and - given that he set this inquiry up - Cameron should have at least recognised the possibility that he would be questioned about his links with NI. He should also have realised that some people who do have CP status could reasonably be expected to use that access for their own ends.


 
But he and they didn't.


----------



## agricola (May 4, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> But he and they didn't.


 
I know, thats what I find amazing.  They were either incompetent, or they were very honestly behaving how they should have behaved when dealing with an inquiry of this kind.


----------



## agricola (May 4, 2012)

Thats odd - the Government cannot be core participants, but the specific applicants - Dave, Clegg, Osborne, Hunt, May and some others - can be, and Leveson has authorised this.


----------



## agricola (May 4, 2012)

Also *all* people and organizations who have Core Participant status now have to sign a confidentiality agreement, and there will be sanctions if there are any further leaks.


----------



## ymu (May 4, 2012)

It's OK. There are Chinese walls between these people and the government they are part of.


----------



## London_Calling (May 4, 2012)

> *List of ministers who will be giving evidence to Leveson* inquiry includes David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove, Ken Clarke, Theresa May and George Osborne.


Proper taxpayer value this PI - never mind everything else, it's worth paying your taxes just for this shower.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2012)

So, gap between what coulsen and brooks might say and what the list of shame has recorded?


----------



## London_Calling (May 4, 2012)

I'd imagine Brooks might be more verbose, but that might also depend on how much coaching she's had and whether Jay can get under her skin.


----------



## ymu (May 4, 2012)

I'm finding it very hard to guess where Brooks might go with her evidence. It'll be limited because of the criminal charges. I _think_ she's still getting substantial Murdoch assistance behind the scenes, which might mean she'll gun for Cameron. If she's been abandoned by Team Murdoch, then she might be looking to protect Cameron as her next best powerful friend. Unless she thinks he's screwed anyway, in which case ... fuck knows.

She apparently kept meticulous electronic records, not just the Cameron texts, and the fact that we know this, suggests that she's giving it all up - or at least, the stuff she wants to give up (whilst giving the impression that it's all of it).

Dunno. She and Coulson have had a very low profile since their arrests because of the contempt of court stuff. Anyone more up to date on where she stands with Murdoch?

Coulson has been thrown to the wolves by Murdoch and Cameron. I'd guess he'll be doing whatever he has to do to save his own skin.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 5, 2012)

After the murdoch's fucked them over this time, you have to wonder why Cameron, Hunt and the others are suddenly using legal methods to find out what they can about what's going to be presented.   All above board, I'm sure.



> Mr Eadie said the application arose not out of concern about the conduct of ministers, but out of a desire for them to "find some time in their busy schedules" to ensure evidence is accurate.​


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...-coulson-prepare-to-face-leveson-7715798.html


----------



## 1%er (May 5, 2012)

ymu said:


> I'm finding it very hard to guess where Brooks might go with her evidence. It'll be limited because of the criminal charges. I _think_ she's still getting substantial Murdoch assistance behind the scenes, which might mean she'll gun for Cameron. If she's been abandoned by Team Murdoch, then she might be looking to protect Cameron as her next best powerful friend. Unless she thinks he's screwed anyway, in which case ... fuck knows.
> 
> She apparently kept meticulous electronic records, not just the Cameron texts, and the fact that we know this, suggests that she's giving it all up - or at least, the stuff she wants to give up (whilst giving the impression that it's all of it).
> 
> ...


IIRC wasn't there a story about her old man dumping a computer somewhere, what happened about that, was it him who dumped it and was it her computer?


----------



## ymu (May 5, 2012)

1%er said:


> IIRC wasn't there a story about her old man dumping a computer somewhere, what happened about that, was it him who dumped it and was it her computer?


Yeah. That's what her second arrest was about, he got arrested too. Both up for perverting the course of justice. This may be why all the electronic records are available of course - they got the computer.


----------



## 1%er (May 5, 2012)

ymu said:


> Yeah. That's what her second arrest was about, he got arrested too. Both up for perverting the course of justice. This may be why all the electronic records are available of course - they got the computer.


I was wondering about that when I read your above post that said "She apparently kept meticulous electronic records", anything at all in the UK press about what if anything was found on the computer?


----------



## ymu (May 5, 2012)

It's all subjudice because of the arrests. That's why Brooks and Coulson haven't had much of a mention recently. It has to come out in court.

Which is nice. 

The "kept meticulous electronic records" _might_ be an oblique reference to what was found on the computer, without crossing the contempt of court line.


----------



## London_Calling (May 5, 2012)

"kept meticulous electronic records" is simply a description of the nature of what she kept  - sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Presumably it refers to personal electronic-based communication (from texts to email) beyond that discolosed by Data Pool 3 e.g. held on assorted computers outside NI, inc. the dumped laptop.


----------



## London_Calling (May 5, 2012)

Rupes has been on the laughing gear again:


> *Rupert Murdoch * ‏ @*rupertmurdoch*
> "all that is and has been is but the twilight of the dawn". H.G. Wells


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 5, 2012)

Very worryingly, I'm growing a bit fond of R.Murdoch, in a "what a demented fuck" kind of way.

Think I need to drink a lot of gin.


----------



## laptop (May 5, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> "kept meticulous electronic records" is simply a description of the nature of what she kept - sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
> 
> Presumably it refers to personal electronic-based communication (from texts to email) beyond that discolosed by Data Pool 3 e.g. held on assorted computers outside NI, inc. the dumped laptop.


 
Or on the phone.

Unless the texts were backed up to a computer somewhere...

* cracks open phone manual *


----------



## weltweit (May 5, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Very worryingly, I'm growing a bit fond of R.Murdoch, in a "what a demented fuck" kind of way.
> Think I need to drink a lot of gin.


I feel a little sorry for the old git, after all if there was no RM there would be no Sky Television.


----------



## killer b (May 5, 2012)

fucking mental


----------



## weltweit (May 5, 2012)

killer b said:


> fucking mental


Who me?


----------



## stavros (May 5, 2012)

An interesting stat from the current Private Eye;

Comments to undercover journalists which rendered Vince Cable unfit to judge BSkyB takeover: 1

Emails to and from News Corp lobbyists which apparently do not render Jeremy Hunt unfit to judge ongoing media regulation: 161


----------



## elbows (May 5, 2012)

Ah but if it had been Cables special advisor that had made that comment 161 times to a journalist, would Cable have had to stop judging the matter?


----------



## DexterTCN (May 5, 2012)

Yes...because at that time Murdoch was still pulling the strings.


----------



## London_Calling (May 5, 2012)

stavros said:


> An interesting stat from the current Private Eye;
> 
> Comments to undercover journalists which rendered Vince Cable unfit to judge BSkyB takeover: 1
> 
> Emails to and from News Corp lobbyists which apparently do not render Jeremy Hunt unfit to judge ongoing media regulation: 161


Yeah, but what a comment!


----------



## ymu (May 5, 2012)

Completely unlike Hunt's unabashed cheerleading for NI on his website. Utterly different and in no way evidence that he was known to be biased _before_ he was appointed to the task.


----------



## London_Calling (May 6, 2012)

No one is talking about public statements.


----------



## two sheds (May 6, 2012)

Independent going with secret meeting between Cameron and NI.

"Murdoch lobbyist dismissed as a 'fantasist' set up talks between the PM and the News Corp board
"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ons-secret-summit-with-news-corp-7717644.html



> The involvement of Mr Michel, the head of public affairs for News Corp, in such a top-level meeting severely undermines his portrayal by Mr Hunt and the Prime Minister as simply a lobbyist and "Walter Mitty" fantasist.
> The previously undisclosed meeting in November 2009 also shows how Mr Cameron was being assiduously courted by News Corp executives beyond the Murdoch family, as the company was gearing up for its bid to take over BSkyB.


----------



## London_Calling (May 6, 2012)

^ Cameron wasn't PM, which undermines the value somewhat.

Described alternatively as a "secret" meeting, an "undisclosed" meeting and "a Spanish news agency later reported details of the talks, but this was not picked up in the British press".

Plus, there were legit reasons for the meeting anyway (European centre-right politics) that all parties can hide behind. Which might be why the British press weren't interested at the time.

Apart from that, it's a great piece. Veh Sunday.


----------



## two sheds (May 7, 2012)

Yes, although 'if he had nothing to hide' why wasn't it declared. Good article by Gary Younge, I felt:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/06/leveson-murdoch-cameron-brooks-privilege



> The details of the main narrative bear repeating. We now know that James Murdoch met with David Cameron 12 times between January 2006 and January 2010 – eight times for dinner, twice for breakfast, once for lunch and once for drinks. Between May 2010 and July 2011 there were also more than 60 meetings between ministers and either Rupert Murdoch, his son James, the then News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks or James Harding, the editor of the Times. That averages around one a week. We know there were more, but not all were logged as such by Downing Street.


The article is called "A web of privilege supports this so-called meritocracy" and has: 



> The one job Cameron landed in the private sector was arranged by his wife's mother, Lady Astor, who was friends with Michael Green, then executive chairman of Carlton. Green gave Cameron a starting salary of £90,000. He has no more had to stand on his merits than James Murdoch had to interview for a job at News Corp.


 
The rest is worth reading, too.


----------



## agricola (May 7, 2012)

two sheds said:


> The rest is worth reading, too.


 
It is, though its impact is lessened by Younge failing to extend his argument to include Labour (even though he does come close on occasion).  In any case Peter Oborne has been making much the same argument - about the web of nepotism, the corruption, the lack of any experience outside of "politics" and the incompetence of the political class - for years.


----------



## London_Calling (May 7, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Yes, although 'if he had nothing to hide' why wasn't it declared .


The Opposition declare meetings - not a rule I've ever heard of?

The piece seems worthless.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 8, 2012)

Any news on the schedule for this week? There's nothing on the site?


----------



## agricola (May 8, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Any news on the schedule for this week? There's nothing on the site?


 


Or at least for me this weeks list is up there.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 8, 2012)

Sorry was looking at this (which usually has deets) http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/hearings/  Cheers tho


----------



## London_Calling (May 8, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Any news on the schedule for this week? There's nothing on the site?


  You even *liked* this post  :

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ws-of-the-world.277146/page-334#post-11136578


----------



## Ted Striker (May 8, 2012)

That was a long time ago 

That hearings page does need updating then dammit...It's making me look a FOOL in front of the internet


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 8, 2012)

So Thursday and Friday should be pretty interesting?


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2012)

> IamalrightJack
> @VirtualResistan Leveson Big story comming up in 5 mins about Coulson and Osborne bbcnews skynews Labour Cameron Murdoch #NotW Everyone RT!


----------



## London_Calling (May 8, 2012)

Enough of the silly bollocks, lets get back to  meat and beer:



> An emergency application was submitted to Lord Justice Leveson at 9.20am on Tuesday seeking to prevent the ministers' so-called "spads" getting sight of written statements submitted days and sometimes weeks before a witness testifies in person.
> 
> Four lobby groups – the Media Standards Trust, Index on Censorship, Full Fact and English Pen – made the application arguing that the special advisers are political appointees and should not be part of the inner circle of "core participants" given pre-publication access to witness statements.
> 
> "The public would be understandably disturbed if among those staff given access were some for whom partisan advocacy is one of their principal roles," they said in their submission.


Good to see the lobbyists elbowing in with a nice point well made - what say ye LJ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/08/leveson-inquiry-witness-statements

Big day Thursday - suggest pack a lunch and a thermos.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2012)

Seems to be this story from Aus:

Editor helped chancellor manipulate news

Radio transcript. Interview with Natalie Rowe and Mark Lewis, about how Coulson protected Osborne. Some smoke, can't see a whole lot of fire.


----------



## agricola (May 8, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Good to see the lobbyists elbowing in with a nice point well made - what say ye LJ?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/08/leveson-inquiry-witness-statements
> 
> Big day Thursday - suggest pack a lunch and a thermos.


 
It is a point well made, though I fear that the particular horse in question has long since ran off - given what has already happened with regards to confidential Leveson material being used for partisan political purposes by Labour its a bit unfair to deny the Coalition the same access.


----------



## elbows (May 9, 2012)

Rather light stuff this but I enjoy it anyway...



> David Cameron texted Rebekah Brooks in the week she quit as News International's chief executive over the phone-hacking scandal to tell her to keep her head up, it has been claimed in an updated biography of the prime minister.
> In a sign of his closeness to some of the most controversial News International chiefs Cameron told Brooks that she would get through her difficulties, just days before she stood down.
> It has also emerged that he agreed to met her at a point-to-point horse race so long as they were not seen together, and that he also pressed the Metropolitan police to review the Madeleine McCann case in May last year following pressure from Brooks.
> The prime minister then sent an intermediary to Brooks to explain why contacts had to be brought to an abrupt halt after she resigned. The authors say the gist of that message was 'Sorry I couldn't have been as loyal to you as you have been to me, but Ed Miliband had me on the run'."




http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/09/david-cameron-texted-rebekah-brooks

Don't worry Dave, you'll get through your difficulties too.


----------



## London_Calling (May 9, 2012)

Where is the leak coming from? Foreshadowing appearances - not good.


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2012)

> michaelhogan
> 
> Editor of Mail Online is at Leveson today. He'll be POURING HIS CURVES into a suit as we speak and FLAUNTING HIS FIGURE in a DARING tie


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2012)

george michael dropped another twitter bomb this morning - claims the NotW blackmailed a dude into claiming they'd had a grope on hampstead heath...

https://twitter.com/#!/GeorgeMichael


----------



## London_Calling (May 9, 2012)

I can't be the only one who feels ashamed to admit they allowed themselves to get side-tracked by issues like the future of the Murdochs, the future of their influence over media in this country, NI influence over Gov in general and this PM in particular - and what might mean for this entire Gov, the career of this PM - whether self-regulation is possible or desirable, etc, etc, when the central issue concerning the Leveson Public Inquiry remains George fucking Michael.

We've let the Internets down, let Urban down but, most of all, we have let ourselves down


----------



## agricola (May 9, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Where is the leak coming from? Foreshadowing appearances - not good.


 
Who would have thought allowing media outlets, various public and a bunch of politicians (with each group having its own skeletons in various closets) to have prior access to evidence would lead to leaks?


----------



## London_Calling (May 9, 2012)

I said where.


----------



## Streathamite (May 9, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Where is the leak coming from? Foreshadowing appearances - not good.


given it came in advance of the publication of cameron's updated biog, then 'from somebody at the book's publishers' is probably a fairly safe bet!


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> I can't be the only one who feels ashamed to admit they allowed themselves to get side-tracked by issues like the future of the Murdochs, the future of their influence over media in this country, NI influence over Gov in general and this PM in particular - and what might mean for this entire Gov, the career of this PM - whether self-regulation is possible or desirable, etc, etc, when the central issue concerning the Leveson Public Inquiry remains George fucking Michael.
> 
> We've let the Internets down, let Urban down but, most of all, we have let ourselves down


dickhead.


----------



## Balbi (May 9, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/09/andy-coulson-sensitive-meetings-no-10

DAMAGE CONTROL KLAXON ACTIVATED.

Expect another couple of innocuous stories for Cameron to claim 'BUT WE WELEASED IT!' while turning puce and sweating like a side of ham.


----------



## Balbi (May 9, 2012)

Also,



> "Ed Miliband had me on the run"


----------



## London_Calling (May 9, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> given it came in advance of the publication of cameron's updated biog, then 'from somebody at the book's publishers' is probably a fairly safe bet!


Decent enough shout.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 10, 2012)

I thought Coulson was up first, who's this Viscount Rothermere chappie?  

Ah, according to the Grauniad live blog - "chairman of Daily Mail & General Trust, publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Mail Online and Metro."


----------



## Santino (May 10, 2012)

Hurrah for the Blackshirts.


----------



## claphamboy (May 10, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> I thought Coulson was up first, who's this Viscount Rothermere chappie?
> 
> Ah, according to the Grauniad live blog - "chairman of Daily Mail & General Trust, publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Mail Online and Metro."


 
They should have saved keystokes and just listed him as 'a cunt'.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 10, 2012)

Rothermere's done, Coulson up next...?


----------



## gabi (May 10, 2012)

Leveson's going off on one here.. seemingly covering his arse in fact.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 10, 2012)

When/why was John Mullin called? He's not on the witness list


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 10, 2012)

Aha:


> Lord Justice Leveson says he has used section 21 of the Inquiries Act to "interpose" – or summon – the editor of the Independent on Sunday, John Mullin, after it published an article based on material in Andy Coulson's witness statement.
> He is the first national newspaper editor to be summoned in this way.


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2012)

Independent leaked some Coulson evidence. Mullin's not talking.


----------



## agricola (May 10, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Independent leaked some Coulson evidence. Mullin's not talking.


 
He is getting the full on "_You are an idiot, arent you_" treatment, its great fun when they do it to someone who isnt yourself.


----------



## Streathamite (May 10, 2012)

coulson's first wicket after lunch. should be fun.


----------



## London_Calling (May 10, 2012)

Coulson is  on now: Go Jay!


----------



## elbows (May 10, 2012)

Sport shield double plus convincing.


----------



## agricola (May 10, 2012)

What was that theory about people looking to the left just before they tell a lie?


----------



## gabi (May 10, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Coulson is on now: Go Jay!


 
unfortunately he's not allowed to ask about the hacking stuff as coulson's been arrested. bugger.


----------



## gabi (May 10, 2012)

> *fleetstreetfox *
> *tweets*: Coulson looks likes he's come to offer his condolences. #Leveson #RIPNOTW


----------



## claphamboy (May 10, 2012)

yeah, the black tie is an interesting choice.


----------



## gabi (May 10, 2012)

visibly looking more stressed now


----------



## DexterTCN (May 10, 2012)

So he wasn't actually interviewed for the job (tory pr) as well as not being vetted for it. It was just given to him...just like that.


----------



## two sheds (May 10, 2012)

Tbf it looks like that's how Cameron got his £90,000 a year first* job - it's probably how he thought it's normally done.

*Eta: and only proper


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 10, 2012)

Urgh, had a meeting which started at 2pm - what've I missed?


----------



## gabi (May 10, 2012)

Jay slowly grinding coulson down over being the link between Murdoch/Brooks and Cameron/Osbourne. Playing it pretty well so far though.


----------



## London_Calling (May 10, 2012)

Very high quality work from two very sharp operators.

Coulson is reading this game like Claude Makelele.


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2012)

Coulson is a bit of a cold fish, does not show much emotion, indeed I have only seen him smile fleetingly in the footage I have seen so far.


----------



## gabi (May 10, 2012)

He did use the word 'dickhead' at one point. and the bit about osborne, coke and hookers got a few laughs.


----------



## weltweit (May 10, 2012)

gabi said:


> He did use the word 'dickhead' at one point. and the bit about osborne, coke and hookers got a few laughs.


Oh, I missed that bit :-(


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2012)

Coulson's the smooth veneer that Shambolic Dave relied on, given this evidence.


----------



## laptop (May 10, 2012)

agricola said:


> What was that theory about people looking to the left just before they tell a lie?


 
_Up_ and to the left, unless they're left-handed, in which case... isn't it? Did he?


----------



## gabi (May 10, 2012)

He's looking at leveson when he's looking to the left


----------



## London_Calling (May 10, 2012)

Yep, glancing at Leveson.

Very measured and organised. I'd give him a job


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2012)

He's being vague, without being amnesiac. Cool customer.

Cameron won't manage being this cool.


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2012)

Seems staggering that noone in govt even asked Coulson about BSkyB given his N.I experience.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2012)

they doubtless did, he just doesn't recall. blatant stonewalling.


----------



## London_Calling (May 10, 2012)

It's quite wonderful to think of the kinds of people hanging onto every word of this in real time.


----------



## London_Calling (May 10, 2012)

Oh I see, entrance via the back door of No. 10 depended on whether the guest wanted to park there. Like Murdoch drives himself anywhere.


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)

Roll up! Roll up!!

Mrs Brooks is on stage in 30 minutes, reserve your seats now >>


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 11, 2012)

She's on all day I believe. Will she stonewall, or will she stick the boot in?


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

proper pantomime villain this one. should be good. i can almost sense jay smacking his lips.


----------



## Mephitic (May 11, 2012)

This should be interesting.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 11, 2012)

gabi said:


> proper pantomime villain this one.


Did you do that on purpose? 



> *9.57am:* Brooks arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice just before 9.15am in a black Land Rover, according to ITV News cameras.
> She was greeted by this pantomime horse, a reference to the "Horsegate" saga after it emerged earlier this year that David Cameron rode a retired police horse that had been lent to Brooks by Scotland Yard.
> Rich Peppiatt, the ex-Daily Star reporter turned tabloid mischief maker, is one of the people underneath the pantomime horse


 






Pretty sad looking panto horse, to be honest


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

Nope.  But im impressed at the dedication shown by that horse in sorting itself out this early to be down there. lookin properly ropey.


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

jesus. first impressions - nowhere near as polished as coulson. should be a field day.


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

'are you a believer in human rights?'

'not particularly, no'


----------



## Teaboy (May 11, 2012)

gabi said:


> 'are you a believer in human rights?'
> 
> 'not particularly, no'


 
Everything I've read about Brookes does scream sociopath.  But the internet is not the place for cod diaygnosis of mental conditions. 

Wait, what I am talking about..


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 11, 2012)

> Did Mr Cameron indirectly say keep your head up?
> "Along those lines, I don't think they were the exact words."
> Is the gist right?
> "Yes. It was indirect. It wasn't a direct text message."


How the fuck do you "indirectly" tell someone to keep their head up


----------



## elbows (May 11, 2012)

lol @ this wobbling about whether editors are a powerful unelected force.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 11, 2012)

Rebekah has seriously high-maintenance hair. I'm not sure where Jay is going here though, this seems like a confessional rather than an inquisition


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

He's a bit hamstrung by not being able to ask about hacking unfortunately


----------



## Ted Striker (May 11, 2012)

Wouldn't mind him digging her about the Harry Potter staff bulllying for the lols.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 11, 2012)

gabi said:


> He's a bit hamstrung by not being able to ask about hacking unfortunately


 
Ah, of course. I forgot there were some ongoing legal procedures.


----------



## Santino (May 11, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Wouldn't mind him digging her about the Harry Potter staff bulllying for the lols.


What if there's a Harry Potter emergency?


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

What's the legal situation regarding 'being under oath' vs 'im not revealing my sources'...?


----------



## laptop (May 11, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> How the fuck do you "indirectly" tell someone to keep their head up


 
You get "friends" to send the text.

Possibly actual "friends of the Prime Minister", rather than the Prime Minister speaking unattributably.

Or - note to briefs and the conspiracy-minded - send it from pseudonymous phone?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 11, 2012)

gabi said:


> What's the legal situation regarding 'being under oath' vs 'im not revealing my sources'...?


 
There's no explicit journalist protection in English law (after a quick Google, so take this with the necessary pinch of salt) but there is a long standing tradition of source confidentiality. Most US states have legislated a "shield law", although the federal govt has no such measure. The UK judiciary seems to trend towards the protect the journalist angle, following both the US precedents and also that of the ECHR


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> There's no explicit journalist protection in English law (after a quick Google, so take this with the necessary pinch of salt) but there is a long standing tradition of source confidentiality. Most US states have legislated a "shield law", although the federal govt has no such measure. The UK judiciary seems to trend towards the protect the journalist angle, following both the US precedents and also that of the ECHR


 
Fair enough. I think this calls for a spot of waterboarding then.


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2012)

Haven't seem that many of the hearings, but this is the most ratty I've seen Jay to be.


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

He's always a bit more cunty after a recess and a chance to talk to his team. brooks is getting good reviews on twitter so im assuming he's been told to go a bit harder.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 11, 2012)

"My main responsibility was to a readership."

Very blatant strategy, seems to be working for the most part.


----------



## laptop (May 11, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> There's no explicit journalist protection in English law (after a quick Google, so take this with the necessary pinch of salt)


 
There is precisely one, though it's not relevant to this question about questioning.

Under PACE 1988 journalistic notes and images are "special procedure material" and may not be seized without following, er, a special procedure - warrant from a judge.

In the Leveson context, that would apply to any searches of homes or offices...


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2012)

FFS Jay, get her to specify what the threats from Brown _were_.


----------



## agricola (May 11, 2012)

"I do like people, yes"

This is hilarious.


----------



## Balbi (May 11, 2012)

His questions on empathy were hilarious, as is Brooks' occasional 'I don't understand the question'


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

For a clearly highly intelligent woman her incomprehension of basic english is astonishing


----------



## Balbi (May 11, 2012)

Will Maddy stuff reveal it?

If Mohan talked to the Home Sec. that's another nail on Theresa May innit? Undue pressure?


----------



## agricola (May 11, 2012)

"I wouldnt call it a threat"
"Give me another word for threat, would you?"


----------



## Balbi (May 11, 2012)

Leveson's judgment on this enquiry could be fascinating. Cameron's appearance will be great, Jay will mince him.


----------



## Balbi (May 11, 2012)

agricola said:


> "I wouldnt call it a threat"
> "Give me another word for threat, would you?"


 
Leveson looked like he relished that.


----------



## agricola (May 11, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Leveson's judgment on this enquiry could be fascinating. Cameron's appearance will be great, Jay will mince him.


 
LOL

*gets coat*


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

I wouldn't underestimate cameron. for all his faults he's a very smooth operator. altho he seems to have missed blair's old trick when it came to inquirys like this - 'choose the right judge'


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 11, 2012)

It all seems a bit British and people not trying to offend each other.

"Well, I don't believe what you've said but you are a gentleman/lady and so I must not question what you've said"


----------



## Santino (May 11, 2012)

In Parliament Cameron's method for handling tricky questions is to offer a bland statement about something vaguely related to the topic. Not sure how that'll go down with a lawyer.


----------



## laptop (May 11, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> It all seems a bit British and people not trying to offend each other.
> 
> "Well, I don't believe what you've said but you are a gentleman/lady and so I must not question what you've said"


 
In the legal process, at the end of the quoted sentence there appears implicitly a very definite "*yet*".


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)

'DC' will no doubt be asking Leveson what 'BSkyB' means.

I though the timing was good, the tag team getting to the nub in the period before lunch break. Got past her guard a little then.

Need more on asserted influence over Gov appointments and policy.


----------



## agricola (May 11, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Need more on asserted influence over Gov appointments and policy.


 
Hopefully he will spend ages on that.  I forget whether this was in _Flat Earth News_ or one of the Oborne books, but during the Sarah's Law campaign the NOTW and Labour collaborated very closely indeed, with the NOTW being advised in advance of what the Government was doing.


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)

Well, we've had most of the set up, Team Leveson now has upwards of 2 1/2 hours to extract what they can ...

Fwiw, I thought she looked tired at the start - lack of sleep, I thought.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2012)

at the risk of the thread being overly heavy on 'stuff tom watson tweeted about', what's the thoughts on this? much wiggle room for dave or not?

http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/gotcha/


----------



## laptop (May 11, 2012)

killer b said:


> at the risk of the thread being overly heavy on 'stuff tom watson tweeted about', what's the thoughts on this? much wiggle room for dave or not?
> 
> http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/gotcha/


 
Well spotted that blogger.





			
				Coulson said:
			
		

> “*The second post-election meeting with Rupert Murdoch was in New York on the day Mayor Bloomberg organised a party in honour of the Prime Minister. Before the party Rupert Murdoch met David Cameron for around half an hour. He and I met briefly when he arrived, but I did not sit in on the meeting.*“


 

I'm sure there's a perfectly innocent explanation for Cameron's failure to report this meeting


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2012)

how many times are they going to have to revise that list of meetings?


----------



## laptop (May 11, 2012)

killer b said:


> how many times are they going to have to revise that list of meetings?


 
I believe the answer is that they'll asymptotically approach the true number.

In English: "forever".


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2012)

presumably the govt will have seen the witness statement beforehand. bit sloppy of them not to rush out another revision before coulson appeared... or perhaps they missed it too?


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2012)

Ever so slightly off topic, the performance of Coulsen and Wade in these sessions don't give me much confidence the police investigation will have got much on them/out of them. Can't see any actual prosecutions going beyond heads of particular news teams or journalists who hired private investigators. _Unless_... there is any documentary evidence of them knowingly authorising payments - or some smoking gun document where they have discussed hacking as a strategy. The latter is extremely unlikely, whereas the former is _just_ possible. Another 'follow the money' thing. _'You must have known'_ won't cut it for criminal prosecution.


----------



## laptop (May 11, 2012)

killer b said:


> presumably the govt will have seen the witness statement beforehand.


 
Did the ministers get Core Participant status? When?

If they haven't, or didn't before Coulson appeared, they shouldn't have seen it...


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2012)

laptop said:


> Did the ministers get Core Participant status? When?


i thought leveson had agreed to it last week?


----------



## laptop (May 11, 2012)

So he did - and Tuesday's application opposing this was a last-ditch protest...

In fact the Telegraph headlined:
*David Cameron granted right to see Andy Coulson's evidence in advance*

Right. Work.


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

the story about gordon brown's kid having cystic fybrosis is enough for a good punch imo


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

surely he's veering very close to the question of hacking here? thought that was out of bounds.


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

cunt. how in god's name is that story in the public interest..? leaving aside the issue of how she got it?



> *1450:*
> Mrs Brooks confirms that a story about Gordon Brown's son Fraser having cystic fibrosis came from the father of another child with the condition. Asked how that man got the information, Mrs Brooks says the Sun had been "absolutely satisfied" it was obtained by legitimate means.


----------



## agricola (May 11, 2012)

gabi said:


> cunt. how in god's name is that story in the public interest..? leaving aside the issue of how she got it?


 
She is claiming the Browns gave permission for them to run the story - which you would think has to be written down somewhere.

ps:  Jay really kicking off now


----------



## Gingerman (May 11, 2012)

Cameron LOL


----------



## agricola (May 11, 2012)

Anyone know when Brown will be making an appearance at this (if he hasnt already)?


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

not sure. leveson seems to be able to choose who he calls a week or so in advance though based on what hes heard. ali campbell next week i think..?


----------



## two sheds (May 11, 2012)

agricola said:


> She is claiming the Browns gave permission for them to run the story - which you would think has to be written down somewhere.


 
I remember reading about that - as I remember they phoned him up saying they were printing the story and he didn't really seem to have a lot of choice.


----------



## little_legs (May 11, 2012)

two sheds said:


> I remember reading about that - as I remember they phoned him up saying they were printing the story and he didn't really seem to have a lot of choice.


 
_The Sun doesn't 'threaten' people, it 'persuades' them _


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2012)

two sheds said:


> I remember reading about that - as I remember they phoned him up saying they were printing the story and he didn't really seem to have a lot of choice.


brown said this in parliament last year iirc. don't think it had been claimed anywhere before that.


----------



## two sheds (May 11, 2012)

Isn't this revealing about Cameron et al's priorities:


*News Corp lobbyist claimed Jeremy Hunt asked him for advice on hacking*

*Live* • Email to Rebekah Brooks from Frédéric Michel claimed culture secretary wanted advice 'to guide his and No 10's positioning'
Not interested in legality or ethical conduct then, just how it looks to the outer world.


----------



## 1%er (May 11, 2012)

laptop said:


> Did the ministers get Core Participant status? When?
> 
> If they haven't, or didn't before Coulson appeared, they shouldn't have seen it...


I watch the ruling a couple of days ago (you can see it here). I'm sure Leveson made it clear that he had all but one statement from ministers in his position and the one he didn't have was expected that day, so the ministers would not have see the statements as "core participants" prior to them submitting their own statements.

That does not mean they didn't see the statements by some other means prior to making their own.


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)

Didn't get far at all on the breach of confidentiality issue - other than to confirm Brown as an opportunist cunt.

Leveson keen on the ethics of the use of "smear" though.

Not sure why "shattered dad" did that in the first place ...


----------



## gosub (May 11, 2012)

little_legs said:


> _The Sun doesn't 'threaten' people, it 'persuades' them _


What, dan like the dominatrix in the max moseley story - help us or we'll run a cop's wife works in vice den story


----------



## Teaboy (May 11, 2012)

I thought the the story about Brown's child came from a source inside the hospital, thats what I understood anyway.


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

christ... her hair has been steadily gettin more and more out of control thru the day..   would love to see a before and after shot


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> I thought the the story about Brown's child came from a source inside the hospital, thats what I understood anyway.


Presumably from Gordon Brown's statement in Parliament ...


----------



## 1%er (May 11, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Leveson keen on the ethics of the use of "smear" though.


"attack is the best first form of defense" is a term Leveson has used a few times now when talking to editors and reporters, I bet it appears in his report


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)

Indeed; in the 'Morality and Ethics' section, you imagine.

Brooks using the trusty shield of an Affidavit signed by "shattered dad" rather set Mr Jay back.


----------



## 1%er (May 11, 2012)

sophistry is a word that seems to keep popping into my head.


----------



## Mephitic (May 11, 2012)

'She’s a fucking horrible loathsome cunt' keeps popping into mine.


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)

The Guardian is quick off the mark:


> *LOL: A quick guide to text speak for David Cameron*
> *ROFL:* Rebekah, On For Lunch?
> *FFS:* Freud Fixed Shenanigans
> *FFS:* Fuck! Farewell Sky
> ...


The last one is almost amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/shortcuts/2012/may/11/davidcameron-rebekahwade


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

ross kemp must be fucking loving this


----------



## Teaboy (May 11, 2012)

gabi said:


> ross kemp must be fucking loving this


 
Yeah, she got arrested for some sort of domestic abuse thing when they were married. A throughly nice person is our Rebekah, Dave chooses such great mates.


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)

tbf, who wouldn't want to thump Ross Kemp.


----------



## Teaboy (May 11, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> tbf, who wouldn't want to thump Ross Kemp.


 
LC is excusing domestic abuse shocker.  Read all about it in your shameful souraway Sun.


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)




----------



## Ted Striker (May 11, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> tbf, who wouldn't want to thump Ross Kemp.


Rather fold him tbh


----------



## Teaboy (May 11, 2012)

Forces sweetheart.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 11, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Forces sweetheart.


 
To do what?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 11, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Rather fold him tbh


 
Is that Phil?


----------



## gabi (May 11, 2012)

did she just break down in tears?


----------



## Zabo (May 11, 2012)

They need this.

http://www.lolcameron.com/


----------



## Mephitic (May 11, 2012)

gabi said:


> did she just break down in tears?


 
i missed the last 45 minutes, stupid work getting in the way, did she really blub?


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)




----------



## Mephitic (May 11, 2012)

London_Calling said:


>


 
cant see that image..........


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Rather fold him tbh


 
That just makes him look like Al Murray's "Pub Landlord" character.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 11, 2012)

http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/



> I wrote yesterday about Andy Coulson giving details of a private meeting between David Cameron and Rupert Murdoch in New York, which seems to have eluded the PM’s recollection. I encourage you to​​*read that short post*​
> .​Thanks to some collective detective work with *@cjjmccray* *@robindbrant* *@andrew2186*, prompted by *@suttonnick*, the following has emerged:​- The July meeting in question appears to have been issued by number 10 as an “addendum” months after Cameron claimed to have published the complete list. You can *find this document here*. The July meeting is buried in a single line on the last page (page 10) of the document.​*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Roadkill (May 11, 2012)

Spotted outside the enquiry this afternoon:


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2012)

another strongly worded statement from brown.


----------



## UrbaneFox (May 11, 2012)

From today's stuff, Brown, if not his wife, is coming out of this in the best light.


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)

He really is properly fucked up. 'psychologically flawed' was an understatement.


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> He really is properly fucked up. 'psychologically flawed' was an understatement.


Yep, however vile Brooks and the Sun were over his son Frazer, it's hard to avoid the conclusion he was more willing to take her on over abandoning support for Labour (than revealing the medical details).  I'm sure he was destroyed by them using his son for a headline, but he wasn't willing to risk everything over it.


----------



## spikey_r (May 11, 2012)

just found next week's witness list:

Monday: Alastair Campbell, Lord O'Donnell
Tuesday: Adam Boulton, Lord Wakeham
Wednesday: Jack Straw MP
Thursday: Sir Harold Evans, Peter Osborne
Friday - Non Sitting Day
All Timings 10:00 - 16:30
http:/ /www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-List-14-17-May-20121.pdf


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2012)

Wonder what Robert Jay and Lord Leveson do on 'non sitting days'?  I have an image of them doing languid but elegant things on a chaise longue.  Alternately, they might just tuck into oven chips and beans, whilst pondering the implications of the pasty tax...


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2012)

prepare, i expect. they don't just pull their questions out of their arses.


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2012)

killer b said:


> prepare, i expect. they don't just pull their questions out of their arses.


Had a feeling it might be something like that. 

Actually, 'sitting' is probably what Robert Jay does on his days off, given that he spends the rest of his time stood up but leaning forward ever so insouicantly.  There'll be tyro barristers all over the country practising beard growth and the forward-lean-towards-camera.  His Bafta's in the bag.


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)

Yep. Just a bit of prep for the witnesses. Plus, they'll be making contemporaneous notes, discussing and drafting ideas and thoughts as they go - there's a fucking mental scale Report to produce at the end of all this. There are on going submissions from representative of related parties, witness statements to trawl through, evidence arriving, police briefings about the state of their various inquiries… just shed loads.

If you look around the room, you get a sense of the size of the Secretariat attached to Leveson - and they all have a role.


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2012)

Jay is very impressive really given the amount he has to retain - and update in light of each day's further evidence.  He also seems to be on stage for at least part of every session and knows there is a whole internet ready to dive in if he misses a trick.  Will also be a lot going on offstage to stay clear of the police investigation.


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)

If you go back a couple of hundred pages, there are a whole bunch of people on here who thought the idiots on the Select Committee did a very good job on Rupes and James, and were at least the match of suffed-shirt lawyers - basically the job had been done.

But yup, Jay is doing very well. Leveson himself lays on the theatrical gravitas-pause too much but it's also got him where he is, and he does get them thinking properly.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2012)

i don't think that's fair l_c. a lack of faith in judicial inquiries is hardly an unjustified position to take.

this has certainly exceeded my expectations so far, have to say. is it the first time something like this has been streamed live? if so, i wonder what effect that's had on the proceedings?


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)

The point was peoples' belief in the skill and ability of the Select Committee. Lawyers they're not, self-agrandising, grandstanding out-of-their-depth and clueless they mostly were.


----------



## Balbi (May 11, 2012)

UrbaneFox said:


> From today's stuff, Brown, if not his wife, is coming out of this in the best light.


 
History could treat Brown more kindly than his predecessor or successor.


----------



## London_Calling (May 11, 2012)

Not unless it's written by a psycopath.


----------



## Balbi (May 11, 2012)

I disagree - Blair started with a fresh deck, and slowly ripped his cards up. Brown jockeyed for the job for years, took it on with a tired government, made the right choices when Lehmanns went down and was binned off for personal flaws. Cameron, well - fuck


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> The point was peoples' belief in the skill and ability of the Select Committee. Lawyers they're not, self-agrandising, grandstanding out-of-their-depth and clueless they mostly were.


whatever. i think any comments in favour of the select committee before the inquiry kicked off have to be seen in the context of the the inquiry being the whitewash most of us expected. it hasn't worked out that way so far. good.


----------



## ymu (May 11, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/


Tom Watson has picked it up and written to Jeremy Heywood:

Tricky: The PM has breached the ministerial code.


----------



## agricola (May 11, 2012)

spikey_r said:


> just found next week's witness list:
> 
> Monday: Alastair Campbell, Lord O'Donnell
> Tuesday: Adam Boulton, Lord Wakeham
> ...


 
Its actually Peter Oborne, so at least his bit of Thursday might be quite entertaining.


----------



## 8115 (May 11, 2012)

Bit late to this, did Cameron habitually end his texts with LOL?  And why didn't Brookes text him back and tell him what it means?  I bet Cameron texts like a grandparent, holding the phone at arms lengths and texting with both thumbs looking confused.  What a cunt.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 11, 2012)

ymu said:


> Tom Watson has picked it up and written to Jeremy Heywood:
> 
> Tricky: The PM has breached the ministerial code.


 


> While it is certainly not possible for Downing Street to detail everyone Mr Cameron meets at an event, _The Telegraph_ makes the astonishing allegation that the pair (Dave and Coulson, added by dex) texted each other on their mobile phones to ensure they were not spotted together, and that the release of photographs of this encounter have since been suppressed at Mr Cameron’s request.


 
If proved, that's fatal, isn't it?


----------



## Wilf (May 11, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> If proved, that's fatal, isn't it?


Memory failing me (even from this afternoon), but didn't get Brooks get asked that, but never get round to answering due to some hamfisted intervention by leveson?

Edit: even more befuddled than I thought, I mean didn't _coulson_ get asked that yesterday (and not answer).


----------



## DexterTCN (May 11, 2012)

I don't think Coulson answered much _at all_.   It was easily his best performance, Jay being entirely hamstrung by the charges against him a major contributor it would be reasonable to assume.

The whole 'charges' thing is turning out to be a double-edged sword, entertainment-wise.


----------



## agricola (May 12, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> If proved, that's fatal, isn't it?


 
It wont be. At least one of those disappeared meetings they will be able to argue was an innocent mistake (they did publish it, just not in the "new" list), and with regards to Brooks Cameron will always be able to make the argument that they are neighbours. As for breaching the minsterial code, the section that Watson cites did come in *after* both of these incidents, I would be amazed if it is retrospective.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 12, 2012)

It's a pretty big straw for that particular camel's back.


----------



## spikey_r (May 12, 2012)

agricola said:


> Its actually Peter Oborne, so at least his bit of Thursday might be quite entertaining.


 
my mistake


----------



## Badgers (May 12, 2012)

http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2012/05/tricky-the-pm-has-breached-the-ministerial-code

Letter from Tom Watson..


----------



## Gingerman (May 14, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18062485


----------



## yardbird (May 14, 2012)

Perverting the course of justice -
Maximum of Life more likely 4 years if guilty


----------



## Wilf (May 14, 2012)

Grauniad suggests several of the others potentially charged are her underlings - driver, head of security, PA + husband - suggests that if they get charged, she has to.  I'm not expecting much, to be honest, she sounded fairly confident last week. Even if it was a different enquiry you'd think she'd have been shitting bricks if porridge awaited.


----------



## yardbird (May 15, 2012)

Rebecacacah and Charlie ARE going to be charged with Perverting the Course of justice!!!


----------



## Lock&Light (May 15, 2012)

Both Brooks to be charged with perverting, the BBC has said.


----------



## weltweit (May 15, 2012)

So, it was the laptop computer wot done it ....


----------



## DexterTCN (May 15, 2012)

Amazingly. awesomely wonderful.


----------



## claphamboy (May 15, 2012)

Would it be rude to snigger at this point?


----------



## claphamboy (May 15, 2012)

Fuck it!


----------



## DexterTCN (May 15, 2012)

3 charges of conspiracy to pervert.


----------



## yardbird (May 15, 2012)

It is or will soon become sub and we've all been warned.
She's been charged with three counts of perversion.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 15, 2012)

yardbird said:


> She's been charged with three counts of perversion.


 
Being ginger is against neither nature nor statute, dammit


----------



## Ted Striker (May 15, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Both Brooks to be charged with perverting, the BBC has said.


 
For Spaceballs?


----------



## gabi (May 15, 2012)

LOL


----------



## London_Calling (May 15, 2012)

The Murdochs, Brooks, Coulson - yesterday Campbell: I, for one, am so pleased these people are giving their evidence under oath. God only knows what fibs they might be otherwise tempted to utter.

Re Perverting the Course of Justice: Quite looking forward to the cctv of Charlie dumping the laptop and iPad in the bins.


----------



## yardbird (May 15, 2012)

Brooks dragged in her PA and her driver - not fair. The bitch!


----------



## Schmetterling (May 15, 2012)

Mwuuuaaaahhhaahahaaaaaa! 
Anyone remember a programme on BBC (I think) last year set in a tabloid newspaper that was heavily 'based' on events around NOFW and Sun?  The editor asking her PA to get a piece of paper out of a visitor's jacket for her?   That is how PA and driver were dragged into this.  Nasty, nasty runt!


----------



## yardbird (May 15, 2012)

It's possible that the driver and the PA might just put their hands up.
I mean, would you chance four years for doing what your boss told you to do?


----------



## claphamboy (May 15, 2012)

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when Murdoch heard the news.


----------



## London_Calling (May 15, 2012)

Bingo!​

> Rebekah Brooks, the former chief executive of News International,* is to be charged with perverting the course of justice*, the Crown Prosecution Service said on Tuesday.





> She faces three charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice including the alleged removal of seven cases of material from the archive of News International and the concealing of documents and computers from officers investigating phone hacking.​​Brooks, who was arrested in March by Scotland Yard police officers investigating phone hacking, is the first person to face charges in the major criminal investigation into hacking and allegations of bribing public officials.​Her husband, Charlie Brooks, the racehorse trainer and friend of the prime minister, is also to be charged, the CPS announced.​​Four other people are also being charged with perverting the course of justice. One other person who was arrested will not face charges.​


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/15/rebekah-brooks-charged-perverting-course-justice​​​On this charge, prima facia, I think they can nail Charlie, but Rebekah? Depends on what else they have, and how it stands up in court ...​


----------



## Badgers (May 15, 2012)

Sentence? 

Serious offence, jail possible but will she won't she? Any recent precedent to guide the court?


----------



## yardbird (May 15, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Sentence?
> 
> Serious offence, jail possible but will she won't she? Any recent precedent to guide the court?


Very serious offence.


----------



## London_Calling (May 15, 2012)

Got to convince a jury first. Long, long way to go.


----------



## gabi (May 15, 2012)

4 years min i think


----------



## London_Calling (May 15, 2012)

No. LOL.


----------



## yardbird (May 15, 2012)

gabi said:


> 4 years min i think


Yup.
No fine or community service for this.


----------



## OneStrike (May 15, 2012)

Maximum tariff is life!  4years more likely though.


----------



## Streathamite (May 15, 2012)

with any luck, the chauffeur and the PA will turn QE.
oh joyous day....


----------



## Dan U (May 15, 2012)

its lucky the Brook's both bought themselves a baby just in time to dangle it in front of a judge at sentencing...

(assuming they are found guilty of course)


----------



## yardbird (May 15, 2012)

The CPS and the police know what she's like and capable off.
My guess is that they will have built a solid case - I'm interested in the one person in her group who is _not_ being charged.


----------



## Dan U (May 15, 2012)

she put her own press release out as well before the CPS it seems. should go down well.


----------



## yardbird (May 15, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> with any luck, the chauffeur and the PA will turn QE.
> oh joyous day....


"No further action will be taken regarding the seventh suspect"
Wonder why?


----------



## Schmetterling (May 15, 2012)

Dan U said:


> its lucky the Brook's both bought themselves a baby just in time to dangle it in front of a judge at sentencing...
> 
> (assuming they are found guilty of course)


 
Agreed! 



yardbird said:


> The CPS and the police know what she's like and capable off.
> My guess is that they will have built a solid case - I'm interested in the one person in her group who is _not_ being charged.


 
And describing the CPS as 'posturing' will go down really well.... 



yardbird said:


> It's possible that the driver and the PA might just put their hands up.
> I mean, would you chance four years for doing what your boss told you to do?


 
The PA has been groomed/had loyalty instilled in her for years.  Possibly some Scientology 'I know things about you' base.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (May 15, 2012)

I only I have one word at this moment but it's a big one

_Schadenfreude_


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

Wonder if Dave sticks by his friends? Lots of love.
I just hope the police horse isn't taking it badly.


----------



## London_Calling (May 15, 2012)

This is much stronger on Brooks and the Perversion charge:


> Brooks is accused of removing boxes from NI between 6 July 2011-9 July 2011. She resigned as CEO 15 July 2011


Decent. Pretty decent.


----------



## killer b (May 15, 2012)

leveson: at 1400 I intend to say something about recent events that will be of some significance


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 15, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Wonder if Dave sticks by his friends? Lots of love.
> I just hope the police horse isn't taking it badly.


 
Raisa is the glue that bonds Bex & Dave.


----------



## London_Calling (May 15, 2012)

What's nice about this is that (charged) criminality is now in the same social circle as Disco Dave and Osbourne. Not yet the same room, and not yet in Downing Street - but there is still Jeremy Hunt and Andy Coulson (if not others).

Also, this obv. goes to corp gov and the Murdoch's position of knowing nuffin while criminals ran their businesses (Brooks being Chief Exec of News Int.). Paging OfCom ...


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 15, 2012)

Brookes charged !

get in


----------



## laptop (May 15, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Sentence?
> 
> Serious offence, jail possible but will she won't she? Any recent precedent to guide the court?


 
1999: Jonathan Aitken: perjury and perverting the course of justice, 18 months.

2001: Jeffrey Archer: perjury and perverting the course of justice, 4 years.

2010: Ali Dizaei*: *corruption in a public office and perverting the course of justice, 4 years (quashed 2011 and re-convicted 2012).

Brooks charged, at present, with PtCoJ & conspiring to the same, only: but the alleged destruction of evidence could, if proven, make the offence more severe.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 15, 2012)

I agree that the CPS wouldn't have charged them unless they had them pretty much bang to rights.

I would just like to say ...
Best. Scandal. Ever.

The Met in the dock.
Murdoch and son run out of town, their bid for BSKyB fucked and their cancerous presence at the heart of british politics a thing of the past.
The Vile brooks looking at prison - probably followed by many others. 
Hunt toast.
The tories getting sucked ever deeper into the sleeze.

And a growing possibiltiy that this will finish Cameron off. He's vuneralbe in many differnt parts of this - incriminating e-mails and texts, lieing about meetings,Coulsons lack of security clearence - sooner or later the irrifutable evidence will emerge that proves that he has lied will emerge and he will have to resign.

And its all rather delicioulsy ironic that the toxic 'fact' that released a tidal wave of public disgust, the made an thorough investigation unavoidable - the deleting of milly downers voic mail messages by a NOTW hack - didn't actually happen!


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 15, 2012)

shye has a young un though hasnt she ? Mitigation ?


----------



## killer b (May 15, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> I agree that the CPS wouldn't have charged them unless they had them pretty much bang to rights.


 
i'd avoid such idle speculation now it's sub judice tbh


----------



## laptop (May 15, 2012)

killer b said:


> i'd avoid such idle speculation now it's sub judice tbh


 
Though it's a matter of public policy that the CPS won't press charges unless they consider conviction more likely than not (unless there are other pressing public policy concerns - which as far as I remember apply mostly to rape charges).


----------



## coltrane (May 15, 2012)

The accused Brooks heading to Lewisham Cop Shop today. She is being charged with being a conspiring pervert.


----------



## laptop (May 15, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> the deleting of milly downer's voice-mail messages by a NOTW hack - didn't actually happen!


 
Even that is a matter entirely for the you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

There is _an hypothesis_ that auto-deletion occurred. There is _an hypothesis _that a servant of the accused did it to make space - not ruled out by the accused's own statements to date.


----------



## killer b (May 15, 2012)

sure, but there's a difference between 'think they can secure a conviction' and 'had them bang to rights'. if you're happy though, no worries. just thought it worth raising...


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 15, 2012)

I was pointing out that  - seeing as Brooks is very well coneccted and will have top drawer legal people, the CPS must be pretty sure of themselves.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 15, 2012)

this has made my morning


----------



## Roadkill (May 15, 2012)

killer b said:


> i'd avoid such idle speculation now it's sub judice tbh


 
Tbh I've not the breath to engage in idle speculation, 'cos I'm still laughing too much.


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

I know the police got their hands on the laptop, presumably they also retrieved the 'several boxes from the NOTW archive' that were mentioned in the charges?  [not sub judice I'd have thought as it was discussed at the time]


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 15, 2012)

Bah - Levesons 'significent statement' was not any sort of bombshell - just some arcane bollocks about procedure.


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Bah - Levesons 'significent statement' was not any sort of bombshell - just some arcane bollocks about procedure.


 He's shite at drama, wants to get some decent advice from Stalinists about running show trials.


----------



## gabi (May 15, 2012)

i think what he was trying to say under all that waffle was 'don't rely on me to get you off the hook you slimy cunts' (at hunt/cameron)


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 15, 2012)

Going back to the brooks perving of justice - as well as them facing jail if convicted - it all rather strongly suggests that their was some incriminating evidence against them wrt to phone hacking etc - and that now is in the hands of the cops.


----------



## Roadkill (May 15, 2012)

Someone said a page or two back they'd have loved to be a fly on the wall of Rupert Murdoch's office when he got the news.  So would I, but I'd also love to have been there to see the Prime Minister's reaction.  From his PoV this is not a good development, if only because his mates might end up in chokey.


----------



## gabi (May 15, 2012)

i think he was half-way thru a cabinet meeting when the charges were announced.. presumably he knew before that tho


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 15, 2012)

Cameron can take her cakes when she's in Holloway. LOL.


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Cameron can take her cakes when she's in Holloway. LOL.


 At least she's nothing to fear from prison. Several NI titles have made it clear over the years that it's real cushy, colour telly and x-boxes.  Might even get conjugal visits. Oh, hang on...


----------



## Lock&Light (May 15, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Bah - Levesons 'significent statement' was not any sort of bombshell - just some arcane bollocks about procedure.


 
A potential clash with Parliament (in the form of its Speaker) is more than "just some arcane bollocks about procedure" and I think it could be highly significant.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 15, 2012)

"The former News of the World editor and her husband said in a statement: "We deplore this weak and unjust decision."

lololololololololololololololololololol


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

Labour must be working furiously on how they allude to this and keep the Cameron-Wade link to the forefront, without looking too opportunistic.


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

not-bono-ever said:


> lololololololololololololololololololol


 and lots of love to you too.


----------



## agricola (May 15, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Going back to the brooks perving of justice - as well as them facing jail if convicted - it all rather strongly suggests that their was some incriminating evidence against them wrt to phone hacking etc - and that now is in the hands of the cops.


 
It doesnt have to mean that - merely doing an act which is intended to pervert the course of justice is enough.  Also the Guardian have a bit more detail on the specific charges:



> Brooks is accused in one charge of conspiring with her PA, Cheryl Carter, to "remove seven boxes of material from the archives of News International".
> In a separate charge she is accused of conspiring with her husband, (Mark, head of security at NI) Hanna, her chauffeur and a security consultant to conceal "documents and computers" from the investigating detectives. All the offences are alleged to have taken place in July last year.
> Alison Levitt QC, Starmer's principal legal adviser, said the decision to charge six of the seven individuals arrested over the allegations came after prosecutors applied the two-stage test required of them when making charging decisions.


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

If I remember corrently, Grant Mitchell used to turn to his solicitor, Marcus, when he was in a pickle. Wonder if he can work his magic?


----------



## London_Calling (May 15, 2012)

tb.


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

Wonder if the Oxfordshire set will be getting a fighting fund together for the 'Chipping Norton 2'?  The usual stuff I suppose, local punk bands playing benefits, tombolas, meat raffles...


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 15, 2012)

Wilf said:


> ...meat raffles...


 
Poor Raisa


----------



## Roadkill (May 15, 2012)

Wilf said:


> and lots of love to you too.


----------



## yardbird (May 15, 2012)

Memo to Dave:
From Us:
I think that you now know what lol means.
Lol


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Poor Raisa


 Strangely enough, horses from one of Leicestershire's fox hunting packs decided to donate a leg each, bizarrely to have it replaced by some kind of meat substitute! Think it was the Quorn Hunt...


----------



## two sheds (May 15, 2012)

Could I say - just in case I were to be selected for jury service in this case - that I'm not at all sure that Ms. Brooks is guilty.


----------



## yardbird (May 15, 2012)

I just spend lunchtime with a Sunday Times journo and an Express journo.
There was lots of smiles and laughter.
Lots.

They think that someone close to Reb has spilt the beans.


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

By the way, _*GOTCHA!*_


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

Wonder who she'll have as character wintesses? Her well connected address book has probably started to shrink a bit.

Edit: must calm down, back to work.


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

Wonder if her and Charlie will dance on an SUV before the trial? Well, it worked for Mikey Jackson.


----------



## teqniq (May 15, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> Would it be rude to snigger at this point?


he he he


----------



## Schmetterling (May 15, 2012)

yardbird said:


> I just spend lunchtime with a Sunday Times journo and an Express journo.
> There was lots of smiles and laughter.
> Lots.
> 
> They think that someone close to Reb has spilt the beans.


The '*seven* cases' and the individuals named made me think that and that they have CCTV/surveillance footage.
I loved the psychology of them being charged at different police stations - although, of course, that could have been for operational reasons.
Imagine it was Mr Brooks who had dobbed her in. He doesn't look to bright! Which is probably why she married him. 
...cannot see anything on The Sun website about this...


ETA: Apols for my lack of intelligent analysis surplanted by bitching!


----------



## yardbird (May 15, 2012)

ALERT    
The Brooks are going to talk in a few minutes - Radio5, they will break into the program when they  start.
It's now 5.10.....waiting


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

Schmetterling said:


> The '*seven* cases' and the individuals named made me think that and that they have CCTV/surveillance footage.
> I loved the psychology of them being charged at different police stations - although, of course, that could have been for operational reasons.
> Imagine it was Mr Brooks who had dobbed her in. He doesn't look to bright! Which is probably why she married him.


Grant Mitchell has read all those Andy McNab books. _He'd_ have disabled the CCTV with his (borrowed) SAS dagger.


----------



## Mephitic (May 15, 2012)

Meh.. can't listen to it on the internet, live player crap.. what are they saying?

Edit: Ahah! got it working, stupid flash player....

Edit2 Sigh, Caught the last 60 seconds....


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

'There's no way you can ever permanently delete information off a laptop'
'Oh, right, I'll just chuck it in this bin then'


----------



## Schmetterling (May 15, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> Meh.. can't listen to it on the internet, live player crap.. what are they saying?


 Neeeeeiiigh!


----------



## gabi (May 15, 2012)

Unfortunate use of the word 'witchhunt' there


----------



## claphamboy (May 15, 2012)

yardbird said:


> ALERT
> The Brooks are going to talk in a few minutes - Radio5, they will break into the program when they start.
> It's now 5.10.....waiting


 
Bollocks, I was distracted by bloody work just caught the last couple of seconds of a replay. 

Looking forward to seeing the full replay, over, over, over, over, & over again.


----------



## yardbird (May 15, 2012)

This is trivial, but how can being charged be _unjust_ ?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 15, 2012)

Expensive sideshow, Bob


----------



## laptop (May 15, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Could I say - just in case I were to be selected for jury service in this case - that I'm not at all sure that Ms. Brooks is guilty.


 
I, too, am a very fair-minded Spartacus.


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

There's a railway bridge near me which is virtual crims message board with 'xxxx is a grass', 'xxxx is innocent'. Wonder if the porticos and stables of Chipping Norton will be seeing similar acts of vandalism? I sincerely hope not.


----------



## claphamboy (May 15, 2012)

I've seen the replay in full now....

...what a magic moment of moaning.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 15, 2012)

I am shocked that anyone would suggest that a racehorse trainer might be involved in anything improper.


----------



## gosub (May 15, 2012)

Fair point from the husband about not being able to get a fair trail coz of all the stuff in media.. That's perverting justice, a serious charge and they should throw the book at those oh hang on


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 15, 2012)

It's a sad day indeed when the general public conspires together to denigrate and mock innocent members of the tabloid newspaper editing community.


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

Yes, racehorse trainer and tabloid editor taking the oath in court:
'I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth...'.

Surely, we have to show some _cultural sensitivity_ here? In their culture, you can't be expected to speak the truth. Imposing our values shows no awareness of other groups and their values. The worst sort of colonial imposition I'd say. 

Edit: Beaten to it! Scooped!


----------



## yardbird (May 15, 2012)

If ever there were a good argument for cameras in court


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> I've seen the replay in full now....
> 
> ...what a magic moment of moaning.


 The Babbling Brooks? 

> coat


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 15, 2012)

It's all about the whining & dining (on expenses), baby.


----------



## Wilf (May 15, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's all about the whining & dining (on expenses), baby.


A certain red headed lady getting her 5 a day:
Edit: when I posted that at work the pic looked like a woman with red hair - and now I can see it's a black bloke!  My eyesight's getting worse and I'm now on annual eye tests, but I think they may need to increase that!


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 15, 2012)

If Charlie Brooks was a new inmate in _Oz_ he would totally be shanked before the first ad break 

I suspect Bex might fare better in _Bad Girls_, possibly as a pretender to the Top Dog throne; but ultimately her bullying of vulnerable cons into perverted pyjama party antics, and her constant grassing to the screws for extra privileges, would leave her isolated on the wing.


----------



## London_Calling (May 15, 2012)

tbf, Screenwipe was quite good but it went downhill from 10 o'clock Live onwards.


----------



## ohmyliver (May 16, 2012)

entertaining Mirror headline:


----------



## shaman75 (May 16, 2012)

it's a bit more punchy than the sun's headline


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 16, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> her bullying of vulnerable cons into perverted pyjama party antics,.


 
I want to see that episode


----------



## DotCommunist (May 16, 2012)

I wish tablods would stop using the word 'probe' my mind automatically prefixes it with 'anal'


----------



## claphamboy (May 16, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I wish tablods would stop using the word 'probe' my mind automatically prefixes it with 'anal'


 
Wishful thinking, innit.


----------



## teqniq (May 16, 2012)




----------



## barney_pig (May 16, 2012)

teqniq said:


>


cockers?


----------



## gabi (May 16, 2012)

i see the sun still isn't covering this story  instead going with this...



> *50 Romanian beggars set up camp on London's Park Lane*​
> THE scruffy gypsies have swept into the millionaires' row and nearby Marble Arch​


​


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 16, 2012)

gabi said:


> i see the sun still isn't covering this story  instead going with this...
> 
> 
> > *50 Romanian beggars set up camp on London's Park Lane*
> > THE scruffy gypsies have swept into the millionaires' row and nearby Marble Arch


 
Well, someone has to ensure that the rights of the much-sidelined millionaire community to live in Gypsyless bliss per their cultural heritage are not forgotten amidst all the needless babble about collusion, subornation, corruption and other such fripperies.


----------



## Schmetterling (May 16, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> If Charlie Brooks was a new inmate in _Oz_ he would totally be shanked before the first ad break
> 
> I suspect Bex might fare better in _Bad Girls_, possibly as a pretender to the Top Dog throne; but ultimately her bullying of vulnerable cons into perverted pyjama party antics, and her constant grassing to the screws for extra privileges, would leave her isolated on the wing.


Vinegar Tits!


----------



## teqniq (May 16, 2012)

gabi said:


> Unfortunate use of the word 'witchhunt' there


As if by magic:

Rebekah Brooks faces trial by ducking stool



> Amidst claims that her arrest is part of a witch hunt, it has been revealed that Rebekah Brooks will face trial by ducking stool.
> 
> With drowning indicating innocence and floating being a sure sign of guilt, Brooks’ legal team are pinning their hopes on her being able to breathe through her arse as well as she can talk out of it.
> 
> ...


----------



## coltrane (May 16, 2012)

shaman75 said:


> it's a bit more punchy than the sun's headline


 
The Sun has a long and storied history of abhorring biased coverage that would prejudice any forthcoming trials doncha know.

At this rate the only unbiased jurors available for any Brooks trial(s) will be Sun readers. Nice to see the Sun performing such an important public service.


----------



## shaman75 (May 16, 2012)

I like the way they have just reverted to a standard 'look what those dirty arabs are doing with our sexy women' story.


----------



## Dan U (May 16, 2012)

i reckon The Sun is going to carry out some spectacular mid trial act of prejudice and ruin the whole thing

/conspiracy theory


----------



## Schmetterling (May 16, 2012)

Dan U said:


> i reckon The Sun is going to carry out some spectacular mid trial act of prejudice and ruin the whole thing
> 
> /conspiracy theory


 
Isn't that what the 'husband' told them to do yesterday at their 'press conference'?  They laid out exactly what they hoped will prejudice the trial.  She is a manipulative 'woman' and key words were not uttered without thought.


----------



## Dan U (May 16, 2012)

Schmetterling said:


> Isn't that what the 'husband' told them to do yesterday at their 'press conference'? They laid out exactly what they hoped will prejudice the trial. She is a manipulative 'woman' and key words were not uttered without thought.


 
yeah she is no ones fool for sure.

only time in my life i've wanted to be a juror tbh


----------



## Lock&Light (May 16, 2012)

Dan U said:


> i reckon The Sun is going to carry out some spectacular mid trial act of prejudice and ruin the whole thing
> 
> /conspiracy theory


 
That suggests that you don't think Murdoch is about to drop Brooks like a hot potato.


----------



## Mephitic (May 16, 2012)

Edit. Inappropriate and inaccurate post removed.

Now chewing on a tasty, low calorie, fat free, humble pie.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 17, 2012)

No, not really. If I recall, the 'serious' paper-reading middle class liberals became the jeering anti-working class mob over that incident, or rather their confusion over what happened in two separate, unrelated incidents, and being too quick to let rip and reveal their social prejudices and fears.


----------



## Mephitic (May 17, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> No, not really. If I recall, the 'serious' paper-reading middle class liberals became the jeering anti-working class mob over that incident, or rather their confusion over what happened in two separate, unrelated incidents, and being too quick to let rip and reveal their social prejudices and fears.


 
I'm not follwing what your saying, could you rephrase it and dumb it down so that I can understand it?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 17, 2012)

You don't know what you're talking about.

I read the Sun btw.


----------



## vokey (May 17, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> No, not really. If I recall, the 'serious' paper-reading middle class liberals became the jeering anti-working class mob over that incident, or rather their confusion over what happened in two separate, unrelated incidents, and being too quick to let rip and reveal their social prejudices and fears.


 
Yep.

_"There was no big mob," he says. "Nothing like that happened. I know because I was there and I was involved. The lady was not in her home when it happened. She came home from work to see her door daubed with anti-paedophile graffiti. _

_"When we heard about it we set about dispelling the rumours that she or anyone else in that house was a paedophile. We explained to the local community the difference between paediatrician and paedophile." _

_Who did the graffiti? Mr Adams says he still isn't sure. "We think it was youngsters, probably someone in the 12 to 17 age bracket." _

_And the community was outraged by the incident and "supportive of the woman involved", he says._

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 17, 2012)

And that incident was confused by our middle class betters who read (and write for) more 'serious' papers, with an anti-paedophile demonstration on a housing estate in Portsmouth.  Didn't take long until they were acting like a mob.


----------



## Mephitic (May 17, 2012)

Captain Hurrah said:


> You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> I read the Sun btw.


 

*Smirk.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 17, 2012)

Read the earlier posts.  It's okay to be wrong, you know.  

Or carry on acting like a twat.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 17, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> *Smirk.


 
Just admit you're a dick


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 17, 2012)

Oh, you edited.

lol.


----------



## Mephitic (May 17, 2012)

You're to clever and too quick for me.   I'll go have some coffee and you two can get back to wanking each other off and doing the Sun crossword.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (May 17, 2012)

Off you fuck then.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 17, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> You're to clever and too quick for me. I'll go have some coffee and you two can get back to wanking each other off and doing the Sun crossword.


 
A sore loser speaks


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 17, 2012)

Mephitic, being a pie fan you are surely familiar with the humble variety.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Streathamite (May 17, 2012)

oh god, don't let him derail this thread


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 17, 2012)

> 2.11pm: Sir Harold Evans appears briefly via video link, but is experiencing technical difficulties and has offered to catch a plane to London this afternoon.
> Leveson wonders whether that might be necessary as the inquiry takes an unexpected break.


Conspiracy!   

Also, "oh, I'll pop on a plane this afternoon"


----------



## agricola (May 17, 2012)

For those who havent seen it already, there is a very interesting piece in the latest _Eye_ (issue 1314) about the connection between Labour, News International, and Michael Gove.


----------



## stavros (May 17, 2012)

The Sun don't have a wonderful record with reporting facts, but giving away Euro 2012 stickers of Rio Ferdinand when he's been quite publically dropped by Hodgson from the squad is a pretty big oversight from a paper that's "the voice of football".


----------



## DexterTCN (May 17, 2012)

stavros said:


> The Sun don't have a wonderful record with reporting facts....


If we take wonderful as meaning astonishing then they probably do.

I always wondered when I saw it.


----------



## two sheds (May 17, 2012)

Interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/17/harold-evans-leveson-murdoch-times

More temporary alzheimers from murdoch:



> Speaking to the Leveson inquiry via an often failing video link, Evans said the takeover had been the "seminal event" that had propelled Murdoch into the dominant position in British media, a deal that had been assisted by a private meeting with Margaret Thatcher.
> Evans recalled that Murdoch did not remember that meeting, the truth of which emerged only when a memo was released by Thatcher's foundation this year.
> In effect, the veteran journalist was siding with a suggestion made previously by Robert Jay, counsel to the inquiry, who contended that Murdoch could have suffered "selective amnesia".
> The former editor told the inquiry he believed a deal was hatched at that lunch to stop the purchase being referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC).
> It was "ridiculous" to push through the "most important newspaper takeover in British press history" in three days, he said, adding that it "was a whole set of chess moves" in which "the pawn" had been advanced in a single move to the middle of the board "to bishop six".


 
and good testimony on how little editorial interference there was from Murdoch:



> This rapidly changed. Evans described a year of constant editorial interference from Murdoch, replaying the events as if they had occurred the day before yesterday.
> "I had a reporter in Poland sending little messages out in people's shoes," he said. The story was "a marvellous narrative" of events around the coup, spread over two pages. The next morning, though, the newspaper owner was unimpressed. "He turned to the Sun newspaper, which had this much on Poland: 'That's all you need on Poland'."
> A leader writer was summoned behind Evans's back and told: "You should be attacking the Russians more."
> At another point Evans replayed an argument with Murdoch in which the newspaper owner stated: "Sport, didn't I tell you sport, sport, sport, where are the four pages of sport?"
> Evans said he had recently seen notes kept by the columnist Hugo Young, then of the Sunday Times, which showed Evans calling Murdoch "evil incarnate … he had his heart removed long ago, together with all his moral faculties". Evans said he had been "kind of so furious" that Murdoch had broken so many of the promises he made on buying the paper.


 
which seems direct evidence that Murdoch has lied to Leveson - as I recall he made his standard claim that he didn't affect editorial decisions (hoho).

wasn't quite sure what was meant by the last line in this though, at the end of the piece:



> It was evidence that the inquiry team listened to, for the most part, patiently. At the end the judge said that the insights had been particularly valuable, coming "from one who's spent a lifetime in the area and in respect of whom so much has been written and so many fabulous stories have emerged".


----------



## laptop (May 18, 2012)

two sheds said:


> wasn't quite sure what was meant by the last line in this though, at the end of the piece:


 
Reading it just now I took it to mean that some, or someone, felt Evans was ranting - but were/was polite.


----------



## Streathamite (May 18, 2012)

laptop said:


> Reading it just now I took it to mean that some, or someone, felt Evans was ranting - but were/was polite.


 I thought he was flattering him, meself


----------



## two sheds (May 18, 2012)

Yes those were the two possible meanings I'd picked up - also with they listened 'patiently' to him.


----------



## gosub (May 18, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...e-prosecutor-was-victim-of-tabloid-sting.html

ffs is there noone she hasn't pissed off


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 18, 2012)

gosub said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...e-prosecutor-was-victim-of-tabloid-sting.html
> 
> ffs is there noone she hasn't pissed off


 
Time will soon tell if it is a genius, long term insurance policy.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2012)

i think it tells us immediately that they've got a good team, but that they're already scrabbling to grab something anything for lack of other good stuff to keep quiet and confident about.


----------



## London_Calling (May 18, 2012)

No chance of even getting a Judicial Review - feed any Application in the shredder:


> “It is preposterous to question the judgement of my principal legal adviser of my Principal Legal Advisor, Alison Levitt QC, on the basis that five years ago the _News of the World_ wrote three sentences about her private life, repeating what had been reported elsewhere and which had been, in any event, common knowledge for a year.
> 
> “Alison Levitt QC was not even aware that the _News of the World _had written anything about her until it was drawn to her attention yesterday. She is a distinguished and highly respected QC."


But I'm sure the Telegraph enjoyed finally having a story to report on the broader subject. No one much else for her to leak it to, I suppose.

The legal system isn't as pliable as the rest.


----------



## gosub (May 18, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> But I'm sure the Telegraph enjoyed finally having a story to report on the broader subject. No one much else for her to leak it to, I suppose.


 
By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent....don't reckon it was her, more likely one her neighbours political friends


----------



## laptop (May 19, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> i think it tells us immediately that they've got a good team, but that they're already scrabbling to grab something anything for lack of other good stuff to keep quiet and confident about.


 
Looks pretty desperate to me.

Prediction (evens only): a drip of irrelevant claims of bias and improper procedure right through to the opening of proceedings.


----------



## London_Calling (May 19, 2012)

> Former special adviser Adam Smith and News Corp lobbyist Frédéric Michel to give evidence [on Thursday] next week





> Lord Justice Leveson will also be hearing evidence next week from former Labour cabinet ministers Tessa Jowell, Alan Johnson, Lord Mandelson, Lord Reid and Lord Smith, broadcasters Andrew Marr and Jeremy Paxman, and phone-hacking campaigner Tom Watson MP.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/18/leveson-hunt-smith-michel-evidence


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 21, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18144837

Jeremy Hunt in more shit. To be investigated for undisclosed donations from (unnamed) media firms.
The cunt is so blatantly corrupt. Why is he still in a job?


----------



## Badgers (May 21, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:
			
		

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18144837
> 
> Jeremy Hunt in more shit. To be investigated for undisclosed donations from (unnamed) media firms.
> The cunt is so blatantly corrupt. Why is he still in a job?



If he rides this one out he is pure Teflon isn't he?


----------



## Santino (May 21, 2012)

It's a fairly weak accusation in itself, it's only in the context of everything else going on that it's particularly newsworthy.


----------



## London_Calling (May 21, 2012)

This Jeremy Hunt malarkey is a rather interesting vignette all of itself; first James Murdoch stitches him up under oath, then Mrs Wade finds an incriminating email - this in relation to their self-proclaimed "cheerleader", now some no-name Labout MP is fed low grade info from God knows where.

Hunt's been thrown under the bus so many times he should get an Oyster Card.

I suppose it's all to do with News Int. desire to bridge Disco Dave's firewall (and watch him slowly burn), but it is interesting to see the game slowly unfolding.


----------



## killer b (May 21, 2012)

mccabe hasn't necessarily been fed anything - it looks like he's (or someone has anyway) just been cross referencing vaisey's disclosures against hunt's.


----------



## London_Calling (May 21, 2012)

yeah right.


----------



## elbows (May 21, 2012)

lol Mandelson moaning about bullying, he isn't exactly a fan of Yates


----------



## Dopermine (May 21, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18144837
> 
> Jeremy Hunt in more shit. To be investigated for undisclosed donations from (unnamed) media firms.
> The cunt is so blatantly corrupt. Why is he still in a job?


 
Media firms named here - Tory scum ad agency M&C Saatchi, New Labour loving DDB and the nauseating Groucho Club. Three and a half grand undeclared. Hardly a major scandal, though the dread image of Jeremy Cunt and his tories networking at smarmy media events is one that will haunt me down the years. GUILTY!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/03/jeremy-hunt-failed-declare-media-donations


----------



## teqniq (May 21, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18144837
> 
> Jeremy Hunt in more shit. To be investigated for undisclosed donations from (unnamed) media firms.
> The cunt is so blatantly corrupt. Why is he still in a job?


I'm still going for the 'alien head in search of a body' that I liked upthread, seeing as how all reasonable explanations don't seem to be up to the job.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 21, 2012)

Way, way back on pages 12 and 13 the Daniel Morgan case was mentioned at some length....it's popped up on the news again today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18144543


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2012)

Surely as fuck this will get the coward mainstream journos onto this?_ Right?_


----------



## teqniq (May 21, 2012)

Well it was on BBC T.V. breakfast news in between the bit about 'The Voice' and 'The Weather', if that counts.


----------



## London_Calling (May 22, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Way, way back on pages 12 and 13 the Daniel Morgan case was mentioned at some length....it's popped up on the news again today.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18144543


All roads lead to the very troubling Alex Marunchak ...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 22, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Surely as fuck this will get the coward mainstream journos onto this?_ Right?_


The South London Press did a lot on this case and kept it fresh in South Londoners minds.


----------



## Streathamite (May 23, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Way, way back on pages 12 and 13 the Daniel Morgan case was mentioned at some length....it's popped up on the news again today.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18144543


 christ! talk about the never-ending story....and they've STILL got it slightly wrong: a fourth man, James Cook, was also charged (and nonce fillery charged with conspiracy to pervert etc).


----------



## London_Calling (May 23, 2012)

Can anyone think of a more labyrinthian investigation than that murder? So many layers, so many fingers in too many pies; you've really got no chance.


----------



## gabi (May 23, 2012)

Paxman at 2. Not quite sure why he's been called?


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 23, 2012)

He's said about 10 words and I already hate him.

I may be bringing some preconceptions to this


----------



## gabi (May 23, 2012)

why isnt it being broadcast on the beeb site?


----------



## Badgers (May 23, 2012)

Police corruption arrest? Was tweeted by BBC breaking news but can't see link. Part of this?


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 23, 2012)

I don't suppose there's any question of conflict of interest, given he's currently employed by the BBC?


----------



## DexterTCN (May 23, 2012)

gabi said:


> why isnt it being broadcast on the beeb site?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167511.stm


----------



## gabi (May 23, 2012)

yeh, they were just late getting started


----------



## Lock&Light (May 23, 2012)

gabi said:


> yeh, they were just late getting started


 
The same thing happened yesterday.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 23, 2012)

Ulrika Johnson...?


----------



## gabi (May 23, 2012)

Dropping piers in it here


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 23, 2012)

Just a bit  But we should accept both possibilities, it may have been a complete flight of fancy on Morgan's part...


----------



## gabi (May 23, 2012)

Er, yeh.. 

Whens he gonna be called across the ditch? i cant wait to see him giving his oath.


----------



## elbows (May 23, 2012)

gabi said:


> Er, yeh..
> 
> Whens he gonna be called across the ditch? i cant wait to see him giving his oath.


 
He appeared via video-link in December.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 23, 2012)

I did notice Paxman didn't swear on the bible.

Where's Jay gone?


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2012)

he's got a sub in.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 23, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Police corruption arrest? Was tweeted by BBC breaking news but can't see link. Part of this?


 
See here:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...el-gillard-laurie-flynn.116408/#post-11196319


----------



## gabi (May 23, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> I did notice Paxman didn't swear on the bible.
> 
> Where's Jay gone?


 
who cares. the woman on the left is a more than decent sub.


----------



## Badgers (May 23, 2012)

Ta


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 23, 2012)

killer b said:


> he's got a sub in.


 
Paxo vs Itziko, what a horrendous thought.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 23, 2012)

Transcript of Paxman's Morgan anecdote:


> Two reasons I remember the lunch. One was that it was so unusual to be invited into such a bestiary. The second of which was that I was really struck by something that Piers Morgan said at the lunch. I was seated, as far as I recall, between him on my left and the editor of the Sunday Mirror on my right, and Ulrika Jonsson was seated opposite, next to or semi-next to, almost next to Philip Green and Victor Blank on her other side I think.
> 
> And Morgan said, teasing Ulrika, that he knew what had happened in the conversations between her and Sven-Göran Eriksson and he went into this mock-Swedish accent.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

That's now in the record and counts as _proper legal stuff right?_


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 23, 2012)

Morgan yet to respond on Twitter (his medium of choice?) - currently busying around with 'good friend' Slash.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 23, 2012)

Someone on Twitter (turns out it can be useful!) pointed out that Morgan told the inquiry that he knew how to hack phones. Does the Paxman anecdote cause much more damage? Is it enough evidence to cause problems? Paxman didn't even say Morgan _definitely _listened to hacked messages, covered himself (and potentially Morgan?) with the "two possibilities" angle.


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Someone on Twitter (turns out it can be useful!) pointed out that Morgan told the inquiry that he knew how to hack phones. Does the Paxman anecdote cause much more damage? Is it enough evidence to cause problems? Paxman didn't even say Morgan _definitely _listened to hacked messages, covered himself (and potentially Morgan?) with the "two possibilities" angle.


I know how to hack phones - no evidence i did. There's a specific case that can be looked for that shows his knowledge of it happening. That's pretty much it.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 23, 2012)

Well yeah, just sounds like another accusation with little in the way of real evidence?

Bugger, hadn't realised Andrew Marr was on this morning, would have liked to have seen that.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 23, 2012)

Incidentally, Jay was asked to put the question about that dinner to Paxman, and seemed to be clearly fishing for that anecdote, asking "Did Piers Morgan say anything interesting or unusual?".

Wonder who asked him to ask? Maybe Paxman himself


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Incidentally, Jay was asked to put the question about that dinner to Paxman, and seemed to be clearly fishing for that anecdote, asking "Did Piers Morgan say anything interesting or unusual?".
> 
> Wonder who asked him to ask? Maybe Paxman himself


You think he's one of ours?


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 23, 2012)

I think it's entirely possible he'd enjoy annoying Morgan.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 23, 2012)

Oh wait, it'll be Ulrika, surely! Isn't she a witness in this? Is it only core participants who get to ask Jay to put questions to witnesses? Is Johnson a CP?


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2012)

At risk of putting his own shit back out in public? No. He is their's. That disguising dinner party scene makes that clear as nordic morning.


----------



## elbows (May 23, 2012)

John Reid hasn't changed much eh, boring the inquiry to death and bigging up the war on terror.


----------



## elbows (May 23, 2012)

So this weeks lineup has been extended, with the addition of the permanent secretary at dept. for culture, media and sport appearing on Friday morning.


----------



## London_Calling (May 23, 2012)

Isn't that the man Margaret Hodge tried to harrangue a couple of weeks ago in relation to Jezza Hunt?


----------



## elbows (May 23, 2012)

I checked and the answer is yes.

I guess Hunts appearance is also rather imminent given who is on Thursdays schedule and the 'I'll deal with this affair before the end of May' assurances that Leveson gave in response to complaints that he was cramping the houses style.


----------



## gabi (May 24, 2012)

the mysterious Frederic Michel about to the take the stand


----------



## DexterTCN (May 24, 2012)

My 17 year old daughter looks up from her sudoku..."who's that?"..."That's frederic michel, newscorp guy who was a main contact with hunt and hunt's advisor."

She listens to him some more.

"Guilty."  she says, and goes back to the puzzle.


----------



## gabi (May 24, 2012)

He's been a bit blind-sided here. Hunt's more fucked than ever.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 24, 2012)

Sudoku? At her age she should be out injecting that crack cocaine and getting boys pregnant.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 24, 2012)

Yes, she just hasn't met the wrong boy yet.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 24, 2012)

Michel has to justify supporting Nadal against Murray, looks worried.  lol


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2012)

Guardian news line saying:
"Police watchdog says there have been more than 8,500 complaints about police corruption in England and Wales in the last three years – though only 13 officers have been prosecuted and found guilty."

Bloody British public, more than 8,487 out of 8,500 complaints obviously pure lies.  

And that's just allegations of corruption.

Delicious that members of the crack Scotland Yard anti-corruption squad are being done for err corruption.


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2012)

wasn't the excuse last month that texts & communications were between michel & adam smith in hunt's office, not directly with hunt? evidence today is directly contradicting that isn't it? or have i missed something?

there's something shameful about a government minister using txtspk too. have some decorum ffs.


----------



## gabi (May 24, 2012)

*pukes*



> Michel to Hunt:
> 20 January 2011
> 20.54
> Great to see you today. We should get little [children's name redacted] together in the future to socialise. Nearly born the same day at the same place!
> ...


----------



## Streathamite (May 24, 2012)

pukeworthy yes, but also v important. I actually don't see how Hunt can last much longer now, not with today's testimony


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 24, 2012)

Clearly you underestimate his sword of truth and trusty shield of fair play.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Clearly you underestimate his sword of truth and trusty shield of fair play.


Oh my sides are aitken.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 24, 2012)

Politics: ritz a dirty job but somebody has to do it.


----------



## Streathamite (May 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Clearly you underestimate his sword of truth and trusty shield of fair play.


 
v good!


----------



## Badgers (May 24, 2012)

Huntwatch must have him on days only now? Come on Teflon man, walk away now and salvage 1% of the tiny bit of shame you have


----------



## elbows (May 24, 2012)

I don't see how they've got enough time left to do Smith properly today.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 24, 2012)

How long can it take to mash up the face of someone whose legs have already been done?


----------



## Santino (May 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> How long can it take to mash up the face of someone whose legs have already been done?


Depends on whether you use your invisible hand or not.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 24, 2012)




----------



## London_Calling (May 24, 2012)

Not seen this today - nothing's happened to change the existing narriatve from what I can see?


----------



## elbows (May 24, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Not seen this today - nothing's happened to change the existing narriatve from what I can see?


 
As best I can tell, broadly no change. But the evidence today has been a pain to digest as its so many fragments of emails & texts and mobile phone call timings, so may require some time to fully appreciate. Personally Im not trying too hard to get a full grip on it until Smith has given evidence, although things Jay has said give plenty of indications of areas Smith will challenge.

The direct texts between Michel and Hunt might be new, but they aren't so much a smoking gun but rather an indication that they were friendly towards each other.


----------



## London_Calling (May 24, 2012)

elbows said:


> As best I can tell, broadly no change. But the evidence today has been a pain to digest as its so many fragments of emails & texts and mobile phone call timings, so may require some time to fully appreciate. Personally Im not trying too hard to get a full grip on it until Smith has given evidence, although things Jay has said give plenty of indications of areas Smith will challenge.
> 
> The direct texts between Michel and Hunt might be new, but they aren't so much a smoking gun but rather an indication that they were friendly towards each other.


----------



## elbows (May 24, 2012)

Bah, Michels use of language does seem to confirm suggestions over the last month that Hunt & Smith can mount a pretty vigorous defence. i.e. some of the most controversial sentences in the emails are not standing up well to scrutiny.


----------



## 5t3IIa (May 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's now in the record and counts as _proper legal stuff right?_


 
It's in Morgan's book The Insider and that was gone over in December (or whenever). He said the same thing *in print in 2005 *that Paxman says he said to him at the dinner. Just fyi.


----------



## elbows (May 24, 2012)

Finally Mr Smith is on.

Michels evidence sounds like it will take a while to publish due to the quantity of material.


----------



## gabi (May 24, 2012)

Crikey. he's a boy.


----------



## Lock&Light (May 24, 2012)

gabi said:


> Crikey. he's a boy.


 
30 years old is hardly a "boy".


----------



## gabi (May 24, 2012)

Considering the CV they just read out he's young for the position he finds himself in. i assume that's why leveson interrupted to ask him his age.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 24, 2012)

5t3IIa said:


> It's in Morgan's book The Insider and that was gone over in December (or whenever). He said the same thing *in print in 2005 *that Paxman says he said to him at the dinner. Just fyi.


 
But repeatedly Morgan's book has been shown to be a less than accurate account, especially in terms of details, and in its presentation as a diary (_Eye_s passim).

Whilst he certainly mentioned phonehacking as an industry-pervasive activity in the book, he didn't specifically claim to have undertaken it himself. In it he claims the Jonsson/Eriksson story was passed to him by another journalist, and that he confirmed it in a conversation with Jonsson's agent. Indeed, he vociferously denied that the book made any claims to his personal use of phonehacking (remember the spat with Louise Mensch?)

This sticks it on the record, alongside the earlier evidence given by Richard Wallace (the journalist Morgan referred to) back in January, and Morgan's own account to Leveson last December.


----------



## Streathamite (May 24, 2012)

elbows said:


> The direct texts between Michel and Hunt might be new, but they aren't so much a smoking gun but rather an indication that they were friendly towards each other.


given that JH was the minister with the remit for referring murdoch's bid for the rest of BSkyB to ofcoom/mmc, and even to block that _extremely_ controversial bid outright, I'd say even that degree of friendliness is enough of a smoking gun, in itself


----------



## elbows (May 24, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> given that JH was the minister with the remit for referring murdoch's bid for the rest of BSkyB to ofcoom/mmc, and even to block that _extremely_ controversial bid outright, I'd say even that degree of friendliness is enough of a smoking gun, in itself


 
Well it may well turn out that one or two of the text messages will be successfully used as dynamite by the media. My own standards for 'smoking gun' are reserved for very dramatic evidence that is new and makes a certain conclusion seem almost inevitable. Nothing today achieved that for me, but perhaps I've set the bar wrong.

Jay is doing fairly well with Smith, so Im listening closely right now.


----------



## elbows (May 24, 2012)

lol I may be misinterpreting it but so far Smith is demonstrating a lack of understanding of the whole Quasi-judicial thing, and even who may be considered an interested party in the bid.


----------



## gabi (May 24, 2012)

lulz, yeh Michel didnt seem to understand the term 'quasi-judicial' either. i kept waiting for him to deploy the fact that english isnt his first language.


----------



## elbows (May 24, 2012)

Just when it was getting interesting, its all over till tomorrow morning, when Smith will return. 

At this rate the permanent secretary will then have his work cut out for him in managing to make it look like the department took the quasi-judicial thing seriously, and understood that sky & news corp were not the only interested parties to the bid.

From what I've heard so far, I would think that even if we throw away much of Michel's dramatic language, a case could be made for dismissing Hunt based on a failure to ensure his special advisor was acting appropriately during the process. This is hardly news, but its certainly an angle I would fall back on if some other avenues go nowhere.


----------



## London_Calling (May 24, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> given that JH was the minister with the remit for referring murdoch's bid for the rest of BSkyB to ofcoom/mmc, and even to block that _extremely_ controversial bid outright, I'd say even that degree of friendliness is enough of a smoking gun, in itself


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 24, 2012)

I suspect that on the last day of the inquiry Mr Jay will turn up at the RCJ in a battered old Peugeot convertible, leave a shonky-looking Bassett Hound with the court bailiff, put down a chewed-up cigar onto his stack of documents, and then proceed to tie up every last thread he has pulled at over the past few months until he's got a massive great macramé hammer with which to nail everyone's bollocks to the wall.


----------



## elbows (May 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> I suspect that on the last day of the inquiry Mr Jay will turn up at the RCJ in a battered old Peugeot convertible, leave a shonky-looking Bassett Hound with the court bailiff, put down a chewed-up cigar onto his stack of documents, and then proceed to tie up every last thread he has pulled at over the past few months until he's got a massive great macramé hammer with which to nail everyone's bollocks to the wall.


 
Maybe so, although I expect certain bollocks will escape a full nailing when all is said & done, whilst others were nailed as soon as detail has emerged, no need to wait for report conclusions, convictions or sackings to see great damage done to those whose reputations meant so much to their level of power. And I have to balance any glee I feel for specific swine getting nailed with a deep desire not to see the squandering of an opportunity for a broader media change to occur. Leveson has his work cut out for him in terms of recommendations for future regulation, and coming up with something that will actually be implemented by others, and I shall be most upset if we don't emerge from this with anything that will curb some of the most disgusting excesses of the likes of the Daily Mail. This golden opportunity is made even harder to make the most of by the sort of stuff that Andrew Marr ended up talking about in regards to bloggers etc, i.e. defining who can be touched by regulation. There also seem to be some problems with the private detective aspect, since it doesn't seem to be an area they want to intrude on too deeply as there are several cans of worms there that are even harder to deal with than issues of the press. And all of this without even beginning to dwell on the purely party political issues which can impact on the chances of Leveson recommendations turning into solid, enforceable rules.


----------



## Streathamite (May 24, 2012)

elbows said:


> Well it may well turn out that one or two of the text messages will be successfully used as dynamite by the media. My own standards for 'smoking gun' are reserved for very dramatic evidence that is new and makes a certain conclusion seem almost inevitable. Nothing today achieved that for me, but perhaps I've set the bar wrong.
> 
> Jay is doing fairly well with Smith, so Im listening closely right now.


by 'smoking gun' I mean that Hunts quasi-judicial authority and status is totally compromised, if we take the full totality of texts and emails revealed today, together with Smith's somewhat nonchalant viweing of the whole 'quasi-judicial' thing. The press will make a 3 course meal out of this, given how battered News Corp's reputation is


----------



## elbows (May 24, 2012)

Well I was speaking before Smith went on, and most of our disagreement boils down to how I reserve the smoking gun phrase for a specific juicy revelation that is either brand new or reinforces an existing suspicion to a significant new extent. Perhaps some of todays evidence does get at least close to meeting the latter part of this criteria, not yet fully sure, I couldn't take it all in in realtime.

Since Smith started putting his foot in it later, and publications are drawing attention to specific fragments of earlier evidence, I would say today may well add a notable degree of pressure to several players. Its certainly enough for the Guardian to write stories that make Hunt, Smith & Cameron look bad. Now I have to wait to see if theres anything from today that a wider section of the press will make much of.

Or to look at it from a different angle, my own instincts for when a ministers position may become untenable may well be subject to excessive optimism (anticipation they will go), and so I try to moderate my expectations to compensate for this.

Ick my brain hurts, watching inquiries or reading technical, legal or government documents leaves me in a state where I am even more likely than normal to talk like a robot for a while afterwards.


----------



## Streathamite (May 24, 2012)

I don't think we're in that great a disagreement, and I agree a better picture may emerge by tomorrow evening (Smith is still to complete his evidence).
one other interesting thing tho'; all throughout this, NI were adamant they had no plans for cross-media bundling; now it transpires that was precisaely their plan - 'wapping 2'


----------



## elbows (May 24, 2012)

Deliberately looking at what the Telegraph are saying rather than the Guardian, its not looking good for the tories 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...r-BSkyB-before-taking-charge-of-decision.html




> The Culture Secretary told the Prime Minister it would be “totally wrong” for the Government to “cave in” to News Corp’s opponents and instead allow it to help the UK “lead the way” in the media industry.
> The memo was not declared by either Mr Cameron or Mr Hunt when the Culture Secretary took over the brief for handling the BSkyB bid from Vince Cable, meaning both Mr Cameron and Mr Hunt are likely to face serious questions from the Opposition.
> Just four days before he wrote the memo, Mr Hunt had spoken to James Murdoch on his mobile phone, having been told by lawyers to cancel a proposed meeting with the News Corp executive.
> The memo, dated November 19, 2010, said: “James Murdoch is pretty furious at Vince's referral [of the bid] to Ofcom.
> ...



And thats before even getting into the text messages between Michel and Hunt.

LOL


----------



## Roadkill (May 24, 2012)

Or, as the same august paper's sketch-writer puts it: Memo to Mr Cameron - you've got problems

Heheheheheheheheheh


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2012)

Yes, particularly with Cable having been specifically removed because he was anti Murdoch, Cameron chooses someone who is pro Murdoch.

I wonder how this ties in to the Murdochs' discussions with Cameron. I should be able to work it out but can't be bothered.


----------



## magneze (May 24, 2012)

When's Cameron up?


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 24, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Yes, particularly with Cable having been specifically removed because he was anti Murdoch, Cameron chooses someone who is pro Murdoch.



That's called balance.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 24, 2012)

> I think it would be totally wrong to cave in to the Mark Thompson/Channel 4/Guardian line that this represents a substantial change of control given that we all know Sky is controlled by News Corp now anyway.


 
He's surely got to go


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 24, 2012)

gabi said:


> Crikey. he's a boy.



To paraphrase someone or other, no longer a boy, not yet a man.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 24, 2012)

Why should Hunt go?   Cameron was well aware of Hunt's position - and appointed him.   Hunt was only doing what he would reasonably be expected to do, flying the murdoch flag.

That's why disco dave put him in that position.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 24, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Why should Hunt go? Cameron was well aware of Hunt's position - and appointed him. Hunt was only doing what he would reasonably be expected to do, flying the murdoch flag.
> 
> That's why disco dave put him in that position.


 
Don't want to defend Dave in anyway, but is there anyone in the Tory party who hasn't had their tongue up Murdoch's arse for many years?


----------



## DexterTCN (May 24, 2012)

Do we really think dave would appoint someone who was not going to have things turn out the way dave wants?

Hunt sacked Smith, no-one really believes it was Smith who was at it, the sacking was met with general derision and unimpressedness. (I made that word up)

Sacking Hunt, although it's certainly welcome, is merely the same thing again. Another fire-wall.


----------



## laptop (May 24, 2012)

gabi said:


> Crikey. he's a boy.


 
*cough*



> Appeared so, er, _fresh_ out of PPE at Magdalen that "spotty youth" was likely to be an _aspiration_ for his future... friends of laptop said.
> 
> And not a civil servant - probably a member of Hunt's staff. Such people _speak for_ their bosses. And frequently _think_ for them too. No get-out for Hunt there - just the option of denunciation.
> 
> laptop, Apr 24, 2012


----------



## London_Calling (May 25, 2012)

Got nothing more on Jezza, it seems. Certainly a shrewdy.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 25, 2012)

Haven't been watching yet this morning, but just caught that Tony Blair is up on Monday.

Almost certainly won't be as interesting as we hope, unless he tries to stick the Tories in it, which he is certainly not adverse to doing.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 25, 2012)

Smith looks like orville the duck.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 25, 2012)

Is the Swan Lake thing important?   Surely Hunt's diary would confirm where he was on the evening of 9/2/11?


----------



## London_Calling (May 25, 2012)

I quite look forward to Blair talking about that trip (pre-97 election) to Australia to perform for Murdoch.

At least he's had a nice few days to  sort the Middle East out  top up the tan.


----------



## London_Calling (May 25, 2012)

Not watching but you'd prob want to use the Swan Lake thing as it confirms Michel as a professional-level bullshitter.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 25, 2012)

They'll get fuck all out of Blair unless he wants to put the boot in, which he most likely won't.


----------



## gabi (May 25, 2012)

Blair's not gonna reveal much. Osborne's the next juicy target methinks.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 25, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> I quite look forward to Blair talking about that trip (pre-97 election) to Australia to perform for Murdoch.
> 
> At least he's had a nice few days to  sort the Middle East out  top up the tan.


he goes to the same tanning salon as george galloway and kilroy silk


----------



## gosub (May 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> he goes to the same tanning salon as george galloway and kilroy silk


 

if only:


----------



## Roadkill (May 25, 2012)

Cameron has been defending Hunt's handling of the bid.



> "Some people are saying there was some great conspiracy between me and Rupert Murdoch to do some big deal to back them in return for support. Rupert Murdoch has said that's not true, James Murdoch has said that's not true, I have said that's not true. There was no great conspiracy."


 
Because, of course, James and Rupert Murdoch are trustworthy sources, and so is a Prime Minister who during his election campaign promised no top-down reorganisation of the NHS whilst exactly that was being prepared. 

Keep digging, Dave...


----------



## Lock&Light (May 25, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Is the Swan Lake thing important? Surely Hunt's diary would confirm where he was on the evening of 9/2/11?


 
There's talk now of it being a mistake. Apparently it was the film "Black Swan" that Hunt went to.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 25, 2012)

Can you watch the trial anywhere online?


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 25, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Can you watch the trial anywhere online?


 
The Inquiry livestreams from here.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 25, 2012)

cheers


----------



## Streathamite (May 25, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Sacking Hunt, although it's certainly welcome, is merely the same thing again. Another fire-wall.


yep, but it removes a layer of insulation from Cameron


----------



## teqniq (May 25, 2012)

Atm Cameron seems to be prepared to defend Hunt come what may, I am hoping this will prove to be a disastrous error on his part.


----------



## Streathamite (May 25, 2012)

teqniq said:


> Atm Cameron seems to be prepared to defend Hunt come what may, I am hoping this will prove to be a disastrous error on his part.


 I'm certain it will. ATM he needs to put as much distance between himself and everything murdochian - remember, he set up Leveson to massage away his personal closeness to them


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 25, 2012)

Hunt - "good to be a hate figure, Maggie would be proud of me!"


----------



## DexterTCN (May 25, 2012)

Lovely (though unchecked for errors) piece in the Indie.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...news-corp-revealed-7788308.html#disqus_thread



> Tonight Downing Street said that “in the cold light of day” the texts looked embarrassing and the relationship was “all a bit unorthodox” but insisted that they were not inappropriate.​


 
...straw...camel...back....

Awesome, it's like watching some kind of tsunami eat everything and everyone up as it's going.


----------



## Schmetterling (May 26, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Lovely (though unchecked for errors) piece in the Indie. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...news-corp-revealed-7788308.html#disqus_thread
> 
> 
> ...straw...camel...back....
> ...


 
'I was bending over to polish my shoes while not wearing any trousers when I toppled backwards and, inadvertantly, fell onto the truncheon.  And that is all I have to say on the matter.  Thank you!'


----------



## agricola (May 26, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> I'm certain it will. ATM he needs to put as much distance between himself and everything murdochian - remember, he set up Leveson to massage away his personal closeness to them


 
The problem with that theory is that his closeness to Murdoch and NI cannot be massaged away, he was clearly very close to them for a variety of reasons and it would be almost impossible to plausibly pretend that he wasnt. 

Cameron's real problem is more that this story has become about him, when there are very compelling reasons why it should be more about NI and Labour - after all, almost all of the worst behaviour that has come out happened on their watch, it is almost certain that they were aware of what went on from at the latest mid 2006 (and in all likelyhood several years earlier than this), and they were much closer to NI than the Tories ever were and for a much longer period of time.


----------



## laptop (May 26, 2012)

agricola said:


> there are very compelling reasons why it should be more about NI and Labour


 
In the history books, perhaps - after the Chequers meeting with Thatcher, of course.

But this stuff _came out on Cameron's watch_. That's what matters in politics.


----------



## Santino (May 26, 2012)

It's what makes it particularly funny.


----------



## laptop (May 26, 2012)

Meanwhile, yesterday I missed:
*Operation Elveden police make 30th arrest*



> 37-year-old woman, understood to be a journalist who works for News International


----------



## elbows (May 27, 2012)

The shit is mounting up 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-questions-over-links-to-murdoch-7791515.html



> George Osborne is "happy to be called" to the Leveson inquiry over his links to the Murdoch empire, it emerged last night, after his most senior aide was reported to the Cabinet Secretary over an alleged Budget leak to a News Corp lobbyist.





> As Leveson enters what may be its most dramatic week, there were reports in Whitehall that Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, is planning to resign after giving evidence on Thursday. A spokesman for Mr Hunt denied that he was ready to quit, but a Whitehall source said the minister had told aides he was prepared to resign after his appearance.





> Last night, Rupert Harrison, Mr Osborne's chief of staff, was reported to Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, for allegedly briefing market-sensitive information from the coalition's first Budget of June 2010.
> In an email to Fred Michel, News Corp's head of public affairs in Europe, four days before the Budget, and published last Friday, Mr Harrison wrote: "Obviously, I can't really comment on Budget policy decisions now, but I would just point out we have said nothing over the last few weeks or months that would suggest any extension of VAT".
> The Labour MP Tom Watson wrote to Sir Jeremy saying that any "reasonable person" would understand that Mr Harrison was ruling out VAT on newspapers. He said the information was "clearly market sensitive and of direct interest to News Corporation". Mr Watson asked Sir Jeremy to investigate whether the contents of the email breached the code of conduct for special advisers and the Cabinet Office's guidance on government communications.


 


> In another damaging development for No 10, one of Mr Cameron's top aides was accused of breaching Civil Service guidelines by inviting Mr Michel into a ministerial policy-making meeting. Emails released to Leveson show that on 2 December 2010, Rohan Silva, who at the time was deputy to Mr Cameron's strategist Steve Hilton, suggested that Mr Michel could attend a meeting at the Department for Energy and Climate Change to discuss carbon emissions.


 


> But the apparent friendly relationship that Mr Michel shared with another No 10 figure, following the disclosure of text messages he exchanged with Gabby Bertin, Mr Cameron's press secretary, and Craig Oliver, his director of communications, will fuel fears that Downing Street was, in effect, on the same side as News Corp.


 
Im enjoying this. And now a song that isn't really appropriate but I feel like singing it anyway.

As I was walking down the street one day
I saw a house on fire
There was man, shouting and screaming at an upper-storey window
To the crowd that was gathered there below
For he was sore afraid

Jump! You fucker, jump!
Jump into this here blanket what we are holding
And you will be all right
He jumped, hit the deck, broke his fucking neck -
There was no blanket

Laugh?! We nearly shat!
We had not laughed so much since Grandma died
Or Auntie Mabel caught her left tit in the mangle
We are miserable sinners
Fi-i-ilthy fuckers

Ahhhrrrr-soles


----------



## London_Calling (May 27, 2012)

Yep, word is Jezza will be leaving as part of a 'reshuffle'.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2012)

What word? Where did you hear it from?


----------



## Random (May 27, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Yep, word is Jezza will be leaving as part of a 'reshuffle'.


Have you seen the threads full of people disgusted at you racially abusing refused yet? I don't think you've actually admitted it was racist, or apologised, have you?


----------



## Random (May 27, 2012)

Here's a sample of some of the appalled responses, btw L_C, so  you don't have to go searching.

---



Bloody hell, that is way out of order!   I thought better of you than that, London Calling...

--

Shit, that's appalling. Down with London Calling. Bring back Refused As Fuck'

--

 I wasn't aware of that post, but I've checked the context. I'd call it unacceptable.

--

I'm a bit wtf? by that L_C comment tbh. Fucking grim stuff. I'd never really noticed him much on here before.

--

I knew he was a tedious little shit completely without any content but I didn't realise he was a racist twat.

--
Yep, I'd struggle to come up with any context that excused that - full stop. LC - any explanation? Apology?

--

That's shit. Driven away by inexcusable abuse.

--

He got a warning?

what bollocks...

--

spot on. Having looked at a few pages of the spurs thread I'd be prepared to accept the comment was some horribly misjudged attempt at an 'ironic' use of a racial epithet.   Only thing to do in those circumstances is get a quick, genuine, apology in. Only looked at couple of the following pages, but what really pissed me off was LC's narky self justifications. Also, you don't have much credit in the bank when your default setting is arsey superiority.

--


----------



## Lock&Light (May 27, 2012)

Random said:


> Have you seen the threads full of people disgusted at you racially abusing refused yet? I don't think you've actually admitted it was racist, or apologised, have you?


 
There's a dedicated thread for that argument. You should stick to it.


----------



## Athos (May 27, 2012)

Random said:
			
		

> Here's a sample of some of the appalled responses, btw L_C, so  you don't have to go searching.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...



What was the comment?


----------



## Random (May 27, 2012)

It's been deleted by the mods, but still exists in Refused's reply, which quotes it. That was his last post.

Tottenham Hotspur 2011-2012 Official Thread


----------



## Athos (May 27, 2012)

Random said:
			
		

> It's been deleted by the mods, but still exists in Refused's reply, which quotes it. That was his last post.
> 
> Tottenham Hotspur 2011-2012 Official Thread



Why the fuck would someone call another poster an 'ethnic Pakistani tosser'? And why no ban for blatant racist abuse?


----------



## teqniq (May 27, 2012)

not being into football I was hitherto unaware of this

wtf? indeed


----------



## Termite Man (May 27, 2012)

Random said:


> Have you seen the threads full of people disgusted at you racially abusing refused yet? I don't think you've actually admitted it was racist, or apologised, have you?


 
is this the time and place to be bringing this up?


----------



## DexterTCN (May 27, 2012)

Cross-thread arguing is bad, Spurs were unlucky enough to have that in the thread, let them keep it.

Certainly not an important thread like this.  (no offence, spursy people)


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 27, 2012)

Termite Man said:


> is this the time and place to be bringing this up?


 
If not here, a thread that London_Calling has posted on many times, and where he is likely to see the criticism, then where? Should it be kept quiet so it doesn't distract from this important thread?


----------



## Termite Man (May 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> If not here, a thread that London_Calling has posted on many times, and where he is likely to see the criticism, then where? Should it be kept quiet so it doesn't distract from this important thread?


 
he's seen the criticism and doesn't seem bothered about it, apart from the spurs thread this is the first time I've seen it mentioned , unless I'm missing something it seems odd that it should suddenly be bought up here and now.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 27, 2012)

If you think one man's alleged racism is more worth discussing than the goings-on in this thread then it deserves its own call-out thread.

Many on this thread have posted, watched tv, read online and paper articles, listened to radio debates, seen multiple arrests, sackings, a corporation being shaken, the government being shaken, possibly the biggest ever cleansing of corruption in our history.

You're like The Sun, which flashes nonsense to distract from what we witness.


----------



## laptop (May 28, 2012)

Well, it helps with discounting everything a person of demonstrably poor judgement writes, here, too.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

Jesus christ. He's already offered to provide Leveson with a written list of ways the media could be corrected. Surely that's Leveson's job, not Blair's?


----------



## Badgers (May 28, 2012)

gabi said:
			
		

> Jesus christ. He's already offered to provide Leveson with a written list of ways the media could be corrected. Surely that's Leveson's job, not Blair's?



Still meddling after all these years


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

He's being allowed to just drone on and on. Maybe Jay and Leveson have met their match here.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

Interrupting Jay now. Not seen that before. This guy's a fucking master


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 28, 2012)

gabi said:


> Jesus christ. He's already offered to provide Leveson with a written list of ways the media could be corrected. Surely that's Leveson's job, not Blair's?


 
One would also think that it would have been more appropriate to have done so whilst enjoying all the benefits and powers of the offices of the First Lord of the Treasury.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 28, 2012)

Blair used private side entrance rather than pass snappers. OH photographer: 'He invaded Iraq, he'll use any door he likes'


----------



## Badgers (May 28, 2012)

By the time he is done we will be at war


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 28, 2012)

I can't stand watching the smarmy bastard.


----------



## Santino (May 28, 2012)

It's like he's some sort of trained barrister who has enormous experience in public speaking, debating and high stakes negotiating.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> Blair used private side entrance rather than pass snappers. OH photographer: 'He invaded Iraq, he'll use any door he likes'


 
I saw him on Breakfast this morning going thru the front entrance posing for pics


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

Anyway. this is a pointless witness.

a) its ancient history and b) he's a far better barrister than anyone else in that courtroom. bring on Osbourne.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 28, 2012)

gabi said:


> I saw him on Breakfast this morning going thru the front entrance posing for pics


He wouldn't have been going in at Breakfast time.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

He arrived about 9 i think. here he is going in.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 28, 2012)

My Eyes, My Eyes


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 28, 2012)

gabi said:


> He arrived about 9 i think. here he is going in.


----------



## agricola (May 28, 2012)

gabi said:


> Anyway. this is a pointless witness.
> 
> a) its ancient history and b) he's a far better barrister than anyone else in that courtroom. bring on Osbourne.


 
Actually Blair could be a key witness - lets face it he could have known about the likely extent of criminality within the press as long ago as 2006, and he does have form for killing off politically inconvienient investigations (both directly as in the case of BAe, and indirectly using the press to pressure Police and CPS as in the cash-for-honours inquiry). 

Asking him what he thinks about something is pointless though, he just waffles on endlessly and comes up with pleasant images of Tony and what he did.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

> Blair on Murdoch -- I wouldn't describe him as a tribal Tory.


 
^^ weirdly, i think that's actually true, having watched RM's evidence to both the select committee and leveson. very easy to cast him as a tory but i think he's just a pure, dedicated capitalist. big difference.


----------



## gosub (May 28, 2012)

gabi said:


> Anyway. this is a pointless witness.
> 
> a) its ancient history and b) he's a far better barrister than anyone else in that courtroom. bring on Osbourne.


Bollocks.. Fuck all court experience and he specialized in tax law. A silk he is not


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

gosub said:


> Bollocks.. Fuck all court experience and he specialized in tax law.


 
hmm... can't actually find much reportage on his legal career. certainly nothing about being a tax lawyer. his most high profile case seems to have been this before he went into politics.



> He appears in a number of reported cases, for example as in _Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner_[20] where he represented employers unsuccessfully in an attempt to deny female factory workers holiday pay.


----------



## agricola (May 28, 2012)

A protest!


----------



## elbows (May 28, 2012)

Violated the secure corridor


----------



## Balbi (May 28, 2012)

Cameron must be making furious notes on 'how to be a proper slick bastard' right now. Blair's a complete bastard, Cameron's far, far behind anything near like his abilities.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

Yep. Blairs still the best in the business when it comes to bullshitting. He has a unique way of self-puffing while also self-deprecating. Don't think you can learn this, however hard Cameron tries.


----------



## Santino (May 28, 2012)

Look at the masterful way he takes off his reading glasses to make a particular point.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

Look, I'm a straight kinda guy


----------



## Lock&Light (May 28, 2012)

gabi said:


> Jesus christ. He's already offered to provide Leveson with a written list of ways the media could be corrected. Surely that's Leveson's job, not Blair's?


 
Leveson is constantly asking each and everyone of the witnesses to help him by providing their insights on how press regulation can be made to work. Once again an attack on Blair is shown to be just so much hot air.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> If you think one man's alleged racism is more worth discussing than the goings-on in this thread then it deserves its own call-out thread.


 
I wasn't aware that I'd attributed value to one over the other.



> Many on this thread have posted, watched tv, read online and paper articles, listened to radio debates, seen multiple arrests, sackings, a corporation being shaken, the government being shaken, possibly the biggest ever cleansing of corruption in our history.
> 
> You're like The Sun, which flashes nonsense to distract from what we witness.


 
Ah, I see, that's what *you're* doing!

Irrespective of your inaccurate assumptions, I'm not saying that a single case of racism is "worth more" than the subject of this thread, I'm merely making clear (although obviously not clear enough that you can understand) that the reason why this thread has become a venue for calling London_Calling out, is that he posts here frequently.
There, simple enough for ya?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2012)

gabi said:


> Jesus christ. He's already offered to provide Leveson with a written list of ways the media could be corrected. Surely that's Leveson's job, not Blair's?


 
The man has a messiah complex. 
He sees everything in terms of he, the messiah, being the ultimate arbiter. If only the G-d he represents would take him bodily into heaven!


----------



## Badgers (May 28, 2012)

agricola said:
			
		

> A protest!



To the tower with him (Blair that is)


----------



## Streathamite (May 28, 2012)

bah! dp


----------



## Schmetterling (May 28, 2012)

gabi said:


> Jesus christ. He's already offered to provide Leveson with a written list of ways the media could be corrected. Surely that's Leveson's job, not Blair's?


Bless!  He has done extra homework for the teacher!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2012)

Schmetterling said:


> Bless! He has done extra homework for the teacher!


he should be appled to death


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

Leveson currently running his overall thinking on the whole inquiry past Blair. Almost to see if he agrees. Odd.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2012)

Santino said:


> Look at the masterful way he takes off his reading glasses to make a particular point.


I saw him slightly cough - i think that was when he ascended.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

wtf has happened to his voice?


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I saw him slightly cough


 
Boarding school reflex


----------



## weltweit (May 28, 2012)

Is it just me or did Blair have a pretty easy ride?

I missed a lot but was he even questioned about his trip to Oz to charm the Murdock?


----------



## laptop (May 28, 2012)

gabi said:


> Leveson currently running his overall thinking on the whole inquiry past Blair. Almost to see if he agrees. Odd.


 
That's how I would go about getting an unguarded remark out of a raving egotist


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2012)

Bend over and cough - into yer mans face.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Is it just me or did Blair have a pretty easy ride?
> 
> I missed a lot but was he even questioned about his trip to Oz to charm the Murdock?


 
Yeh. he was asked about that. Made no excuses. Said he at the least wanted to convince Murdoch not to attack him and at the most get him to endorse Labour.


----------



## gabi (May 28, 2012)

cameron's latest spin doctor taking the beeb's political correspondent to task without realising the cameras were rolling


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 28, 2012)

There's that coughing again.


----------



## Streathamite (May 28, 2012)

gabi said:


> Yep. Blairs still the best in the business when it comes to bullshitting. He has a unique way of self-puffing while also self-deprecating. Don't think you can learn this, however hard Cameron tries.


I'd go even further; presentationally, Blair's the best I've ever seen (and this is meant to be a field of expertise for me)


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 28, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> I'd go even further; presentationally, Blair's the best I've ever seen (and this is meant to be a field of expertise for me)


 
The school of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do, I dearly hope.


----------



## Streathamite (May 28, 2012)

gosub said:


> Bollocks.. Fuck all court experience and he specialized in tax law. A silk he is not


Huh? EVERY barrister with a track record of more than 10 years - as he has - has *plenty* of court experience!


----------



## Streathamite (May 28, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> The school of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do, I dearly hope.


mais naturellement...


----------



## teqniq (May 28, 2012)

Well it all sounds completely vomit inducing, I am glad I've been at work all day and too busy to look at the internet or a T.V.


----------



## laptop (May 28, 2012)

'Nother Weeting arrest...



> Scotland Yard said: "A 42-year-old woman [W] was arrested this morning, Monday 28 May 2012 by officers from Operation Weeting, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) investigation into the hacking of voicemail boxes.
> 
> She was arrested after attending a south-west London police station by appointment at approximately 11:00hrs on suspicion of money laundering offences, contrary to section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and is currently being questioned."
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/28/operation-weeting-arrest-money-laundering


 
Makes 25 in the hacking investigation... but laundering of *what* money is alleged?


----------



## kenny g (May 28, 2012)

could be as simple as bungs. The POCA2002 is pretty wide ranging.


----------



## Balbi (May 28, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> I'd go even further; presentationally, Blair's the best I've ever seen (and this is meant to be a field of expertise for me)


 
Like I said - he's a bastard, but he's a _complete_ bastard. No missing elements to his facade. It's when he started hanging around with Bush, who's the complete opposite presentationally, that he got in trouble


----------



## laptop (May 29, 2012)

*Guardian journalist and police officer not charged over 'phone-hacking leak'*

About time too...


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2012)

laptop said:


> *Guardian journalist and police officer not charged over 'phone-hacking leak'*
> 
> About time too...


 
I do wish the Guardian would stop bleating on about "_worrying attempt(s) to criminalise legitimate contact between journalists and confidential sources_" though - that is (or at least the investigation into such a leak featuring the questioning of sources and hacks) what is going to have to happen now, given that you cannot at the start of such an investigation state with any confidence why someone leaked something, who they leaked it to and what they then went on to use that information for.


----------



## laptop (May 29, 2012)

agricola said:


> I do wish the Guardian would stop bleating on about "_worrying attempt(s) to criminalise legitimate contact between journalists and confidential sources_" though - that is (or at least the investigation into such a leak featuring the questioning of sources and hacks) what is going to have to happen now, given that you cannot at the start of such an investigation state with any confidence why someone leaked something, who they leaked it to and what they then went on to use that information for.


 
The threatened use of the Official Secrets Act was a bit cack-handed, given the history (viz. Aubrey, Berry & Campbell)

And it to me looked a lot a lot like a sign of splits within the Met, with a "get the Guardian" faction, rather than even-handedness between the _Guardian_ and the _NotW_.


----------



## two sheds (May 29, 2012)

It also eliminates one possible result of all this that I was half expecting - that Guardian journalist/police leaks would be prosecuted while the NotW/police illegalities wouldn't.

So a good sign.


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2012)

laptop said:


> And it to me looked a lot a lot like a sign of splits within the Met, with a "get the Guardian" faction, rather than even-handedness between the _Guardian_ and the _NotW_.


 
Not really - after all, the Guardian did think it was ok to make use of (and of course it seems end up exposing*) a source within Weeting itself, something that was always going to (and IMHO should always) result in the source and the hacks being questioned.

* its also worth pointing out that the source - or rather the officer identified as the source by the CPS / IPCC - could well face disciplinary action


----------



## DexterTCN (May 29, 2012)

agricola said:


> ...* its also worth pointing out that the source - or rather the officer identified as the source by the CPS / IPCC - could well face disciplinary action


As opposed to a medal and a promotion, which is what he/she desreves imo.


----------



## laptop (May 29, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> As opposed to a medal and a promotion, which is what he/she deserves imo.


 
Now I'm interested: do the rules of Met disciplinary hearings even permit a public interest defence?


----------



## DexterTCN (May 29, 2012)

I doubt it, or they'd be very busy. heh


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2012)

Fucking Gove, his views are at odds with most witnesses in terms of the scale of the problem, he is gushing all over Murdoch, and right now Leveson does not seem to be amused by Goves anti-regulatory stance.


----------



## weltweit (May 29, 2012)

The old judge would not survive on just a minute, beep "hesitation"!!


----------



## gosub (May 29, 2012)

elbows said:


> Fucking Gove, his views are at odds with most witnesses in terms of the scale of the problem, he is gushing all over Murdoch, and right now Leveson does not seem to be amused by Goves anti-regulatory stance.


He is a former times columnist and think his wife is a journo


----------



## Ted Striker (May 29, 2012)

weltweit said:


> The old judge would not survive on just a minute, beep "hesitation"!!


 
That for me, and the "give the (poor) stenographer a break (lol)" is the most memorable impact he's had tbf.


----------



## Streathamite (May 29, 2012)

gosub said:


> He is a former times columnist and think his wife is a journo


in fact he wrote the leaders. which made him murdoch's mouthpiece


----------



## gosub (May 29, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> in fact he wrote the leaders. which made him murdoch's mouthpiece


Times leaders allowed to be independent, it's only sun that he demands a say on


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2012)

gosub said:


> He is a former times columnist and think his wife is a journo


 
Yes. As I've probably said on here a few times before, he first appeared on my radar in the runup to the Iraq war, on a program that was probably on channel 4 and attempted to present the case for & against the war in the form of a debate that was in some ways structured like a court case.

Back then it was possible, on the few occasions where I was not completely overcome with rage about his beliefs, to note that he held a certain pretty extreme ideology dear, and that he was better than most in that camp at putting across his ideas in a somewhat convincing manner. I don't mean that I agreed with him, he isn't going to convince me or plenty of others because of the very nature of his beliefs, but he was able to build them into an ideological framework that was slightly more consistent than most of his peers. He's probably a true believer.

So I hope it makes sense if I suggest that he is a more overtly neocon version of Blair in certain ways. But obviously not in others, he lacks obvious charm, and likely relies on his ability to state a view with a certain boring passion, and the substance of that view, in order to make friends. Perhaps he has a few fans for delivering a refreshingly different kind of horrible bullshit to the predominant flavour of bullshit that this age generates.

Either way he is on my 'dangerous persons' list, along with the likes of Boris.

A battle between Self and Gove with weapons of word and historical knowledge might be entertaining.


----------



## gabi (May 29, 2012)

gosub said:


> Times leaders allowed to be independent, it's only sun that he demands a say on


 
Where are you getting that from?


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2012)

Its the picture some think has emerged as a result of evidence from a few different witnesses over recent months.There is probably some devil in the detail, as influence between owner and editor can be more subtle than direct story interest/intervention  sometimes.


----------



## gabi (May 29, 2012)

I thought the reason Andrew Neil quit the sunday times was because of Murdoch's meddling, for one. He certainly influences the editorial line in his titles in australia and I would assume the US too.


----------



## Streathamite (May 29, 2012)

gosub said:


> Times leaders allowed to be independent, it's only sun that he demands a say on


erm...you sure of that?


----------



## Lock&Light (May 29, 2012)

gosub said:


> Times leaders allowed to be independent, it's only sun that he demands a say on


 
Harold Evans would not agree with you.


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2012)

An example of what todays Gove session was like:



> LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: So your reaction is that the suggestion that I think I've received from more than a few people over the last few months that actually public regard for both has gone down is misplaced?
> 
> A. I think it's always wise to look at the historical context. It was a Latin author who said, "O tempora o mores!" as they were lamenting the slack morals of their time. I think that human nature doesn't change much over time and politicians and journalists have always tended to be held in relatively low regard.
> 
> ...


----------



## agricola (May 29, 2012)

elbows said:


> Fucking Gove, his views are at odds with most witnesses in terms of the scale of the problem, he is gushing all over Murdoch, and right now Leveson does not seem to be amused by Goves anti-regulatory stance.


 
If you havent already, its worth revisiting the latest _Eye_ - there was an article in it pointing out how odd it is that Gove (who as has been pointed out is an ex-NI hack, is still close to NI and is a cabinet minister) hasnt been targetted at all in his scandal, by Labour or anyone else. Just look at some of the praise he has recieved for his sterling defence of the right of the hacks to misbehave, which has been sickeningly fawning.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 29, 2012)

Welll..Gove... hardly worth the fucking bother to be honest.


----------



## Gingerman (May 29, 2012)

gosub said:


> think his wife is a journo


Who writes for the Times


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 30, 2012)

I think you are all being unfair.

It's not like Gove has any motive other than keeping the gravy train running supporting press freedom in his defence of Murdoch.





> [*]Contract with Times Newspapers Limited to supply a set number of articles. Address: News International Limited, 1 Virginia Street, London, E98 1XY. (*£60,001-£65,000*)
> [*]29 July 2009 received payment of *£5,750* for four articles. Hours: 4hrs. (Registered 31 July 2009)
> [*]20 August 2009, received payment of* £5,750* for three articles I wrote in August for The Times. Hours: 3 hrs. (Registered 10 September 2009)
> [*]20 September 2009, received payment of *£5750* for three articles. Hours: 3 hrs. (Registered 21 October 2009)
> ...


----------



## Santino (May 30, 2012)

Coulson arrested (in London) for perjury in the High Court in Glasgow. According to THE INTERNET.


----------



## yardbird (May 30, 2012)

Santino said:


> Coulson arrested (in London) for perjury in the High Court in Glasgow. According to THE INTERNET.


Confirmed on bbc radio5 news


----------



## laptop (May 30, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Confirmed on bbc radio5 news


 


> During the trial, Sheridan produced documentary evidence that he had been twice targeted by Mulcaire, a private detective hired by the NoW, in 2004.
> 
> It has since emerged that other close members of Sheridan's family and associates were also named and potentially targeted by Mulcaire, including the politician's mother, Alice Sheridan, and the Scottish politician Joan McAlpine...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/30/andy-coulson-detained-police-perjury


 
I think we can fill in some of the blanks of what Coulson said in the Sheridan trial...

This is all starting to merge into one ur-scandal, isn't it? I spy Lord Lucan...


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 30, 2012)

laptop said:


> This is all starting to merge into one ur-scandal, isn't it? I spy Lord Lucan...


 
I wonder if there are any other curious threads that ultimately will be woven into this big blanket of doom. For example, I wonder what it was exactly that led Associated Newspapers to run a blanket SPEAK TO LAWYERS BEFORE RUNNING ANYTHING caption on all photos of Brian Paddick in their CMS in the mid-00s.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2012)

What's a CMS dave?


----------



## laptop (May 30, 2012)

Content Management System?

I'd have thought that the Associated note was most likely because Brian P had made a plausible threat to sue their arses. Unless it was the result of an unpublicised out-of-court settlement?


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2012)

colour monthly supplement? 

But a plausible threat to sue over what?


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 30, 2012)

Content management system, like where all the photos are dumped with captions, metadata etc so they're accessible across the company.



butchersapron said:


> But a plausible threat to sue over what?


 
Well, quite!


----------



## agricola (May 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> colour monthly supplement?
> 
> But a plausible threat to sue over what?


 
IIRC he did sue, and got damages in an out of court settlement... so it may have been a condition of that settlement that they (Associated Newspapers) didnt run further stories of that kind about him.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Content management system, like where all the photos are dumped with captions, metadata etc so they're accessible across the company.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, quite!


Go you now ta.

Shall we ask him?


----------



## DexterTCN (May 30, 2012)

Looks like Coulson, torymurdochwhore, may well have been (I can say that, I'm sure) caught committing perjury in a perjury trial.   It's a wet dream.   Cameron's man, committing perjury in a perjury trial.   However the Scots investigation is into more than that so hopefully more arrests/detentions will follow.


----------



## two sheds (May 30, 2012)

Leveson reads Private Eye shocker.



> "Private Eye has also been publishing during the course of this Inquiry what the newspapers don't publish. In other words, they've gone through a number of stories and said. 'Actually, it's rather interesting that this story appeared in the paper but it didn't cover another aspect'
> 
> Lord Justice Leveson speaking at his own inquiry, 17 May. His observation was not reported in a single national newspaper.


 
From this week's PE.


----------



## yardbird (May 31, 2012)

Practical thought.
Coulson was arrested in London and driven to Scotland.
I assume that he will have found his own way back south once released ?


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

Hunt's getting sworn in


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

Love to see a pulse/blood pressure reading.


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

Jay's slowly doing him in here


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

I only just started watching but it took me about 20 seconds to conclude that he is toast. Some fun evidence.


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

He can't really dig his way out of this. Almost feel sorry for him. He's fucked.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2012)

Yes, he's being walked right into it step-by-step.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Oh these texts, lolololol.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Osbourne to Hunt: I hope you like the solution!


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

So Osborne's next then. This is like of those 80s platform games.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2012)

I like the argument from Hunt that Cable was not fit for the job due to being irredeemably biased but that he himself can put aside all bias without any bother at all. Real integrity builder that one. Gone gone gone.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 31, 2012)

Just look at Hunt's face - he knows the game is up.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only to find that the team captain sold the television rights to the opposing team and they've stuck a bloody great camera in front of your face.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 31, 2012)

gabi said:


> Almost feel sorry for him.


Don't!


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Don't!


 


> *Iain Martin, Political journalist, The Telegraph *
> *tweets*: @MotoClark Hunt is a decent man, out of his depth with the Murdochs and Cameron. Should have resigned a month ago.


 
I'm somehow inclined to agree with this to a degree


----------



## agricola (May 31, 2012)

This is by some distance the biggest shoeing handed out at Leveson so far, I would not be surprised at all if Jay ended up making him cry.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

Coulson was loads better - and look what happened to him.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

This is a comedy defence. He may as well get a clown horn out and honk it.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

agricola said:


> This is by some distance the biggest shoeing handed out at Leveson so far, I would not be surprised at all if Jay ended up making him cry.


I thought that as soon as I logged on - I've been watching his eyes to see the moment when the first tear rolls.


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

His voice has definitely got pretty shaky


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

um, ah, um, ah.. christ his boy-man SPAD was more composed than this


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Thats quite the hole he's dug when describing agent Smiths role etc.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

gabi said:


> His voice has definitely got pretty shaky


Could hear the delight when he just got the opportunity to talk about broadband for a few seconds!  Brief respite.


----------



## agricola (May 31, 2012)

Leveson takes pity on him, a short break is called.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

agricola said:


> Leveson takes pity on him, a short break is called.


In the films this is where he sobs in the bogs.  Then, deep breath to compose himself and he walks back in, strings playing in a minor key in the background.  How do you spell schaudenfreude?


----------



## gosub (May 31, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Don't!


bbbuuutttt he's going to lose all his olympic free tickets


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

Wilf said:


> In the films this is where he sobs in the bogs. Then, deep breath to compose himself and he walks back in, strings playing in a minor key in the background. How do you spell schaudenfreude?


 
not like that


----------



## Streathamite (May 31, 2012)

he's gone - got to go. The idea that the govt coiuld ensure impartiality by appointing a pro-bid guy to an oversight role is so ridiculous as to be utterly unsustainable.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2012)

gabi said:


> I'm somehow inclined to agree with this to a degree


I think that's the image he might want to give out publicly, but it's clear he was happy to act as Murdoch's man as far back as November - and the evidence is that he went into that role with his eyes open and pursued this role in a diligent fashion.


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 31, 2012)

I can't watch stuff like this, I have a very sensitive awkward-reflex, I'm just following the Guardian blog on this one.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

From the grauniad feed:




> Hunt on his spad, A Smith: "He heard all the things I heard abt what we needed to be careful abt" He knew my mind #*Leveson*
> 
> Leveson says his working relationship with Smith was exceptionally close. Incompatible with his defence, that Smith was going off-piste


There'll be somebody from no 10 slapping him as we speak.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 31, 2012)

I'm co-operating here!


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> he's gone - got to go. The idea that the govt coiuld ensure impartiality by appointing a pro-bid guy to an oversight role is so ridiculous as to be utterly unsustainable.


 
Thing is, his boss can't sack him. He's about the last piece of the firewall protecting the big man himself.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 31, 2012)

*Iain Martin, Political journalist, The Telegraph *
*tweets*: @MotoClark Hunt is a decent man, out of his depth with the Murdochs and Cameron. Should have resigned a month ago.​ 


gabi said:


> I'm somehow inclined to agree with this to a degree


Well yes perhaps...but if he's a decent man he should resign and dish the dirt on everyone. I'd respect him more for that.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 31, 2012)

> Patrick Wintour@*patrickwintour*
> Early possible draft of Hunt resignation letter to PM: "I hope you like the solution".


----------



## Ted Striker (May 31, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> he's gone - got to go. The idea that the govt coiuld ensure impartiality by appointing a pro-bid guy to an oversight role is so ridiculous as to be utterly unsustainable.


 
Tbf, it's no worse than their individual efforts of the front bench to show most disinterest to the electorate.

This is all Hunts way of saying to Osbourne and Cameron "Hey guys, I'm cabinet material, I too can show utter disrespect for any notion of propriety and public interest"


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

gabi said:


> Thing is, his boss can't sack him. He's about the last piece of the firewall protecting the big man himself.


 
Thats not how it often works. They needed him to survive till today so that some of the heat from todays revelations will be dealt with by him resigning. If he'd already gone before today then Osborne, Cameron etc would take far more direct heat today as they are next in line.


----------



## agricola (May 31, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> he's gone - got to go. The idea that the govt coiuld ensure impartiality by appointing a pro-bid guy to an oversight role is so ridiculous as to be utterly unsustainable.


 
TBH that has probably happened quite a lot since 1997, though such things rarely get exposed in the way that this has.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

Suppose he could pretend to be ill.  "A man was taken away from the Levenson Inquiry with breathing difficulties...".


----------



## Santino (May 31, 2012)

He's a Tory cunt who wanted to create a shitty Fox-style news giant that would shit out right-wing propaganda for the next 1000 years. Fuck this 'decent man' bullshit.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

The comedy continues. Might be the funniest thing I've seen on the telly on a morning.


----------



## magneze (May 31, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> he's gone - got to go. The idea that the govt coiuld ensure impartiality by appointing a pro-bid guy to an oversight role is so ridiculous as to be utterly unsustainable.


Cameron's judgement again. Funny how this keeps coming up ...


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

elbows said:


> The comedy continues. Might be the funniest thing I've seen on the telly on a morning.


It's like Jeremy Kyle for posh people.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 31, 2012)

'decent man' ?!?! What the fuck.



Hes a deceitful corrupt cunt who - like the rest of the tories - belive they are born to rule and that laws and regulations are for the little people and not for the likes of them. 



Though I'll be sparing a thought for him crying all the way through the olympics - and that thought will be -


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

Christ, he's fucking stupid.


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

He doesnt seem very well-briefed


----------



## gosub (May 31, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Suppose he could pretend to be ill. "A man was taken away from the Levenson Inquiry with breathing difficulties...".


 

if all else fails....


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 31, 2012)

Politician in lying bastard shock.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Christ, he's fucking stupid.


 
Thats not a revelation.


----------



## Streathamite (May 31, 2012)

how did this man ever have enough smarts to create Hotcourses?


----------



## Streathamite (May 31, 2012)

gabi said:


> Thing is, his boss can't sack him. He's about the last piece of the firewall protecting the big man himself.


that's the fun bit...


----------



## Schmetterling (May 31, 2012)

And aaaaall because Davey-Boy wants to impress the wifey and the in-laws.....


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

safer ground now


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

grauniad have put together a timeline.  Just on its own this should kill him:

*Around midday: *The European commission unconditionally approved News Corporation's bid to take full control of BSkyB on competition grounds.

*12.57pm:* Jeremy Hunt text to James Murdoch: "Great and congrats on Brussels. Just Ofcom to go."

*2.30pm: *The BBC publishes Vince Cable's comments to undercover Daily Telegraph reporters, in which the business secretary said: "I don't know if you have been following what has been happening with the Murdoch press, where I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win."

*3.56pm: *News Corporation statement: "News Corp is shocked and dismayed by reports of Mr Cable's comments. They raise serious questions about fairness and due process."

*4pm: *Hunt has a phone call with James Murdoch, discussing Cable's comments.

*4.08pm: *Hunt texts George Osborne, the chancellor, to say he is "seriously worried we are going to screw this up" regarding the BSkyB bid, and, in a second text, says Murdoch is accusing Cable of "acute bias" over the bid.

*4.58pm: *Osborne texts Hunt: "I hope you like our solution."

*5.45pm: *Downing Street announces that Cable has been stripped of responsibility for the BSkyB decision and that responsibility has been handed to Hunt.


----------



## weltweit (May 31, 2012)

UILs ? what they?

Plus are all the people in the background supposed to be working, because sod all work seems to be being done!!


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 31, 2012)

Jeeeeeeesus feck... I was wondering what all this "hope you like our solution" talk was, I'd missed all that.

To quote the previously referenced Blackadder episode: Goodbyeeeeeeeee!


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2012)

weltweit said:


> UILs ? what they?


 
Undertakings In Lieu.

That is, promises of editorial independence made instead of (_in lieu_ of) ensuring actual economic and command independence.


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2012)

And Leveson has just given exactly this definition (minus a tad of sarcasm) for the puzzled listener


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2012)

Wilf said:


> grauniad have put together a timeline. Just on its own this should kill him:
> 
> *Around midday: *The European commission unconditionally approved News Corporation's bid to take full control of BSkyB on competition grounds.
> 
> ...


The guardian have totally missed a trick here - potentially the key trick in fact. They've taken the time/date of the Cable stuff coming out from when the BBC first reported it ( 2-30 on the 21st), not from date time the actual article went up on the Telegraph site (9-30 on the 20th) - so the text to Murodoch came _after_ the Cable story had been broken, not before.


----------



## Santino (May 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The guardian have totally missed a trick here - potentially the key trick in fact. They've taken the time/date of the Cable stuff coming out from when the BBC first reported it ( 2-30 on the 21st), not from date time the actual article went up on the Telegraph site (9-30 on the 20th) - so the text to Murodoch came _after_ the Cable story had been broken, not before.


Didn't the Telegraph story come out in two waves? First the redacted conversation with no reference to Murdoch, then the full story. Is this reflected?


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2012)

didn't the telegraph not include the sky stuff though? someone leaked it to the bbc later that day iirc?


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2012)

"We weren't pro-Murdoch... We weren't following a process for appearance's sake..."

Would be looking forward to Leveson's definition of "irony". Shame I have work to do...


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2012)

Santino said:


> Didn't the Telegraph story come out in two waves? First the redacted conversation with no reference to Murdoch, then the full story. Is this reflected?


Ah yes, well remembered - the one about cable/murdoch went out 3-36 on the 21st.


----------



## agricola (May 31, 2012)

Santino said:


> Didn't the Telegraph story come out in two waves? First the redacted conversation with no reference to Murdoch, then the full story. Is this reflected?


 
IIRC there were rumours going around that the redacted bit was "leaked" out of the Torygraph newsroom as well, so they (either Hunt/Cameron/Osborne or NI) could potentially have known about it before the story actually broke.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 31, 2012)

agricola said:


> IIRC there were rumours going around that the redacted bit was "leaked" out of the Torygraph newsroom as well, so they (either Hunt/Cameron/Osborne or NI) could potentially have known about it before the story actually broke.


 
Lest we forget the Will Lewis shitstorm.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2012)

agricola said:


> IIRC there were rumours going around that the redacted bit was "leaked" out of the Torygraph newsroom as well, so they (either Hunt/Cameron/Osborne or NI) could potentially have known about it before the story actually broke.


Well, someone was leaking it for sure - we know that for a fact.


----------



## Streathamite (May 31, 2012)

agricola said:


> IIRC there were rumours going around that the redacted bit was "leaked" out of the Torygraph newsroom as well, so they (either Hunt/Cameron/Osborne or NI) could potentially have known about it before the story actually broke.


come to think of it, the editorial hierarchy at the Torygraph must be crawling with people who'd be only to happy to shaft a lib dem


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2012)

The current discussion of whether Hunt and Smith knew what was about to come out about phone hacking (that made NI keen to get a green light on Sky before it came out) makes me wonder:

Have we yet seen the "far worse to come" that an NI executive (Brooks?) mentioned to staff when the _News of the World_ was shut?

Or... is there more?


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ah yes, well remembered - the one about cable/murdoch went out 3-36 on the 21st.


Still, the timeline is a lovely example of that (Ralph!) Miliband v Poulantzas stuff on the nature of the elite, personal links vs structural power.  In the age of texts and email, the elite are able to manoeuvre in real time!


----------



## agricola (May 31, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> come to think of it, the editorial hierarchy at the Torygraph must be crawling with people who'd be only to happy to shaft a lib dem


 
Which was the irony - they allegedly sat on the Cable / Murdoch stuff because they realised it could have destroyed their own anti-Murdoch efforts.


----------



## Dan U (May 31, 2012)

oh look a massive u-turn from Gideon on Charity Taxes

convenient timing.

no link just yet, seen it on twitter


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 31, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Plus are all the people in the background supposed to be working, because sod all work seems to be being done!!


They're mostly civil servants/enquiry staff - Robert Jay doesn't stay up all night wading through through thousands of ring binders full of evidence - he has these people to do it for him.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2012)

agricola said:


> Which was the irony - they allegedly sat on the Cable / Murdoch stuff because they realised it could have destroyed their own anti-Murdoch efforts.


...and it appears that of of Hunt's two favoured journo is/was Andrew Porter of the Telegraph. I cannot believe he had no inkling of what was coming.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 31, 2012)

Dan U said:


> oh look a massive u-turn from Gideon on Charity Taxes
> 
> convenient timing.
> 
> no link just yet, seen it on twitter


Yep - should ensure the news isnt _completely_ dominated by Leveson/Hunt


----------



## Badgers (May 31, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> Yep - should ensure the news isnt completely dominated by Leveson/Hunt



Good day to bury good news either way?


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yep - should ensure the news isnt _completely_ dominated by Leveson/Hunt


BBC have it as lead item. Fantastic.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Yeah they picked this week to do u-turns, how convenient.


----------



## Dan U (May 31, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yep - should ensure the news isnt _completely_ dominated by Leveson/Hunt


 
apparently news at 1 leading with tax u turn and not Hunt

job done (if so, i'm not near a TV)


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> BBC have it as lead item. Fantastic.


 



> *Nick Robinson Political editor *
> *tweets*: U turn on charity tax breaks coming doesn't 'bury bad news' but No 10 will hope more interesting/easier to follow than #Leveson


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 31, 2012)

I wonder if that's what all these cuts and the like are really about - something in the pocket to distract from shitstorms, if necessary.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> I wonder if that's what all these cuts and the like are really about - something in the pocket to distract from shitstorms, if necessary.


 
No.


----------



## Dan U (May 31, 2012)

apparently Louise Mensch thinks this is a strong performance and Hunt has answered all questions in full.

has she been offered his job?


----------



## gosub (May 31, 2012)

4.08pm: Hunt texts George Osborne, the chancellor, to say he is "seriously worried we are going to screw this up" regarding the BSkyB bid, and, in a second text, says Murdoch is accusing Cable of "acute bias" over the bid.

4.58pm: Osborne texts Hunt: "I hope you like our solution."


WHAT ABOUT THE CHINESE WALL??????????


----------



## Roadkill (May 31, 2012)

From Toby Helm:



> *Toby Helm* ‏@*tobyhelm*
> Osborne's week. Coulson (his rec for No 10) charged for perjury. Three budget u turns. Leveson entanglements with Hunt. Anything else?
> 
> 12:43 PM - 31 May 12 via web · Details


 
More nails in the coffin of Osborne's ambitions to lead the Tories next...


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> From Toby Helm:
> 
> 
> 
> More nails in the coffin of Osborne's ambitions to lead the Tories next...


Be about the right time for a coke dealer to come out of the woodwork


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

Boris must be chuckling


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> From Toby Helm:
> 
> 
> 
> More nails in the coffin of Osborne's ambitions to lead the Tories next...


 
Yes, that was always going to be a challenge but now it seems implausible. Think it may have been a wikileak that pointed out that Osbornes voice is a barrier to achieving that office.

As for the coffin, I think Michael Howard is still using it at the moment.


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Be about the right time for a coke dealer to come out of the woodwork


 
Heaven forfend! There is no such person. Anyone who tells me, wonderful as I am, any different will get a bunch of fives...

<rants for a further five minutes>





<muffled sounds from inside gimp suit>


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 31, 2012)

elbows said:


> No.


Damn. My career as a political analyst remains tantalisingly out of reach


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

It's written all over his spanked arse face.


----------



## Roadkill (May 31, 2012)

elbows said:


> Yes, that was always going to be a challenge but now it seems implausible.


 
It's not implausible, but he's a weaker candidate than he was, as this Torygraph piece that went up last night summarises rather well.  Being a bit overtaken by events, though...


----------



## agricola (May 31, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> It's not implausible, but he's a weaker candidate than he was, as this Torygraph piece that went up last night summarises rather well. Being a bit overtaken by events, though...


 
That piece reads as if they got one of Cameron's SPADs drunk and listened to him or her ramble on. I mean Phillip Hammond is seen as someone with “_not sufficient bandwidth_”? FFS.


----------



## Roadkill (May 31, 2012)

agricola said:


> That piece reads as if they got one of Cameron's SPADs drunk and listened to him or her ramble on. I mean Phillip Hammond is seen as someone with “_not sufficient bandwidth_”? FFS.


 
It is a bizarre phrase, isn't it?  Probably correct about Hammond being too dull for the top job, though...


----------



## Schmetterling (May 31, 2012)

From the Daily Heil for all those who missed it as I had.  Cue comedy piano tinkling and bassoon trumping aaaaand read:

*HE 'HID BEHIND A TREE' TO DODGE MEDIA AT MURDOCH DRINKS PARTY*
Mr Hunt reportedly hid behind a tree to avoid being spotted by journalists at a party attended by News Corp's James Murdoch.

He had seenreporters at an evening event in May 2010 and decided to make himself scarce, the inquiry into press ethics heard.
He said  that he thought 'this is not the time to have an impromptu interview and so I moved into a different quadrangle'.
Former Wall Street Journal journalist Iain Martin has described how he saw Mr Hunt hide.
Mr Martin said: 'He was heading in my direction, towards the Murdoch drinks party. 
'I don't know whether he saw me, or if something else diverted him, but he suddenly changed direction and darted to the side of the square and over towards a large tree.'
Mr Hunt said today: 'There may or may not have been trees.'
The light-hearted exchange came at the start of a gruelling day of questioning for Mr Hunt, who is fighting to save his ministerial career after the close links between him and the Murdochs were revealed.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2152558/Jeremy-Hunt-sent-great-congrats-text-James-Murdoch-hours-charge-BSkyB-bid.html#ixzz1wRwLa9hE


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

agricola said:


> I mean Phillip Hammond is seen as someone with “_not sufficient bandwidth_”? FFS.


 
Hunt can fix broadband issues


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2012)

Schmetterling said:


> HE 'HID BEHIND A TREE' TO DODGE MEDIA AT MURDOCH DRINKS PARTY


 
Undead story is revenant.

*The night I saw Jeremy Hunt hide behind a tree before dinner with James Murdoch April 25th, 2012*


----------



## agricola (May 31, 2012)

Dan U said:


> apparently Louise Mensch thinks this is a strong performance and Hunt has answered all questions in full.
> 
> has she been offered his job?


 
She must be the preferred choice to speak today - shes now on BBC News saying that the evidence thus far showed that Hunt clearly put up strong divisions between what he privately felt and what he did, blahblahblah.


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2012)

agricola said:


> She must be the preferred choice to speak today - shes now on BBC News saying that the evidence thus far showed that Hunt clearly put up strong divisions between what he privately felt and what he did, blahblahblah.


 
She's being sacrificed by Central Office to be tainted by association? Oh good!


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2012)

agricola said:


> Phillip Hammond is seen as someone with “_not sufficient bandwidth_”? FFS.


 
Actually, they were interviewing civil servants off the record. That would be a very relevant assessment from an official: translation - "He can't or won't take in information at the rate we supply it".


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

Schmetterling said:


> *HE 'HID BEHIND A TREE' TO DODGE MEDIA AT MURDOCH DRINKS PARTY*


 No, no, no!  He hid behind a tree _in a quasi judicial capacity! _


----------



## agricola (May 31, 2012)

Wilf said:


> No, no, no!  He hid behind a tree _in a quasi judicial capacity! _


 
Quasi-deciduous then?


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Not been so much fun in recent hours but still some stuff emerging that doesn't help number 10 

The Guardian's deputy editor, *Ian Katz*, has just tweeted:
Cam has consistently said he hd nothing to do with BSkyBhandling but Hunt concedes No 10 began communicating with DCMS after Dowler story
— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 31, 2012​


----------



## agricola (May 31, 2012)

Jay having great fun with these text messages between Hunt and Michel.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2012)

elbows said:


> Not been so much fun in recent hours but still some stuff emerging that doesn't help number 10
> 
> The Guardian's deputy editor, *Ian Katz*, has just tweeted:
> Cam has consistently said he hd nothing to do with BSkyBhandling but Hunt concedes No 10 began communicating with DCMS after Dowler story​— ian katz (@iankatz1000) May 31, 2012​


...and that goes for the claim that Coulson was in no way involved as well.


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

kinell, nice little pre-planned sideswipe at his former SPAD there


----------



## agricola (May 31, 2012)

Did Hunt just suggest that Smith - apparently "the most decent, straight and honest person" - lost his integrity because of the volume of messages that Michel was sending him?


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

Yep


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Text messages are fun, newspapers should have hacked these instead of voicemails


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2012)

agricola said:


> Did Hunt just suggest that Smith - apparently "the most decent, straight and honest person" - lost his integrity because of the volume of messages that Michel was sending him?


He probably _is_ the "the most decent, straight and honest person" that he knows...


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

About Bloody Time!

lololololol


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

elbows said:


> About Bloody Time!


 
There's the Mail's headline sorted for the day when Hunt is eventually given the heave-ho


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 31, 2012)

agricola said:


> She must be the preferred choice to speak today - shes now on BBC News saying that the evidence thus far showed that Hunt clearly put up strong divisions between what he privately felt and what he did, blahblahblah.


She seems to be "on message" to an almost psychotic degree. She thinks if you shout it loud and strongly enough people will believe it, regardless of whether it's true or not.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> ...and that goes for the claim that Coulson was in no way involved as well.


 
Wasn't Coulson gone by then?


----------



## Badgers (May 31, 2012)

http://mobile.twitter.com/vizcomic/status/207163703135698944/photo/1/large


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

lulz



> *Ross Hawkins Political correspondent, BBC News*
> *tweets*: (will anyone in Westminster ever text anyone again?)


----------



## agricola (May 31, 2012)

"I declare victory, well done"


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2012)

elbows said:


> Wasn't Coulson gone by then?


When the Cable stuff came out  on the day that news corp got its good news about europe Coulson was sticking his nose in - emailing Hunt in his then role as Director of Communications for Cameron - he resigned 4 weeks later.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> When the Cable stuff came out on the day that news corp got its good news about europe Coulson was sticking his nose in - emailing Hunt in his then role as Director of Communications for Cameron - he resigned 4 weeks later.


 
Aha, think we are talking about different moments.

lol that Hunt thought it was ok to meet Coulson for drinks and his other SPAD had to advise him not to.


----------



## Schmetterling (May 31, 2012)

Hunt better have a strong bladder.  He is getting through an awful lot of water, isn't he?


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

gabi said:


> lulz


 
Ahhh the practical lessons learnt from inquiries, remember 45 minute inquiry resulting in suggestions that the government would stop using email


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Schmetterling said:


> Hunt better have a strong bladder. He is getting through an awful lot of water, isn't he?


 
Maybe he is using Camerons EU bargaining technique! (needing toilet helps focus the mind lol)

( http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/shortcuts/2011/dec/12/david-cameron-full-bladder-technique )


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

did Jay just pick his nose? Disappointed.


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

He picks it fairly regularly. Picks his teeth sometimes too.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 31, 2012)

Wilf said:


> did Jay just pick his nose? Disappointed.


 
It's just his way of indicating that he's here for the long haul - unpacking his trunk.


----------



## Schmetterling (May 31, 2012)

elbows said:


> Maybe he is using Camerons EU bargaining technique! (needing toilet helps focus the mind lol)
> 
> ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/shortcuts/2011/dec/12/david-cameron-full-bladder-technique )


That would be fantastic because that EU summit went well for him, didn't it?


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

gabi said:


> He picks it fairly regularly. Picks his teeth sometimes too.


Chavsilk


----------



## gabi (May 31, 2012)

His strategy is very clear now then. Hang the child out to dry as far as possible.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 31, 2012)

QC not WC.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> QC not WC.


Snotchambers


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 31, 2012)

Rumple of the Bogey


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

Covonia QC


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Think they may have lured Hunt into admitting that it was rather hard for him & his special advisor to fulfil a quasi-judicial role given their prior and subsequent relations with the parties concerned. Which leads us back to Cameron & Osbornes judgement.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

We have a sort of irony here, lol Jay can say that again.


----------



## Schmetterling (May 31, 2012)

He's has gone to hide behind a tree...


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 31, 2012)

I think Hunt was secretly loving all the attention, but we couldn't see his wood for all the talk about trees.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> I think Hunt was secretly loving all the attention, but we couldn't see his wood for all the talk about trees.


cranking.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Doesn't sound like hunt is going, Number 10 aren't referring him.

I don't care too much, since it makes look Cameron etc look bad anyway.


----------



## Wilf (May 31, 2012)

elbows said:


> Doesn't sound like hunt is going, Number 10 aren't referring him.
> 
> I don't care too much, since it makes look Cameron etc look bad anyway.


I'm hardly one for pushing the 'he makes a mockery of Parliamentary democracy with his refusal to resign'. However he is pushing the concept of 'brazen' to breaking point.  That timeline earlier should have done for anyone.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

I think the problem they have is that the timeline is at its most damaging before he was appointed to the role, so its Cameron, Osborne etc that should take the most heat for errors at that stage, i.e. choosing to appoint him in the first place.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

Can someone help me to understand the redaction rules? There is at least one Private Secretary whose name is redacted from Hunts evidence, and I was wondering why.


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

One email from Hunt in Jan 2011 says 'Brill thx, good to be a hate figure, Maggie would be proud of me!'


----------



## stavros (May 31, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> I think Hunt was secretly loving all the attention, but we couldn't see his wood for all the talk about trees.


 
He's probably thinking about those huge consultancy fees he'll get after having to leave the Commons after the next election.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 31, 2012)

No one posted up the 'I worked for Jeremy Hunt' piece from The Quietus yet?



> ...It was quite a shock when, at one of the interminable Monday Morning Meetings, we were informed that Jeremy Hunt would be standing as a Conservative MP. We were surprised, not only because we were amazed that anyone would vote for this affable lummox, but also that he'd never really displayed much in the way of political enthusiasm in the past. As a former colleague relates, "He once said to me during the fledgling stages of his political career, 'Well, both my parents are conservative so it's a pretty much a foregone conclusion I would be too'." The holy hand of patronage had plucked him out to replace Virginia Bottomley in the kind of safe Surrey seat that the Tories wouldn't even able to lose if their candidate was caught, pants down, discussing Uganda with the gardener...


 


> ...We of course followed Hunt's progress with interest. To his credit, he seemed to be doing some decent work on disability issues in various debates in the House. But his appointment as Shadow Culture Secretary could not help but raise eyebrows. This was a man who, whenever he tried to engage with you and discuss your interests in music, art, literature or film, would glaze over and stare at a point somewhere in the middle of your forehead. Hunt's interests seemed more to lie in Latin dancing, and especially Salsa, or in his fascination with China and Japan. In interviews, Hunt seemed like a lightweight, unsure of himself in front of the camera. You only have to tune in to the Leveson live stream to see just how inept Hunt is. _This_ was one of the new Conservative Party of 'Dave' Cameron's great white hopes? When the phone hacking scandal began to break, it seemed more than likely that he would become unstuck. As today's revelations at Leveson of worried texts back and forth seems to show, this was a man who was keen to please everyone as he floundered around waiting for blessing from the big boy in the playground, George Osbourne...


 


> ...Those three years working alongside Hunt give me an idea of the kind of government we currently have, run by these former public school boys who have barged their way through life not through merit or ability, but by birth. You would not have picked out Jeremy Hunt as a brilliant intellect, a powerful speaker, a man with any convictions other than those he was born with. This is the impression one also gets from the rest of his colleagues in the Conservative party. It was bad enough having him as a boss – the fact that he and his chums are running the country is far, far worse...


----------



## elbows (May 31, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> No one posted up the 'I worked for Jeremy Hunt' piece from The Quietus yet?


 
Thanks for bringing that to attention. Oh dear.


> Already reported in Popbitch (on the day of the 2010 general election) was an incident on September 11th 2001. Now, my memory - and the source for Popbitch, which wasn't me - tells me that it was Hunt who, when we were listening intently to the radio reports of planes smacking into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, came into the office to demand that we turned the volume down as it was affecting the sales team's telephone calls. Whether it was him or not, it speaks volumes about the management culture of the company.
> This was not a one-off. For instance, I distinctly recall one presentation after a period of company expansion. All of us, old stagers and new recruits, were gathered together in front of a Powerpoint screen. On it were projected smiling photographs of various members of staff, the heads of sales, IT and so on. The company had recently outsourced much of the data entry work to a centre in India. Jeremy Hunt, smiling away in that peculiarly insincere, head-bobbing way that you've all seen on the news, was leading. We gasped in horror as our "new colleagues in India" were introduced: there glowed a slide that featured row after row of the same cartoon clip art Generic Brown Person, sat behind a computer.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 31, 2012)

Some of the 'I just pooed my nappy for you Daddy' emails that Hunt exchanged with his News International case officer are rather disturbing.


----------



## alfajobrob (Jun 1, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> No one posted up the 'I worked for Jeremy Hunt' piece from The Quietus yet?


 
Thanks for that....will post that link again.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 5, 2012)

This is a bit weird.   Listen to the start.


----------



## Santino (Jun 5, 2012)

Summary for the video-disadvantaged?


----------



## belboid (Jun 5, 2012)

Macfarlane is boggled as to how Piers got hold of a story that he (Macfarlane) had told absolutely nobody about


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 5, 2012)

belboid said:


> Macfarlane is boggled as to how Piers got hold of a story that he (Macfarlane) had told absolutely nobody about


 
His publicist knew about it though. Not impossible he leaked it....


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 5, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Practical thought.
> Coulson was arrested in London and driven to Scotland.
> I assume that he will have found his own way back south once released ?


One would assume so, but as I remarked at the time, he was released from Govan police station at 9.30pm, too late for the last flight to London and not within easy access of the Glasgow underground, a train station or a taxi rank. There's a KFC and a semi derelict industrial estate nearby. 

I suspect he got a hotel room overnight and made his way south in the morning.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 5, 2012)

Santino said:


> Summary for the video-disadvantaged?


McFarlane seems genuinely amazed that Piers knew the contents and length of the phone-call.


----------



## elbows (Jun 5, 2012)

I haven't seen a proper witness list myself but this Guardian article says that Clegg and Cameron are at the Leveson inquiry next week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/01/cable-hunt-media-takeover-clash



> The disagreement within the coalition is likely to be aired when David Cameron appears before Leveson on June 14, and his Liberal Democrat deputy, Nick Clegg, gives evidence the day before.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 5, 2012)

This stuff was around long before Cameron.  I want the modus operandi gone, Cameron isn't a (primary) target for me.   The system he has fitted perfectly into (as anyone could) needs stopping, Cameron's survival isn't a 'big thing' for me, mostly because publicity will neuter him anyway, if he's not brought down by the Inquiry then he'll be drowned in its wake.

We should already be planning attacks on the lobbying system after this.  FFS is no-one co-ordinating?!


----------



## teqniq (Jun 5, 2012)

I have long thought that the lobbying system is one of the major ills for what passes for democracy in this country.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 5, 2012)

Definitely.  If all these Inquiries/Operations go well and they're on the back foot, perfect timing for that.


----------



## elbows (Jun 5, 2012)

A separate scandal over lobbying, not directly related to the press issues would be a helpful ingredient if you hope to see this territory gets covered. I'm far from convinced its going to get touched on properly if not, more likely to go down a narrow track of removing a couple of media-related decisions from the hands of ministers.


----------



## laptop (Jun 6, 2012)

Was that Blair's only appearance, or is he expected to be called in Module 4 (media regulation) as well?


----------



## elbows (Jun 8, 2012)

Next weeks Leveson lineup is official:

Monday: Gordon Brown, George Osborne
Tuesday: John Major, Ed Miliband, Harriet Harmen
Wednesday: Nick Clegg, Alex Salmond
Thursday: David Cameron.

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-List-11-14-June-20121.pdf


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 8, 2012)

elbows said:


> Next weeks Leveson lineup is official:
> 
> Monday: Gordon Brown, George Osborne
> Tuesday: John Major, Ed Miliband, Harriet Harmen
> ...



It's not too late to squeeze in an appearance from Patrick Magee is it?


----------



## gabi (Jun 8, 2012)

I love the way they schedule it like it's a geeky political music festie - all leading up to the big headliner on thurs. looks a cracking lineup...


----------



## Santino (Jun 8, 2012)

elbows said:


> Next weeks Leveson lineup is official:
> 
> Monday: Gordon Brown, George Osborne
> Tuesday: John Major, Ed Miliband, Harriet Harmen
> ...


Some serious heavy-hitters there, plus Nick Clegg.


----------



## killer b (Jun 8, 2012)

I reckon brown should be a treat, in one way or another.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 8, 2012)

killer b said:


> I reckon brown should be a treat, in one way or another.


 
If he does anything other than fail, I'll be surprised. Seems to be able to snatch all kinds of defeat from the jaws of victory post PM-ship, despite being a decent enough man.

Though I would give my right bollock (or him my right eye) if he can do anything to drag Moron down.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2012)

I really hope Jay and leveson have the balls to give the bullingdon twosome a close forensic grilling. both have so many close NI connections it's almost laughable


----------



## two sheds (Jun 8, 2012)

tut dp


----------



## two sheds (Jun 8, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Oh come on, if you can't do the odd favour for your neighbours without being asked impertinent questions what's the world coming to?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2012)

there is that point...


----------



## newbie (Jun 9, 2012)

tangential but part of the pattern

Scotland Yard launches investigation into Tory 'cash-for-access' affair


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jun 9, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> McFarlane seems genuinely amazed that Piers knew the contents and length of the phone-call.


 
But the Morgan/McFarlane conversation is in reference to a phone call - not a voicemail. As far as I know no-one has yet been accused of actually tapping live phonecalls.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 9, 2012)

killer b said:


> I reckon brown should be a treat, in one way or another.


 
I'll need several bags to get through that lot next week.


----------



## laptop (Jun 9, 2012)

newbie said:


> tangential but part of the pattern
> 
> Scotland Yard launches investigation into Tory 'cash-for-access' affair


 
'sfunny, according to a famous web search engine the only news outlet to pick this up is... Press TV


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 9, 2012)

I guess the Indie might claim the exclusive. Reading between the lines they got the story from someone called Mark Adams. Presumably it'll get picked up after the weekend. This seems to be the key sentence:



> The Electoral Commission, which has been conducting its own review of potential offences committed under party political laws, confirmed last night that the allegations against Mr Cruddas "are being dealt with seriously by the police". The commission has offered the Met team its expertise should it be required.


Highly specialised area of law. I should think everyone is dusting off volumes on the shelf never yet opened.

Can't see that this has anything to do with Leveson directly, but it does add to Cameron's ever-growing shite storm.


----------



## elbows (Jun 11, 2012)

Brown is being utterly predictable, rather dull stuff, although him repeatedly drawing attention to the News Corp policy agenda & the Conservative support for it is worth the odd smile.


----------



## gabi (Jun 11, 2012)

Apparently he never read newspapers when he was PM. Which either makes him a liar or a total idiot.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 11, 2012)

elbows said:


> Brown is being utterly predictable, rather dull stuff, although him repeatedly drawing attention to the News Corp policy agenda & the Conservative support for it is worth the odd smile.


I'm surprised, I'd have thought someone that vindictive would have a real go at NI


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 11, 2012)

gabi said:


> Apparently he never read newspapers when he was PM. Which either makes him a liar or a total idiot.


Why?


----------



## gabi (Jun 11, 2012)

it's not rocket science OU


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 11, 2012)

A Prime Minister doesn't have time to sit about reading newspapers!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 11, 2012)

It probably wouldn't be too ludicrous to suggest he was kept informed of any major issues stemming from newspapers by aides, rather than reading through stuff himself.

Still a bit unusual to suggest he never read newspapers though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> A Prime Minister doesn't have time to sit about reading newspapers!


A party leader does though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 11, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> It probably wouldn't be too ludicrous to suggest he was kept informed of any major issues stemming from newspapers by aides, rather than reading through stuff himself.
> 
> Still a bit unusual to suggest he never read newspapers though.


I'm pretty sure he didn't say 'never'. I think he said 'rarely'.


----------



## gosub (Jun 11, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> A Prime Minister doesn't have time to sit about reading newspapers!


wot, too busy playing fruit ninja?


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 11, 2012)

Hmm.  Might just have got interesting...



> *alan rusbridger* ‏@*arusbridger*
> GB directly contradicts Rupert M's sworn evidence tt GB threatened to declare war after Sun withdrew support #*Leveson*
> 
> 11:51 AM - 11 Jun 12 via TweetDeck · Details


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Hmm. Might just have got interesting...


Which if true, means RM perjured himself.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 11, 2012)

Yep, polar opposites of opinion called - will be a case of who draws first with regards to proving the call was made, which is pretty much in Murdochs court now


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 11, 2012)

Aye, but how could it be proved?

And "he did something dickish", "no I didn't" is hardly a surprising turn of events. 





Orang Utan said:


> I'm pretty sure he didn't say 'never'. I think he said 'rarely'.


Sorry, was taking it second hand.


----------



## gosub (Jun 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Which if true, means RM perjured himself.


or Brown did


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2012)

gosub said:


> or Brown did


No, not 'if true'.


----------



## elbows (Jun 11, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> I'm surprised, I'd have thought someone that vindictive would have a real go at NI


 
Other objectives cause him to limit his attacks to a few narrow areas. He is happy to have a go at them over the stories about his child, James Murdochs very public policy objectives, his own reputation being attacked over Afghanistan, and anything to do with the Tories. But he won't concede anything that makes himself or Labour look like they bent to the will of the papers, hell he won't even acknowledge that he has a fiery temperament.

All I've really learnt today is that Browns attitude towards drugs was quite a part of the story as to why cannabis classification downgrading was undone.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 11, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Aye, but how could it be proved?


 
Well I was expecting a rebuttal of the softer side of the details - if not the 'tone' and the slamming of the phone, but the words - though GB is denying the call was ever made. If Rupes brings up a phonebill or otherwise GB's face will be a lot more palm sweat smeared over it.

I must admit, GB is doing better IMO than I keep reading people's opinion, though that may just be wishful thinking as I'm sympathetic to his cause.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 11, 2012)

Ah, righto. Sorry, I just thought he'd denied "declaring war". I really should start following it live


----------



## elbows (Jun 11, 2012)

Browns evidence about aides and briefing against colleagues lacks credibility. I've always had some sympathy with some of Browns policies, especially compared to the Blairites, but this shit is not endearing.


----------



## gabi (Jun 11, 2012)

my god he's a droning dullard


----------



## teqniq (Jun 11, 2012)

gabi said:


> my god he's a droning dullard


And this is _News???_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 11, 2012)

gabi said:


> Apparently he never read newspapers when he was PM. Which either makes him a liar or a total idiot.


 
It sadly makes him yet another MP who reads _precis_ (precises?) of the news prepared by their advisors, rather than the papers themselves. A shamefully widespread practice.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It sadly makes him yet another MP who reads _precis_ (precises?) of the news prepared by their advisors, rather than the papers themselves. A shamefully widespread practice.


 
I disagree - a one-word precis ('shite') of most papers would do very well. Admittedly two words ('utter shite') might be better.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jun 11, 2012)

"I don't envy your job but I do know you're doing a great job" Oh do fuck off.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 11, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> A Prime Minister doesn't have time to sit about reading newspapers!


a PM who's not properly and consistently briefed on media coverage is a PM who needs to sack his spinners


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2012)

OK - North Fife NHS says one of their staff leaked the info on GB's son to the Sun. The Sun claimed at the time that its source was the father of another child in the hospital with the same problem as GB's child and that they have a sworn affadvit stating this.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> OK - North Fife NHS says one of their staff leaked the info on GB's son to the Sun. The Sun claimed at the time that its source was the father of another child in the hospital with the same problem as GB's child and that they have a sworn affadvit stating this.


 
I don't think that Fife NHS said "to the Sun". As far as I can see they say info was leaked but not specifically to whom.


----------



## elbows (Jun 11, 2012)

Indeed there may be no contradiction, the member of staff may have said too much to someone else at the hospital, e.g. a parent of another patient, who then spoke to the Sun.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2012)

I wonder if they _meant_ to the Sun?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 11, 2012)

elbows said:


> Indeed there may be no contradiction, the member of staff may have said too much to someone else at the hospital, e.g. a parent of another patient, who then spoke to the Sun.


 
That's what I think happened. It's just not what butchers said.


----------



## gabi (Jun 11, 2012)

So, George due up now. This should be tasty.


----------



## agricola (Jun 11, 2012)

gabi said:


> So, George due up now. This should be tasty.


 
... ended up being tasteless and dull.

Brown on the other hand was all over the shop, his claim (as elbows notes above) that he didnt know and wouldnt have approved of both the Watson anti-Blair plot, the briefing against colleagues, and the McBride / Draper / Whelan stuff was laughable - and will have damaged everything else that he was saying.


----------



## gabi (Jun 11, 2012)

Osborne was surprisingly assured i thought. Fended off everything pretty easily.


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 11, 2012)

agricola said:


> ... ended up being tasteless and dull.


 
Innit. I was hoping for something juicy to come out of it, but no such luck.

John Major tomorrow. That'll be thrilling.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 11, 2012)

so basically they are now admitting that the full extent of scrutiny of future likely problems re; phonehacking were a) asking Coulson and then b) asking Brooks. jesus, why didn't Jay and/or leveson really go to town on that one?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 11, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Innit. I was hoping for something juicy to come out of it, but no such luck.
> 
> John Major tomorrow. That'll be thrilling.


 
Don't forget all the _Scallywag_ stuff, plus there's Aitken getting his knees done by the _Grauniad_ (David Leigh blagging wasn't it?), and Mellor too - plenty of juice ready to be squeezed if Mr Jay is in the mood.


----------



## agricola (Jun 11, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> so basically they are now admitting that the full extent of scrutiny of future likely problems re; phonehacking were a) asking Coulson and then b) asking Brooks. jesus, why didn't Jay and/or leveson really go to town on that one?


 
Because they already know the answer to that question - IMHO by the time Coulson was appointed, NI knew what had gone on*, as did Labour, as (probably) did the Tories, as did the Police, as did most of Fleet Street (_Flat Earth News_ being published in 2008) and so did many people in Westminster.  They didnt conduct a further check because they already knew what Coulson had done, and didnt give a toss.

* ie the full extent of what had gone on, not just phonehacking


----------



## Gingerman (Jun 11, 2012)

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/home


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2012)

gabi said:


> Osborne was surprisingly assured i thought. Fended off everything pretty easily.


What was there to fend off?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 11, 2012)

agricola said:


> Because they already know the answer to that question - IMHO by the time Coulson was appointed, NI knew what had gone on*, as did Labour, as (probably) did the Tories, as did the Police, as did most of Fleet Street (_Flat Earth News_ being published in 2008) and so did many people in Westminster. They didnt conduct a further check because they already knew what Coulson had done, and didnt give a toss.
> 
> * ie the full extent of what had gone on, not just phonehacking


 if you are right - and you probably are - then that is, literally, scandalous


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What was there to fend off?


 see my last 2 posts; atrociously lax scrutiny of their chief spinner, given he'd been forced to resign in disgrace from his previous job


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2012)

Nothing to do with Osborne.


----------



## agricola (Jun 11, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/home


 
Anyone else watching this?  Oborne is really going for them, its great TV.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Nothing to do with Osborne.


 ermm...he was the prime mover in getting AC hired, I thought? 
he made the initial approach, recommended him to Cameron with a phrase like "look what he did to us over 'hug a hoodie, now think what he can do for us"...or have I got this wrong?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 11, 2012)

agricola said:


> Anyone else watching this? Oborne is really going for them, its great TV.


Tried to, just couldn't take it in.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> ermm...he was the prime mover in getting AC hired, I thought?
> he made the initial approach, recommended him to Cameron with a phrase like "look what he did to us over 'hug a hoodie, now think what he can do for us"...or have I got this wrong?


nothing to do with leveson.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 12, 2012)

Totally to do with Leveson: Module 3: The Relationship between Press and Politicians.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2012)

We now have both Brown and Major saying Murdoch perjured himself. Blair didn't.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> nothing to do with leveson.


it certainly _is_....as L_C just pointed out


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> it certainly _is_....as L_C just pointed out


Fair enough. Still don't think there was much to fend off at this point. After all - _how could we have done the work that this committee and various police investigations have done at the cost of many millions and god knows how many hours of work_. That's always an easy get-out at the end of this i'm afraid. For now anyway.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's always an easy get-out at the end of this i'm afraid. For now anyway.


yeah that's very true ("who d'you think we are - the FBI?"), and he'd willingly use it. more questioning on that matter would have been fun, 'tho


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 12, 2012)

fwiw, It's not a courtroom so Murdoch didn't commit perjury.

I have no idea why they wave the bible about at Public Inquiries - may be a reason but otherwise it looks like theatre.


----------



## laptop (Jun 12, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> John Major tomorrow. That'll be thrilling.


 
And, apparently, it is being most considerably thrilling 

He may wear his underpants on the outside, he may have been touchy about the world knowing that... and he definitely is a Tory. But  

Murdoch's brazen lie to a public inquiry, under oath, definitely speaks to whether he's a "fit and proper person" to own a media corporation.


----------



## belboid (Jun 12, 2012)

Old_Tosser said:


> fwiw, It's not a courtroom so Murdoch didn't commit perjury.
> 
> I have no idea why they wave the bible about at Public Inquiries - may be a reason but otherwise it looks like theatre.


wrong. Charges were considered for various soldiers who had obviously lied to the Saville Inquiry.  I dont think any were actually brought tho

"Northern Ireland's Public Prosecution Service said it was investigating, with crown prosecutors in England, whether witnesses had committed perjury at the inquiry. "The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) has now received a copy of the Saville report, which refers to certain witnesses providing evidence to the inquiry which was knowingly untrue."


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 12, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> fwiw, It's not a courtroom so Murdoch didn't commit perjury.
> 
> I have no idea why they wave the bible about at Public Inquiries - may be a reason but otherwise it looks like theatre.


 
I think it is being held in a courtroom, and why bother with the oath if it can't result in perjury?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2012)

BBC chief political correspondent on twitter:

Downing St confirm there will be a minuted record of phone call between Gordon Brown and Rupert Murdoch where "war" threat made #leveson

or not made (the call that is).


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 12, 2012)

Brown would obv. know it was minuted, Murdoch wouldn't - assuming there wasn't another less 'official' call as well. Which there could have been given how close the two had been.



Lock&Light said:


> I think it is being held in a courtroom, and why bother with the oath if it can't result in perjury?


Sure, it's sitting in court 72 at the High Court. As to why... like I said, you wouldn't think Leveson himself would he comfortable with pure theatre so perhaps there is a reason I'm not aware of. In the meantime, s1(2) here really isn't helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury#England_and_Wales

Is Leveson a "judicial proceeding" for the purposes of the Act ...


----------



## belboid (Jun 12, 2012)

it's perfectly clear and helpful, unless you're an idiot


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 12, 2012)

I thought this cunt had been sent midlands way?


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I thought this cunt had been sent midlands way?


You talking to me, Butch?


----------



## belboid (Jun 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I thought this cunt had been sent midlands way?


yeah, its unusual for arrogant purveyors of racist abuse to just amble back pretending nothing had happened.

But Old Tosser _is_ exceptionally thick and arrogant


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 12, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Is Leveson a "judicial proceeding" for the purposes of the Act ...


yes, it is, and murdoch coluld be prosecuted, though I doubt that would happen


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 12, 2012)

Show me the case law, then.

And no, no one will be prosecuted for 'evidence' given at Leveson.


----------



## agricola (Jun 12, 2012)

Whether or not Leveson counts when it comes to perjury doesnt really matter; there are offences relating to the provision of evidence and the concealment of evidence contained within the Inquiries Act 2005.

Meanwhile, Miliband drones on.

edited to remove the word "testimony"


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 12, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Show me the case law, then.
> 
> And no, no one will be prosecuted for 'evidence' given at Leveson.


see belboids post re; Saville.
more importantly, it could really hurt NI in loads of other ways


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 12, 2012)

belboid? LOL. Is he really still trying to talk to me after 15 months on ignore? Bless his angriest-person-on-the-internet, 5' 6'' socks.

You can just cite a case if you want to pursue the point, it's interesting enough (if only in the academic sense)?


----------



## belboid (Jun 12, 2012)

Old_Tosser said:


> belboid? LOL. Is he really still trying to talk to me after 15 months on ignore?


I haven't been 15 month on ignore, you liar. You tried to ignore me, but failed completely and utterly (yet another failure to add to your collection)

Can't help yourself, can you?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 12, 2012)

Ok - EXACTLY the same one he cited; Saville, an enquiry with the same status in law as this one. The prosecution of several servicem was under serious consideration.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 12, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> The prosecution of several servicem was under serious consideration.


This has zero legal significance or weight. They probably gave pizza serious consideration during the "consideration" as well.

Just one  cite of a prosecution would suffice.


----------



## agricola (Jun 12, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> Ok - EXACTLY the same one he cited; Saville, an enquiry with the same status in law as this one. The prosecution of several servicem was under serious consideration.


 
Actually, Saville did not have the same status in law as Leveson does.  Leveson stated in his opening remarks:




			
				LJ Leveson said:
			
		

> Good morning.  My name is Brian Leveson.  Although flattered that various politicians and members of the press have elevated me to the rank of peerage, I am not Lord Leveson: my judicial rank is that of a Lord Justice of Appeal.  On 13 July, the Prime Minister announced that I would be appointed to chair an Inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 and promulgated draft Terms of Reference.  When I made a statement following that announcement, I said that when the panel of experts has been appointed, I would provide more information on how I intended that the Inquiry should proceed and in relation to the calling for evidence and that I would seek to do so before the end of the month.


 
... wheras the Saville inquiry took place under (at least according to Wikipedia) the (now repealed) Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921.  The older piece of legislation had much weaker powers with regards to compelling evidence, dealing with misleading evidence etc etc


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 12, 2012)

picking your brains, agricola, does that mean greater powers for prosecution for lying under oath? Onloy your earlier link, tho helpful, wasn't clear


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 12, 2012)

quite impressed by millibrow, btw, calling effectively for NI to be shackled/broken up


----------



## agricola (Jun 12, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> picking your brains, agricola, does that mean greater powers for prosecution for lying under oath? Onloy your earlier link, tho helpful, wasn't clear


 
It all depends on what _evidence_ means in the context of the 2005 act; if it includes testimony when being questioned then you would think that some people - Murdoch and Brown especially - might have a bit to worry about.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 12, 2012)




----------



## elbows (Jun 12, 2012)

Lib Dems ordered to abstain in the commons vote about Hunt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/12/nick-clegg-david-cameron-jeremy-hunt


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 12, 2012)

Cunts


----------



## laptop (Jun 12, 2012)

Unnamed LibDem said:
			
		

> When asked, a Liberal Democrat source said: "We are not jumping on Jeremy Hunt's corpse, but there are still questions left unanswered."


 
So, ask?


----------



## little_legs (Jun 12, 2012)

will be interesting to see if there will be any Tory abstentions.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 13, 2012)

It is her big day today  

Or the first of many big days


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 13, 2012)

Presumably it's the Arraignment; 'Rebekah Brooks' so-and-so address', 'not guilty'. See you next time.

She'll spend more time on the steps showing off the new puritan dress and smiling weakly through her martyrdom ordeal.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 13, 2012)

Badgers said:


> It is her big day today
> 
> Or the first of many big days


 her being Clegg?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 13, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> her being Clegg?


 
FFS

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/13/rebekah-brooks-appear-court-justice


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 13, 2012)

ahh right...my excuse, yer 'onner, is that magistrates beak is hardly a 'big' day!


----------



## laptop (Jun 13, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> ahh right...my excuse, yer 'onner, is that magistrates beak is hardly a 'big' day!


 



			
				Barchers said:
			
		

> Or the first of many big days


----------



## co-op (Jun 13, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Brown would obv. know it was minuted, Murdoch wouldn't - assuming there wasn't another less 'official' call as well. Which there could have been given how close the two had been.
> 
> 
> Sure, it's sitting in court 72 at the High Court. As to why... like I said, you wouldn't think Leveson himself would he comfortable with pure theatre so perhaps there is a reason I'm not aware of. In the meantime, s1(2) here really isn't helpful:
> ...


 
Pretty obviously; yes.

Alternatively, as you say, it's just "pure theatre", which is a tad unlikely.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 13, 2012)

*The press ignored me, Nick Clegg tells Leveson Inquiry *








> Nick Clegg described today how the press "ignored or derided" him and the Liberal Democrats before they entered government.
> 
> The Deputy Prime Minister said that at one dinner party with Rupert Murdoch and News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks in 2009, he had been put at the "very end of the table where the children sit".


 
Never thought Brooks would do anything to endear her to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2012)

Cameron still makes him sit with the kids today.


----------



## Santino (Jun 13, 2012)

If he keeps treating him like that he runs the risk of Clegg ineffectually abstaining from more votes in the future.


----------



## The Octagon (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm imaging Clegg at an undersized red plastic table, knees around his ribs, with a torn party hat on


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 13, 2012)

The Octagon said:


> I'm imaging Clegg at an undersized red plastic table, knees around his ribs, with a torn party hat on


 
Then leading an 8 year old Cameron girl around the dancefloor, her clunky shoes crushing his stockinged feet as he jigs uncomfortably to the latest pop hit from Rihanna.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2012)

You have to think that Clegg knows the game is up by telling that story don't you?


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 13, 2012)

Wot, no mention of former Libdem leader Paddy Pantsdown!


----------



## agricola (Jun 13, 2012)

Back in the Commons, Bercow is allowing Chris Bryant to call Hunt a liar.  Tories are going predictably mental.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 13, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Then leading an 8 year old Cameron girl around the dancefloor, her clunky shoes crushing his stockinged feet as he jigs uncomfortably to the latest pop hit from Rihanna.


 EWW! that puts 'orrible im ages in me 'ead


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 13, 2012)

agricola said:


> Back in the Commons, Bercow is allowing Chris Bryant to call Hunt a liar. Tories are going predictably mental.


Bercow:  Don't tell me what to do.  (ie fuck off)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 13, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> EWW! that puts 'orrible im ages in me 'ead


 
Why? I only suggested he might dance with Nancy, not that he lurks in the Ladies at the Plough.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 13, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Why? I only suggested he might dance with Nancy, not that he lurks in the Ladies at the Plough.


I think it's cos I find the bloke genuinely creepy, tbh


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 13, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Bercow: Don't tell me what to do. (ie fuck off)


procedurally, he (Bercow) was actually quite correct


----------



## gabi (Jun 13, 2012)

Watching it now.. Bercow's not in the chair? Was he earlier..?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2012)

Salmond is dropping the Guardian in it, the great big hypocrites!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Salmond is dropping the Guardian in it, the great big hypocrites!


How?


----------



## killer b (Jun 13, 2012)

the observer. but we knew they'd been up to no good already.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How?


He has alleged the Observer illegally accessed his bank account


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2012)

killer b said:


> the observer. but we knew they'd been up to no good already.


Yes I remember that PDF. Not one paper has not been involved in some kind of hacking


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2012)

Ta, both.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 13, 2012)

It's not 'hacking' - slightly more akin to NightJack on first blush. Do we know if anything entered the public domain from the alleged act?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2012)

Did somebody say something?


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 13, 2012)

/aged 14


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Salmond is dropping the Guardian in it, the great big hypocrites!


 
Do the Guardian and Observer see eye to eye?  Is dropping the Observer in it the same has dropping the Guardian in it?  The Sun seems to have come out in a better position since the demise of the NOTW.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2012)

Not a peep about this on the guardians live blog.


----------



## killer b (Jun 13, 2012)

there is little love lost between staff at the observer & staff at the guardian, if the private eye is to be believed.


----------



## belboid (Jun 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes I remember that PDF. Not one paper has not been involved in some kind of hacking


the Observers wasnt actually _hacking_, it was the (legal with a public interest defence) blagging tho. Quite why some politico's wish to imply the two are the same thing,I cant imagine


----------



## killer b (Jun 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Not a peep about this on the guardians live blog.


there is.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2012)

killer b said:


> there is.


I can't see it - and word check isn't finding salmon or observer at all...


----------



## two sheds (Jun 13, 2012)

Search is case sensitive - that's caught me several times before now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Search is case sensitive - that's caught me several times before now.


Still finding nothing...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Do the Guardian and Observer see eye to eye?  Is dropping the Observer in it the same has dropping the Guardian in it?  The Sun seems to have come out in a better position since the demise of the NOTW.


The Observer is the Sunday Guardian like the NotW was the Sunday Sun.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 13, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/13/leveson-inquiry-nick-clegg-alex-salmond-live#block-98


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I can't see it - and word check isn't finding salmon or observer at all...


SalmonD?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2012)

belboid said:


> the Observers wasnt actually _hacking_, it was the (legal with a public interest defence) blagging tho. Quite why some politico's wish to imply the two are the same thing,I cant imagine


Is illegally accessing data not hacking then?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> SalmonD?


Nope, still nothing.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, still nothing.


It's at the top of the page in the summary! Where are you looking?!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/13/leveson-inquiry-nick-clegg-alex-salmond-live#block-98


Oh hang on, i'm looking at the hunt live-blog, not the leveson one


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 13, 2012)




----------



## belboid (Jun 13, 2012)

edit - not just me then


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Not a peep about this on the guardians live blog.


top of page (rebutal) and short way down (accusation):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/13/leveson-inquiry-nick-clegg-alex-salmond-live


----------



## belboid (Jun 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Is illegally accessing data not hacking then?


the PDF referred to was about all sorts, every instance of possible hacking AND blagging.  Salmond _seems to be_ talking about hacking, but even then, it isnt clear.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 13, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/13/leveson-inquiry-nick-clegg-alex-salmond-live#block-98


 
*COFF*


----------



## gabi (Jun 13, 2012)

it's far more likely the journo went through his rubbish and found a receipt for this transaction that he's claiming is proof that his bank account was hacked. i mean how many people had internet banking in '99 anyway?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 13, 2012)

Back in 1999, was David Leigh still working at the _Obbo_?



gabi said:


> it's far more likely the journo went through his rubbish and found a receipt for this transaction that he's claiming is proof that his bank account was hacked. i mean how many people had internet banking in '99 anyway?


 
Why are you assuming this is anything to do with telephone internet banking?

[Edited to actually make sense]


----------



## gabi (Jun 13, 2012)

im not. im assuming hes talking about internet banking.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 13, 2012)

belboid said:


> the PDF referred to was about all sorts, every instance of possible hacking AND blagging.  Salmond _seems to be_ talking about hacking, but even then, it isnt clear.


Right you are


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 13, 2012)

it shoulod be remembered Salmond was pro the BSkyB deal and is generally pro-NI


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 13, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> it shoulod be remembered Salmond was pro the BSkyB deal and is generally pro-NI


 
He's recieved pretty favourable press from them as I recall?  Is (or will it) the Scottish Sun backing the 'Yes' vote?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 13, 2012)

gabi said:


> im not. im assuming hes talking about internet banking.


 
Indeed - but why make that assumption? Previous scenarios outlined (the Gordon Brown one for example) have been about blagging over the phone.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 13, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> it shoulod be remembered Salmond was pro the BSkyB deal and is generally pro-NI


 
In other news: Atlantic Ocean found to be full of water.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 13, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> He's recieved pretty favourable press from them as I recall? Is (or will it) the Scottish Sun backing the 'Yes' vote?


unknown yet but they backed the SNP before


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 13, 2012)

> Jay asks about a change in the editorial line of the Scottish Sun in early 2011.
> 
> Salmond says he spoke to the new editor of the title, Andy Harris, twice after this.
> 
> The editorial position of the paper changed in March 2011 to support the SNP.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/13/leveson-inquiry-nick-clegg-alex-salmond-live#block-125

Cf:



> Alex Salmond secretly offered to help Rupert Murdoch fight for the takeover of BSkyB by trading his political influence for the backing of the Sun newspaper, according to a batch of confidential emails from within News International which were disclosed on Tuesday by the Leveson inquiry.
> 
> The emails state that the first minister of Scotland volunteered to lobby two cabinet ministers in the UK government to support Murdoch's controversial takeover of BSkyB. They suggest that Salmond appeared to link that backing with winning the public support of the Sun, Scotland's largest daily paper, before elections for the Scottish parliament.


 
(David Leigh + Severin Carrell in the _Guardian_ in April)


----------



## gosub (Jun 13, 2012)

Murdoch who does all his printing in Scotland and is interested in Salmond's ideas of cheaper corporation tax


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 13, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Is (or will it) the Scottish Sun backing the 'Yes' vote?


Currently not pro independence, and I doubt it will become so.  (Mind you, you can never tell with those people.  None of it is to do with principles).


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 13, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> unknown yet but they backed the SNP before


The Sun did briefly back independence, but not the SNP per se, surely?

btw, here's the Sun front cover in 2007.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 14, 2012)

> 14 June 2012 Last updated at 09:27
> *Operation Elveden: Three arrests in payments probe*
> 
> 
> ...


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18437432


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 14, 2012)

More from the _Guardian_:



> Scotland Yard detectives investigating alleged illegal payments by journalists to police and other public officials have made three further arrests, including a former prison officer.
> 
> Officers from Operation Elveden, the Metropolitan police investigation into the alleged illegal payments, arrested two men and a woman at about 6am on Thursday morning in Corby and Croydon. This takes the total number of arrests by Operation Elveden to 33.
> The former prison officer, a 40-year-old-man, was arrested at his home in Corby, Northamptonshire, on suspicion of corruption, misconduct in a public office and money laundering.
> ...


 
Will Lewis certainly knows how to make friends!

Dan Sabbagh is saying on of them's a _Currant Bun_ scribbler:



> *Dan Sabbagh* ‏@*dansabbagh*
> Sun journalist one of those arrested this am in Eleveden inquiry.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2012)

Cameron contradicts Coulson - just what i was hoping for.


----------



## Santino (Jun 14, 2012)

Details please. Not been able to follow it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2012)

Coulson testified that Cameron hadn't spoke to him about any of this after a certain point (july 2009), Cameron says he did - Jay did say that no inferences should be drawn from this (_at this point_). That they're not on the same page over details like this is potentially telling though. (not following live myself either, but that seems to be what a range of commentators are saying).


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Cameron contradicts Coulson - just what i was hoping for.


 
Check and mate in five moves or less?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 14, 2012)

Oh it's going to be a much much drawn out game than that...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 14, 2012)

Idris2002 said:


> Check and mate in five moves or less?


----------



## Callie (Jun 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Cameron contradicts Coulson - just what i was hoping for.


If back pedaling was an olympic sport Cameron would get gold for that one


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 14, 2012)

That text from Rebekah was an absolute beauty!


----------



## paolo (Jun 14, 2012)

There's an odd symbiosis to the current times.

Between the footy, the jubilympics, and leveson - there's barely time to do anything other than watch telly. Which is fortunate, because we don't seem to have any jobs.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 14, 2012)

Except Leveson should be held in front of 80,000 at the big bowl at Stratford, and the Jubilee ought to be in Poland and Ukraine.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 14, 2012)

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...n-text-decoded?cat=commentisfree&type=article


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 14, 2012)

Badgers said:


> http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...n-text-decoded?cat=commentisfree&type=article


 
This gets to the heart of what I am finding so annoying about this whole process.  Its the same with the Hunt business, everybody knows what has happened, the evidence is clear as clear as can be, yet we still have 'our leaders' blankly denying it.  Sitting there and arguing black is in fact white.  It all beggers belief to the extreme but they carry on regardless, its just plain insulting.

Yet what will come of it all?  Sure the PCC will be 'beefed up' and some damage has been done to the government (how much is unclear) but what else?  Will the relationship between the media and politicians change or will they just be a bit more careful in their dealings?

I suspect the major thing that will come out of this is that all future PM's will be very bloody careful about ordering enquiries that could end up with themself having to swear on the bible.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 14, 2012)

Leveson has actually got very little to do with this government per se, and nothing at all to do with 'blame' or apportioning guilt.

This gov and its officials are witnesses like Blair or Major were witnesses. Nor is it Leveson's job to find culprits - inc. Jezza Hunt. It's also why Jay explores only very particular lines of inquiry with witnesses. Who did what when only matters if it speaks to the specific remit.

To state the obv, he is _inquiring_ ... into a 30-year bloody shambles.

Will political/media relationships change - they already have and fundamentally.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 14, 2012)

Nope, the major thing is that the Murdochs' power to terrify politicians is gone for good


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 14, 2012)

fwiw, it's a shame they can't call the 'Iron Lady' herself... She effectively provides the opening chapters for the modern day portion of the narrative. Starting with Major is a little like beginning a story at Act 2.

Assuming Beaverbrook et al belong in the Preamble...


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 14, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Leveson has actually got very little to do with this government per se, and nothing at all to do with 'blame' or apportioning guilt.
> 
> This gov and its officials are witnesses like Blair or Major were witnesses. Nor is it Leveson's job to find culprits - inc. Jezza Hunt. It's also why Jay explores only very particular lines of inquiry with witnesses. Who did what when only matters if it speaks to the specific remit.
> 
> To state the obv, he is _inquiring_ ... into a 30-year bloody shambles.


 
Well yes I know all that, hence the frustration that even after the lies have been exposed they are continuing to be told, yet I'm not sure what the follow up to it is.



> Will political/media relationships change - they already have and fundamentally.


 
I hope you're right, but for how long?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 14, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> fwiw, it's a shame they can't call the 'Iron Lady' herself... She effectively provides the opening chapters for the modern day portion of the narrative. Starting with Major is a little like beginning a story at Act 2.


 
pffft, from what I've seen she'd probably have as good a memory as half the people who have given evidence.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 14, 2012)

yep, mildly ironic that the only witness who'd  be telling the truth when answering 'I don't remember', can't be called.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 14, 2012)

The question is, what will the long-term public reaction be now that Cameron's proven closeness to a woman currently awaiting trial on serious criminal charges?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 14, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Assuming Beaverbrook et al belong in the Preamble...


 
Bloody long preamble as it would have to include Cecil King.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 14, 2012)

Jsut watched the highlights on C4 news - Cameron looked very very uncomfortable and shifty.

Whatever the outcome of the enquiry - today will have damaged him politically - it becomes easier and easier to portray him as a sleezy bullshitter.

The media are all over the 'all in this together' text. 

Sooner or later a bollock will be dropped and there will be solid proof that Cameron has lied at some point in his evidence.


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> The question is, what will the long-term public reaction be now that Cameron's proven closeness to a woman currently awaiting trial on serious criminal charges?


 
As part of a much broader feast of hatred for this government it will be a welcome addition to the menu, but on it own I don't think it does that much.

Id be more excited by it if there was just one more damning link, or if I had greater hopes in general that the coalition would not last a full term.


----------



## little_legs (Jun 14, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Whatever the outcome of the enquiry - today will have damaged him politically - it becomes easier and easier to portray him as a sleezy bullshitter.


 
Yes he Cam!


----------



## two sheds (Jun 14, 2012)

And nice to have had it spelled out that they're all in it together.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 14, 2012)

two sheds said:


> And nice to have had it spelled out that they're all in it together.


Professionally, just so we are sure.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 14, 2012)

That was the only text message of very many between them used by Leveson. Titillating  ...


----------



## little_legs (Jun 14, 2012)




----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 14, 2012)

Nick has been left unsupervised for 3 hours.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 14, 2012)

Hameron looked like boiled gammon today


----------



## little_legs (Jun 14, 2012)

My favourite part of the testimony was when Cameron essentially admitted that ne never reads anything that reaches his desk. Fucking leisure classes.


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2012)

I had to go and do some work just as he was starting to turn red and be a bit tetchy with his answers. Did he recompose himself for the afternoon session?

This man could definitely be broken under the right circumstances. Hope the tories get their knickers in a twist about having to fight another election with him at the helm.


----------



## The Octagon (Jun 14, 2012)

Not seen any of it today but just watched the news at ten highlights, quality squirming


----------



## two sheds (Jun 14, 2012)

Camnesia


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2012)

I haven't seen the squirming highlights yet, might add to the impact of todays events  

And 'in this together' is quite perfect considering the propaganda employed in this age of austerity.


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2012)

LOL at the BBC news coverage.


----------



## elbows (Jun 14, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Hameron looked like boiled gammon today


 
I do not like yellow Cleggs and Hameron,
I do not like them Cam-I-Dipteron


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 14, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Hameron looked like boiled gammon today


 
he couldn't do his usual "you are female / old / working class (delete as appropriate) therefore i'm going to insult you rather than answer the question" approach like he does at PMQs...


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jun 14, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> The question is, what will the long-term public reaction be now that Cameron's proven closeness to a woman currently awaiting trial on serious criminal charges?


 
After hearing about their 'country suppers', horse-fancying, texts about us being all in it together, LOL etc, Eddie Mair wondered if we might be allowed to know somebody by the company he keeps.


----------



## gabi (Jun 15, 2012)

interesting freedland analysis of that vomit-inducing text

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/14/rebekah-brooks-david-cameron-text-decoded


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 15, 2012)

pity jay didn't focus more on Hameron claiming he didn't read Hunt's email - that's either a whopper or an admission of neglect of duties


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2012)

Cabinet office confirm that brown told truth about alleged phone call to Murdoch.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 15, 2012)

Just to check, exactly what did he say, that there was no phone call at all, or he didn't say what Murdoch said he said?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 15, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Jsut watched the highlights on C4 news - Cameron looked very very uncomfortable and shifty.
> 
> Whatever the outcome of the enquiry - today will have damaged him politically - it becomes easier and easier to portray him as a sleezy bullshitter.
> 
> ...


 
He's the UK Richard Nixon. Allegedly.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:
			
		

> Just to check, exactly what did he say, that there was no phone call at all, or he didn't say what Murdoch said he said?



Well, he said there was no phone call at all, that must be what they've confirmed as its the only thing they can confirm. I expect we'll know a lot more very soon.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 15, 2012)

Brown - "I'm going to phone Murdoch and call him a cunt"
Mrs Brown - "Better use that pay phone round the corner, here's a quid".


----------



## laptop (Jun 15, 2012)

gabi said:


> interesting freedland analysis of that vomit-inducing text
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/14/rebekah-brooks-david-cameron-text-decoded


 


> • For legal reasons, this article will not be open to comments


 
"Fuck off all you libelliferous cunts"


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 15, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Cabinet office confirm that brown told truth about alleged phone call to Murdoch.


 
Got a link for that, butchers?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 15, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Well, he said there was no phone call at all, that must be what they've confirmed as its the only thing they can confirm. I expect we'll know a lot more very soon.


Cheers. So what was all this about the call being minuted, and Brown would have known that but Murdoch wouldn't?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2012)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> Got a link for that, butchers?



bbc and Guardian journalists on twitter for now, will find link wheni get home in about 15


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 15, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> bbc and Guardian journalists on twitter for now, will find link wheni get home in about 15


 
I should have thought of Twitter.   A quick look turns up:



> *norman smith* ‏@*BBCNormanS*
> Cabinet Office confirm Gordon Brown version of phone call with Rupert Murdoch in November 2009 *#**leveson*


 


> *Brown Moses* ‏@*Brown_Moses*
> NEW - Did Rupert Murdoch Lie To Leveson About Gordon Brown? http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/did-rupert-murdoch-lie-to-leveson-about.html @*tom_watson* @*jackofkent* *#**leveson* #*hackgate*


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> Cheers. So what was all this about the call being minuted, and Brown would have known that but Murdoch wouldn't?


I think that was just shorthand for 'taking place'.


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 15, 2012)

Guido Fawkes has a rather different take on this...


----------



## belboid (Jun 15, 2012)

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 15, 2012)

I did think it was rather an odd accusation for Rupert to make if it had no basis in fact, and it is rather easy to conceive of Brown making a call that _wasn't_ recorded.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Guido Fawkes has a rather different take on this...


Just read that - don't see how that helps murdoch in the slightest. Guido is desperate as i think he made the wrong call when this came out (need to check that mind).


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 15, 2012)

belboid said:


> Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?


 
He would, and it's probably bollocks, but it could muddy the waters even so.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2012)

Actually, he's totally misread the statement - the statement says _there was no phone call in september 2009_, not just that there was one in Nov 2009. That in period march 2009 to 2010 this was the single phone call.


----------



## gosub (Jun 15, 2012)

Staines is talking shite though, as much as I actually believe Murdouch over Brown on this, the onus now would be on Murdoch to prove it, and Murdoch wouldn't risk admitting he tapes conversations (real Watergate type headaches over that) unless he was facing prison time.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2012)

Just noticed:



> Q. May I just deal with one piece of evidence the Inquiry received from *Mr MacKenzie*. Mr MacKenzie told us that Mr Brown spoke to you on the phone, this was on or shortly after 30 September 2009 and he, Mr Brown, is said to have roared at you for 20 minutes. Is that true or not?


 
get this scumbag in there as well! Although he does have the get out of Murdoch claiming he was only told it over dinner, rather that witnessing it.


----------



## little_legs (Jun 15, 2012)




----------



## elbows (Jun 16, 2012)

Nice timing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/15/rupert-murdoch-tony-blair-iraq-alastair-campbell



> Rupert Murdoch joined in an "over-crude" attempt by US Republicans to force Tony Blair to accelerate British involvement in the Iraq war a week before a crucial House of Commons vote in 2003, according to the final volumes of Alastair Campbell's government diaries.


 


> Campbell wrote that on 11 March 2003, a week before the Commons vote in which MPs voted to deploy British troops to Iraq, Murdoch intervened to try to persuade Blair to move more quickly towards war. "[Tony Blair] took a call from Murdoch who was pressing on timings, saying how News International would support us, etc," Campbell wrote. "Both TB and I felt it was prompted by Washington, and another example of their over-crude diplomacy. Murdoch was pushing all the Republican buttons, how the longer we waited the harder it got." The following day, 12 March, he wrote: "TB felt the Murdoch call was odd, not very clever."


It certainly doesn't look very clever now 



> • Gordon Brown agitated so aggressively against Tony Blair – demanding a departure date soon after the 9/11 attacks – that Downing Street concluded in 2002 that the then chancellor was "hell-bent on TB's destruction".
> The diaries will raise questions about Brown's claim at Leveson that he and his staff never briefed against Blair. Campbell provides specific examples of when Brown and his chief aide, Ed Balls, were suspected of doing just that. In one example, the former health secretary Alan Milburn told Blair that Brown encouraged MPs to defy a government three-line whip to vote against foundation hospitals in 2003.





> Blair was "thwarted" from joining the euro by Brown and Balls in 2003. On 11 June 2003, two days after Brown concluded that Britain had not yet met his five tests on euro membership, Campbell wrote: "Things just hadn't worked on the euro and TB was pretty fed up...The judgment was settling that GB had basically thwarted him. TB feared we were making the wrong decision for the wrong reasons."



Shame Blair wasn't thwarted more often.

I wonder if Blair can still feel the hand of history upon his shoulder, or had it already pulled out his spine and shoved it up his arse?


----------



## gosub (Jun 17, 2012)

Re Iraq timing, Was having lots of chats pre invasion with defense exterior types (french Mi6). They had the timing down to the operation difficulties of sitting in a tank in the middle of middle east summer and the markets being to jittery (price of oil rising steadily)so couldn't wait till autumn. But if man in media relations says it was Murdoch.... The blood runs redder on colour tv


----------



## agricola (Jun 18, 2012)

elbows said:


> Nice timing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/15/rupert-murdoch-tony-blair-iraq-alastair-campbell


 
Dunno if you have read the Chris Mullin diaries, but there is an entry from before the Iraq war (June 2002) where Mullin was speaking to a Tory MP (George Young) who told him that IDS was entangled up with the Americans then, and that they were trying to disentangle him.


----------



## two sheds (Jun 18, 2012)

*Police study Murdoch's 'secret' iPhone account*



> The smartphones, issued by O2 in a contract beginning in October 2009, included a handset given to James Murdoch, the former chairman and chief executive of News Corp Europe. Despite billing for the phones totalling nearly £12,000 between June last year and May this year, neither Operation Weeting nor the Leveson Inquiry was told of the existence of the smartphone accounts.


 
Four "newly "discovered Apple iPhones issued to senior executives at News International: I wonder how they were discovered. Sounds like more withholding evidence.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 18, 2012)

two sheds said:


> *Police study Murdoch's 'secret' iPhone account*
> 
> 
> 
> > The smartphones, issued by O2 in a contract beginning in October 2009, included a handset given to James Murdoch, the former chairman and chief executive of News Corp Europe. Despite *billing for the phones totalling nearly £12,000 between June last year and May this year*, neither Operation Weeting nor the Leveson Inquiry was told of the existence of the smartphone accounts.


 
They probably want to look at changing tariffs.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 18, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> They probably want to look at changing tariffs.


 
thats a heck of a lot of porn downloading


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 18, 2012)

Or uploading... Think of all those slumber parties chez Brooks


----------



## elbows (Jun 18, 2012)

gosub said:


> Re Iraq timing, Was having lots of chats pre invasion with defense exterior types (french Mi6). They had the timing down to the operation difficulties of sitting in a tank in the middle of middle east summer and the markets being to jittery (price of oil rising steadily)so couldn't wait till autumn. But if man in media relations says it was Murdoch.... The blood runs redder on colour tv


 
Indeed, but those timing issues were well discussed in the media at the time. I don't think this latest story is trying to suggest that Murdoch etc actually made much difference to the timing, its just a good example of them attempting to exert political pressure.


----------



## elbows (Jun 18, 2012)

agricola said:


> Dunno if you have read the Chris Mullin diaries, but there is an entry from before the Iraq war (June 2002) where Mullin was speaking to a Tory MP (George Young) who told him that IDS was entangled up with the Americans then, and that they were trying to disentangle him.


 
I have not read it, but it should come as no surprise that quite a number of tories were tied up with atlanticism, neo-conservatives etc. And I suppose we shouldn't be surprised if some tories were worried about this, since it tends to open up their fractures over europe, and IDS wasn't exactly a popular leader in the first place.

In the buildup to the Iraq war I think Gove was the most obvious cheerleader for the neo-cons, although he was a journalist at the time. Fox would be a more recent notable example although obviously that went a bit pear shaped, but I expect there are others within the upper ranks of the party who have similar potential.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2012)

Iain Duncan Shit has had on-off links with The Heritage Foundation and other US conservative and neocon organisations since the days when he and the other Eurosceptics of the Tory backbenches spent their energies making Major's life a misery.

Still, one expects Tories to be Atlanticists, which is probably why so many nu-Labourites are Atlanticist too.


----------



## agricola (Jun 19, 2012)

Leveson has had a pop at Gove et al., and their not at all self-serving complaints of likely effect on press freedom to make money from whatever they want.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Still, one expects Tories to be Atlanticists, which is probably why so many nu-Labourites are Atlanticist too.


and Old Labourites - Callaghan and Healey, to name but two (and, arguably, Our 'Arold)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> and Old Labourites - Callaghan and Healey, to name but two (and, arguably, Our 'Arold)


 
Well yeah, but their Atlanticism was a tempered Atlanticism, it wasn't about fawning for table scraps to the same degree that the current Brit neolib shower are.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2012)

Christ, to think we're nostalgic for that lot, on grounds of them having more dignity!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well yeah, but their Atlanticism was a tempered Atlanticism


 
Really?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 20, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Really?


 
In comparison to the Atlanticism of the nu-Labour fucks? Fuck, yes! Big Jim and Mr. Eyebrows may have been craven arse-sniffers, but they knew when to back away, and even occasionally did so, and paid *some* mind to how things might play to the electorate. Blair and his creeps just rammed the tongue up regardless.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> In comparison to the Atlanticism of the nu-Labour fucks? Fuck, yes! Big Jim and Mr. Eyebrows may have been craven arse-sniffers, but they knew when to back away, and even occasionally did so, and paid *some* mind to how things might play to the electorate. Blair and his creeps just rammed the tongue up regardless.


agreed absolutely. A good example is 'Nam. Labour supported the US diplomatically, but made very sure not a single Brit soldier went in


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 20, 2012)

Any citations for this, or are we sticking to big sweeping generalisations?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 20, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> agreed absolutely. A good example is 'Nam. Labour supported the US diplomatically, but masde very sure not a single Brit soldier went in


Apart from all them specialists and trainers and intelligence chaps.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Apart from all them specialists and trainers and intelligence chaps.


yes, sorry, should have clarified, I meant frontline troops, the sort that go in shooting and are specifically there for that


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Any citations for this, or are we sticking to big sweeping generalisations?


sorry?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 20, 2012)

Evidence, Jezza, evidence: that pre-NL the Labour Party leadership offered only a "tempered Atlanticism".

Certainly that view does not chime with what I have read about the subject, though in the face of _evidence_ I might happily accept it.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Evidence, Jezza, evidence: that pre-NL the Labour Party leadership offered only a "tempered Atlanticism".
> 
> Certainly that view does not chime with what I have read about the subject, though in the face of _evidence_ I might happily accept it.


simple; there's the 'Nam example I quoted, for one. Also, if you read the diaries of Tony Benn, there are countless instances of Wilson's  cabinet giving mild, qualified support for this or that US initiative, and relations often being quite strained. A far cry from the desperate, slavish support that was the hallmark of the Blair era (Bush offered to give Britain effectively an opt-out of theIraq war, but Blair put our troops in regardless)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 20, 2012)

That's evidence-lite at best. Throwing in weasel words doesn't make it any more convincing.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 20, 2012)

like I say, the best place to look is in TB's diaries....


----------



## Ranbay (Jun 20, 2012)

from the comments.



> i cannot believe that these two b.....ds have been allowed mobile phones while they were supposed to be rehabilitated for this horrible crime to mrs fergus son james.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 21, 2012)

It's not diff to understand why the story gained traction, but I also find myself wondering how details of Jimmy Carr's personal affairs reached the public domain; someone at his accountancy firm, at HMRC, who in the media did they pass/sell the information to - who first broke the story .... is this the type of issue that should fall within a new definition of 'public interest' ... where does the balance lay with a right to privacy ...


----------



## gosub (Jun 21, 2012)

Times investigating the accountancy firm. Firm boasted of Jimmy Carr being funds largest contributer to undercover journos


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 21, 2012)

A Murdoch paper investigating tax avoidance? Love that - another level of moral complication.


----------



## Random (Jun 21, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> A Murdoch paper investigating tax avoidance? Love that - another level of moral complication.


Have you apologised for your racial abuse yet? Or are you still proud of what you did, despite the widespread disgust from U75's community?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

Random said:


> Have you apologised for your racial abuse yet? Or are you still proud of what you did, despite the widespread disgust from U75's community?


 
Change the record, will you?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Change the record, will you?


 
Yeah, apologising for racist remarks is so 90s. This is the edgy 21st century, Random.


----------



## laptop (Jun 21, 2012)

Someone who doesn't care about an apology for racism: an apologist for racism.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Change the record, will you?


can't you see why so many people feel so strongly about this?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 21, 2012)

Random said:


> Have you apologised for your racial abuse yet? Or are you still proud of what you did, despite the widespread disgust from U75's community?


shh, best just ignore it and it will go away eventually


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Change the record, will you?


 
Eat shit and die.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Eat shit and die.


 
Your record has long since been stuck.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> can't you see why so many people feel so strongly about this?


 
I can also see that it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.


----------



## belboid (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock & Light - soft on racism, soft on the causers of racism


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

belboid said:


> Lock & Light - soft on racism, soft on the causers of racism


 
Belboid - soft in the head.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Belboid - soft in the head.


Can't you just go away?


----------



## belboid (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Belboid - soft in the head.


Well, yes, brains are soft and are in the head. 

You can hardly deny that you are a frequent apologist for racists and racism. Well, you can, but no one other than racists will agree with you.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 21, 2012)

They're looking to charge more journos. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/21/phone-hacking-met-cps

'Prosecutors now considering charges against 11 journalists related to the Operation Weeting investigation into alleged hacking'


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

belboid said:


> Well, yes, brains are soft and are in the head.
> 
> You can hardly deny that you are a frequent apologist for racists and racism. Well, you can, but no one other than racists will agree with you.


 
I do indeed deny being an apologist for racists. Not frequently - not ever. Show an example of it if you can.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 21, 2012)

belboid said:


> Well, yes, brains are soft and are in the head.
> 
> You can hardly deny that you are a frequent apologist for racists and racism. Well, you can, but no one other than racists will agree with you.


Actually I agree with him. Fuck off and stop derailing this thread. You have a racism thread, this isn't it. The goings-on being discussed on this thread are more important than you jack-booted arseholes who think you've a divine right to shit all over any thread you like as if you own the place.   

Of course....having an opinion contrary to yours makes me a racist, eh?   Twat.


----------



## belboid (Jun 21, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Of course....having an opinion contrary to yours makes me a racist, eh? Twat.


eh?  No one has talked about you ever, so stop playing some bullshit marty card


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I can also see that it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.


it is entirely in London_Calling's hands to kill the topic, so to speak


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> it is entirely in London_Calling's hands to kill the topic, so to speak


 
I think it is at least as much in the hands of the mods.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

belboid said:


> eh? No one has talked about you ever, so stop playing some bullshit marty card


 
You said that only racists would back me up. So you are calling Dexter a racist.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Can't you just go away?


 
I can but won't.


----------



## belboid (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You said that only racists would back me up. So you are calling Dexter a racist.


He didn't back you up on that point tho, did he? You should try learning to read  sometime.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

belboid said:


> He didn't back you up on that point tho, did he? You should try learning to read sometime.


 
Pickman's model likes that. Enough said.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I can but won't.


Please. Your contributions here are worthless.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Please. Your contributions here are worthless.


 
I've never thought much of yours either.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I've never thought much of yours either.


 
Its just getting childish now, take your own advice and let it go, you're making things worse.  Seriously.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I've never thought much of yours either.


Is that all you do? A bot could do your job. Only the bot would have more charisma.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Its just getting childish now, take your own advice and let it go, you're making things worse. Seriously.


 
It would have had more impact if you had directed that remark to the right poster.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It would have had more impact if you had directed that remark to the right poster.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 21, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


>


more like


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 21, 2012)

back on topic....files on 4 more arrested journoes have been upsuibbed to the CPS, for consideration as to formal charges.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/21/phone-hacking-met-cps
All this must be the shock of therir lives, as they all clearly thought they were beyond the law. excellent.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 21, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> back on topic....files on 4 more arrested journoes have been upsuibbed to the CPS, for consideration as to formal charges.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/21/phone-hacking-met-cps
> All this must be the shock of therir lives, as they all clearly thought they were beyond the law. excellent.


 
See post #11044:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ws-of-the-world.277146/page-369#post-11278592


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 21, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> See post #11044:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ws-of-the-world.277146/page-369#post-11278592


ahh, apols...I was trying to stop the thread derailing tbh


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> ahh, apols...I was trying to stop the thread derailing tbh


 
That's the same as what I was trying to do.


----------



## killer b (Jun 21, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> You have a racism thread, this isn't it.


yeah, but l_c doesn't post on that thread. For obvious reasons I guess.

In the absence of an apology - and seeing as people who should know better seem to be engaging with him on the same basis as they did before the race hate incident, is see no problem with an occasional reminder. I'm sure the thread can take it, important or not.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 21, 2012)

killer b said:


> yeah, but l_c doesn't post on that thread. For obvious reasons I guess.
> 
> In the absence of an apology - and seeing as people who should know better seem to be engaging with him on the same basis as they did before the race hate incident, is see no problem with an occasional reminder. I'm sure the thread can take it, important or not.


agreed.
back on topic; isn't this straying a little from Leveson's fundamental remit? 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/21/leveson-inquiry-virgin-atlantic-celebrity-flights




> Virgin Atlantic's senior lawyer will give evidence to the Leveson inquiry next week after it emerged that an employee leaked celebrity flight details of Sienna Miller, Ashley Cole and other celebrities to a global picture agency.
> Jillian Brady, general counsel for Richard Branson's airline, will be quizzed on the leaks to Big Pictures at the inquiry into press ethics on Tuesday.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 21, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> agreed.
> back on topic; isn't this straying a little from Leveson's fundamental remit?
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/21/leveson-inquiry-virgin-atlantic-celebrity-flights


 
I guess it depends on what the evidence is, it might be about the lengths journo's have gone to to get tittle tattle.  Might be interesting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Your record has long since been stuck.


 
Fuck off and go act as an apologist for another racist, you fellow-travelling sniveller of a shitcunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> They're looking to charge more journos. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/21/phone-hacking-met-cps
> 
> 'Prosecutors now considering charges against 11 journalists related to the Operation Weeting investigation into alleged hacking'


 
Was always on the cards, given the politics involved in going after anyone further up the food-chain. Even Brooks will  probably get a skate on hacking (as opposed to her current travails, which may just see her wearing Home Office-issue denim at one of HM's holiday camps).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> back on topic....files on 4 more arrested journoes have been upsuibbed to the CPS, for consideration as to formal charges.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/21/phone-hacking-met-cps
> All this must be the shock of therir lives, as they all clearly thought they were beyond the law. excellent.


 
Depends on what sort of precedent any charges set, frankly. I'm not a Murdoch cheerleader, and in my personal opinion if you work for Murdoch you should have your genitals flayed and salted, but I always worry with this sort of thing how any legal precedent will be used in future (whether in law, or to inform legislation), and let's be straight: "The Establishment" would love a few more weapons in the armoury for putting the shits up investigative journalists.


----------



## Santino (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> That's the same as what I was trying to do.


No you weren't.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

Santino said:


> No you weren't.


 
But I was.


----------



## Santino (Jun 21, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> But I was.


If you were, you wouldn't have kept on posting petty shit. That's not how you stop a derail.

To show you how it's done, I will now not respond to you, you shit-eating fuck-faced twat, no matter what petty point-scoring nonsense you attempt.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 21, 2012)

You missed a comma after 'petty'.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2012)

Santino said:


> If you were, you wouldn't have kept on posting petty shit. That's not how you stop a derail.


 
Your ability to be petty is reflected in your post.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 21, 2012)

You do know that you are essentially saying, 'I know you are, you said you are, but what am I'? Give it up fella


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 22, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> I guess it depends on what the evidence is, it might be about the lengths journo's have gone to to get tittle tattle. Might be interesting.


 yeah but a trolley dolly?


----------



## editor (Jun 22, 2012)

Random said:


> It's been deleted by the mods, but still exists in Refused's reply, which quotes it. That was his last post.
> 
> Tottenham Hotspur 2011-2012 Official Thread


Please* do not* drag disruptive spats into unrelated threads. Don't do it again please.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2012)

How come this hasn't made the thread yet?



> George Osborne and Michael Gove have been refused privileged access to key evidence on the future of press regulation after Lord Justice Leveson rejected their applications for core participant status to the next stage of his inquiry.
> 
> The chancellor and education secretary, as well as the business secretary Vince Cable, had their applications for core participant status turned down in a ruling published on the inquiry website on Monday...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/25/leveson-inquiry-osborne-gove


----------



## Santino (Jun 26, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> How come this hasn't made the thread yet?


I don't know. Were you busy or something?


----------



## gosub (Jun 26, 2012)

Module 4-The Inquiry will now be considering ways forward for the future.


Can see why they were turned down, can't understand why they would consider themselves core participants in this area


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 26, 2012)

Santino said:


> I don't know. Were you busy or something?


 

*Checks diary*

Yes, yes I was.

This reflects not at all well on you, grasshopper.


----------



## elbows (Jun 26, 2012)

Levesons revenge on meddling fuckstain Gove, good. The sooner these twats are prevented from participating in the future of anything in this country the better.


----------



## spikey_r (Jun 26, 2012)

there are two relevant documents up on the Leveson site.
the first is the questions he's considered relevant for module 4 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Key-Questions-Module-4.pdf
the other is the draft criteria template for future legislation (for want of a better word) http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp.../Draft-Criteria-for-a-Regulatory-Solution.pdf

get 'em while they're hot


----------



## 1%er (Jun 26, 2012)

I'm just catching up with this and have just read Levesons comments from Monday morning, they can be read here and watched here.

Its regarding Michael Gove's comments and the Mail story from the 17th June, LEVESON’S THREAT TO QUIT’ OVER MEDDLING MINISTER.

Leveson says, "At the heart of this story are two allegations, first, that I sought to prevent Mr
Gove from exercising his right to free speech including by making a threat to
resign and, secondly, that I misused the process of the Inquiry to summon Mr
Gove in order that I could challenge his behaviour."

It goes on to talk about PMQ's and if Grove was speaking for the government.

Having come to this late and being out of the UK news loop, my question is, does this indicate that the government is trying to castrate Leveson?


----------



## 1%er (Jun 26, 2012)

Norman Lamb MP Lib Dem junior business minister undermines Nick Clegg's evidence and says Fred Michel made threats.

Taken from Lamb's contemporaneous notes:
"Fred Michel, News International, an extraordinary encounter. FM is very charming, he tells me News Int papers will land on VC's desk in next two weeks".

"They (_News International_) are certain there are no grounds for referral but they realised - they realise - the political pressures".

"He wants things to run smoothly. They have been supportive of the coalition but if it goes the wrong way he is worried about the implications. It was brazen. VC refers case to Ofcom - they turn nasty".

Mr Lamb told the inquiry he had not responded to Mr Michel at the second meeting - on 27 October 2010 - but had taken his concerns to Mr Cable and Mr Clegg.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18597920
More here


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

Potentially very interesting from the Telegraph - potentially not - my bold:

BREAKING: Deputy Chief Constable Craig Denholm of #Surrey Police *investigated* by IPCC over claims he knew Milly #Dowler's phone was#hacked


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 28, 2012)

If I recall we were already aware that someone in the police there knew but nothing happened about it (at the time).


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2012)

There has been loads of stuff about Surrey police, what they knew, what they kept quiet, what they were inactive on etc Interesting from a number of angles - why the IPCC has done this now/released news of it now (or if it leaked), and who it concerns amongst those angles.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 28, 2012)

Denholm has been heavily involved in the recent police privatisation stuff.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 28, 2012)

Brown Moses blog had some interesting stuff about Denholm back in May:



> The name of a serving senior Surrey Police officer, Craig Denholm, keeps cropping up in relation to the Milly Dowler phone-hacking. Indeed, Surrey Police themselves are soon to conclude an investigation into the handling of the 2002 Interceptions of Milly's mobile - Operation Baronet. Denholm is at present Deputy Chief Constable of Surrey. In 2002, following Milly Dowler's disappearance, he was one of three officers who met with two News of the World news executives. The two journalists from the NotW volunteered that Milly Dowler's mobile number had been obtained and the content of her voicemails messages accessed.
> 
> Craig Denholm is one of several police officers who have spent their careers boomeranging between the Surrey force and the Metropolitan Police Service. He first joined the Met in 1984 and spent time in CID on anti-corruption, drugs and intelligence work, and thence to NCIS (National Criminal Intelligence Services). He transferred to Hampshire Police for a relatively short time, subsequently moving to Surrey Police (for the first of his two Surrey stints) in 2001. He was a senior detective at the time of Milly's disappearance in 2002.
> 
> ...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 28, 2012)

Close to Yates then....excellent.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 4, 2012)

PI Glenn Mulcaire loses fight at London court to keep identity secret of person who told him to intercept messages. 

Three people including a prison officer are arrested as part of investigation.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Potentially very interesting from the Telegraph - potentially not - my bold:
> 
> BREAKING: Deputy Chief Constable Craig Denholm of #Surrey Police *investigated* by IPCC over claims he knew Milly #Dowler's phone was#hacked


Just in passing:

Sussex police chief accused of misconduct



> The Independent Police Complaints Commission is investigating an allegation of misconduct against a police force's chief constable.
> Sussex Police Authority (SPA) voluntarily referred the allegation against the Sussex chief constable, Martin Richards, to the IPCC last month.
> Sussex police had not released details of the incident but it is believed Richards is being investigated over allegations he used "undue influence" on a force operation, according to the Brighton Argus newspaper.
> 
> The complaint about him was made by a member of staff using the force's anonymous internal reporting system, the paper said.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 13, 2012)

55 yr old man arrested in Cardiff today - operation Tuleta
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18827470
would love to know who that is


> He was arrested on suspicion of committing offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
> He is in custody at a police station in the Cardiff area.


----------



## 1%er (Jul 15, 2012)

Andrew Neil, former editor of the Sunday Times questioned the truthfulness of evidence given to the inquiry by his ex-boss News Corp owner Murdoch, article about it here.

Neil's evidence to Leveson here, it was taken as read, so may have passed under some peoples radar.

It seems to undermine Murdoch's evidence that he never got anything from politicians


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2012)

Could be big, this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/18/phone-hacking-email-news-international



> The existence of an email of "enormous significance" written by a News International executive that refers to the phone hacking of a "well-known individual" has emerged in the high court, in a hearing to discuss the progress of civil claims against the publisher of the News of the World.
> 
> Mr Justice Vos, presiding, said that the email was "sent by an executive whose identity you know" – but the name of the author, the precise content of the message, and who it was discussing remain confidential for legal reasons.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 18, 2012)

Held it back since March and the lawyers representing newscorp have apologised?   Must be good.   Maybe they have to wait until the 'well known individual' is informed?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jul 21, 2012)

Rupert Murdoch resigns from News International

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...Rupert-Murdoch-steps-down-from-NI-boards.html



> Rupert Murdoch has resigned as a director of a string of companies behind _The Sun, The Time_s and _The Sunday Times_, fuelling expectations that he is preparing to sell the newspaper group.
> Companies House filings show that Mr Murdoch stepped down from the boards of the NI Group, Times Newspaper Holdings and News Corp Investments in the UK last week. He also quit a number of News Corp’s US boards, the details of which have yet to be disclosed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.


----------



## newbie (Jul 22, 2012)

don't take that as too positive


> News Corp plans to split into two firms, separating its newspaper and book publishing interests from its now dominant TV and film enterprises.
> Mr Murdoch is expected to chair both businesses but to be chief executive only of the TV and film side.


Beeb


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2012)

I feel a bit sorry for the old git re Sky, after all he created it from scratch and beat rival BSB completely to market, now he can't own his baby.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 22, 2012)

Fuck off!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I feel a bit sorry for the old git re Sky, after all he created it from scratch and beat rival BSB completely to market, now he can't own his baby.


 
He "built Sky from scratch" by using illegal tactics to deprive competitors of income, misrepresenting coverage and programming, and a load of other underhand tactics. Hard to feel sorry for him.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 22, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I feel a bit sorry for the old git re Sky, after all he created it from scratch and beat rival BSB completely to market, now he can't own his baby.


 
Fuck off, he built that business via very 'underhand methods', and I use that term to avoid legal action against urban and/or me that the term I would like to use could bring.

And, lets not forget his 'alleged' illegal involvement in taking down OnDigital/ITV Digital.

He's a cunt, that got away with it for far too long, fuck him.

* and nothing in this post has any bearing on what the cunt did to Chris Cary, a man I had only met a couple of times, but had one hell of a lot of respect for in some respects, for all Chris's faults, he didn't deserve what Murdoch did. Two pirates in a plod, IMO, but one had more money and better connections in the establishment, that left the other totally fucked.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 22, 2012)

> A secret unit within Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation promoted a wave of high-tech piracy in Australia that damaged Austar, Optus and Foxtel at a time when News was moving to take control of the Australian pay TV industry.
> 
> The piracy cost the Australian pay TV companies up to $50 million a year and helped cripple the finances of Austar, which Foxtel is now in the process of acquiring.
> 
> ...


 
http://afr.com/p/business/marketing_media/pay_tv_piracy_hits_news_OV8K5fhBeGawgosSzi52MM

That article is about his nefarious activities in Oz, but there's compelling evidence that he pulled the same shit in the US, UK and Italy too.

Using a mix of hackers and ex-Israeli intelligence spooks to make sure that so many people were easily able to pirate his rivals that they couldn't make money.


----------



## belboid (Jul 24, 2012)

"*The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has announced that Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson, Glenn Mulcaire and Neville Thurlbeck will face charges relating to phone hacking."*

excellent


----------



## killer b (Jul 24, 2012)

cps announcement: Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson, Glenn Mulcaire and Neville Thurlbeck will face charges relating to phone hacking.

too slow!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2012)

CPS had to jump that way after all this i think.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2012)

Coulsen in the mix. Great.


----------



## belboid (Jul 24, 2012)

Coulsen Brooks & Thurlbeck all being done specifically for hacking Milly Dowlers phone


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2012)

belboid said:


> Coulsen Brooks & Thurlbeck all being done specifically for hacking Milly Dowlers phone


Big big move.


----------



## killer b (Jul 24, 2012)

the guardian's dan sabbagh has some specifics on twitter:

Brooks charges relating to Dowler and Andrew Gilchrist. Coulson relating to Dowler, Blunkett, Charles Clarke, Calum Best.

Kuttner, Dowler and Blunkett. Miskiw 9 charges incl Dowler, Sven, Gilchrist, Blunkett, Delia Smith, Charles Clarke, Law, Miller, Rooney

Thurlbeck, seven charges. Dowler, Sven, Blunkett, C Clarke, Jolie, Brad Pitt, Oaten, Tessa Jowell. (US names there)

Mulcaire faces charges incl relating to Dowler, Delia Smith, Charles Clarke.

Two suspects - charging decision deferred. Not named. Insufficient evidence against three others. Not named.


----------



## killer b (Jul 24, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/jul/24/phone-hacking-cps-charges-live#block-18


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2012)

The return of Miskiw. Interesting.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

Her (Brooks) husband seems to be one of the missing names - the laptop incident.  Presumably means he's got off or yet to be decided?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

Return of the Misk


Edit:


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Return of the Misk
> 
> 
> Edit:


 
Get out.

Oaten?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 24, 2012)

Nev's not blogged since 9 July... Come on, Conan, pull your finger out of your arse!

http://www.nevillethurlbeck.com/


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Get out.
> 
> Oaten?


 He'll never sue, they filled his mouth with gold.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Nev's not blogged since 9 July... Come on, Conan, pull your finger out of your arse!
> 
> http://www.nevillethurlbeck.com/


 The 'for Neville' prison cell.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The return of Miskiw. Interesting.


 
Alastair Morgan certainly seems not unhappy about who's been charged.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> He'll never sue, they filled his mouth with gold.


Resists, resists...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Resists, resists...


 Dammit, poised perfectly over the net.  You're off my beach volleyball team for good.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Her (Brooks) husband seems to be one of the missing names - the laptop incident. Presumably means he's got off or yet to be decided?


He has been charged along with Brooks for other offences.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2012)

Interesting to see Blunkett's name appearing all over that charge sheet.  Given his position of a former home secretary who was forced to resign after details of an affair came public through the Murdoch press, who then went on to do a highly paid column in either the sun or n.o.w (can't remember which).  Did Blunckett know his phone had been hacked way back then?  If so why didnt he say anything at the time?  Also why has he not said anything since?  Did he even cooperate with the Police investigation?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

On the face of it this looks _astonishingly_ bad for Cameron. His good friend and dinner partyist + number 10 inner circle member in a criminal court.  How much traction it will still have by the time it gets to court is another matter.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> On the face of it this looks _astonishingly_ bad for Cameron. His good friend and dinner partyist + number 10 inner circle member in a criminal court. How much traction it will still have by the time it gets to court is another matter.


 
Its not a killer blow by any means, but its just another incidence which highlights his very poor judgment and supports the ever growing belief that he is a dim lightweight chancer.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Its not a killer blow by any means, but its just another incidence which highlights his very poor judgment and supports the ever growing belief that he is a dim lightweight chancer.


Well, if Coulson stands up in court and says that Cameron has told the world a pack of lies about him and his relations/work practices etc then he is in serious trouble - potentially killer trouble.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

'Criminal allowed into top secret briefings without security clearance..'


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 24, 2012)

No story on the _Sun_ website yet (though the @Sun_politics twitter account is running with it: 'Rebekah Brooks denies phone hacking charges and will contest: "The charge concerning Milly Dowler is particularly upsetting".') - but I notice they're going hard on corrupt payments and undermining of the legal process elsewhere:



Cabals of corrupt Asian court clerks


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Well, if Coulson stands up in court and says that Cameron has told the world a pack of lies about him and his relations/work practices etc then he is in serious trouble - potentially killer trouble.


 
I hope so, I just can't imagine a scenario in which that will happen though.   Should Coulson plead not guilty the questions will all be about his time at NI and not when he moved to join Cameron.  Also I will be flabbergasted if it turns out that Cameron was explicitly told that Coulson was up to his neck in phone hacking, there is no way he could have taken him on under those circumstances.

I have a inkling that Coulson in particular may yet fall on his sword and plead guilty thereby protecting the government and Cameron in particular, I'm sure they would make it worth his while.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 24, 2012)

Blunkett?   While he was a minister?   Isn't that a different charge (like treason?)

Have _any_ tory mps been hacked?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> He'll never sue, they filled his mouth with gold.


 
No, more brown than 'golden'......


(doesn't resist)


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

Fedayn said:


> No, more brown than 'golden'......


 *©   *


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Blunkett? While he was a minister? Isn't that a different charge (like treason?)


 
Exactly! And why didnt Blunkett say anything? Instead he just took a highly paid job with the company that had just allegedly hacked his phone. Surely a home office minister wouldnt turn a blind eye to illegal practices or allow himself to be brought off? Inconcievable.


----------



## Tankus (Jul 24, 2012)

well done on the CPS getting this in before the olympics .........

several weeks coming of  where "its good day .... to bury bad news"


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2012)

Tankus said:


> well done on the CPS getting this in before the olympics .........
> 
> several weeks coming of where "its good day .... to bury bad news"


Eh? You think people are going to forget about this?  A series of trials that no one notices?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2012)

Is it me or does the last line of this statement from RB make no sense?



> "I am distressed and angry that the CPS have reached this decision when they knew all the facts and were in a position to stop the case at this stage. The charge concerning Milly Dowler is particularly upsetting not only as it is untrue but also because I have spent my journalistic career campaigning for victims of crime. I will vigorously defend these allegations."


----------



## Tankus (Jul 24, 2012)

no ...but there would be a fight for the headlines though


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Exactly! And why didnt Blunkett say anything? Instead he just took a highly paid job with the company that had just allegedly hacked his phone. Surely a home office minister wouldnt turn a blind eye to illegal practices or allow himself to be brought off? Inconcievable.


 
What we need is a proper Inquiry into these things, headed up by a judge and stuff, where he could be made to answer these questions ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 24, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> I have a inkling that Coulson in particular may yet fall on his sword and plead guilty thereby protecting the government and Cameron in particular, I'm sure they would make it worth his while.


 
That wouldn't really protect them though.

"Hey Andy, thinking about giving you a job. You never did anything naughty, did you?"
"No, honest!"
"Good show - you're hired!"

...

"Hey Dave, all that bad stuff they're saying about me isn't true, but I'm resigning anyway."
"Sorry to hear that, all the best!"

...

"Hey Dave, all that bad stuff they're saying about me _is_ true after all, and before, when I said it wasn't, I was lying. Sucker!"
"Jumping Jehosaphat!"


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> That wouldn't really protect them though.
> 
> "Hey Andy, thinking about giving you a job. You never did anything naughty, did you?"
> "No, honest!"
> ...


 
Exactly, who is the real victim here. Poor Dave.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly, who is the real victim here. Poor Dave.


'George, I know it's not your birthday, but I saw this Sacrifical Lamb costume and thought of you'.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 24, 2012)

If Coulson goes down, whether he cops for it or - to borrow that Brooksism - "vigorously defends the allegations" but is disbelieved by the jury, Dave looks a dick who either (i) knowingly hired a crook or (ii) unknowingly hired a crook, on the word of the crook.

That's a straight choice between being bent himself, or just a credulous twat with poor judgement, with varying shades of shit in between.

So Coulson coming over all Abe Lincoln this late in the game would not really work if he wanted to 'protect the government'


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 24, 2012)

Read this chunk from Nev's statement and tell me it doesn't make you smile with its implicit message:



> "I am most surprised and disappointed in the outcome. I have always operated under the strict guidance and advice of News International's lawyers and under the instructions of the newspaper's editors which will be abundantly clear when this matter comes to court.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

Fredy Patel will really earn his money on this one.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> Read this chunk from Nev's statement and tell me it doesn't make you smile with its implicit message:


 
Umm, I'm pretty sure that style of defence has been used before, unsuccesfully as I recall.

But yeah, he appears to have a big bucket of shit he's going to pour over NI, to use the tabloid venacular.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> If Coulson goes down, whether he cops for it or - to borrow that Brooksism - "vigorously defends the allegations" but is disbelieved by the jury, Dave looks a dick who either (i) knowingly hired a crook or (ii) unknowingly hired a crook, on the word of the crook.
> 
> That's a straight choice between being bent himself, or just a credulous twat with poor judgement, with varying shades of shit in between.
> 
> So Coulson coming over all Abe Lincoln this late in the game would not really work if he wanted to 'protect the government'


 
But option 2 has already happened really hasnt it?  the Coulson lied line is one the tories have been trotting out for a while.  I really can't see this in itself being terminal unless a lot more comes out in the trial then I expect.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2012)

two sheds said:


> What we need is a proper Inquiry into these things, headed up by a judge and stuff, where he could be made to answer these questions ...


 
Was Blunkett called before Leveson?  If not why not?  Some research needed here I think.


----------



## agricola (Jul 24, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> Was Blunkett called before Leveson? If not why not? Some research needed here I think.


 
It is worth pointing out that Blunkett has had a *lot* of money off NI since he left office:



> Rupert Murdoch's News International has approved a confidential payout to the former home secretary David Blunkett over allegations that his phone was hacked.
> The exact size of the payout is not clear. However, three well-placed sources familiar with the negotiations suggest the payout to Blunkett and several others is worth around £300,000.
> 
> ....
> ...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

> His register of interests entry shows that he advises News International on corporate social responsibility issues


Isn't this a bit like Henry Kissinger getting the Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Isn't this a bit like Henry Kissinger getting the Nobel Peace Prize.


 
Yup, it looks well suss.  There was something in Leveson from Blair (not that one, the copper) saying he made Blunkett aware of phone hacking right back in 2006.  Blunkett appears not to have been called to Leveson, all very odd indeed.


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 24, 2012)

Wilf said:


> 'George, I know it's not your birthday, but I saw this Sacrifical Lamb costume and thought of you'.
> L.O.L. Dave


You forgot the signature line!


----------



## 1%er (Jul 24, 2012)

Many a slip between charge and guilty verdict


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

1%er said:


> Many a slip between charge and guilty verdict


 Yep, if I was forced to put a fiver on it now I'd predict not guilty for Coulson and Wade (didn't know, ddn't ask...), though we haven't seen how bad the evidence is yet.  Mr Mulcaire may well be revisiting his old haunts though.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 24, 2012)

Well - as with the other charges agasint the Brookses - you'd expect that the CPS must have some pretty good evidence before talking them on - witnesss from NI prepared to drop them in the shit, evidence on computers (one is reminded of a certain lap top dumped in a bin) , e-mails etc. 

Any news on likely trial dates?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 24, 2012)

Or they could just be playing to the public demands on a flimsy as shite 'case' (see also John Terry).

Fingers crossed they've got it right this time...


----------



## agricola (Jul 24, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Well - as with the other charges agasint the Brookses - you'd expect that the CPS must have some pretty good evidence before talking them on - witnesss from NI prepared to drop them in the shit, evidence on computers (one is reminded of a certain lap top dumped in a bin) , e-mails etc.
> 
> Any news on likely trial dates?


 
The eight will make their first appearance at Westminster Magistrates on August 16th.


----------



## agricola (Jul 24, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Or they could just be playing to the public demands on a flimsy as shite 'case' (see also John Terry).
> 
> Fingers crossed they've got it right this time...


 
er - the John Terry case was not "flimsy as shite", unless you think that him being recorded, witnessed _and admitting_ calling Ferdinand a "fucking black cunt" in the midst of an argument between the two is flimsy.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2012)

agricola said:


> er - the John Terry case was not "flimsy as shite", unless you think that him being recorded, witnessed _and admitting_ calling Ferdinand a "fucking black cunt" in the midst of an argument between the two is flimsy.


 
Yeh he didn't mean it though.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 24, 2012)

agricola said:


> er - the John Terry case was not "flimsy as shite", unless you think that him being recorded, witnessed _and admitting_ calling Ferdinand a "fucking black cunt" in the midst of an argument between the two is flimsy.


 
Terry did not admit to calling Ferdinand a "fucking black cunt". He admitted to asking Ferdnand if he thought he had said that.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 24, 2012)

agricola said:


> er - the John Terry case was not "flimsy as shite", unless you think that him being recorded, witnessed _and admitting_ calling Ferdinand a "fucking black cunt" in the midst of an argument between the two is flimsy.


 
They had zero chance of a conviction. Even the prosecution knew it (IMO etc).


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 24, 2012)

Point of order, he didn't admit _calling_ Ferdinand "a fucking black cunt", just saying the words.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 24, 2012)

Anyone, enough of that twat, apologies for the derail...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Terry did not admit to calling Ferdinand a "fucking black cunt". He admitted to asking Ferdnand if he thought he had said that.


 Maybe they were just _asking_ Mr Mulcaire if he was willing to hack Millie Dowler's voicemail. 'When I said _who will rid me of this turbulant priest_, I didn't intend you to...'.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 24, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Anyone, enough of that twat, apologies for the derail...


 Terry will be outside the court in his Chipping Norton kit.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 24, 2012)

agricola said:


> The eight will make their first appearance at Westminster Magistrates on August 16th.


 
I assume thats the  prelimarnary job where they set bail conditions etc. Is this when the actual trial date is set?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 24, 2012)

The Wolfman has been rebailed till September according to the _Graun_. Plus he's now got a twitter account


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 24, 2012)

And I like the desperate non-denial denial from Coulson about the Milly Dowler hacking charge:



> I would like to say one thing today about the Milly Dowler allegation. Anyone who knows me, or who worked with me, would know that I wouldn't, and more importantly that I didn't, do anything to damage the Milly Dowler investigation.


----------



## Flanflinger (Jul 24, 2012)

Might end up with the odd minor conviction. Most cases will collapse either before or during the trial.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 24, 2012)

Yes, I'm sure the judge won't want to call witnesses to say that they did it for fear of making the case complicated.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 30, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19049421

Another interesting new development, Sun journo being held on 'conspiracy to gather data from *stolen* mobile phones' 

Seems to be the Chief Foreign correspondent.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 30, 2012)

Mulcaire named names to _NOTW_ hacking victim's lawyer, Met granted access to statement


----------



## laptop (Jul 30, 2012)

From the above...



> Earlier on Monday the court heard that claimants had made new allegations against News of the World publisher News International... These allegations were related to "exemplary damages" claims but were not identified in court.


 
 



> [claims]  which the company said it believed were "unsustainable".


They would, wouldn't they?


----------



## laptop (Jul 31, 2012)

*News Corporation directors could face charges for neglect of duties*


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 2, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/02/rebekah-brooks-charged-phone-hacking

Brooks charged today, they slipped that out.

She's appearing at court about 2 weeks before the other 6 who all appear together (it looks like)?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 3, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/02/rebekah-brooks-charged-phone-hacking
> 
> Brooks charged today, they slipped that out.
> 
> She's appearing at court about 2 weeks before the other 6 who all appear together (it looks like)?


 
Thus giving her time and space to make a deal that kebabs the other defendants.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 3, 2012)

I was thinking that.   Wonder if they're thinking the same now (the other 6).


----------



## laptop (Aug 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thus giving her time and space to make a deal that kebabs the other defendants.


 
Or vice versa - the others stitch her up?

Or a bidding war with the CPS to see who can rat loudest and longest? 

For reference the others, next due in court on 16 August, are:

Andy Coulson, David Cameron's former spin doctor
Stuart Kuttner, ex-managing editor
Greg Miskiw, former news editor
Ian Edmondson, former head of news
Neville Thurlbeck, ex-chief reporter
James Weatherup, former reporter
Thurlbeck gone a bit wildcard.

But the idea of Brooks stitching up Coulson probably entertains the most


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 5, 2012)

laptop said:


> Or vice versa - the others stitch her up?
> 
> Or a bidding war with the CPS to see who can rat loudest and longest?
> 
> ...


 
It could, if we're lucky, produce a veritable clusterfuck of twat stabbing twat in the back.

Ooh, I think I've got a semi on!


----------



## xes (Aug 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It could, if we're lucky, produce a veritable clusterfuck of twat stabbing twat in the back.


that really does paint a beautiful picture.


----------



## Gingerman (Aug 5, 2012)

Rats fighting in a sack comes to mind


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 5, 2012)

It's funny whenever this thread pops up in my alerts I think perhaps spymaster has something right with the whole bring back capital punishment argument.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 5, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> Rats fighting in a sack comes to mind


 I'm hoping they all dance on the roof of an SUV before going into court to confess their sins. Inspired by the example of Saint Jessica of Ennis, there's _*no way*_ they'll rat each other out.


----------



## yield (Aug 7, 2012)

Operation Elveden: Journalist and police officer arrested
BBC News. 7 August 2012


> A 37-year-old journalist was arrested at his home in north London on Tuesday morning. A 29-year-old police officer was also arrested at his home in Sussex.





> Some 43 people have been arrested as part of Operation Elveden, being run in conjunction with Operation Weeting, which is looking into phone hacking.


How many more arrests are there going to be? So many bad apples.


----------



## laptop (Aug 16, 2012)

> Former News of the World (NoW) editor Mr Coulson, ex-managing editor Stuart Kuttner, former news editor Greg Miskiw, former head of news Ian Edmondson, ex-chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck, former reporter James Weatherup and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire face a total of 19 charges... adjourned until *26 September* at Southwark Crown Court.


 
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19280154*


----------



## pesh (Aug 16, 2012)

i hadn't seen this before, but i hope Ian Edmonson gets a really long holiday.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Aug 29, 2012)

NOW editor in Scotland arrested in connection with Tommy Sheridan case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19409581


----------



## teqniq (Aug 29, 2012)

I can see the headline in a redtop now: Bird to do some bird?


----------



## laptop (Aug 30, 2012)

First Times arrest yesterday: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/29/times-journalist-arrested-computer-hacking - understood to be related to NightJack naming.

And on the BBC ticker now: "Police investigating phone hacking arrest 60-year-old man in south-west London"


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 30, 2012)

laptop said:


> First Times arrest yesterday: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/29/times-journalist-arrested-computer-hacking - understood to be related to NightJack naming.
> 
> And on the BBC ticker now: "Police investigating phone hacking arrest 60-year-old man in south-west London"


hmmm - the NightJack one should prove very intresting.

The Bob Bird one was entirely expected as he said pretty much a lot of what coulson said at the TS trial.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 30, 2012)

What's amusing is the number of editors and journalists who have done similar things and will be worried about the 5 a.m knock on the door (when they're probably not even being investigated)


----------



## Santino (Aug 30, 2012)

The '60-year old man in South West London' is Tom Crone, according to Reports.


----------



## laptop (Aug 30, 2012)

Santino said:


> The '60-year old man in South West London' is Tom Crone, according to reports.


 
Including: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/30/phone-hacking-arrest

E2A: former News of the World head of legal Tom Crone... on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications

Not of obstructing justice as it investigated illegality, but of actively conspiring in illegality...

Whooo!


----------



## gabi (Aug 30, 2012)

this sounds ominous

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/29/leveson-letter-press-chris-blackhurst?INTCMP=SRCH



> The editor ofthe Independenthas said he fears that Lord Justice Leveson is "loading a gun" against the industry as he prepares his final report and recommendations following his inquiry into press culture and ethics.
> 
> Chris Blackhurst said a letter issued by Leveson to all major national and regional newspapers warning them of potential criticism he may make in his report amounts to a "demolition of the industry".
> 
> ...


----------



## cesare (Aug 30, 2012)

It'd be ace if it was a diatribe; bet it won't be though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 30, 2012)

It's not Leveson's job to reassure the newspapers and pat them on the back, noting the positive aspects of their work. What did Blackhurst expect?


----------



## gabi (Aug 30, 2012)

I just hope he doesn't come down too heavily on press freedom. But it sounds like he will.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 30, 2012)

It's a pre-publication thing outlining what the 'charges' are and inviting them to respond that blackhurst has misread as a considered verdict - and he misread, i suspect, because he's shitting it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 30, 2012)

gabi said:


> I just hope he doesn't come down too heavily on press freedom. But it sounds like he will.


Which is what blackhurst in his _don't panic_ mode is relying on people to decide is going to happen, in order to pre-dispose them to reject the final report.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2012)

cesare said:


> It'd be ace if it was a diatribe; bet it won't be though.


 
Having read a few such reports, I make you right. The media may well *take it* as a diatribe, but following the usual format, it'll be a series of points, criticisms and recommendations, each of which will be closely explained.
It wouldn't surprise me if the E.S. reads like a diatribe, though. It's impossible to do detailed explanation in a summary.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's a pre-publication thing outlining what the 'charges' are and inviting them to respond that blackhurst has misread as a considered verdict - and he misread, i suspect, because he's shitting it.


 
Probably the executive summary of the report, then.


----------



## cesare (Aug 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Which is what blackhurst in his _don't panic_ mode is relying on people to decide is going to happen, in order to pre-dispose them to reject the final report.


Exactly this.


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 30, 2012)

gabi said:


> this sounds ominous
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/29/leveson-letter-press-chris-blackhurst?INTCMP=SRCH


 
Merely the opening defensive salvo about Leveson ruining it for decent scumba....journalists everywhere.

He probably wrote his response before he even received it.


----------



## laptop (Aug 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> blackhurst... misread, i suspect, because he's shitting it.


 
Haven't read the Graun piece, but I can guarantee that he's merely trying to influence the report - to make a late supplementary submission to the inquiry, you might say. In this sense, tactical misreading is an absolutely routine lobbying move.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 30, 2012)

_Tactical misreading_ is a good way of putting it - i was looking for something like instrumental misreading rather than genuine misreading and that nails it i think.


----------



## laptop (Aug 30, 2012)

gabi said:


> I just hope he doesn't come down too heavily on press freedom. But it sounds like he will.


 
But what does "come down heavily on press freedom" mean in the context of Leveson?

I'm expecting him to propose a New Press Complaints machinery that is operated by the industry, but with some statutory backup. This is a good thing (and I'm writing this from an editorial desk at a news magazine).

Some newspaper owners have presented any restriction on their right to do what they damn well please as an attack on press freedom. This is a bad thing.


----------



## laptop (Sep 15, 2012)

I've lost track of arrests. Another one, for alleged bribery, today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19610695



> A journalist has been arrested by police investigating alleged corrupt payments to public officials.
> 
> The 43-year-old was held at a southwest London police station at about 09:00 BST after he went there by appointment.
> 
> Scotland Yard said the man was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to corrupt and suspicion of conspiracy to cause misconduct in a public office.


 
Don't know what paper he worked for, yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

Sky is a fit and proper broadcaster, rules Ofcom



> The media regulator Ofcom has found that BSkyB remains a "fit and proper" owner of a broadcast licence despite the phone-hacking affair which embroiled its parent company and during which, it said, James Murdoch's conduct repeatedly fell short of the standard to be expected.
> 
> The review, carried out in the wake of the scandal and News International's closure of the News of the World, was aimed at establishing whether the satellite television group – whose largest shareholder is News Corporation – remained eligible to broadcast in the UK.
> 
> If it had decided that either Murdoch – the younger son of Rupert Murdoch who stood down as chairman of News International in March and as chairman of BSkyB in April, but remains on the board as a non-executive director – or the company itself were not fit and proper owners, the regulator could have revoked BSkyB's licence.


----------



## laptop (Sep 20, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Sky is a fit and proper broadcaster, rules Ofcom


----------



## Badgers (Sep 20, 2012)




----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 20, 2012)

That was never happening anyway, realistically.   The TV services show little of the bias and pervasive nastiness that ran/runs through its print media.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2012)

It's not to do with being biased though. That's a separate question.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 20, 2012)

Shame, I was hoping they would force Murdoch to sell his share, like the old Independent Television Authority did when Murdoch took a controlling share in London Weekend TV, back in the 70's.

But, the gut feeling was they wouldn't, OFCOM just doesn't have the balls that the ITA (and later the IBA) had. 



> Between 1969 and 1970, Australian media owner Rupert Murdoch purchased a controlling interest in LWT, following an altercation on a live LWT show presented by David Frost (coincidentally the first live colour programme shown on ITV). Immediately, he set about dismissing existing board members, and changing schedules and programme ideas. Although it made him unpopular within sections of LWT, audience share began to grow and, albeit slowly, so did income and profits.
> 
> However, Murdoch's presence rang alarm bells at the ITA, who expressed concern that a foreign national and owner of significant British newspaper interests, could own a British television station. A discreet but effective ultimatum was given: Murdoch had to sell up, or LWT would have its licence revoked. The ITA won, and in 1971, Murdoch left.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Weekend_Television


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 24, 2012)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ver-links-with-news-of-the-world-8168128.html

Just for inf, not for comment.



> Ms Levitt added: "May I remind all concerned that DCI Casburn is now charged with a criminal offence and has a right to a fair trial. It is very important that nothing is said, or reported, which could prejudice that trial. For these reasons it would be inappropriate for me to comment further."


----------



## Badgers (Sep 26, 2012)

Day in court today then


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2012)

Trial set for September 2013...


----------



## Badgers (Sep 26, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Trial set for September 2013...


 
Just read this. That is a long time, guess there is a LOT of evidence for the CPS to wade through?


----------



## gosub (Oct 1, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rged-with-breaching-Official-Secrets-Act.html

Can't be an idiot cos she made DCI, desperation or greed pretty much ruled out cos she quit the city to join the dibble, and the fraud type of stuff would be transferrable back.  Which really only leaves -sort of thing you can get away with-which tends to indicate it wasn't that uncommon


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 3, 2012)

Alex Marunchak (formerly_ NOTW_ executive editor) and Jonathan Rees (private detective) both arrested yesterday under Compute Misuse Act and RIPA.



> Scotland Yard said the arrests brought to 16 the number of people arrested under Operation Tuleta, a Scotland Yard investigation into privacy breaches including the alleged hacking of computers and stolen mobile phones.


 
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/pair-...nd-jonathan-rees-bailed-after-hacking-arrests

I wonder how well Marunchak's part-time job translating for the Met paid - rather attractively, seeing as he appears to live in a £2 million Hammersmith townhouse. Even Kelvin McKenzie's five bed Weybridge pad is only valued at £1.5 million!


----------



## Dan U (Oct 3, 2012)

David Allen Green on Daniel Morgan

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/death-daniel-morgan


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 6, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...ves?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


> *Boris Johnson forced to disclose details of conversations with NI executives*
> 
> London mayor under pressure to give evidence to Leveson inquiry after diary reveals string of calls and meetings
> 
> ...


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 6, 2012)

Boris?  Now that would be a result.


----------



## laptop (Oct 6, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Boris? Now that would be a result.


 
Oh yes!

Bit stupid of Murdoch to have been plugging Boris so strongly...


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 15, 2012)

Tomorrows independent front page


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2012)

That's going to kick it all off again for sure. FT tonight also reports that Brooks had a 7 million quid keep your mouth shut pay-off and help with legal fees.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 15, 2012)

Good news


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 15, 2012)

Hard to read but withheld emails, if relevant, would be very damaging.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 16, 2012)

Story's up now: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...and-the-emails-kept-from-leveson-8212487.html



> Private emails between David Cameron and the former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks have been withheld from the Leveson Inquiry after the Prime Minister sought personal legal advice, _The Independent_ can reveal.
> 
> The cache of documents, which runs to dozens of emails and is also thought to include messages sent to Andy Coulson while he was still a Rupert Murdoch employee, was not disclosed after No 10 was advised by a Government lawyer that it was not “relevant” to the inquiry into press standards.
> 
> ...


----------



## cesare (Oct 16, 2012)

Disclosure wriggling going on, no surprise there then.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's going to kick it all off again for sure. FT tonight also reports that Brooks had a 7 million quid keep your mouth shut pay-off and help with legal fees.



http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/10/15/rebekah-brooks-got-7m-payoff-after-quitting-news-international/


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 16, 2012)

But what did they saaaaaaaaaaaaay?!


----------



## Santino (Oct 17, 2012)

Cameron point blank refused to answer a question at PMQs about the content of the excluded messages.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 22, 2012)

I know this relates to Hillsborough but this thread seems a good place for ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/22/channel-4-kelvin-mackenzie-hillsborough



> Ofcom has ruled that Channel 4 did not breach broadcasting rules when its chief news correspondent doorstepped former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie about his infamous front-page splash on the Hillsborough football tragedy.


 
A fine piece of journalism, and fucking rich MacKenzie getting angry about being doorstepped.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 22, 2012)

Santino said:


> Cameron point blank refused to answer a question at PMQs about the content of the excluded messages.


 
Anyone else's scandal radar twitching at this?
Or am I the only one who thinks 'country supper' is an obvious euphamism for lady orientated oral plesure?


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 22, 2012)

Oh there's something for sure, it'll come out eventually.


----------



## Ted Striker (Oct 23, 2012)

Sven finally steps off his latest young filly/lower nation football side and gets round to his legal filings...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20036822

*crosses fingers*


----------



## Lord Camomile (Oct 23, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> Sven finally steps off his latest young filly/lower nation football side and gets round to his legal filings...
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20036822






			
				BBC report said:
			
		

> Mr Eriksson's claim relates to a time when Piers Morgan edited the Daily Mirror. Mr Morgan denies phone hacking.





Ted Striker said:


> *crosses fingers*


*and toes*


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2012)

Not much reporting on this - i wonder why?



> Counter-terrorism officer denies charges of misconduct in public office over allegations that she offered information to a tabloid


 
Note the _offered _


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2012)

Sounds like they are going after her using the official secrets act too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20181049



> At a hearing at the Old Bailey she was told that a date for her trial would be fixed in the near future.
> DCI Casburn, who is currently suspended from work, is also facing a separate charge under the Official Secrets Act which can only be dealt with by magistrates.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2012)

Lord Camomile said:


> But what did they saaaaaaaaaaaaay?!


 
Bits of detail here, implying 'closeness':
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/04/david-cameron-texts-rebekah-brooks

There's a public interest in all this in as much as it relates to the relationship between Murdoch and Government. Also, who knows what else will be in the 'cache' of emails - and I'm not that averse to almost any political manoeuvre that sticks it to Cameron and Brooks. Same time, Chris Bryant's actions seem a bit tacky.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2012)

Cried twice at one of his speeches, lol.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2012)

elbows said:


> Cried twice at one of his speeches, lol.


Me too.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 13, 2012)

> *Tuesday, 13 November 2012*
> 
> *David Cameron's receipts suggest he sent 10,000+ text messages (including 150 to Rebekah Brooks that remain hidden from public).*


 
http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/david-camerons-receipts-suggest-he-sent.html


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2012)

Charges from Elvenden in:




			
				CPS said:
			
		

> The allegations relate to the request and authorisation of payments to public officials in exchange for information, including a Palace phone directory known as the 'Green Book' containing contact details for the royal family and members of the household.


 



> The full charges in relation to Coulson and Goodman
> Charge 1
> 
> Clive Goodman and Andrew Coulson, between 31 August 2002 and 31 January 2003, conspired together and with a person or persons unknown to commit misconduct in public office.
> ...


----------



## Santino (Nov 20, 2012)

Dear Rebekah,
Good luck at the trial
LOL, David


----------



## stavros (Nov 20, 2012)

I just hope she can afford a decent lawyer.


----------



## yardbird (Nov 20, 2012)

stavros said:


> I just hope she can afford a decent lawyer.


Uncle Rupie paying, no?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 20, 2012)

7 million - that's money to do time, surely?


----------



## stavros (Nov 20, 2012)

yardbird, see the link in my previous post.


----------



## paolo (Nov 21, 2012)

Santino said:


> Dear Rebekah,
> Good luck at the trial
> LOL, David


 
This is good, and it's going to get better. It's like Leveson sequels are already planned. I'm assuming the collective billionty who've been arrested/charged can't all go to court in one case, so it's going to be EPIC.

Interesting seeing Cameron revising his language. There's now pretty much zero support from him, towards his previous chummy tabloid mates / 'key strategists' (lol). If nothing else, it suggests he can see that one or both of the duo could get convicted. Either will do me. Both is champers time.


----------



## stavros (Nov 21, 2012)

paolo said:


> If nothing else, it suggests he can see that one or both of the duo could get convicted. Either will do me. Both is champers time.


 
Even better, they do a collective plea bargain and implicate both Digger Senior and Junior who do time instead.

This is obviously just a dream - if nothing else I think both are US citizens, and there's no extradition process heading east to the UK.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 21, 2012)

America has that foreign corrupt practices law.  Not going to happen though.


----------



## elbows (Nov 22, 2012)

Gove was mocking Leveson at the Spectator awards.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/21/michael-gove-mocks-leveson-spectator-awards


----------



## killer b (Nov 22, 2012)

He's not much of a wag is he?


----------



## teqniq (Nov 22, 2012)

Damage limitation perchance?


----------



## laptop (Nov 22, 2012)

stavros said:


> there's no extradition process heading east to the UK.


 
Just for the record: there is, but it has stricter criteria (does the phrase "probable cause" appear?); and US courts are more sceptical about sending people to furrin courts, them being the best in the world and superior to _all_ furriners in their own eyes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2012)

killer b said:


> He's not much of a wag is he?


 
He'll never be funnier than having pus drip out of the end of your cock, unless he tops himself in front of an audience.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 22, 2012)

You have a way with words VP


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 22, 2012)

> *Martin Hickman* ‏@*martin_hickman*
> Can be tricky to keep count of phone hacking charges and arrests. I've listed them here: http://www.phonescandal.com/#/arrests/4570515447 …


----------



## agricola (Nov 26, 2012)

A Tory MP writes:



> _Following speculation that the government might be about to offer the press, “one last chance” to make self regulation actually work, I thought colleagues might be interested in the history of previous “last chances” over the past 65 years. Parliament has not always been good at learning from its mistakes, so has condemned journalism to suffer crisis after crisis. Here is the record:_
> 
> _1. 1953. Four years after a Royal Commission told the press to start regulating itself, nothing had been done. Only the threat of legislation forced them to create the General Council of the Press. Withdrawing his Private Member’s Bill, C.J. Simmons MP told the Commons: ‘I give warning here and now that if it fails, some of us again will have to come forward with a measure similar to this bill.’_
> 
> ...


----------



## stavros (Nov 27, 2012)

Sorry for the big picture, but it looks like Dacre, amongst others, is trying to discredit the report before anyone's seen it;







i.e. "You'd better, Davey-boy, otherwise I will double cunt you."


----------



## laptop (Nov 27, 2012)

stavros said:


> Sorry for the big picture, but it looks like Dacre, amongst others, is trying to discredit the report before anyone's seen it;
> 
> 
> 
> i.e. "You'd better, Davey-boy, otherwise I will double cunt you."


 
like++


----------



## stavros (Nov 27, 2012)

I'm not sure the Mail ever liked Cameron, with his left-wing socialist tendancies.


----------



## elbows (Nov 27, 2012)

> ‏@*johnprescott*
> David Blunkett has done more money deals with Murdoch newspapers than any other politician. He still appears to be doing their bidding


----------



## elbows (Nov 27, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/27/leveson-inquiry-press-watchdog-law


> David Cameron is facing a public backlash if he fails to act to rein in the press when Lord Justice Leveson reports on Thursday, according to a poll which finds that 79% are in favour of an independent press regulator established by law.
> Some 60% believe the prime minister should implement Leveson's recommendations, and while 79% favour legislation to create an independent press regulator, only 9% are opposed. Just over 80% said national newspapers should be obliged to sign up to the new system by law.
> Support for the creation of an independent body established by law is uniform across the voting spectrum, including 81% support from readers of the Daily Mail, one of the papers most vociferous in its opposition to any state interference.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 28, 2012)

Concerning the Mail, above:



> ...Support for the creation of an independent body established by law is uniform across the voting spectrum, including 81% support from readers of the Daily Mail, one of the papers most vociferous in its opposition to any state interference....


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/27/leveson-inquiry-press-watchdog-law


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 28, 2012)

*Graham Linehan* ‏@*Glinner*
The Daily Mail fears Leveson because he directly threatens their quasi-pornographic business model.http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2012/11/23/the-dead-tree-press-doth-protest-too-much-methinks/…

*Collapse* 

 *Reply* 
 *Retweet* 
 *Favorite*


----------



## teqniq (Nov 28, 2012)

Rupert will not be best pleased:

News International must pay Andy Coulson legal fees, appeals court rules



> Andy Coulson has won his legal battle to force News International to continue paying his legal fees relating to criminal investigations into alleged illegal activity at the News of the World while he was editor.
> 
> The former editor, who was subsequently David Cameron's director of communications, won his appeal against an earlier high court ruling over his legal bills arising out of police investigations into phone hacking and payments to public officials.
> 
> Three senior court of appeal judges ruled: "I am satisfied that clause 4.6 does cover Mr Coulson's costs and expenses of defending the criminal allegations."...


----------



## stavros (Nov 28, 2012)

It's not just Murdoch, Dacre, Desmond, etc, but I've noticed the Graun and the Indie have been doing editorials on how terrible any kind of state-sanctioned watchdog would be too.

Are they all out of sync with public opinion?


----------



## teqniq (Nov 28, 2012)

Massively I suspect.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 28, 2012)

which is a shame because there are potentially very damaging things to come out of this.  state regulated newspapers are not a good thing.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 28, 2012)

What do you suggest? I'm not really into state regulation either but the cosy arrangement that is the newspapers, politicians and the OB all in each other's pockets that has imo played a large part in the whole sorry mess, stinks.

And as for the PCC in it's current incarnation - ha ha ha.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 28, 2012)

Would independent regulator be bad? Will be appointed by government no doubt, but has to be better than self regulation.

Just being as assiduous at banging editors up for insider dealing, bribing police and public officials and similar crimes as they are at locking people up for stealing bottles of water would be nice.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 28, 2012)

teqniq said:


> What do you suggest? I'm not really into state regulation either but the cosy arrangement that is the newspapers, politicians and the OB all in each other's pockets that has imo played a large part in the whole sorry mess, stinks.
> 
> And as for the PCC in it's current incarnation - ha ha ha.


 
where laws have been broken they should throw the lot of em in jail.  that's not what this has become about though.  i couldnt give a flying fuck about celebrities like nazi mosley, one solution to stop the shit that happened to the dowlers etc is legal support and legal aid for libel and investigations into other breaches of the law.  as for cosy relationships between MPs the filth and the press, state regulation is likely to increase that not diminish it


----------



## smokedout (Nov 28, 2012)

two sheds said:


> Would independent regulator be bad? Will be appointed by government no doubt, but has to be better than self regulation.


 
the question is who gets regulated, and how - if it applies to all national newspapers would that mean things like Freedom, Class War etc where are the boundaries likely to be set, what about the net, bloggers etc

admittedly i havent followed whats been proposed by the various parties as much as id like, but i havent seen any clear answers to exactly what state regulation would look like in practice


----------



## elbows (Nov 29, 2012)

The devil is in the detail really. Press freedom is good in so many ways but we mustn't forget that the press we have is soiled by the nature of who owns it and works in it.

And yes it came up repeatedly at Leveson that some of this stuff is slightly absurd to come to a head now because of the changes underway via the internet. And when it comes to this stuff I'm concerned that regardless of lower barriers to entry, the old media entities still have the upper hand in many ways on the net, they have the size, the staff, the ability to work with the advertising model, promotion model, etc. And this in turn raises issues such as how publications that do a fairer job of serving the great unwashed can function online, which includes problems trying to engage the audience in a sustainable and compelling way. I'm underwhelmed with what has been achieved so far, there is still potential, but just like with politics we are a bit stuffed by where peoples heads are at in the modern world.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 29, 2012)

> It's #*Leveson* day and all you need is here: the Guardian's live blog is up and running: http://gu.com/p/3c6mt/tw


----------



## smokedout (Nov 29, 2012)

elbows said:


> The devil is in the detail really. Press freedom is good in so many ways but we mustn't forget that the press we have is soiled by the nature of who owns it and works in it.
> 
> And yes it came up repeatedly at Leveson that some of this stuff is slightly absurd to come to a head now because of the changes underway via the internet. And when it comes to this stuff I'm concerned that regardless of lower barriers to entry, the old media entities still have the upper hand in many ways on the net, they have the size, the staff, the ability to work with the advertising model, promotion model, etc. And this in turn raises issues such as how publications that do a fairer job of serving the great unwashed can function online, which includes problems trying to engage the audience in a sustainable and compelling way. I'm underwhelmed with what has been achieved so far, there is still potential, but just like with politics we are a bit stuffed by where peoples heads are at in the modern world.


 
all of this is true.  none of it will be changed in the slightest by any kind of statutory regulation - quite the opposite, old media will demand it applies to new media as well and use this to further entrench their dominance - regulation, which would mean some form of licencing however that is presented, could cut off any possible challenge to big media


----------



## 03gills (Nov 29, 2012)

elbows said:


> Gove was mocking Leveson at the Spectator awards.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/21/michael-gove-mocks-leveson-spectator-awards


 
Yeah, there's been a fair bit of this going on in the last few weeks. Those with vested interests suddenly coming out against leveson, hilariously trying to paint themselves as protectors of freedom and democracy. You know, like David Blunkett, that well known bastion of liberty and democracy _who wanted to bring in ID cards_.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 29, 2012)

No credible evidence of bias from Jeremy Twunt over BSkyB?   Fuck off.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 29, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> No credible evidence of bias from Jeremy Twunt over BSkyB? Fuck off.


What???


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 29, 2012)

No extensive evidence of police corruption, police made 'poor decisions'


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 29, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> No extensive evidence of police corruption, police made 'poor decisions'


 - being reported as 'no evidence' by sky.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

May i remind people  - today of all days - that _privacy is for paedos._


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

Who'd of thought an oxbridge boy, a member of the elite, would produce a report favourable to the political and media oxbridge educated elite. Despite elements of that elite getting flustered.


----------



## elbows (Nov 29, 2012)

And he didnt say anything too nasty about the police either, what a shocker.


----------



## elbows (Nov 29, 2012)

This government believes in wights and wesponsibilities, but that these should not be enforced by laws and statutory wegulations. However in wegard to the wascal mwultitude having access to alcoholic liquids for which they have not been aquewately educated, at a pwice that may encowage thwem to be weckless and uwinate through the letterboxes of wight honowable mwemebers, we must act!


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 29, 2012)

And even this remarkably tame proposal is too much for Cameron. He's almost giving the impression of bias.

I can't get over how establishment bollocky that phrase is.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 29, 2012)

He agrees with all recommendations but is not going to implement any...becuase x, y, z.....


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 29, 2012)

So whats happening? Is anything changing?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 29, 2012)

So why does Cameron not want legislative underpinning?


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 29, 2012)

Claggy squeeking his impotent "independence" within the coalition. Give it up cunt, no ones listening


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

weltweit said:
			
		

> So why does Cameron not want legislative underpinning?



To what?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> To what?


 
To a new and more independent PCC ...


----------



## brogdale (Nov 29, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> Claggy squeeking his impotent "independence" within the coalition. Give it up cunt, no ones listening


Exactly how i felt as i turned off the Radio....but, if he actually whipped his bunch through the division with Labour to compel Murdoch's Prime Minister to enact leveson, I'd listen.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 29, 2012)

weltweit said:


> To a new and more independent PCC ...


 


> The new body should be* backed by legislation* designed to assess whether it is doing its job properly.
> 
> The legislation would enshrine, for the first time, a* legal duty on the government* to protect the freedom of the press.


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20543133


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

brogdale said:
			
		

> Exactly how i felt as i turned off the Radio....but, if he actually whipped his bunch through the division with Labour to compel Murdoch's Prime Minister to enact leveson, I'd listen.



This isn't a bill.

Give us what levson is as you are here. This thing that you might turn lib dem for.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This isn't a bill.
> 
> Give us what levson is as you are here. This thing that you might turn lib dem for.


 
Don't know about Bills, but as i understand it there could be a vote on Leveson, and a number of MPs quizzed Clegg about whether he would support a 'free vote' on the issue.

Not that any of that would make me 'turn Lib Dem'.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

brogdale said:
			
		

> Don't know about Bills, but as i understand it there could be a vote on Leveson, and a number of MPs quizzed Clegg about whether he would support a 'free vote' on the issue.
> 
> Not that any of that would make me 'turn Lib Dem'.



Good to hear, the potentially listening is still worrying.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 29, 2012)

round up of levesons recommendation on the guardian:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/29/leveson-inquiry-report-qanda




> He says it should be all news and periodical publishers, including news publishers online. He wants all the major players ie the national press and as many local papers and magazines as possible. He hopes that the carrots and sticks will attract online publishers.
> Ultimately, however, in addressing a scenario in which some publishers may stay out of the system and trigger backstop regulation from Ofcom, Leveson explores who this applies to. He says it would apply to organisations of a sufficient size and impact, among those that provide "news-like services" with Ofcom helping to define this.
> It raises the prospect of a large digital player – such as Google News or Yahoo News – being required to join a regulator or be regulated by Ofcom. This is the sting in the Leveson plan – is it in effect a form of licensing?


 
what will be sufficient size and impact - guido fawkes, sally bercows tweets, where will the threshold be - how the fuck is size and impact measured outside of print, lots of websites, probably including this one have bigger reach than some local freesheet

what penalties emerge if publishers tell ofcom to fuck off, how much government interference would a body have, where are the safeguards

its a load of fucking bollocks if you ask me and i hope it isnt implemented


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2012)

elbows said:


> This government believes in wights and wesponsibilities, but that these should not be enforced by laws and statutory wegulations. However in wegard to the wascal mwultitude having access to alcoholic liquids for which they have not been aquewately educated, at a pwice that may encowage thwem to be weckless and uwinate through the letterboxes of wight honowable mwemebers, we must act!


 
Shit, you saw me doing that, did you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2012)

weltweit said:


> So why does Cameron not want legislative underpinning?


 
What, besides queering the pitch for cosy collaboration between neoliberal government and the media?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2012)

smokedout said:


> round up of levesons recommendation on the guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/29/leveson-inquiry-report-qanda
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Careful, lad. The regulator doesn't like swearing.


----------



## elbows (Nov 29, 2012)

weltweit said:


> So why does Cameron not want legislative underpinning?


----------



## agricola (Nov 29, 2012)

brogdale said:


> Exactly how i felt as i turned off the Radio....but, if he actually whipped his bunch through the division with Labour to compel Murdoch's Prime Minister to enact leveson, I'd listen.


 
Murdoch's Prime Minister isnt Prime Minister any more, he left that post in 2007.

As for this - I think that Cameron has been wrongfooted a bit by how weak the report is in terms of calling for regulation of the press, so he has been forced to pretend that there arent any restrictions on the press at the moment (something that Mulcaire and Goodman know isnt true, and something that Brooks et al will hopefully find out isnt true) and that bringing in even something as guaranteed to fail as the Leveson system of regulation would be intolerable. 

What he would have been better doing is pointing to the offences already on the statute book, and make sure that someone (ideally either OFCOM or the Information Commissioner) is funded to create an effective unit that can both take, investigate and prosecute allegations of press malpractice and which can resist pressure from the Press more effectively than the Met did.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This isn't a bill.


Please help me out, I'm baffled here. There is certainly no Bill as yet (hardly surprising as the report is hours old), but I formed the impression m'lud recommended some statutory element of a new complaints commission, with independent members sitting on it, plus Ofcom being given formal powers as a regulator of second resort, and as a monitor of the new commission. In short, won't all that need some legislation, a Bill?


----------



## smokedout (Nov 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Careful, lad. The regulator doesn't like swearing.


 
fuck


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 29, 2012)

agricola said:


> Murdoch's Prime Minister isnt Prime Minister any more, he left that post in 2007.


given Disco's closeness to Rebekah, his willingness to Toady to NI, and his hiring of Coulson, surely hewas as much up NI's backside as Brown ever was?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> Please help me out, I'm baffled here. There is certainly no Bill as yet (hardly surprising as the report is hours old), but I formed the impression m'lud recommended some statutory element of a new complaints commission, with independent members sitting on it, plus Ofcom being given formal powers as a regulator of second resort, and as a monitor of the new commission. In short, won't all that need some legislation, a Bill?


 
The point is that there's no *compulsion* to legislate, regardless of Leveson's findings. This means that our ruling classes can chant their usual "we have listened" mantra, while letting their friends in the media keep on doing the same old shit.


----------



## agricola (Nov 29, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> given Disco's closeness to Rebekah, his willingness to Toady to NI, and his hiring of Coulson, surely hewas as much up NI's backside as Brown ever was?


 
I meant the chap before him, who was considerably further up the channel than either Brown or CMD, whose government were at once stage directly coordinating their media strategies over some policies with NI, and of course under whose watch most of the worst abuses took place.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> Please help me out, I'm baffled here. There is certainly no Bill as yet (hardly surprising as the report is hours old), but I formed the impression m'lud recommended some statutory element of a new complaints commission, with independent members sitting on it, plus Ofcom being given formal powers as a regulator of second resort, and as a monitor of the new commission. In short, won't all that need some legislation, a Bill?


He recommended some stuff be made law. That's it.


----------



## Firky (Nov 29, 2012)

Channel 4 News at the moment is worth watching.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

Leveson report summary,
The forth estate have been a little naughty and need to find a new way to regulate themselves that is slightly more independent.

I guess the British people will decide, if they keep buying crap they'll keep being fed it.


----------



## Firky (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> I guess the British people will decide


 
That is where you are wrong.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 29, 2012)

The key point for me here is the linkage between the actually criminal acts, the ethics and culture of the press - mainly, but not solely, the tabloids -
the immense power of the press (despite the fact that the circulation of every newspaper has been heading south pretty much continually for most of the last decade), and the way that power causes politicians and police alike to cravenly cuddle up to them and simultaneously kowtow before them at every available opportunity. THAT is the problem-all flow from each other.
And that is why this report is so desperately disappointing. Tbf, I will grant Lord Justive Leveson that lawyers tend towards very restrained, dry language - goes with the territory - but all things considered this report is a damp squib.
As to why, butchersapron nailed it - public skool, Oxbridge barrister and judge; everything in his life, career and world predisposes him to think in purely Establishment terms. It isn't even necessary to question his personal integrity; in narrow legalese terms, that's unbesmirched. he has simply acted as he is class-programmed to do.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He recommended some stuff be made law. That's it.


ah right, we're at cross purposes, i thought you were saying Leveson didn't recommend changes to statute (which IIRC always need legislation).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> I guess the British people will decide, if they keep buying crap they'll keep being fed it.


What's the way out of this apparent naughty circle?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

Amazing that once again it is the public's fault eh 1%


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The point is that there's no *compulsion* to legislate, regardless of Leveson's findings. This means that our ruling classes can chant their usual "we have listened" mantra, while letting their friends in the media keep on doing the same old shit.


true; but the recommendation of new press laws (especially the Ofcom bit) is there in black and white. They can either weasel round it passing a law that's neutered by its' small print, talk all legislation down and wait for the public to get bored, or pass leveson in full.
I'm betting 1.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What's the way out of this apparent naughty circle?


I believe the naughty step is a popular practice nowadays in the UK.



butchersapron said:


> Amazing that once again it is the public's fault eh 1%


Who said it was the British public's fault, my point is that if the British public don't like it, don't buy it. One only has to look at the biggest selling papers and what they pump out day after day to see what sells.

As you are well aware the market rules


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> I believe the naughty step is a popular practice nowadays in the UK.
> 
> Who said it was the British public's fault, my point is that if the British public don't like it, don't buy it. One only has to look at the biggest selling papers and what they pump out day after day to see what sells.
> 
> As you are well aware the market rules


That logic says openly that it's the fault of the buyer - if they stopped it wouldn't happen. Who knows what paper the families of these victims bought. The market might rule but it doesn't have to.


----------



## Firky (Nov 29, 2012)

Insightful, 1p.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That logic says openly that it's the fault of he buyer - if they stopped it wouldn't happen. Who knows what paper the families of these victims bought. The market might rule but it doesn't have to.


I thought the public were still allowed to choose which papers they buy, the biggest selling papers were the biggest offenders.

With regard to the market, who is it, it is the British public and as I said above they now have the chance to change things, will they?


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> Who said it was the British public's fault, my point is that if the British public don't like it, don't buy it.


 
62 million brits boycott the Sun.


----------



## cesare (Nov 29, 2012)

I wonder how many people actually give a toss about this, really.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

where to said:


> 62 million brits boycott the Sun.


That would be a good start. If you don't like something why buy it?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> I thought the public were still allowed to choose which papers they buy, the biggest selling papers were the biggest offenders.
> 
> With regard to the market, who is it, it is the British public and as I said above they now have the chance to change things, will they?


Offenders as regards what? And why does that mean that they can set the rules for everyone else?

I think they have no chance to change things (what things?) and only and odd fellow could think that they do.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> That would be a good start. If you don't like something why buy it?


Do you think this has only effected people who buy these papers?

Edit: or that some people buying these papers justifies them fucking up people who don't? After all, some people buy them right? You're very daft.


----------



## Firky (Nov 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> I wonder how many people actually give a toss about this, really.


 
Exactly.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Offenders as regards what? And why does that mean that they can set the rules for everyone else?
> 
> I think they have no chance to change things (what things?) and only and odd fellow could think that they do.


Man not ball 

If the public don't like it don't buy it. please explain to me why the NofW, the sun, the Mirror sell/sold so many papers? The British public lapped it up and still do. Nothing like a "just turned 16" page 3 and some salacious gossip to start the day.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

Tell me why i have to. Tell me why i should.Tell me why it's necessary to.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> Man not ball
> 
> If the public don't like it don't buy it. please explain to me why the NofW, the sun, the Mirror sell/sold so many papers? The British public lapped it up and still do. Nothing like a "just turned 16" page 3 and some salacious gossip to start the day.


This is an argument for the free market - a state/big led money led construction of a  market then monopoly then subsidy to keep it afloat. It's not a market you mug.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Tell me why i have to. Tell me why i should.Tell me why it's necessary to.


Oh come on, give us some of that 1950's class analysis, you live there I don't.

Who is buying this stuff?


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This is an argument for the free market - a state/big led money led construction of a market then monopoly then subsidy to keep it afloat. It's not a market you mug.





butchersapron said:


> The market might rule but it doesn't have to.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> Oh come on, give us some of that 1950's class analysis, you live there I don't.
> 
> Who is buying this stuff?


Tell me why that's relevant.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> butchers said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
What is the purpose of juxtaposing these quotes?


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Tell me why that's relevant.


I thought class analysis was always relevant


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> I thought class analysis was always important


It is, let's see some.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

If, say for instance, someone went to _your_ locksmiths and said that someone had picked their lock,would you then blame everyone else who had bought locks? Would _you_ B_N?


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> I wonder how many people actually give a toss about this, really.


 
Cameron's gamble - which i sense is going to pay off.  top risk to Cameron was a real shredding from the Dowler family, which doesn't look like coming.  criticism from Hacked Off so far not strong enough to get public animated, i don't think.  most have been bored into submission now.

Miliband must feel pretty exposed tonight. boxed into corner of supporting press regulator through to 2015 that entire press will rail against.  nick clegg for backup though, lol.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 29, 2012)

Dunno why I got my hopes up, at least Brooks and Coulson might get some jail time.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

where to said:


> Cameron's gamble - which i sense is going to pay off. top risk to Cameron was a real shredding from the Dowler family, which doesn't look like coming. criticism from Hacked Off so far not strong enough to get public animated, i don't think. most have been bored into submission now.
> 
> Miliband must feel pretty exposed tonight. boxed into corner of supporting press regulator through to 2015 that entire press will rail against. nick clegg for backup though, lol.


Not yet, wait for one more expose - about them keeping quiet this time.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It is, let's see some.


That's your expertise.

My view is that the people with the power will hold on to that power and will continue to set the political agenda via their paid for newspapers. What I don't understand is why if there really is such outrage at the press people are still buying it


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 29, 2012)

where to said:


> Cameron's gamble - which i sense is going to pay off. top risk to Cameron was a real shredding from the Dowler family, which doesn't look like coming. criticism from Hacked Off so far not strong enough to get public animated, i don't think. most have been bored into submission now.


He has got a bit of a brass neck, I wonder if it's because he thinks he'll be doing something else in a few years


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 29, 2012)

Right wing PM defends the rights of the right wing press and will win sympathy from other press people/papers/platforms by arguing its because he likes the 'free press'.

He knows what he is doing and why!

All the blah, blah, blah about victims are platitudes. They have changed the narrative from their own lack of scrupples and dirty dealings into everyone else arguing for and against a free press. 

I'd like an £4 million inquiry into why some politicians, business people and the media have no morals and a sense of decency. I know it's a waste of money but hey, wasting money is not the issue right? It will give another Lord Somebody a job, produce another massive report that no-one will probably read word for word and then we can all spend time asking questions in commitees, anticipating it's recommendations, agreeing and disagreeing with them before putting it away in a cupboard somewhere.

So what _did_ happen in court today?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> That's your expertise.
> 
> My view is that the people with the power will hold on to that power and will continue to set the political agenda via their paid for newspapers. What I don't understand is why if there really is such outrage at the press people are still buying it


Which has nothing to do with any of your last posts.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Right wing PM defends the rights of the right wing press and will win sympathy from other press people/papers/platforms by arguing its because he likes the 'free press'.
> 
> He knows what he is doing and why!


Against who? Leveson? 

You're FOR Leveson right?


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Not yet, wait for one more expose - about them keeping quiet this time.


 
Coulson/ Brooks court stuff too (if that's not what you meant).  some of that could be excruciatingly embarrassing for him, I'm led to believe.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Which has nothing to do with any of your last posts.


My last post is history, keep up dear.
The market rules (but doesn't have to) you say, so who is the market of this crap who pays hard earned money to buy it?Who is responcibly for the government you have there, it is the people who voted for it and the people who didn't vote


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 29, 2012)

People buy this shit not because they support the views espoused necessarily but because they, tabloids etc play a few stories everyday that are local, current and wrapped up in celeb gossip, scandal, sensationalist crime and sports shit. It's quick and easy and formulaic and there's lots of pictures of scantily clad women. It is cheap dross but most people couldn't give a toss about 'the message' as such. It is consumed and binned every day without the analysis and concerns of Leveson etc. We shouldn't read too much into it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> My last post is history, keep up dear.
> The market rules (but doesn't have to) you say, so who is the market of this crap who pays hard earned money to buy it?Who is responcibly for the government you have there, it is the people who voted for it and the people who didn't vote


What does your invented market have to do with this?


----------



## smokedout (Nov 29, 2012)

[/quote]



Rutita1 said:


> All the blah, blah, blah about victims are platitudes. They have changed the narrative from their own lack of scrupples and dirty dealings into everyone else arguing for and against a free press.


 
Leveson changed the narrative by white washing the real tory/filth/NI links and getting hung up on celebrities and regulation


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 29, 2012)

smokedout said:


> Leveson changed the narrative by white washing the real tory/filth/NI links and getting hung up on celebrities and regulation


 
I included Leveson in my description 'they' FWIW.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> My last post is history, keep up dear.
> The market rules (but doesn't have to) you say, so who is the market of this crap who pays hard earned money to buy it?Who is responcibly for the government you have there, it is the people who voted for it and the people who didn't vote


 
hang on, so now its the fault of people who didnt buy the sun as well?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

It's the fault of everyone but those who did it in this odd world.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

smokedout said:
			
		

> Leveson changed the narrative by white washing the real tory/filth/NI links and getting hung up on celebrities and regulation


What does change the narrative mean? What was the narrative? What was it before? What is it now? Who established it before?


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What does your invented market have to do with this?


I didn't invent the market, it is clearly there and the "outraged" British public support it on a daily basis, it their chose.

But lets not blame the people the people who support it, they are forced to buy it because of ...................?


butchersapron said:


> It's the fault of everyone but those who did it in this odd world.


If you support something financially by choose, it isn't your fault. I guess they don't know what they are getting

Interesting view


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> I didn't invent the market, it is clearly there and the "outraged" British public support it on a daily basis, it their chose.
> 
> But lets not blame the people the people who support it, they are forced to buy it because of ...................?


If, say for instance, someone went to your locksmiths and said that someone had picked their lock,would you then blame everyone else who had bought locks? Would you B_N?


----------



## smokedout (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> I didn't invent the market, it is clearly there and the "outraged" British public support it on a daily basis, it their chose.
> 
> But lets not blame the people the people who support it, they are forced to buy it because of ...................?


 
the news of the world closed down because they were scared of the people that supported it


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> If, say for instance, someone went to your locksmiths and said that someone had picked their lock,would you then blame everyone else who had bought locks? Would you B_N?


I'm not a locksmith although I do write about that and other aspects of the security industry for a number of websites, there isn't much call for locksmiths where I live


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

Answer ze question.


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> I didn't invent the market, it is clearly there and the "outraged" British public support it on a daily basis, it their chose.


 
proportionately, fewer people buy the Sun than voted BNP in the Euro 2009 elections.  should we start deporting blacks and force-feeding anorexics now?


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2012)

can't believe i'm even bothering tbh.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

where to said:


> can't believe i'm even bothering tbh.


I think the fact that such banalities as 1% offers are being commented on tells it own story about today.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Answer ze question.


What was the question again?

So your class analysis is the old school tie network, that's original, when in doubt go for the old school tie, nothing to do with the people who pay for the product


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 29, 2012)

It's been a blow to murdoch and his personal fiefdom in the UK.   Many corrupt practices were uncovered and many people were caught, serious charges have been made against some who thought themselves untouchable and hopefully they'll be found guilty and do time.

More people are aware of these things than they would have been if they were staring at Charlotte Church's tits.

These things may dissipate but they still happened.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> What was the question again?


 
If, say for instance, someone went to your locksmiths and said that someone had picked their lock,would you then blame everyone else who had bought locks? Would you B_N?



> So your class analysis is the old school tie network, that's original, when in doubt go for the old school tie, nothing to do with the people who pay for the product


 
Yeah.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> What was the question again?
> 
> So your class analysis is the old school tie network, that's original, when in doubt go for the old school tie, nothing to do with the people who pay for the product


 
What is the relationship between the people who buy it and the product?


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> If, say for instance, someone went to your locksmiths and said that someone had picked their lock,would you then blame everyone else who had bought locks? Would you B_N?


How is that relevant to what I have said? If the British public don't like the detritus they are fed in their chose of newspapers they don't have to buy it. They are getting what they paid for.


Rutita1 said:


> What is the relationship between the people who buy it and the product?


Chose


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> How is that relevant to what I have said? If the British public don't like the detritus they are fed in their chose of newspapers they don't have to buy it. They are getting what they paid for.


How is the analogy relevant to Leveson and what you've said about it? Go away.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> How is the analogy relevant to Leveson and what you've said about it? Go away.


Leveson is a 6million British pounds inquire that has told us that the press have been a little naughty and need to draw up a new way to regulate themselves, that's it isn't it?

Also that people with power will support each-other, so no real revelations


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> Leveson is a 6million British pounds inquire that has told us that the press have been a little naughty and need to draw up a new way to regulate themselves, that's it isn't it?
> 
> Also that people with power will support each-other, so no real revelations


 
To which you respond: but people buy it. How is that relevant to Leveson? Are you suggesting that people should not be able to buy it? That there should be limits on content or content research? What are you saying beyond a pathetic truism that some people buy some papers? Let us know. Please.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> To which you respond: but people buy it. How is that relevant to Leveson? Are you suggesting that people should not be able to buy it? That there should belimits on content or content research? What are you saying beyond a pathetic truism that some people buy some papers?


If people didn't buy it it would be published. it is as easy as that. Its not the 1950's people have many ways in which to get their news.

Now come on, your the board expert on 1950 class analysis and all you've had to say is "its the old boy network"

Who wanted this inquire, the British public? The market is there, so business has provided them with what they want, are you saying the market for newspapers is irrelevant?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> If people didn't buy it it would be published. it is as easy as that. Its not the 1950's people have many ways in which to get their news.
> 
> Now come on, your the board expert on 1950 class analysis and all you've had to say is "its the old boy network"


Apart from the misreading of the issues that you display, i've never said any such thing about this - about what even? I've said that the elite share a common set of interests. They do. Nothing about any old boy network (that's a private school thing - i have no idea if Leveson was private school). An elite network with overlapping and interlocking interests recruitment to which is based on previous demonstration of fidelity to/and lack of desire to challenge. Disagree?


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Apart from the misreading of the issues that you display, i've never said any such thing about this - about what even? I've said that the elite share a common set of interests. They do. Nothing about any old boy network (that's a private school thing - i have no idea if Leveson was private school). An elite network with overlapping and interlocking interests recruitment to which is based on previous demonstration of fidelity to/and lack of desire to challenge. Disagree?


So they'd produce the papers even if no-one brought them? The people who pay for this detritus have no responsibility at all, says a lot about your thinking

An elite network and the old boys network amount to the same thing, your splitting hairs.

The people who wanted this inquire have got what they expected, the press will still regulate itself, no change.

6million pounds and the status quo, money well spent


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

Do you think this was an investigation into the _quality_ of newspapers?


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Do you think this was an investigation into the _quality_ of newspapers?


No I don't, but I think that the people who pay for this crap have some responsibility for what they got/get for their money, don't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

Tell me why your posts wittering on about the quality (and they're wrong anyway) have any relevance to discussion of Leveson -why it happened, how it played out,who influenced it and how it has been done today -then about how it will go from here in terms of media regulation and how it will effect the coalition. Have a go at that.


----------



## cesare (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> No I don't, but I think that the people who pay for this crap have some responsibility for what they got/get for their money, don't you?


No. I buy lots of things and I'm not responsible for the quality of them.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> No. I buy lots of things and I'm not responsible for the quality of them.


 
I dunno I do credit you with telling me about Pieminister, the fact I get to enjoy their quality is partly down to you.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> No. I buy lots of things and I'm not responsible for the quality of them.


What about the quality  of things that other people buy - you must be by this mugs logic.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I dunno I do credit you with telling me about Pieminister, the fact I get to enjoy their quality is partly down to you.


Yuppies.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Tell me why your posts wittering on about the quality (and they're wrong anyway) have any relevance to discussion of Leveson -why it happened, how it played out,who influenced it and how it has been done today -then about how it will go from here in terms of media regulation and how it will effect the coalition. Have a go at that.


I've already told you that the people who asked for this inquire have got what they want, the press will still regulate itself all be it with some form of over-site. I don't think it will have much bearing on the coalition as they seem to be saying similar things. 

I am very interested in the fact they you seem to believe the people who pay for this crap have no responsibility.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> No. I buy lots of things and I'm not responsible for the quality of them.


So you'd buy the same crap time after time regardless of the quality?


----------



## Firky (Nov 29, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I dunno I do credit you with telling me about Pieminister, the fact I get to enjoy their quality is partly down to you.


 
You can get them in the Co-op now. £3 fucking 90.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Tell me why your posts wittering on about the quality (and they're wrong anyway) have any relevance to discussion of Leveson -why it happened, how it played out,who influenced it and how it has been done today -then about how it will go from here in terms of media regulation and how it will effect the coalition. Have a go at that.


You talk of how it will affect the coalition ,i get sick of reading shit about the lib dems don't like this don't like that ,but fuck all ever comes of it .The libdems still march into the booth to vote with the tories


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> I've already told you that the people who asked for this inquire have got what they want, the press will still regulate itself all be it with some form of over-site. I don't think it will have much bearing on the coalition as they seem to be saying similar things.
> 
> I am very interested in the fact they you seem to believe the people who pay for this crap have no responsibility.


Old boys network, how very shallow.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> So you'd buy the same crap time after time regardless of the quality?


Is this the pieminster bit?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> You talk of how it will affect the coalition ,i get sick of reading shit about the lib dems don't like this don't like that ,but fuck all ever comes of it .The libdems still march into the booth to vote with the tories


Electorally that's all that can happen.


----------



## cesare (Nov 29, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I dunno I do credit you with telling me about Pieminister, the fact I get to enjoy their quality is partly down to you.


Yeah I'll tell people if I like something, or value for money or whatever. The recommendation is my responsibility though, not the product in and of itself. Glad you like Pieminister ... That was a recommendation to me from Dave Cinzano, spreading the credit.

Yep, Butchers. The quality of the product is down to the person/org producing it, not the consumers.


----------



## cesare (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> So you'd buy the same crap time after time regardless of the quality?


Depends on whether it's crap I like or not.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Depends on whether it's crap I like or not.


But 1% wants to be able to choose if it's good enough to be regulated. Or something. Maybe he could say something about Leveson.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> Depends on whether it's crap I like or not.


YES


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> But 1% wants to be able to choose if it's good enough to be regulated. Or something. Maybe he could say something about Leveson.


I already told you, Leveson means no real change. Did you expect something else?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> I already told you, Leveson means no real change. Did you expect something else?


Oh jesus.


----------



## cesare (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> But 1% wants to be able to choose if it's good enough to be regulated. Or something. Maybe he could say something about Leveson.


I've lost track of his point tbh. And I don't know why he's just shouted "YES " at me. My penchant for paying 30p for secondhand Georgette Heyer bodice rippers in no way makes me responsible for the content.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Oh jesus.


So tell me, what has or will Leveson achieve? Educate me.

The silence is deafening


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> I've lost track of his point tbh. And I don't know why he's just shouted "YES " at me. My penchant for paying 30p for secondhand Georgette Heyer bodice rippers in no way makes me responsible for the content.


So regardless of there content you'd keep paying for them


----------



## cesare (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> So regardless of there content you'd keep paying for them


Look. I like them so I keep buying them, OK? I might only like 25% of the total content, but that 25% is sufficient for me to continue buying them.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

If it was only 10% would you still buy them?
Fancy a go at this, what has or will Leveson achieve?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> Chose


Choice? No, IMO. The medium/media significantly define and manipulate the relationship between the product and the purchaser, as well as the 'validation' of the 'reaction' to the product. There isn't much of a choice because of this IMO.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> Choice? No, IMO. The medium/media significantly define and manipulate the relationship between the product and the purchaser, as well as the validation to the reaction to the product. There isn't much of a choice because of this IMO.


The choice is to buy or not to buy.

If the British people are so outraged why do they still buy papers, its because they give them what they want.

*chose past tense of choose (Verb)*

Verb:

Pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 29, 2012)

You seem to be saying that our daily 'choices' are completely arbitary or abstract and our relationship with them is something that has no longer term or on-going, external or imposed influences?

What do you understand the concept of 'culture' to mean?



> If the British people are so outraged why do they still buy papers, its because they give them what they want.


 
So why do they want 'it'?


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2012)

apparently the Spectator is threatening not to comply with any statutory regulator - which opens up some very interesting dynamics (and hypocrisies).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 29, 2012)

.


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2012)

other key development is that Cameron has apparently agreed to have Dept of Culture, Media and Sport draft legislation as per Levison's proposals, if only to show it won't be possible.  sounds like an effort to kick this into long grass to me.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> You seem to be saying that our daily 'choices' are completely arbitary or abstract and our relationship with them is something that has no longer term or on-going, external or imposed influences?
> 
> What do you understand the concept of 'culture' to mean?
> 
> ...


I'm saying that people do not have to buy newspapers, if you don't like something why would you buy it? millions of people read newspapers, if they don't like what they print why would they read them

nothing will change because of Leveson


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2012)

do you think you're being clever with this drivel?


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

where to said:


> do you think you're being clever with this drivel?


NO.

What has or will Leveson achieve? 6 million for the status quo

Do you subscribe to the belief that people who pay money for newspapers have no responsibility in all this?


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> Do you subscribe to the belief that people who pay money for newspapers have no responsibility in all this?


 
I don't think its worth spending all of this evening focussing on, that's for sure.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

where to said:


> I don't think its worth spending all of this evening focussing on, that's for sure.


So no answer to this, What has or will Leveson achieve? And no answer to this, Do you subscribe to the belief that people who pay money for newspapers have no responsibility in all this?


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2012)

Kelvin MacKenzie now having a bit of a meltdown moment on Sky.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

Reading this board it is clear that many people believed the culture of the press is as it was shown during the inquiry, it put flesh on the bone and highlighted some individual stories.

A few people are now going to court for criminal actions and will be well compensated for it, but nothing will really change, it is business as usual.


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2012)

1%er said:


> So no answer to this, What has or will Leveson achieve? And no answer to this, Do you subscribe to the belief that people who pay money for newspapers have no responsibility in all this?


 
At this moment in time I doubt it will achieve a lot.  Quite why you would care my opinion on that question I don't see.

Sun readers have little responsibility for phone hacking, doubt they would even of known about it.


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2012)




----------



## 1%er (Nov 29, 2012)

where to said:


> At this moment in time I doubt it will achieve a lot. * Quite why you would care my opinion on that question I don't see.*
> 
> Sun readers have little responsibility for phone hacking, doubt they would even of known about it.


There would be little point in me coming here if I didn't want to read other peoples opinions.

Phone hacking was done to provide fodder for the people who pay for the paper.

I off out for a beer so not ignoring you


----------



## where to (Nov 29, 2012)

"Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre is the embodiment of Fleet Street bullying, using his newspaper to peddle his Little-England, curtain-twitching Alan Patridgesque view of the world, which manages to combine sanctimonious, pompous moralising and prurient, voyeuristic, judgmental obsession, like a Victorian father masturbating secretly in his bedroom. This is the side of the press Cameron has sided with."​ 
Steve Coogan on Paul Dacre.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> true; but the recommendation of new press laws (especially the Ofcom bit) is there in black and white. They can either weasel round it passing a law that's neutered by its' small print, talk all legislation down and wait for the public to get bored, or pass leveson in full.
> I'm betting 1.


 
The former is exactly what's happened every time in the last hundred years that any attempt has been made to curb the press. I think we've got adequate proof that they're not interested in complying with non-statutory codes, but the politicians are *never* going to risk having the media set against them by passing Leveson.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2012)

1%er said:


> That's your expertise.
> 
> My view is that the people with the power will hold on to that power and will continue to set the political agenda via their paid for newspapers. What I don't understand is why if there really is such outrage at the press people are still buying it


 
Because people have to get information from somewhere, and better in a form where you know roughly what the bias is, than from a sources whose bias you're unsure of.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2012)

1%er said:


> So they'd produce the papers even if no-one brought them? The people who pay for this detritus have no responsibility at all, says a lot about your thinking
> 
> An elite network and the old boys network amount to the same thing, your splitting hairs.


 
Frankly, you're making yourself look daft. None of this is "rocket science".
There is an imperative felt by those with power and/or influence (be they "old boys' networks", "elite networks" or members of the same hunt) to narrativise and naturalise their interests, and the interests of like-minded people. That's done through representing "news" from a particular perspective (a perspective that differs from media outlet to media outlet) that favours the narrative of power. It also means supporting the methods by which the narrative is promulgated. Hence the result.



> The people who wanted this inquire have got what they expected, the press will still regulate itself, no change.
> 
> 6million pounds and the status quo, money well spent


 
In terms of what it tells us about power, then it likely is money well-spent. It has certainly caused a few more scales to fall from eyes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2012)

1%er said:


> So regardless of there content you'd keep paying for them


 
It's not "regardless of the content" though, is it?  By the very fact that cesare *knows* she's buying a "Georgette Heyer bodice-ripper" she's already aware in general of what the content will be: A romance set in a reasonably historically-accurate background.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 30, 2012)

I dont like or trust most of the MSM, nor do i trust this or any government to regulate them.


----------



## laptop (Nov 30, 2012)

A little patience, please, people. Political scandals don't brew in Twitter time.

This is going to grow. I expect and hope it'll be hugely damaging to Cameron.

There are still the trials to come. Leveson's verdict on Cameron's Murdoch ties is going to be reexamined.

And I'm sure Mark Lewis (solicitor to the Dowlers, among others) has more to say at the right time...


----------



## two sheds (Nov 30, 2012)

laptop said:


> There are still the trials to be abandoned because the defendants can't get a fair hearing or procedures have been violated or ...


 
corrected for you


----------



## smokedout (Nov 30, 2012)

this is


where to said:


> "Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre is the embodiment of Fleet Street bullying, using his newspaper to peddle his Little-England, curtain-twitching Alan Patridgesque view of the world, which manages to combine sanctimonious, pompous moralising and prurient, voyeuristic, judgmental obsession, like a Victorian father masturbating secretly in his bedroom. This is the side of the press Cameron has sided with."​
> Steve Coogan on Paul Dacre.


 
this is the man who dined out for years on tales of his crazy drugs past and shagging courtney love


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2012)

And signed up with murdoch for his book.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 30, 2012)

didn't know that, you'll be telling us max mosley really was a nazi next


----------



## The Boy (Nov 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> And signed up with murdoch for his book.


 
Doing a TV show on Sky too isn't he?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2012)

Yep.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 30, 2012)

laptop said:


> A little patience, please, people. Political scandals don't brew in Twitter time.
> 
> This is going to grow. I expect and hope it'll be hugely damaging to Cameron.
> 
> ...


 
This makes sense to me .....


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 1, 2012)

The frenzy of the journalists on every media is quite amusing, the mild nudging of Leverson toward some sort of overview of their excesses are being written as the embodiment of Orwellian dystopia


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 2, 2012)

> *Rupert Murdoch to split News Corp early to limit fallout from hacking scandal*
> 
> *Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation is preparing to split on December 31, as it attempts to limit the damage of the News of the World phone hacking scandal on the rest of the media empire, the Daily Telegraph can reveal.*


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...y-to-limit-fallout-from-hacking-scandal.html#


----------



## gosub (Dec 3, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Anywhere I can link this to share?


I wouldn't bother, the Guardian ended up apologising over that story.  Far better to try and keep it real and leave the hysteria to the likes of Dacre.



ITN is an OFCOM regulated news agency, as is SkyNews. I don't think Pravda when watching either of them


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2012)

gosub said:


> ITN is an OFCOM regulated news agency, as is SkyNews. I don't think Pravda when watching either of them


 
when's the last time tv news broke a major political scandal (without fucking it up mcalpine style)?


----------



## gosub (Dec 3, 2012)

smokedout said:


> when's the last time tv news broke a major political scandal (without fucking it up mcalpine style)?


According to wikipedia :UK political scandals, 2010


eta Newsnight is under BBC Trust rather than Ofcom


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2012)

once every two years then


----------



## gosub (Dec 3, 2012)

NOOOoooo.

5 political scandals in UK since 2010 according to wiki,(including Hunt, who Leveson cleared) only 2 credited - that one by Dispatches, and Telegraph scalp of David Laws, also in 2010


----------



## gosub (Dec 3, 2012)

Also means Ofcom does clear fake sheik style entrapment, which helps undermine B Johnson


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2012)

gosub said:


> NOOOoooo.
> 
> 5 political scandals in UK since 2010 according to wiki,(including Hunt, who Leveson cleared) only 2 credited - that one by Dispatches, and Telegraph scalp of David Laws, also in 2010


 
not sure what you mean, your link just pointed to cash for access

the major scandals, phone hacking and mps expenses were both broken by the press, as are most big stories as well as the day to day nit picking that neither bbc, itv or even channel 4 ever goes near

the rules on balance as well as the threat of ofcom means tv news is far tamer than newspapers and this culture being inflicted on all journalism, including the net, is a gift to power


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2012)

smokedout said:


> not sure what you mean, your link just pointed to cash for access
> 
> the major scandals, phone hacking and mps expenses were both broken by the press, as are most big stories as well as the day to day nit picking that neither bbc, itv or even channel 4 ever goes near
> 
> the rules on balance as well as the threat of ofcom means tv news is far tamer than newspapers and this culture being inflicted on all journalism, including the net, is a gift to power


 
Phone hacking (and the rest) was a scandal that the worst elements of the press were largely responsible for themselves, and MPs expenses was a scandal that was ignored by the lobby for years (the fate of Elizabeth Filkin for instance went almost unremarked except for one or two hacks) until Heather Brooke started sending in FOI requests, and someone sold the truth to the Torygraph.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2012)

so?


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2012)

smokedout said:


> so?


 
So the argument that press regulation might lead to them uncovering less major political scandals than they do now might not stand up to that much scrutiny.


----------



## gosub (Dec 3, 2012)

if you had bothered putting UK political scandals into google the wiki page which has the link to the answer to the question you specifically asked as well as the other bits .   


The biggest threat to journalism is the quest for immediacy, press would be well advised to leave broadcast showing helicopter shots of something that might happen and sit, and think before publishing.  Leave instant vaguary to twitter.  Considerate and reliable journalism could be thriving now the internet has increased the potential market place to over a billion English speakers.  or stick with Dacre on his rear guard action  to defend a press with its benchmark of no less reliable than a bloke down the pub-great benchmark in a global market place.


I say rear guard I notice both the labour lead petition (which will harvest data for  the Labour paty) mentions Milly Dowler and Hacked Off even cites the Guardian article 4/7/11 though the clarification 12/12/11 isn't  cited whilst the UK gov petition langishes below 4800.  It wont be on the back foot for long


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2012)

gosub said:


> The biggest threat to journalism is the quest for immediacy, press would be well advised to leave broadcast showing helicopter shots of something that might happen and sit, and think before publishing. Leave instant vaguary to twitter. Considerate and reliable journalism could be thriving now the internet has increased the potential market place to over a billion English speakers. or stick with Dacre on his rear guard action to defend a press with its benchmark of no less reliable than a bloke down the pub-great benchmark in a global market place.


 
I think the problem with this is that a large section of the Press recognize that Dacre's business model is their own, and that they would go bust if they suddenly started telling the truth, or filled the paper with actual news rather than churnalism of the kind that Nick Davies identified.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2012)

agricola said:


> So the argument that press regulation might lead to them uncovering less major political scandals than they do now might not stand up to that much scrutiny.


 
the only way that argument can be truly tested is by introducing regulation.  is that where we're it - this might lead to less press investigations, but it might not, lets go ahead and see

this despite the UK having some of the strictest libel laws in the world, ever increasing privacy legislation, a huge amount of state secrecy and kids being put in jail for saying silly things on facebook - and you want more

no surprise, you're power's best mate


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2012)

smokedout said:


> the only way that argument can be truly tested is by introducing regulation. is that where we're it - this might lead to less press investigations, but it might not, lets go ahead and see
> 
> this despite the UK having some of the strictest libel laws in the world, ever increasing privacy legislation, a huge amount of state secrecy and kids being put in jail for saying silly things on facebook - and you want more
> 
> no surprise, you're power's best mate


 
er - no.

The point I was making is that the press shouldnt really cite recent political scandals - whether its phone hacking, MPs expenses, Saville or whatever - as examples of work they would be prevented from doing if there was regulation because (a) theres plenty of evidence that they have known about almost all of the recent scandals and did nothing (or at best, very little) about it, and (b) the way most of the Press is run nowadays means that they arent likely to be that bothered about _actual_ political scandals (ie: stuff like tax avoidance, privatizations that lose the taxpayer huge amounts of money, corruption etc rather than who is shagging whom) because its easier and more profitable to print stories about how short Alesha Dixon's skirt is.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2012)

and how will this situation be improved by a more regulated press?


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2012)

smokedout said:


> and how will this situation be improved by a more regulated press?


 
Not sure the Leveson proposals would have any effect - but if there was an effective method of resolving complaints (whether statutory or not), combined with actual enforcement of the legislation already on the statue book, it would prevent many of the worst abuses that have gone on whilst leaving actual journalism (ie: those few hacks who actually do what Dacre pretends that the rest of the press does) untouched.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2012)

how do you know?


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2012)

smokedout said:


> how do you know?


 
Surely the evidence of the past two years would suggest that actual enforcement of the law as it exists has prevented many abuses of the kind that were rife a few years ago?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2012)

ok, I agree, enforce the law, so why any need for more outside of the current legal framework


----------



## gosub (Dec 3, 2012)

smokedout said:


> the only way that argument can be truly tested is by introducing regulation. is that where we're it - this might lead to less press investigations, but it might not, lets go ahead and see
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

wtf What next a homosayswhat defense? Power is spread through many institutions within the UK, it has been spreading out since 1215. The media has been known as the Fourth Estate since 1787, because of their power . That they have hibitually abused it, breaking criminal laws, for which they will go to jail. But they have also tarnished their statndards to the point, that in the relation to phone hacking the PCC demanded the Guardian print an apology for even suggesting it was going on. This while being in the "last chance salon" after the sixth enquiry in in six decades into how they conduct themselves. Their reaction to the latest enquiry is almost "how very much dare you!"


The press has power. They have abused it, repaetedly. There needs to be change. And the only ones who seem to have any confidence that change can be handled by the press, are the press.


----------



## agricola (Dec 3, 2012)

smokedout said:


> ok, I agree, enforce the law, so why any need for more outside of the current legal framework


 
Because there are always going to be issues that dont attract civil or criminal sanction (or which the victim isnt able to seek legal redress because of the cost), but for which the papers should be held to account, or at least have it pointed out to them that their behaviour is unacceptable.  Stuff like unwanted harrassment of victims (or friends/family of victims) of crime, for instance, or deliberate misrepresentation of views/facts in order to sex up stories.  

The PCC is meant to do this, but - as should be obvious - it doesnt.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2012)

agricola said:


> Because there are always going to be issues that dont attract civil or criminal sanction (or which the victim isnt able to seek legal redress because of the cost), but for which the papers should be held to account, or at least have it pointed out to them that their behaviour is unacceptable. Stuff like unwanted harrassment of victims (or friends/family of victims) of crime, for instance, or deliberate misrepresentation of views/facts in order to sex up stories.
> 
> The PCC is meant to do this, but - as should be obvious - it doesnt.


 
so you think the government should?

I've said I agree with widening access to legal redress through legal aid and increased support, but none of this is about the law


----------



## smokedout (Dec 3, 2012)

gosub said:


> The press has power. They have abused it, repaetedly. There needs to be change. And the only ones who seem to have any confidence that change can be handled by the press, are the press.


 
yet its the police who didnt take phone hacking seriously, the police and government who were cosy with murdochs lot, and the government who preside over a legal system of redress that is unaffordable for most people

this is what gives the press the power to act in the way they do.  regulation will strengthen those relationships. 

and who are the press, should every media outlet now have to bow down before the state because murdoch broke the law and the daily mail is sometimes horrible to people?


----------



## ymu (Dec 3, 2012)

Leveson isn't a threat to human rights – not adopting his proposals would be



> I have read an article in the Mail on Sunday which reports that Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty has criticised the Labour leader Ed Miliband for endorsing the proposals made by Lord Justice Leveson for future regulation of the press, and attributes to her the view that the implementation of those proposals in full would in some way undermine or infringe the right to freedom of expression as protected by article 10 of the European convention on human rights.
> 
> ..
> 
> ...


----------



## gosub (Dec 3, 2012)

smokedout said:


> yet its the police who didnt take phone hacking seriously, the police and government who were cosy with murdochs lot, and the government who preside over a legal system of redress that is unaffordable for most people
> 
> this is what gives the press the power to act in the way they do. regulation will strengthen those relationships.
> 
> and who are the press, should every media outlet now have to bow down before the state because murdoch broke the law and the daily mail is sometimes horrible to people?


 
Topsy turvey bollocks I cant be asrsed to take a part.  

WHAT WOULD THE PRESS HAVE TO DO FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THEM OUT OF CONTROL?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 4, 2012)

kill a kitten


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 4, 2012)

gosub said:


> Topsy turvey bollocks I cant be asrsed to take a part.
> 
> WHAT WOULD THE PRESS HAVE TO DO FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THEM OUT OF CONTROL?


Constantly promote jimmy savile and never carry out an investigation into him when he's commonly considered to be an abuser of young people...something the press (claims) it hates?

Can't really do anything about them not investigating shit though. Damn.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 4, 2012)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...for-saddam-photo-parliament-told-8376417.html

Interesting timing although the event was some time ago.



> Rupert Murdoch faces calls to hand police all his personal
> emails to senior News International executives amid claims his media empire
> paid a serving member of the US forces for a photo of Saddam Hussein.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 4, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Constantly promote jimmy savile and never carry out an investigation into him when he's commonly considered to be an abuser of young people...something the press (claims) it hates?


 
like the heavily regulated bbc did?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 4, 2012)

Is it just me or does it seem to anyone else like Leveson gives Jeremy Hunt and the cops a free pass, blaming Hunt's special advisor for being up Murdoch's arse and suggesting that media corruption of cops isn't a big problem?

Nor does he seem particularly worried about Murdoch owning around 40% of the UK media and being so powerful that he can tell prime ministers what to do.

I find myself wondering if this report is being deliberately framed in PR terms as being something rather more closely aligned to the public interest than it actually is.


----------



## ymu (Dec 4, 2012)

Yes. It does seem very much like that.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 4, 2012)

Yes Leveson spoke loudly and carried a big feather duster.


----------



## agricola (Dec 4, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I find myself wondering if this report is being deliberately framed in PR terms as being something rather more closely aligned to the public interest than it actually is.


 
Jack Straw claiming that the report was "magisterial" yesterday - as well as Harman who said his response of slightly altering the status quo was "ingenious" - was the best illustration of that, IMHO.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 4, 2012)

@ Bernie nope, it's not just you.


----------



## elbows (Dec 4, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Is it just me or does it seem to anyone else like Leveson gives Jeremy Hunt and the cops a free pass, blaming Hunt's special advisor for being up Murdoch's arse and suggesting that media corruption of cops isn't a big problem?
> 
> Nor does he seem particularly worried about Murdoch owning around 40% of the UK media and being so powerful that he can tell prime ministers what to do.
> 
> I find myself wondering if this report is being deliberately framed in PR terms as being something rather more closely aligned to the public interest than it actually is.


 
When it was very first published I briefly saw some rumbling that it was 'more like the Hutton inquiry than people expected' but I'm not sure we should be surprised. Establishment inquiries seldom seek to demolish the status quo, just fiddle about a bit to restore credibility, usually to a laughably lame extent.


----------



## elbows (Dec 6, 2012)




----------



## Balbi (Dec 10, 2012)

Harman out the traps early with draft legislation for statutory underpinning of regulation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/10/labour-leveson-plan


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2012)

So, nothing to make papers join the trust, the trust to have no teeth (only benefit of joining is lower court costs etc) and for some reasons _judges_ gets to run it.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 10, 2012)

Reckon it's a quick riposte to Cameron et al's 'oh, its all so terribly complicated to do' whine.


----------



## gosub (Dec 12, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...g-to-the-Telegraph-before-expenses-story.html


New culture sec please


----------



## laptop (Dec 12, 2012)

Lord Lester has another go, in a Bill which had its First Reading in the Lords yesterday:  Bill homepage.


Press Council to be audited by senior judge, the President of the Supreme Court, not a quango
Papers that abide by audited code of conduct to save massively on costs in defamation proceedings


----------



## agricola (Dec 12, 2012)

laptop said:


> Lord Lester has another go, in a Bill which had its First Reading in the Lords yesterday: Bill homepage.
> 
> 
> Press Council to be audited by senior judge, the President of the Supreme Court, not a quango
> *Papers that abide by audited code of conduct to save massively on costs in defamation proceedings*


 
It is somewhat telling of the power of the press still that the state feels the need to bribe them (and with what is effectively other peoples money, no less) into doing things that they have already pretended to sign up to as part of the PCC.

_"Yes, we know the Sun wrongly labelled you as a nonce, but they are part of the Press Council so here is twenty quid"._


----------



## gosub (Dec 12, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/12/rebekah-brooks-news-corp


Rupert's £10.8 million fire wall, cheap at half the price


----------



## laptop (Dec 12, 2012)

agricola said:


> "Yes, we know the Sun wrongly labelled you as a nonce, but they are part of the Press Council so here is twenty quid".


 
Not sure how much they'd save on *awards*. Both sides would save on _*costs*_, which could lead to more actions being brought.


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Dec 12, 2012)

gosub said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/12/rebekah-brooks-news-corp
> 
> 
> Rupert's £10.8 million fire wall, cheap at half the price


 
A pay off for silence, undoubtedly.

_The Guardian_, of course, prints stories from its CPS/Met Police mates for free


----------



## weltweit (Dec 12, 2012)

What a payoff, incredible.
My how the other half live!


----------



## magneze (Dec 13, 2012)

How many years would you go to jail for for £10.8m?


----------



## weltweit (Dec 13, 2012)

magneze said:


> How many years would you go to jail for for £10.8m?


Does it work like that ....
I would definately go to prison for a year for one million ..... but ten .. I am not sure


----------



## magneze (Dec 13, 2012)

How many years could she be serving if found guilty?


----------



## yardbird (Dec 13, 2012)

I think news corp are paying her legal fees on top of the £10.8m.


----------



## yardbird (Dec 13, 2012)

magneze said:


> How many years could she be serving if found guilty?


Five years has been mentioned.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 13, 2012)

Would you get the money upfront? If so surely prison would be a bit easier with those sort of funds? Seems RB has the cash up front so based on that I would do a stretch. 

Assume I got a good job for 5 years I would earn about £300k pre-tax and living expenses. If I took a five year prison stretch (out in 2-3) then I would reappear a 40 year old with over £9m (after expenses) to play with. Not saying I don't value my freedom but a few years of shit for an early rich retirement would be okay.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 13, 2012)

I would imagine, with careful investment it will be a lot more than £9 million, expenses or no expenses.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 13, 2012)

What I don't get is when these company directors and other moneybags get the chop but are given a golden handshake of millions, they go off and get another job! Wtf? Why don't they just retire?


----------



## pesh (Dec 13, 2012)

gosub said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/12/rebekah-brooks-news-corp
> 
> 
> Rupert's £10.8 million fire wall, cheap at half the price


 
couldn't they seize it if she's found guilty? proceeds of crime and all that.


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 13, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> What I don't get is when these company directors and other moneybags get the chop but are given a golden handshake of millions, they go off and get another job! Wtf? Why don't they just retire?


Because they can't live without the power, probably.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The former is exactly what's happened every time in the last hundred years that any attempt has been made to curb the press. I think we've got adequate proof that they're not interested in complying with non-statutory codes, but the politicians are *never* going to risk having the media set against them by passing Leveson.


tragically, you are probably right. having said that, if i were Milliband - and about a million times bolder than he is - I'd be thinking 'f-it, shit or bust', on the grounds they'll probably end up crucifying him anyway


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 10, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ver-links-with-news-of-the-world-8168128.html
> 
> Just for inf, not for comment.


 


elbows said:


> Sounds like they are going after her using the official secrets act too:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20181049


 
Convicted today:



> A senior counter-terrorism detective was today found guilty of trying to sell information to the News of the World.
> 
> Detective Chief Inspector April Casburn committed a 'gross breach' of the public’s trust by calling the now-closed tabloid and offering details of the phone-hacking investigation in return for payment.
> 
> The 53-year-old was found guilty of one count of misconduct in public office by jurors at Southwark Crown Court and is now facing jail.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ell-phone-hacking-information-News-World.html


----------



## agricola (Jan 10, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Convicted today:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ell-phone-hacking-information-News-World.html


 
Bit of a troubling decision, at least based on the reported facts of the case. Hopefully fuller reporting of what went on will soon be seen.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 10, 2013)

I'll swear that the story I saw on it yesterday centred on her complaint being that the police who had been appointed to the investigation were treating it as a jolly, and were competing with each other as to who could interview the nicest actress.


----------



## laptop (Jan 10, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I'll swear that the story I saw on it yesterday centred on her complaint being that the police who had been appointed to the investigation were treating it as a jolly, and were competing with each other as to who could interview the nicest actress.


 
I remember that being her complaint, too.

Lots about being a woman in a blokey office, too.

Two men working under her got their own offices, but she had to share...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 10, 2013)

What I heard was there was an email from one notw to another saying she'd phoned offering to sell info.  She said she'd only phoned to complain about resources, sexism etc....then apparently she broke down and cried in court....that's when I knew she was guilty.


----------



## laptop (Jan 10, 2013)

So the jury decided they trusted NotW hacks over plod


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 10, 2013)

laptop said:


> So the jury decided they trusted NotW hacks over plod


Only because it was the plod on trial, hopefully.  

It's all relative.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 10, 2013)

agricola said:


> Bit of a troubling decision, at least based on the reported facts of the case. Hopefully fuller reporting of what went on will soon be seen.


Why is it troubling?. A DCI phones up a suspect and offers inside details of an investigation ffs.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 10, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Why is it troubling?. A DCI phones up a suspect and offers inside details of an investigation ffs.


No...no..no!   That's a terrible lie. 

The reason she phoned them the morning after finding out about one of her staff being pulled to help a notw investigation and ask for money to tell them about it...no...wait...she didn't ask for money!........she wanted to talk about sexism in the workplace.....to the notw.

I will now do a short sketch on why sexism is more important than terrorism to notw and the reasons why this makes sense.

'blank'

/new low, plod makes less sense than notw


----------



## agricola (Jan 10, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Why is it troubling?. A DCI phones up a suspect and offers inside details of an investigation ffs.


 
The troubling bit being that it apparently wasnt inside details of the investigation that were offered (indeed reading the Guardian reporting of the trial, the only names that were ever mentioned were those that had been already reported as being under investigation in the press), nor apparently could it have been because she wasnt a part of the investigation anyway.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 10, 2013)

agricola said:


> The troubling bit being that it apparently wasnt inside details of the investigation that were offered...


Doesn't need to be...still tipping off a suspect under investigation, surely.

A heinous crime.


----------



## agricola (Jan 10, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Doesn't need to be...still tipping off a suspect under investigation, surely.
> 
> A heinous crime.


 
So it would seem, though the Guardian report of what the main plank of evidence was should be born in mind when considering what constitutes "tipping off".


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 10, 2013)

agricola said:


> So it would seem, though the Guardian report of what the main plank of evidence was should be born in mind when considering what constitutes "tipping off".


 


> The reporter on the News of the World who took the call, Tim Wood, wrote an email to more senior colleagues, detailing what he claimed had been said. It was the crown's main evidence against Casburn.
> It read: "PHONE TAPPING. A senior policewoman ... who claims to be working on the phone-tapping investigation wants to sell inside info on the police inquiry. She says the investigation was launched yesterday (Fri) by Yates and he is using 'counter-terrorist assets', which is highly unusual. An intelligence development team is being used and they are looking at six people. Coulson, Hoare *and a woman she cannot remember the name of.*


That would be our flame-haired, horse-riding friend.

Almost as much black-mail as tipping off.



> But Patrick Gibbs QC, her counsel, asked the judge to take into account the fact that Casburn was in the process of adopting a child. Sources close to her said she was reeling after being told she could face a five-year jail term because the judge wanted to make an example of her.


Well...if she started this process _after_ she knew about the investigation should should get an extra two years.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 11, 2013)

agricola said:


> The troubling bit being that it apparently wasnt inside details of the investigation that were offered (indeed reading the Guardian reporting of the trial, the only names that were ever mentioned were those that had been already reported as being under investigation in the press), nor apparently could it have been because she wasnt a part of the investigation anyway.


Surely the troubling(to me anyway) bit is why she was phoning a suspect up?


----------



## pesh (Jan 11, 2013)

the troubling bit for me is, ummm. no. none of this is troubling me. fuck her.


----------



## agricola (Feb 1, 2013)

DCI Cashburn got fifteen months.  Brooks et al will have trouble sleeping tonight, if that sentence is the starting point (no money exchanged hands, very little private information was actually transferred, no story was based on what was leaked).


----------



## two sheds (Feb 1, 2013)

Is that representative, though? She was passing on information that made the police look bad, which clearly needs extra punishment.


----------



## ymu (Feb 1, 2013)

And repeatedly soliciting that information, corrupting public servants, is less serious? Her crime couldn't happen without theirs.


----------



## gosub (Feb 5, 2013)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...defeat-as-Lords-votes-for-new-press-laws.html


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 5, 2013)

Slipped in quietly.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-staff-in-dirty-tricks-campaign-8482326.html



> News International is accused of having engaged in systematic political dirty tricks against the former Labour government by hacking the phones of party workers inside key offices.
> 
> The publisher has recently settled a hacking claim with Amanda Ramsay, who was targeted at a time she worked in the office of Labour whip Graham Stringer MP. The agreement follows other settlements with other Labour party workers Hilary Perrin, the former regional organiser for London, and Joan Hammell, who was targeted while working as a special adviser to John Prescott.
> 
> ...


 
With all these people reaching private settlements presumably this means that, because they aren't coming to court, the information doesn't become public.

If one person took it to court surely they could drag all the information on NI hacking into the public domain. The danger to that person being presumably if they were awarded less than NI offered they would be liable for NI's legal costs.

I think.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 6, 2013)

two sheds said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-staff-in-dirty-tricks-campaign-8482326.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I believe you're only liable for the other party's costs if you lose your case.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 6, 2013)

Don't think so



> Offers to settle were introduced in the civil procedure with the purpose of encouraging early settlements and reducing legal costs. In money claims offers to settle are considered formal economic bids; they are made frequently by one party after a legal action has started with the purpose of reaching an agreement between litigants, resulting in the case being dropped. These offers have an additional consequence, if the offeree refuses to accept the offer to settle, and the case continues all the way to a judgment which ends up being less favourable than the previous offer, then the offeree will have to pay the legal costs of the offeror from the moment the offer was made.


 
http://www.ejcl.org/133/art133-1.pdf


----------



## ymu (Feb 6, 2013)

Bloody hell. That is blatantly there to allow the rich to buy silence.

Thanks for digging that up two sheds. Can't bring myself to like it.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 6, 2013)

Would like confirmation from someone legal but that's what I understand.



> Part 36 offers can form an important part of the negotiation process. "Part 36" refers to a section of the Civil Procedure Rules, which govern the way court cases are conducted in England and Wales, dealing with offers to settle.
> 
> Either party can make a Part 36 offer. If the defendant makes a Part 36 offer and the claimant does not accept it, the claimant will have to pay a proportion of the defendant's costs if the amount of compensation ultimately awarded by the court is less than what the defendant offered. The same is true, in reverse, if the defendant refuses to accept a Part 36 offer from the claimant. Therefore, the Part 36 offer can be a useful tool, and the possibility of cost sanctions means that a party receiving a Part 36 offer generally will have to give it serious consideration.


 
http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/accidents_and_injuries/personal_injury/500061.html

That page is for personal injury cases but I think it's for civil cases generally. And yes it does tend to mean that you'd only take someone rich on if you've not got any money and don't mind going bankrupt.

Eta: mind a mate fought a case against the scientologists and won but the judge awarded part of the costs against him (he fought it on his own and reckons he cost them about a million in total  the man's a fucking hero) , which bankrupted him. They then appealed the case and .... he couldn't fight it because he was bankrupt. Which was another nice law for the rich.


----------



## Chook (Feb 11, 2013)

Timeline of Gordon Taylors case shows multiple uses of Part 36 offers.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcumeds/903/90306.htm

May 2008 Farrer & Co offered £150,000 plus costs and undertakings. The offer was made under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Gordon Taylor rejected the offer and Mark Lewis, who was acting on behalf of him for George Davies LLP, stated that he was not interested in negotiation and wanted to take the case to trial.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 11, 2013)

Good men, and good luck to them. I wonder how far they can go in demanding documents from NI.


----------



## Chook (Feb 12, 2013)

Half way to India at least, you would hope.


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 13, 2013)

6 journos arrested today, apparently to do with a _newly discovered _conspiracy.

http://order-order.com/2013/02/13/six-more-hacks-nicked-by-weeting-cops/


----------



## paulhackett (Mar 14, 2013)

4 Mirror journalists arrested..

http://order-order.com/2013/03/14/mirror-journalists-arrested/


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 14, 2013)

Also from guido, looks like it's going to be a very, very tight vote on Monday.  http://order-order.com/2013/03/14/l...howdown-pairing-withdrawn-with-no-exceptions/


----------



## agricola (Mar 14, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Also from guido, looks like it's going to be a very, very tight vote on Monday. http://order-order.com/2013/03/14/l...howdown-pairing-withdrawn-with-no-exceptions/


 
Every single vote could count, then!  In which case ffs.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 14, 2013)

agricola said:


> Every single vote could count, then! In which case ffs.


I don't know, it may be a stitch-up anyway (the free vote).   They all have a lot invested in keeping the status quo as much as possible.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 14, 2013)

Oooh a "supergrass"  this is exactly what the film version of all this is going to need.



> 'Supergrass' takes hacking scandal into new territory
> 
> Mirror Group shares fall by 20 per cent as editor, deputy and two former editors are held
> 
> ...


----------



## agricola (Mar 14, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Oooh a "supergrass"  this is exactly what the film version of all this is going to need.


 
If Hislop gets nicked tomorrow, we all know who the grass is.


----------



## agricola (Mar 14, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> I don't know, it may be a stitch-up anyway (the free vote). They all have a lot invested in keeping the status quo as much as possible.


 
Probably, I mean a lot of the cleansing effect that Leveson is claimed to provide could just as easily be accomplished by enforcing existing legislation.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 14, 2013)

agricola said:


> Probably, I mean a lot of the cleansing effect that Leveson is claimed to provide could just as easily be accomplished by enforcing existing legislation.


Almost entirely (although they need to fix the libel laws in the UK as well).

It wasn't just about the press, it was about the corrupt relationships.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 14, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Almost entirely (although they need to fix the libel laws in the UK as well).
> 
> It wasn't just about the press, it was about the corrupt relationships.


 
That could be dealt with by enforcing existing legislation, too, though.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 15, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Also from guido, looks like it's going to be a very, very tight vote on Monday. http://order-order.com/2013/03/14/l...howdown-pairing-withdrawn-with-no-exceptions/


Blood in the water. 

They can smell it and if Cameron loses this the tory press will want to rip his liver out.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 15, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> Blood in the water.
> 
> They can smell it and if Cameron loses this the tory press will want to rip his liver out.


No replacement so not going......omg boris?!!!


----------



## two sheds (Mar 15, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> No replacement so not going......omg boris?!!!


 
or pob


----------



## Balbi (Mar 15, 2013)

Hammond.

Fuck it. HUNT


----------



## Badgers (Mar 15, 2013)

Four or six? It is a good relevant bump anyway.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 15, 2013)

*Oh bugger *



> Phone hacking: Rupert Murdoch hit by 600 fresh claims
> 
> Detectives are examining an estimated 600 fresh allegations of phone-hacking incidents at Rupert Murdoch's now closed News of the World on the back of fresh evidence obtained by the Metropolitan police from a suspect turned supergrass.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/15/phone-hacking-murdoch-news-world


----------



## agricola (Mar 15, 2013)

two sheds said:


> *Oh bugger *
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/15/phone-hacking-murdoch-news-world


 
Be interesting to see how many of these "new" cases have been previously disclosed to the investigating officers by the Management and Standards Committee. 

Or rather it will be interesting to have it confirmed that none of them were.


----------



## laptop (Mar 15, 2013)

It would of course be entirely improper to speculate on the identity of the supergrass 


* checks reports for acrostics *


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 15, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> Blood in the water.
> 
> They can smell it and if Cameron loses this the tory press will want to rip his liver out.


Will they hell, it was them who told him to come up with the proposals.

The parties will probably come to an agreement over the weekend.


----------



## laptop (Mar 15, 2013)

agricola said:


> Be interesting to see how many of these "new" cases have been previously disclosed to the investigating officers by the Management and Standards Committee.
> 
> Or rather it will be interesting to have it confirmed that none of them were.


 
Which would or will throw an interesting light on:



> *Rupert Murdoch said to have voiced doubts about corporate 'clean-up' unit*
> 
> Mogul said to have questioned his decision to set up unit that provided information to police, leading to arrest of Sun journalists
> 
> ...


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 15, 2013)

laptop said:


> It would of course be entirely improper to speculate on the identity of the supergrass
> 
> 
> * checks reports for acrostics *


Could you imagine if they knew the identity of the supergrass ,they would go to town the papers to discredit them


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 15, 2013)

The timing is perfect for the free vote.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 18, 2013)

3am deal apparently. Statutory backstop apparently in, Press Veto on commission membership out.

Expect all sides to claim glorious victory.

Fascinating structure. Royal Charter on Press Regulation, amendment to Regulatory Bill stating Royal Charters (of any form regulatory) can only be overridden by a Super Majority (2/3) of both Commons and Lords. Not direct statutory underpinning, but it's nailed down there in law so ministers can't fuck with it.

Now, the wording of the Charter itself - that'll be the new frontline.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 18, 2013)

I wonder how they're dealing with Private Eye, I presume that'll be the one they _really _want to shut up.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 18, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I wonder how they're dealing with Private Eye, I presume that'll be the one they _really _want to shut up.


 
I like the Eye - but let's not pretend it's anything more than a paper equivalent of the mateyness of the comment bubble.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 18, 2013)

Yes, but they seem to give details of the illegal behaviour of politicians and their advisors etc. that doesn't appear elsewhere, so clearly invading MPs' privacy.

The first proposals as I recall involved registration which would have made it difficult for the Eye to continue without being sued to fuck even more then they are now sued to fuck.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 18, 2013)

Who would've thunk it? What with the main suspects most probably having very deep pockets I wonder how this is going to pan out?

Press regulation at risk as newspaper groups refuse to endorse deal


----------



## ymu (Mar 18, 2013)

Cheeky fucks.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 18, 2013)

On Newsnight...apparently a bit has been added in to include any web-site that has more than one person with an opinion and there is any editorial control.

That is...any website in the UK.


----------



## ymu (Mar 18, 2013)

Wut?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 19, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> On Newsnight...apparently a bit has been added in to include any web-site that has more than one person with an opinion and there is any editorial control.
> 
> That is...any website in the UK.


So urban would be covered by that then?


----------



## agricola (Mar 19, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> So urban would be covered by that then?


 
So it would seem. Having read it, the papers are entirely right to oppose it - its absolutely appalling in the way that only something agreed upon by the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems could be.

My favourite bit is probably this - from section 8 of schedule 3 of the Charter - which is quite wonderfully phrased (emphasis added).



> The code must take into account the importance of freedom of speech, the interests of the public (including but not limited to the public interest in detecting or exposing crime or *serious* impropriety, protecting public health and safety and preventing the public from being *seriously* misled)


​So its ok to mislead them a little.  Or do things that arent seriously improper.​


----------



## ymu (Mar 19, 2013)

It depends what editorial control means. It could be stretched to mean moderating comments (as on urban and most blogs), but that is stretching it. And if it is stretched that far, it just invites every blog and forum to become a free for all, which would harm the internet (free for all sites are good, but moderated ones have their uses too).

Whether .com would be affected depends on whether editor hosts guest articles, I guess. That might mean that the forum gets dragged in with it, but it would be very silly. Being on .net might save it I suppose.


----------



## ymu (Mar 19, 2013)

agricola said:


> So it would seem. Having read it, the papers are entirely right to oppose it - its absolutely appalling in the way that only something agreed upon by the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems could be.
> 
> My favourite bit is probably this - from section 8 of schedule 3 of the Charter - which is quite wonderfully phrased (emphasis added).
> 
> ​​So its ok to mislead them a little. Or do things that arent seriously improper.​


Seriously improper/misleading as in criminal as in genuine public interest as in not just some celebrity has an affair shock!

I've not read the details, and no doubt it is flawed, but I won't be taking the press's analysis of why. Anyone know what Hacked Off have said about it?


----------



## Santino (Mar 19, 2013)

It's ok to mislead people to make a joke or entertain. It's not ok to seriously mislead them e.g. on matters of criminal justice or medical science.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 19, 2013)

*Why it’s significant the Sun admits hacking a Labour MP’s stolen phone*
by *Sunny Hundal*

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/03/18/why-the-sun-hacking-of-labour-mp-is-so-significant/



> Today, the Sun newspaper apologised in the High Court for accessing personal information on a stolen mobile phone belonging to a Labour MP, according to the BBC.
> 
> Here’s what happened.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 19, 2013)

Surely someone can get banged up for that?  Handling stolen goods and all that.

I always wondered if the tabloids could get whacked with 'proceeds of crime' legislation, since all those illegally obtained Dowler stories and others must have sold a lot of papers and generated a lot of income.  Got to be a few quid in it, maybe confiscate Rebekah's horse...


----------



## agricola (Mar 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> Seriously improper/misleading as in criminal as in genuine public interest as in not just some celebrity has an affair shock!
> 
> I've not read the details, and no doubt it is flawed, but I won't be taking the press's analysis of why. Anyone know what Hacked Off have said about it?


 
That will be the way that it is advertised as working, but given who has drawn this bit of legislation up and agreed it, I have grave doubts that that is how it will be implemented.


----------



## laptop (Mar 19, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> On Newsnight...apparently a bit has been added in to include any web-site that has more than one person with an opinion and there is any editorial control.
> 
> That is...any website in the UK.


 
Who's complaining about this? HuffingtonPost and GuidoFawkes. Both essentially are newspapers, without much paper.

So far, I think they're over-egging the pudding in the hope of generating an ill-informed interweb rantstorm - bit like ACTA.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2013)

Useful list/info to have in one place for future use:

The accused: At least 59 UK journalists arrested since April 2011


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 20, 2013)

Also, the Dep Ed of the Sun has just been nicked under Elveden


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2013)

He's not just been nicked mate, he's been charged, the arrest was in feb.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He's not just been nicked mate, he's been charged, the arrest was in feb.


sorry yes, my bad, skim reading Guardian 
charged with two counts of conspiring to commit misconduct in public office, up B4 westminster beak 26th March


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 20, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> sorry yes, my bad, skim reading Guardian


 
I am pleased to announce that you have just passed the NCTJ Senior Columnist aptitude test. Here's £80,000 - we want 1,500 words once a week, every week. Feel free to use the same 1,500 words in a different order.


----------



## laptop (Mar 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Useful list/info to have in one place for future use:
> 
> The accused: At least 59 UK journalists arrested since April 2011


 
Oooh! They've named the whistleblower!

(Bet that is the motivation for producing the handy ready-reference list now  )


----------



## gosub (Mar 20, 2013)

laptop said:


> Who's complaining about this? HuffingtonPost and GuidoFawkes. Both essentially are newspapers, without much paper.
> 
> So far, I think they're over-egging the pudding in the hope of generating an ill-informed interweb rantstorm - bit like ACTA.


 

Agreed

from Hansard
Maria Miller: In new clause 29 we set out a definition of “relevant publisher” that captures national newspapers and their online editions, local and regional newspapers and their online editions, and online-only edited press-like content providers, as well as gossip and lifestyle magazines. Exemplary damages and costs are designed to catch larger news publishers—those at the centre of the circumstances giving rise to Leveson. As highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who is no longer in his place, many of those are not necessarily the smaller publications.
_8.45 pm_
The new provisions will act as the key incentive for joining the new press regulator. However, our new clause is also designed to protect people who are not intended 
_18 Mar 2013 : Column 704_
to be covered by the new regulator. Three interlocking tests will apply in that regard. They ask whether the publication is publishing news-related material in the course of a business, whether its material is written by a range of authors and whether that material is subject to editorial control. This provision aims to protect small-scale bloggers and the like. Together with new schedule 5, it will ensure that the publishers of special interest, hobby and trade titles such as the _Angling Times _and the wine magazine _Decanter _are not caught in the regime. *Student and not-for-profit community newspapers* such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) will not be caught, *and scientific journals, periodicals and book publishers will also be left outside the definition and therefore not exposed to the exemplary damages and costs regime.*
Jacob Rees-Mogg: We in this corner of the Chamber have been discussing definitions and wondering which magazines would count as hobby magazines. How, for example, would my right hon. Friend define _Hello!_ magazine? It is surely not a newspaper, given that it indulges in the publication of gossip and celebrity pictures. Would it be covered, or would it be exempt, and who will decide where the line is to be drawn?
Maria Miller: My hon. Friend tempts me to repeat what I have just said, but perhaps he should read _Hansard_ or the Bill instead.
New clause 29 describes in great detail who will be caught by the definition of “relevant publisher”. The publisher would have to meet the *three tests of whether the publication is publishing news-related material in the course of a business, whether their material is written by a range of authors—this would exclude a one-man band or a single blogger—and whether that material is subject to editorial control.* This is specifically designed to protect small-scale bloggers. Lone bloggers clearly do not meet those criteria. I hope that that clarifies that point. 

agricola, equationgirl, ymu, teqniq, frogwoman


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 20, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> sorry yes, my bad, skim reading Guardian
> charged with two counts of conspiring to commit misconduct in public office, up B4 westminster beak 26th March


Also worth pointing out that this was for an offences in 2010/2011


> "The first offence relates to allegations that Mr Webster, between July 2010 and August 2011, authorised payments totalling £6,500 for information supplied by a public official to one of his journalists," the Crown Prosecution Service said.
> "The second offence relates to an allegation that in November 2010, Mr Webster authorised a payment of £1,500 for information provided by an unknown public official."


So the claim by the papers that this was all over long ago is once again shown up


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 20, 2013)

Thanks gosub, clarity appreciated


----------



## gosub (Mar 20, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Thanks gosub, clarity appreciated


 
Unfortunately we've both still yet to to see what gets through Holyrood...


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 20, 2013)

gosub said:


> Unfortunately we've both still yet to to see what gets through Holyrood...


True...


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 27, 2013)

http://news.sky.com/story/1070417/former-pc-jailed-for-selling-info-to-the-sun



> A former police officer has been jailed for 10 months for selling details of arrests of celebrities to The Sun newspaper.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

Prison officer gets 16 months for selling Jon Venabales info to the sun.


----------



## agricola (Mar 27, 2013)

I appreciate they pled guilty, but those sentences do raise more questions over the term of imprisonment that ex-DCI Casburn got (fifteen months inside, only reduced from three years because of a child she had adopted).


----------



## ymu (Mar 27, 2013)

> A victim of the phone hacking scandal today said pressure group Hacked Off had “steamrolled” through curbs on press freedom and “suckered” politicians.
> 
> Graham Foulkes, whose son David died in the 7/7 bombings in 2005, said Labour leader Ed Miliband was “shameless” in letting the group fronted by Hugh Grant take part in crucial talks on press regulations.
> 
> ...


 
Good point, well made.


----------



## pesh (Apr 18, 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/18/sun-executive-editor


> The Sun executive editor Fergus Shanahan is to face prosecution over an allegation that he authorised payments totalling £7,000 to a public official.


 
(((((Fergus)))))


----------



## elbows (May 3, 2013)

Rebekah Brooks bodyguard charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22399267



> "It is alleged that between 15 and 19 July 2011 Mr Johnson conspired to pervert the course of justice by concealing computers and other items from the Metropolitan Police Service during its investigation into allegations of phone hacking and the corruption of public officials by journalists."


----------



## Badgers (May 3, 2013)

elbows said:
			
		

> Rebekah Brooks bodyguard charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22399267



Good Friday news


----------



## teqniq (May 3, 2013)

Heh, good news indeed. What's the chance of her and now the bodyguard doing time over this I wonder?


----------



## DexterTCN (May 3, 2013)

Is he taking the rap for it then, pretty sure it said there were 3 of them on tape seen doing it.


----------



## 1%er (May 3, 2013)

Looks like the UK have more journalists currently under arrest than China and Russia combined.

Who'd have thunk it


----------



## Dan U (May 3, 2013)

Govt ditching royal charter by the looks of it, legislation coming out of Queens speech according to twitter. 

One way of trying to get the r/w press back on side I guess


----------



## elbows (May 3, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Is he taking the rap for it then, pretty sure it said there were 3 of them on tape seen doing it.


 
This handy table of arrests so far includes plenty of others who've been charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and it would not be surprising if most of them are in relation to the same matter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17014930


----------



## Dillinger4 (May 3, 2013)

1%er said:


> Looks like the UK have more journalists currently under arrest than China and Russia combined.
> 
> Who'd have thunk it


 
A purge in all but name


----------



## elbows (May 3, 2013)

And just to clarify that last post of mine, I see in the table:

Rebekah, her husband, her PA, her chauffeur, NI head of security, a NI security guard, and a security consultant in addition to todays bodyguard.


----------



## Schmetterling (May 5, 2013)

elbows said:


> Rebekah Brooks bodyguard charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22399267


 
This is, among others, in relation to the lappy found in the garage isn't it?


----------



## Ted Striker (May 5, 2013)

1%er said:


> Looks like the UK have more journalists currently under arrest than China and Russia combined.
> 
> Who'd have thunk it


That we know about


----------



## Streathamite (May 10, 2013)

Dan U said:


> David Allen Green on Daniel Morgan
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/death-daniel-morgan


and now, Daniel |Morgan comes back to haunt the Met, NotW and his old muckers, Rees, Fillery, Cook and the Vians:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/10/judge-police-corruption-murder-investigation 



> The home secretary has ordered a review by a former senior judge into the role police corruption had in shielding the murderers of a private detective found with an axe embedded in his head.
> Daniel Morgan was murdered in a south London pub car park in March 1987 and his killers have never been brought to justice.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 10, 2013)

Streathamite said:


> and now, Daniel |Morgan comes back to haunt the Met, NotW and his old muckers, Rees, Fillery, Cook and the Vians:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/10/judge-police-corruption-murder-investigation


They never get anyplace with the Morgan stuff.


----------



## Streathamite (May 10, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> They never get anyplace with the Morgan stuff.


very true, and after 25 years I doubt they ever will, least of all in a fashion which will ever help his family.
So, being pragmatic, I take a grim pleasure in the way this keeps on coming back to bite the Met. SE London Regional Crime Squad were shockingly corrupt


----------



## elbows (Jun 28, 2013)

So Coulson, Brooks and some others tried a legal manoeuvre to have their prosecution blocked, but it has failed. I've not seen details of what was argued yet but I assume this article will be updated at some point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23098284


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2013)

elbows said:


> So Coulson, Brooks and some others tried a legal manoeuvre to have their prosecution blocked, but it has failed. I've not seen details of what was argued yet but I assume this article will be updated at some point.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23098284


 
Yeah, Guardian promising 'More details soon'...

Proper wriggly arseholes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2013)

Was on some point of law and have had leave to appeal to SC refused.


----------



## Schmetterling (Jun 28, 2013)

Aaaaahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


----------



## brogdale (Jun 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Was on some point of law and have had leave to appeal to SC refused.


 


> In their judgment, the three judges ruled: "Contrary to the legal submission on behalf of the appellants, the resulting situation is not lacking in legal certainty".


 
Ah...the joys of the bourgeois justice system.


----------



## little_legs (Jun 28, 2013)

Gosh... you guys have Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, what a name.


----------



## elbows (Jun 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Was on some point of law and have had leave to appeal to SC refused.


 
So the point turns out to be whether it was an offence to access voicemails through hacking after they had been listened to by the original recipient


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2013)

elbows said:


> So the point turns out to be whether it was an offence to access voicemails through hacking after they had been listened to by the original recipient


 
Good lord. That's not going to please the judiciary is it? And i know that it was _tecnhcially_ jsut discussing point of law but how guilty does that look


----------



## elbows (Jun 28, 2013)

I couldnt possibly comment 



> *'No prejudice'*
> Lord Judge allowed the names of the defendants to be reported, saying: "We can see no possible prejudice to the fairness of the forthcoming trial.
> "We must not be unrealistic - there can hardly be anyone in the country who does not know to whom this case applies."


----------



## T & P (Jun 29, 2013)

More details in The Guardian today

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/28/rebekah-brooks-andy-coulson-phone-hacking

Couldn't happen to a nicer lot.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 29, 2013)

T & P said:


> More details in The Guardian today
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/28/rebekah-brooks-andy-coulson-phone-hacking
> 
> Couldn't happen to a nicer lot.


 
Refused leave to appeal, shame.


----------



## agricola (Jul 3, 2013)

Someone has leaked a tape of Murdoch meeting with Sun executives and hacks under investigation.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jul 28, 2013)

This Gawker story appears to be blocked in the UK

http://gawker.com/did-rebekah-brooks-fuck-rupert-murdoch-and-his-son-lach-926651851

giving the following error

*Error 451 freedom of speech not found*

freedom of speech not found
*Guru Meditation:*

XID: 2370629550


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 28, 2013)

Have a look here: 



> Gawker's Nitasha Tiku woke up a sleepy Saturday with the blockbuster rumor. Apparently emails uncovered during the News Corp. phone hacking investigation suggest Brooks has slept with the elder Murdoch, Lachlan Murdoch, and her fellow former News of the World editor Andy Coulson. Tiku heard about the rumor from three top News Corp executives, who say they heard it from lawyers involved with the phone hacking case, and it's apparently spreading through News Corp. hallways. This means Rupert and Lachlan are allegedly what the kids would call "eskimo brothers."


----------



## Schmetterling (Jul 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Have a look here:


 


Euuuuuurgh!


----------



## laptop (Jul 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Have a look here:


 
Article has, strangely enough, vanished: but is still in their search index - so here's proof it used to exist:

 

The Gawker URL http://gawker.com/did-rebekah-brooks-fuck-rupert-murdoch-and-his-son-lach-926651851 returns:



> *Error 451 freedom of speech not found*
> 
> freedom of speech not found
> *Guru Meditation:*
> ...


 
(But not, apparently, from non-UK IP addresses.)

E2A: Your Honour, all I reproduce here is a _QUESTION_, widely asked. Please God let this not prejudice the trials of Brooks or Coulson, or those (to be announced) of any Murdoch.


----------



## elbows (Aug 22, 2013)

Trial delayed for 7 weeks for legal reasons that we are not allowed to know the details of.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/22/rebekah-brooks-phone-hack-trial-delayed


----------



## steeplejack (Aug 26, 2013)

The suggestion that horrifically embarrassing revelations from the trial might derail the Tory conference, are of course the product of cynical and idle minds.


----------



## 1%er (Aug 26, 2013)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> This Gawker story appears to be blocked in the UK
> 
> http://gawker.com/did-rebekah-brooks-fuck-rupert-murdoch-and-his-son-lach-926651851


The link is working fine here 

May be that is the reason Wendi Deng & Murdoch are getting a divorce.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 26, 2013)

I had to use a proxy to make the link work, but it was worth it ... 

*still chortling*


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 26, 2013)

fuckin hell.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 26, 2013)

Is this sort of thing common? I've never seen it work like this before anyway.

I'm not logged into Google, so I'm not getting personalised search results.

search "Gawker injunction murdoch"

The first result is the bare URL of the banned Gawker article mentioned above. Clicking the link of course doesn't go anywhere from this UK IP address.

At the bottom is the usual boilerplate when Google censors a search result:



> _In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org._




The text on the ChillingEffects link is:



> _Legal Complaint to Google_
> _Sent by:_ Kingsley Napley
> _To:_ Google
> The cease-and-desist or legal threat you requested is not yet available.
> Chilling Effects will post the notice after we process it.


 
You can look up who Kingsley Napley are yourselves.

Question: When Google is forced to comply with an injunction, do they usually leave the URL to the injuncted article in the search results? Or has there been something else completely removed from the results for that particular search term? (my terminology is probably all over the place, hope you get the gist anyway)


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 26, 2013)

Use hidemyass.com if you want to read the link. It's worth it.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 26, 2013)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> You can look up who Kingsley Napley are yourselves.



Hmm yes. I instructed them to defend me in a case once. They know their shit, and they get things done.

Naturally, I was acquitted.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 26, 2013)

What; all at the same time?


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 26, 2013)

So...did she fuck cameron?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 26, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> So...did she fuck cameron?


 






I think they just played horsie ....


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 26, 2013)

So murdoch is fucking cameron.   I get it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 26, 2013)

Fucking the whole country arguably ...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 12, 2013)

Ex-Sun journalist Ben O'Driscoll is to be charged with conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office, Elevenden - CPS/C4 news.


----------



## Ted Striker (Nov 7, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24836541

*Mirror phone-hacking claims to go ahead*
MGN had sought to strike out parts of the claim brought by Mr Eriksson

Claims for phone-hacking damages brought by former England manager Sven-Goran Eriksson and three others against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) can go ahead, the High Court has ruled.

The link to a Moron is re-ignited...


----------



## Badgers (Nov 7, 2013)

Ted Striker said:


> The link to a Moron is re-ignited...



We live in wonderful times....


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/08/ipso-press-regulator-pcc-bells-whistles?CMP=twt_gu

Quelle surpise


----------



## teqniq (Feb 19, 2014)

I guess many people would have realised by now that the man's a complete scumbag, but just in case there were any remaining doubts

Tony Blair advised Rebekah Brooks on phone-hacking scandal, court hears



> Tony Blair advised Rebekah Brooks to launch a "Hutton style" inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World at the height of the scandal over the issue, according to an email that has emerged at the Old Bailey trial.
> 
> The revelation emerged in an email that was read to the jury in the hacking trial on Wednesday, and followed what Brooks said was an hour-long phone call.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 19, 2014)

Hmm, "Hutton style enquiry". That makes me want to see a review of the Hutton enquiry. As for Blair being bad, yes this revelation adds to that reputation.


----------



## Dan U (Feb 19, 2014)

Don't want to get all you know who about this but the news international trial thread is covering this as well


----------



## teqniq (Feb 19, 2014)

Dan U apologies I really couldn't remember what threads there were...


----------



## mack (Feb 20, 2014)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 20, 2014)

mack said:


>



Phew - case closed - we might as well all go home now


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 20, 2014)

Well she can tell that to the Marines.


----------



## existentialist (Feb 20, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Well she can tell that to the Marines.


I don't think even the notoriously credulous Marines would believe her.


----------



## gosub (Jun 5, 2014)

*Hacking trial: Milly Dowler messages not deliberately deleted*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27717250


----------



## belboid (Jun 5, 2014)

The Guardian always knew the story wasn't true (imo), but who cares?  It meant the wider story got a full and proper hearing, that it wouldn't have done otherwise (as no one really cared when it was just celebs being bugged)


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 5, 2014)

Yup.  Deleting messages was never the issue.

The original story may have been the one to start the fire...but an inaccurate story bringing down NotW is just karma anyway.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 17, 2014)

> A retired detective has accused News of the World journalists of attempting "to undermine" the police investigation into an axe murder.


 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28314696



> Furious that News of the World staff were working hand-in-hand with his murder suspects, Mr Cook demanded a meeting with the company and eventually sat down with then editor Rebekah Brooks.
> 
> Mr Cook said: "I brought this to the attention of Rebekah Brooks.
> 
> "I had the meeting, that is a fact. She chose to do nothing about it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2014)

Anyone got any further info - what is this trial about?

PHARO:BROOKS' ROLE AS EDITOR DISGUISED FROM CORRUPTION TRIAL

WAPPING, EAST LONDON; BRENTWOOD, SAFFRON WALDEN, ESSEX Rebekah Brooks' role as editor of The Sun in paying sources was 'disguised' from the corruption trial of six of the paper's journalists, a court heard today (fri). Hundreds of payment request forms signed by Mrs Brooks and her successor, Dominic Mohan, have failed to materialise at the trial at Kingston Crown Court, it is said. Oliver Blunt QC told jurors they were 'misled' about the editor's involvement, only for some evidence to be 'flushed out' of News International by defence solicitors. 'You were completely misled at the outset in regard to the authorisation process for cash payments', he said.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone got any further info - what is this trial about?



 

http://www.courtserve.net/courtlists/current/crown/kithm_T141219.01.htm


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2014)

So it's this then?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So it's this then?


Yes - though this recent report gives a better overview of who's accused of what.

Dudman is no doubt most relieved that his silk is the one responsible for this groundbreaking example of legal eaglery:



> *R v Syd Owen (1995)*
> Successfully defended “Ricky” of Eastenders in his S.18 wounding trial.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 19, 2014)

Something in the papers about it last week too (possibly the Independant?), with the defendants alleging they'd been stitched up to save more senior figures.  Pretty much the same allegation iirc.

eta: It was actually the Guardian article Butcher's posted a lint to.

Brooks will never do time, some people have an immunity to prosecution.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 19, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Something in the papers about it last week too (possibly the Independant?), with the defendants alleging they'd been stitched up to save more senior figures.  Pretty much the same allegation iirc.



This one?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...gned-off-all-payments-court-told-9842395.html

Some more recent stories:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/17/sun-journalists-alleged-payments-officials-jury

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/17/the-sun-picture-editor-john-edwards-trial

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/16/sun-reporter-jamie-pyatt-trial

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/15/sun-journalists-cash-milly-dowler

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-chief-illegal-payments-judge-discharges-jury

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-s...ompany-doing-what-i-had-done-loyally-27-years

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/24/sun-journalists-payments-public-officials-jamie-pyatt


----------



## Dan U (Dec 19, 2014)

if you are on twitter butchersapron Peter Jukes and others intermittently reporting from Kingston Crown Court.


----------



## gosub (Feb 3, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/02/news-corp-phone-hacking-us


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 3, 2015)

gosub said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/02/news-corp-phone-hacking-us


Yup, that's the end of that side of things.   Pricks.


----------



## The Octagon (Feb 3, 2015)

*terribly naive mode*

There is surely no way they can't be done under the FCPA given that several cases have already returned guilty verdicts?

I do a bit of compliance stuff under that Act and it's constantly used to fine other companies for arguably much less.

Dodgy as fuck.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 3, 2015)

The dirty digger most definitely has friends in all the right places


----------



## pesh (Feb 3, 2015)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 21, 2017)

Interesting - four charged in Operation Tuleta investigation today:



> *Four people have been charged and requisitioned to appear at court to answer charges under the Criminal Law Act 1977 following an investigation by detectives from Operation Tuleta.*
> 
> [A] Chris Hutcheson, 68 [14.05.48] of Druillat, France.
> Adam Hutcheson, 46 [09.05.70] of London Road, Wrotham heath, Sevenoaks, Kent.
> ...



Charges following Operation Tuleta investigation

The older Chris Hutcheson is Gordon Ramsay's father-in-law; the others are Hutcheson's children.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 20, 2017)

London_Calling said:


> What do you mean by "released"? If you mean Guido Fawkes was thinking of putting out details of Steve Whittamore's jobs, he's probably had second thoughts.



Perhaps ByLine should have been a little more circumspect too  

‘Mail’ lawyers threaten ByLine over articles on convicted phone blagging PI Steve Whittamore


----------



## teqniq (Mar 2, 2018)

*bump*

What shameless bullshit is this?

Government announces suppression of Public Inquiry into police, press and political corruption and seeks repeal of Leveson’s access to justice recommendation


----------

