# Andy Coulson, the Met Police and Murdoch



## Santino (Sep 2, 2010)

All kicking off again. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/01/andy-coulson-phone-hacking-allegations



> The New York Times goes on to quote unnamed sources from the Met suggesting that its inquiry into the phone hacking was hampered by a desire to avoid upsetting Britain's biggest selling newspaper: "Several investigators said in interviews that Scotland Yard was reluctant to conduct a wider inquiry in part because of its close relationship with the News of the World."


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 2, 2010)

Been watching this one for a while and at times hoping for it all to kick off big style, but at the moment where I thought the Guardian was going to go for the jugular and expose some dirt, it seemed to go quiet again. I started to wonder really whether the Guardian did have that much evidence to attack Coulson/NOTW or whether it was trying to make a lot out of odds and ends.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 2, 2010)

fuck all will happen, hardly any news org has picked this up in the UK, no surprise there


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 2, 2010)

This is very concerning if its true...



> "Several investigators said in interviews that Scotland Yard was reluctant to conduct a wider inquiry in part because of its close relationship with the News of the World."


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 3, 2010)

Well it did get some discussion on Today this morning, so we'll just have to see whether anything progresses.


----------



## creak (Sep 3, 2010)

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

A few new pages in the Guardian too, I hope this does get bigger.


----------



## Santino (Sep 3, 2010)

I emailed the BBC yesterday to ask why they weren't covering the story. No reply yet.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 3, 2010)

They mentioned it on Nicky Cambells show this morning on Radio 5, i was only half listening as i was chatting to the Mrs but i am fairly sure he said they'd had some texts/emails asking why the BBC wasn't covering such a story properly.


----------



## creak (Sep 3, 2010)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...haunt-camerons-chief-spin-doctor-2069271.html

Leading the front page of the Indy online at the moment. Still waiting on the BBC though, this is a pathetic showing from them. I've heard a little on the radio but not a peep online.


----------



## Gingerman (Sep 3, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11175076
Puncher Prescott gettin involved,I would love to see this being blown wide open


----------



## elbows (Sep 3, 2010)

Labour are all over it now, in addition to Prescott, Alan Johnson is saying there may be a case for further investigation.

The honeymoon period for the Tories seems to be over, and its quite amusing to see that they already have multiple fronts they are vulnerable on before they've even done much in power.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 3, 2010)

It's just been a headline on BBC News 24.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 3, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> It's just been a headline on BBC News 24.


 
Headline on the BBC 6pm news now.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 3, 2010)

The BBC reporter clearly insinuated that those making the allegations have axes to grind with Coulson. That's not news that's an opinion ansd a rather blatant one at that.....


----------



## weltweit (Sep 3, 2010)

If you are one to receive many mobile phone messages, then set a password!


----------



## Fullyplumped (Sep 3, 2010)

Interestingly, there's now a Tommy Sheridan angle.



> Top Tory cited for Sheridan perjury hearing
> 
> Published Date: 04 September 2010
> By Andrew Whitaker and Mark Smith
> ...


----------



## ymu (Sep 3, 2010)

> After a raid on Goodman's desk in August 2006, according to the New York Times, "several detectives said they began feeling internal pressure. One senior investigator said he was approached by someone from the department's press office, who was waving his arms in the air, saying 'wait a minute, let's talk about this'."
> 
> The investigator, who has since left Scotland Yard, added that the press officer stressed the department's "long-term relationship with News International". The investigator recalled furiously responding: "There's illegality here, and we'll pursue it like we do any other case." Scotland Yard says that operational decisions are made by police, not by press officers.
> 
> ...



Backhanders innit. The Met are in this up to their necks.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 3, 2010)

Well it does seem some people smell blood. 

Will Coulson lose his job - PLACE YOUR BETS  !!!

Bet now!


----------



## ymu (Sep 3, 2010)

It's hardly the central issue, now is it?


----------



## Santino (Sep 3, 2010)

According to the Guardian, Galloway has launched 'legal action' against the New of the World for hacking into his phone, just so he can get NOTW and News International people into court to answer questions.


----------



## hiccup (Sep 3, 2010)

Good ole Tom Watson:

http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2010/09...son-commissioner-for-the-metropolitan-police/


----------



## killer b (Sep 3, 2010)

hiccup said:


> Good ole Tom Watson:
> 
> http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2010/09...son-commissioner-for-the-metropolitan-police/


 
a derail, but what the fuck?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 3, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Well it does seem some people smell blood.
> 
> Will Coulson lose his job - PLACE YOUR BETS  !!!
> 
> Bet now!


 


ymu said:


> It's hardly the central issue, now is it?


 
I would have thought that is exactly the central issue!


----------



## ymu (Sep 3, 2010)

Why does that not surprise me.


----------



## killer b (Sep 3, 2010)

corruption is the central issue, silly. coulson should be out on his ear, but there's a whole lot of more serious questions going on here...


----------



## weltweit (Sep 3, 2010)

killer b said:


> corruption is the central issue, silly. coulson should be out on his ear, but there's a whole lot of more serious questions going on here...


 
I can't see it personally, I see politicians who see a scalp for the having. Good luck to them


----------



## killer b (Sep 3, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I can't see it personally


 
no. but then you _are_ an idiot.


----------



## ymu (Sep 3, 2010)

Tories employing minor crook is much more important than the Met taking backhanders from a massive crook. Of course!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 3, 2010)

Megacorps monitoring and manipulating "leaders"? Sounds like a conspiracy theory, so it must be bollocks.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 3, 2010)

killer b said:


> no. but then you _are_ an idiot.


 
Play the person not the ball .. good move ..


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 4, 2010)

> The News of the World released a statement denying that the use of phone tapping was "widespread" at the newspaper.
> 
> The statement said: "We reject absolutely any suggestion there was a widespread culture of wrong-doing at the News of the World."


Technically true because it implies past tense.


----------



## pk (Sep 4, 2010)

Andy Coulson is to David Cameron what Alastair Campbell was to Tony Blair- just for the search engines if nothing else.

Coulson thinks it's OK to hack into private voicemails to sniff for sex scandals to sell his shitty papers.

Welcome to the Conservative Party 2010.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 4, 2010)

This should be about the news of the screws though.


----------



## pk (Sep 4, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> This should be about the news of the screws though.


 
Yeh - and Andy Coulson is part of that world. Look it up mate...


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 4, 2010)

Is he?  You're a wealth.

Galloway and Sheridan have jumped in, finally some firebrands.


----------



## pk (Sep 4, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Is he?  You're a wealth.
> 
> Galloway and Sheridan have jumped in, finally some firebrands.


 
Galloway, Sheridan ...

Those old firebrands have been smouldering like stale Red Band fag butts on the fire for too long... remains to be seen if the new media darlings will give a fuck. It's the Tories. Anything goes.

The cops have plenty to answer for though, this was accepted widespread practice stretching back further than "Squidgygate" and a lot of people should have been nicked, including the colluding cops.

The only way to find out is force public records through the courts and hope they haven't burned all the files yet. Getting public dirt on both the tabloid hacks and the bent cops is never going to happen to any meaningful degree, the only way to know for sure is to tap their phonecalls...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 4, 2010)

> Brian Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner with the Met who is seeking a judicial review of the alleged failure of his former force to tell him his name had been found on a list of public figures whose phones may have been targeted, called for Coulson to be interviewed by police.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/03/andy-coulson-phone-hacking


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 5, 2010)

Good bit all over the Guardian front page yesterday and made page 26 of the times. This story must be making some Lib dems a bit nervous it shows what kind of people the Tories are that they would employ this man as director of communications. It also shows the massive power of the murdoch empire and how they want to overtake the BBC as the UKs main TV.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 5, 2010)

Did the police lie to Prescott then?   That would be bad....or good in this case.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 6, 2010)

this could have the legs to run because we are not talking just politicians but royals and tv/film personalities and sportsmen.The new york times story shows it is just not the british who hate and fear murdoch but americans too


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 6, 2010)

This could and should end up being a massive story. If Andy Coulson is prosecuted and sent to prison it will have huge implications for the condem alliance.


----------



## Santino (Sep 6, 2010)

Fantastic bit of question dodging from Downing Street: 




			
				Andrew Sparrow in The guardian said:
			
		

> Here's the exchange I had with the prime minister's spokesman.
> 
> Q: Does the prime minister believe entirely Andy Coulson's denials?
> A: [No verbal response, although the spokesman did appear to nod faintly.]
> ...





> I've just had Downing Street on the phone. The prime minister's spokesman isn't particularly happy about the way I reported his reluctance to say that David Cameron "believes" Andy Coulson's denials (see 11.51am).
> 
> The spokesman is not contesting any of the quotes, but thinks I'm reading too much into them. He said he told the briefing that Cameron "accepts" Coulson's statement, and "that means the same thing".


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 6, 2010)

If that ex reporter who says in the NYT he got direct instructions from Coulson comes up to mustard, it's a criminal case. Ex may have a motive which dilutes his evidence but, at that point, you have to think others will come out the woodwork.

At this point, just denying won't satisfy plod. Coulson's most def on borrowed time. 

/pages CPS


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 6, 2010)

> (post #42) He said he told the briefing that Cameron "accepts" Coulson's statement, and "that means the same thing". (as *believing* the statement)


What nonsense is this?  Accepting is the same as believing?...not good enough.


----------



## ymu (Sep 7, 2010)

> The Home Office abandoned plans to establish an independent inquiry into the News of the World phone-hacking scandal last year after a senior official warned that the Metropolitan police would "deeply resent" any interference in their investigation, according to a leaked government document.
> 
> As Alan Johnson came close today to accusing Scotland Yard of having misled him over the scandal, a leaked Home Office memo shows that the last government decided against calling in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary after intense internal lobbying.
> 
> ...



Stinks to high heaven.

Also, a good analysis of what's been said/not said.


----------



## ymu (Sep 7, 2010)

Steve Bell, 18 months ago. Spot on, as usual.


----------



## agricola (Sep 7, 2010)

Yates vs Vaz's select committee on the BBC now.  Quite entertaining, at least as much as the Cash for Honours one.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 7, 2010)

I see Keith Vaz is looking into this.... oh dear, they are taking the piss, right?


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 7, 2010)

Nick Davies has been investigating very thoroughly, for a good old while. Good on him, I'm glad this one's getting revived.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 7, 2010)

Apparently the transcriber of some of the phone messages is to talk to the police.



> Friends of Hall said that he had made up to 20 such transcripts, on instructions from three different News of the World executives, but was unaware of anything illegal in his work.


If that is the case then this that could be a rather important development.


> The source said detectives would be hoping Hoare is able to name others who can corroborate that phone-hacking took place and senior executives knew about it. "The investigation will not go for the troops, unless there is strong evidence. It is looking for evidence of complicity at the senior level, and with corroboration …. evidence there was a conspiracy at the News of the World to hack phones."
> 
> Detectives will be told the investigation must be thorough, as the Yard's reputation has suffered because of criticism of its first investigation, and officers are described as "geared up for it". Police expect the home affairs committee inquiry will be postponed until detectives finish inquiries and the CPS has made a decision.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 7, 2010)

> He was challenged by David Winnick, the Labour MP for Walsall North, on claims by Bryant that the police had not kept him properly informed. Winnick said: "If I may say so with respect, it is a very simple question: yes or no, was Mr Bryant notified by the police?" Yates replied: "I am trying to protect other people's privacy. Mr Bryant has been in correspondence with us for some time around these issues."
> 
> Bryant last night accused Yates of giving a misleading account. Asked on Radio 4's PM programme about Yates's claim about privacy, Bryant replied: "It was a fib."


Former FO minister accuses Yates of misleading statements.

Also his explanation of the law to the home office comittee today is being questioned.


> Experts in the law on interception dismissed as "nonsense" the claim by Yates that the hacking into voicemails could not be investigated if the victim had already listened to messages. "That is nonsense, and a recurring problem with this police position in this case," said Simon McKay, author of the book Covert policing: law and practice.
> 
> Government guidelines on the use of the act state that it is illegal to intercept communications "at any time when the communication is being stored on the communication system in such a way as to enable the intended recipient to have access to it". Experts say that this rule covers voicemails.


Guardian


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 8, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Former FO minister accuses Yates of misleading statements.
> 
> Also his explanation of the law to the home office comittee today is being questioned.


This is a total and utter no-win situation for the police.  They are caught between the obvious privacy issues (as soon as they mention a name the worlds media will be camped out on the person's lawn ...) and the need to explain the parameters they set for the original investigation and how they dealt with the information that came out of it.  

In any investigation which could be extended almost _ad infinitum_ it is absolutely standard investigative practice to set some parameters, to draw some lines in the sand.  Those decisions will have been made by a senior investigating officer (or a more senior officer in setting the terms of reference for the senior investigator in the first instance).  Hopefully they will have been documented and will include an explanation of their rationale (it has been standard practice to do so in major enquiries since the late 1990s when the whole major investigation process was revamped and professionalised as a result of the valid criticisms of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry).

I have never heard the parameters explained / justified in detail.  I can see how it _may_ have been justifiable, at least initially, to restrict the investigation to the particular journalist against whom allegations had been made ... but it is far less clear how / why the parameters seem to have been set in relation to their victims - it may have been logical to say "We'll do the first three months and see how we go.  If there's enough then we'll stop there unless doing any more would make any significant difference to sentence" but I haven't seen anything which convinces me that the basis was as clear as that ... maybe because the police have been hamstrung in explaining their decision because of the privacy issues.

As for the law, I am not sure that the view of an "expert" author is worth much.  Is he legally qualified?  Is he a trained investigator aware of what evidence is required?"  It is interesting to note that he refers to "government guidelines" - exactly which guidelines and the context of the piece he relies on is essential to understanding what he means and it's validity ... and "government guidelines" are _not_ the law anyway!  Personally, on my understanding of the interception of communication offence, I would tend to agree with John Yates - the offence is interception "in the course of it's transmission" (s.1 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/1).  s.2 expands on the "Meaning and location of transmission, etc." and again (s.2(2)) refers to "while being transmitted".

The case law and legal guidance I am aware of certainly includes messages that are stored on voicemail, etc. _which have not yet been accessed by the intended recipient_.  I think that is pretty clear that they can be described as still being in the course of transmission - even though they have "arrived" as far as the electronics are concerned they haven't "arrived" as in being heard by the recipient (though, interestingly, I do _not_ think the same would apply to a letter fished out from somene's letter box and read before they have had a chance to open it - delivery to the address would typically be the end of "transmission" there).  Once the recipient has listened to it I really would not hold out much hope of convincing anyone that it was still "in the course of transmission" any more than it would have been if the recipient had taped it as it played back and then filed the taped copy on their shelf and cleared the initial voicemail.

If I was John Yates (who I have long referred to as the police's "Patron Saint of Lost Causes" as he gets lumbered with all the griefy jobs ...) I would be tempted to re-open the enquiry and now, in view of the specific new allegations about _other_ reporters, senior management, etc. change it's parameters to include the whole of the NotW (and possilly the whole of News International).  I would also be tempted to include the Information Commissioner (responsible for investigation and prosecution of criminal breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998) in the investigation from the outset (in the same way that police and HSE jointly investigate deaths in the workplace, so that the relevant lead agency can prosecute no matter which offences are substantiated by the investigation).  The _big_ downside of this (apart from the cost!) would be that it would take for ever to complete and, politically, that would be portrayed as "kicking it into the long grass" ... so we're back to a Catch22 for them ...  

It's at times like this that I know I made the right decision when I decided I didn't want to be a chief officer!


----------



## tarannau (Sep 8, 2010)

How would you prove that the message had been fully transmitted to the recipient though. They may well have chosen not to listen to the whole message at the time, or the call may have been terminated. It is clearly not equavalent to choosing to tapea  call and then filing it afterwards

I'm guessing your legal qualifications are inferior to the number of 'experts' quoted in a number of newspapers fwiw.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 8, 2010)

I'm impressed to see Labour getting so into it. You know, now they're in opposition.


----------



## Santino (Sep 8, 2010)

Clegg being a slippery cunt at PMQ.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 8, 2010)

tarannau said:


> I'm guessing your legal qualifications are inferior to the number of 'experts' quoted in a number of newspapers fwiw.


Please stop "guessing" about me and my qualifications in a clear effort to precipitate the derailing of this thread, no doubt then intending to blame me for doing so.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 8, 2010)

What a giant hypocrite. Please stop guessing about the qualifications of experts in the media then

If you can't exercise consistency or self control then it's best not to start making demands of other posters ime.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 8, 2010)

This has the potential to be a huge scandal. The met look like they've let the NOTW get away with murder, the NOTW look out of control, and The tories look like their sp-indoctor's a crook.
Oh goody!


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 8, 2010)

tarannau said:


> If you can't exercise consistency or self control then it's best not to start making demands of other posters ime.


And if you have nothing substantive to say, then it's best not to post at all.  As I said, please stop trolling in an attempt to derail this thread.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 8, 2010)

You do realise that you don't determine who can and how they post on here. Do not act the laughable hypocrite on here, nor attempt to curtail debate when your approach and posts are queried

I don't see how anything I've posted here would derail debate. I'm merely requested that you do not use double standards in your posts and to exercise some kind of self control and consistency. I'd also add to that and request that you do not play the hypocritical martyr card and continually allege that people are trying to goad you unnecessarily. I'm asking you to stick by the same standards that I would expect of any half decent poster and not to use hypocritical arguments - those are sound foundations for a constructive debate imo. I object to this victim complex of yours if anything, and your desire to receive different treatment from any other poster here

FWIW you never did comment on my more substantive suggestion that your legal interpretation of 'transmitted' may not be sound. You chose to sound offended instead. What a change eh


----------



## Santino (Sep 8, 2010)

Don't make me come up there, you two.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 8, 2010)

> The Downing Street communications chief Andy Coulson  is under renewed pressure as it was announced that MPs will hold an emergency Commons debate about newspaper phone hacking tomorrow.





> As the Speaker, John Bercow, said he would grant a debate on phone hacking, Clegg refused to say whether he believed Coulson's insistence that he did not know about the illegal practices that took place when he was editor of the News of the World.


Story keeps bubbling away.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 8, 2010)

looking at how qualified and evasive clegg's and cameron's support for him was, I'd be shitting bricks right now, were I coulson.


----------



## Santino (Sep 8, 2010)

Clegg doesn't know what 'refutes' means either.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2010)

Long list of them.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> looking at how qualified and evasive clegg's and cameron's support for him was, I'd be shitting bricks right now, were I coulson.


 
They know full well (as does everyone else on the planet) that there is no way Coulson didnt know.  However they are not sure how far this story is going to go, better hedge their bets at this time.

Coulson is a dead man walking, even if he survives this he'll be quietly ditched later.


----------



## agricola (Sep 8, 2010)

I agree with DB on this about the Police being in a no-win situation here, not only for the reasons he states but because (as Nick Davies well knows given that he filled _Flat Earth News_ with evidence proving it) this NOTW story is the tip of the iceberg - they (Fleet Street) are all at it (or if not this, one of the other dark arts), the cost of any comprehensive investigation (both in terms of the financial cost, the amount of officers and time that would have to be devoted to it and the press heat it would draw) into this state of affairs would be much greater than any benefit the police would get.  Certainly the political backing that such an investigation would need to be a success would evaporate quickly, if indeed it was ever present in the first place.


----------



## Gingerman (Sep 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> This has the potential to be a huge scandal. The met look like they've let the NOTW get away with murder, the NOTW look out of control, and The tories look like their sp-indoctorindoctor's a crook.
> Oh goody!


Could be a massive win win situation,Oh goody indeed ,as one insider at the NoTW said even the office cat knew what was going on, Coulson really insulting our intelligence if as editor hes claiming he knew fuck all about it


----------



## Gingerman (Sep 8, 2010)

fogbat said:


> I'm impressed to see Labour getting so into it. You know, now they're in opposition.


They dont have to keep Uncle Rupe sweet atm,not until they are in Gov again


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 8, 2010)

Coulson's making an attempt for most _im_plausible deniability possible. As if the sub eds & journos would've kept the whole thing secret from him to protect him so he could reasonably say 'I didn't know shit all guv'.

The biggest issue is members of the Met (and other police forces) who take money from the press in return for information, and how someone in the met has clearly moved to prevent their scam coming out.


----------



## Santino (Sep 8, 2010)

Can anyone think of a situation where quite so many people have been 100% sure that someone was guilty of something?


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 8, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Coulson's making an attempt for most _im_plausible deniability possible. As if the sub eds & journos would've kept the whole thing secret from him to protect him so he could reasonably say 'I didn't know shit all guv'.


 
He's got some way to go to top Piers Moron's effort over the city slickers crap, and Moron got away with that one so theres hope for Coulson yet.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 8, 2010)

> The private investigator jailed in the News of the World phone tapping scandal, Glenn Mulcaire, planned to write a book which would allege that the hacking of voicemails took place with the knowledge of senior staff.
> 
> A detailed synopsis of the memoirs, seen by The Independent, reveals that Mulcaire was prepared to implicate others at the newspaper by stating that, as well as taking instructions from the royal correspondent Clive Goodman, he was also routinely commissioned by executives.
> 
> The book, provisionally titled Hear to Here: The Inside Story of the Royal Household Tapes and The Murky World of the Media, was never published because Mulcaire signed an £80,000 confidentiality agreement with the News of the World after he sued for wrongful dismissal following his conviction. But Mulcaire, who was was paid more than £2,000 a week by the newspaper, did write a five-page synopsis with a would-be author. Due to the gagging order, the document is the only time Mulcaire has explained his actions in his own words.


The book never published.


----------



## ymu (Sep 8, 2010)

Interesting piece: The News of the World's special relationship with the police



> The introduction of this new approach had a polarising effect. On the one hand the old school detectives brought up in the corrupt culture simply retrenched and refused to co-operate. In their eyes they had lost their power – their ability to manipulate the press. On the other hand a new generation of officers, emboldened by the support of their boss, seized the opportunity to develop closers ties with the press and in the process many of them became media stars in their own right.
> 
> Gradually, over the years, those two positions have changed. The numbers of policemen who will do anything to see their name up in lights have dwindled and the hard men have gained the upper hand. They will pay lip service to the need for openness in the interests of good public relations but in reality they are intent on merely passing on snippets of information to news-hungry hacks only when it suits their own purposes.
> 
> Throughout all this the News of the World has become something of a special case. In the upper echelons of Scotland Yard there is a recognition that, as the biggest-selling Sunday newspaper in the world, the paper wields enormous power and influence over a large number of readers. There is genuine admiration for the way in which the newspaper has successfully conducted undercover operations which have brought major criminals to book over the years. As a result there is undoubtedly a cosy relationship between the yard and all of Rupert Murdoch's News International titles. Several retired commissioners and senior officers have found space as columnists or regular writers in the Sun and the News of the World.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 8, 2010)

Santino said:


> Can anyone think of a situation where quite so many people have been 100% sure that someone was guilty of something?


 
Gary Glitter and those kids


----------



## agricola (Sep 8, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Coulson's making an attempt for most _im_plausible deniability possible. As if the sub eds & journos would've kept the whole thing secret from him to protect him so he could reasonably say 'I didn't know shit all guv'.
> 
> The biggest issue is members of the Met (and other police forces) who take money from the press in return for information, and how someone in the met has clearly moved to prevent their scam coming out.


 
Not really - Yates himself acknowledged that such incidents have gone on, the problem is that the punishment for such corrupt officers and staff for being bribed by the press is usually very light indeed (for instance, Motorman saw a CAD operator and a corrupt former detective get conditional discharges despite corruptly accessing Police and other records on a huge scale).   

The scandal here is not Coulson, and it will not be fixed by sacking him and then everything going back to normal.


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 8, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> They know full well (as does everyone else on the planet) that there is no way Coulson didnt know.  However they are not sure how far this story is going to go, better hedge their bets at this time.
> 
> Coulson is a dead man walking, even if he survives this he'll be quietly ditched later.


indeed, I reckon someone in Downing St is preparing a facesaving resignation letter for him right now. how _sad_...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 8, 2010)

Spin Doctors can't 'become the story', as soon as they do they have to go for the grubby party's own good...


----------



## laptop (Sep 8, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If I was John Yates ... I would be tempted to re-open the enquiry and now, in view of the specific new allegations about _other_ reporters, senior management, etc. change it's parameters to include the whole of the NotW...



If I were John Yates, I would about now be being *instructed* to be ready to re-open it...



detective-boy said:


> The _big_ downside of this (apart from the cost!) would be that it would take for ever to complete and, politically, that would be portrayed as "kicking it into the long grass" ...



And this is why. As pointed out somewhere in the _Guardian_ this morning, a re-opened police inquiry would put off a Parliamentary inquiry (particularly a Committee on Standards and Priviliges inquiry, which has and may use powers to subpoena) for a very long time.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 8, 2010)

Another new witness. 





> A senior former News of the World  journalist goes public to corroborate claims that phone hacking and other illegal reporting techniques were rife at the tabloid while the prime minister's media adviser, Andy Coulson, was deputy editor and then editor of the paper.
> 
> Paul McMullan, a former features executive and then member of the newspaper's investigations team, says that he personally commissioned private investigators to commit several hundred acts which could be regarded as unlawful, that the use of illegal techniques was no secret at the paper and that senior editors, including Coulson, were aware that this was going on.





> McMullan, who is now landlord of the Castle pub in Dover, was deputy features editor when Coulson arrived at the paper as deputy editor in 2000 and says he [McMullan] spoke regularly to Steve Whittamore, the Hampshire private investigator who ran a network which specialised in selling confidential information to newspapers from phone companies and government databases among other services.





> He believes Coulson was right to allow his reporters to invade privacy in order to nail wrongdoers: "Investigative journalism is a noble profession but we have to do ignoble things." He says that at the time, reporters did not believe it was illegal to hack voicemail and were quite open about it. "Most reporters did it themselves, sitting at their desk. It was something that people would do when they were bored sitting outside somebody's house. I don't think at the time senior editors at the paper thought it was an issue. Everybody was doing it.



Oh fuck toast.


> "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?"


Guardian


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 8, 2010)

No more pissing about with whether it is a intercept if they have already listened to the message we have allegation of violation of the data protection act for a start.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 8, 2010)

And amist all the fuss let us not forget that Andy Hayman took a paid work from News International after his exemplary handling of this case in 07.


----------



## laptop (Sep 8, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> No more pissing about with whether it is a intercept if they have already listened to the message we have allegation of violation of the data protection act for a start.


 
Not to say the Computer Misuse Act, which is rather widely drawn.

Too tired to re-read it, but I seem to recall that if I find your password taped to the underside of your monitor, using it is arguably an offence against that Act. 

And mobile phones are computers...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 8, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> No more pissing about with whether it is a intercept if they have already listened to the message we have allegation of violation of the data protection act for a start.


 
It *is* completely irrelevant in ethical terms. If the law is fucked up enough to try to excuse it on some stupid basis like that, the law is utterly broken.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 8, 2010)

*Wonders if anyone was fool enough to violate the official secrets act?*


----------



## laptop (Sep 8, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> *Wonders if anyone was fool enough to violate the official secrets act?*


 
To know we'd need the list of tappees.

_Especially_ the secret names thereon


----------



## MikeMcc (Sep 9, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> This has the potential to be a huge scandal. The met look like they've let the NOTW get away with murder, the NOTW look out of control, and The tories look like their sp-indoctor's a crook.
> Oh goody!


Aye, but the previous government were also quite happy to keep it quiet when it origonally appeared and was convienient.  Me-thinks that a certain Mr Murdoch has been told (politely) to fuck off by the new government.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> ... and the press heat it would draw...


What is actually quite interesting here is to observe the print media's approach to this.  The tabloids _know_ they are all at it and if a major investigation, with widely set parameters, there will be dozens of reporters, editors, etc. nicked (along with the dodgy middlemen, private detectives, ex-cops and even some serving ones probably) and it will royally fuck tabloid end of Fleet Street.  But they are all so corrupt and backstabbing anyway, there's _loads_ of ex-reporters out there with an axe to grind and who couldn't give a fuck other than to settle old scores.  The "quality" end of Fleet Street is egging the police on towards a full investigation (though some of them would undoubtedly be caught up to some extent too), along with the broadcast media.

But it is funny to watch the tabloids trying to be outraged at the "lack of investigation" and hinting the this is because the police are "corrupt" when, in fact, the last thing they _actually_ want is a proper investigation ...


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

MikeMcc said:


> Aye, but the previous government were also quite happy to keep it quiet when it origonally appeared and was convienient.  Me-thinks that a certain Mr Murdoch has been told (politely) to fuck off by the new government.


 
The Tories tell Murdoch to fuck off? Yeah, right. 

This has blown up again because of a report in the NYT. No sign at all that the Tories are gunning for Murdoch, nor any likelihood that they will.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If the law is fucked up enough to try to excuse it on some stupid basis like that, the law is utterly broken.


If what actually happened doesn't actually amount to an offence it is hardly "some stupid basis", is it ...


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If what actually happened doesn't actually amount to an offence it is hardly "some stupid basis", is it ...


 
That would appear to be a circular argument.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> That would appear to be a circular argument.


 
Quite.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> .
> 
> But it is funny to watch the tabloids trying to be outraged at the "lack of investigation" and hinting the this is because the police are "corrupt" when, in fact, the last thing they _actually_ want is a proper investigation ...



Are they acting outraged anyway though? The impression I get is that the tabs are as far as they possibly can, ignoring this story.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> That would appear to be a circular argument.


This is now the third thread on which you have attempted to precipitate a derailing.  You know perfectly well that I have no intention of directly engaging with you, so please stop quoting my posts and directing questions or comments specifically to me.

Trolling reported.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> Are they acting outraged anyway though?


I've seen mention of it in an "outraged" way about the police and they'd love to let loose on Coulson ... but you're right - they're not giving it anywhere near as much coverage as it merits, and they _certainly_ aren't focusing on their own criminal and immoral behaviour.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> This is now the third thread on which you have attempted to precipitate a derailing.  You know perfectly well that I have no intention of directly engaging with you, so please stop quoting my posts and directing questions or comments specifically to me.
> 
> Trolling reported.


 
Just ignore her if you've no intention of answering. It's clearly not trolling, so stop wasting the mods' time by reporting points of view that you don't agree with ffs.


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> This is now the third thread on which you have attempted to precipitate a derailing.  You know perfectly well that I have no intention of directly engaging with you, so please stop quoting my posts and directing questions or comments specifically to me.
> 
> Trolling reported.


 
You're kidding! 

Dear Mods

Please ask him for proof before you ban me as well as him. 

Thanks.

ymu


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 9, 2010)

> as part of that inquiry officers will speak to the former editor and also have Mr Miskiw and Ross Hall, a junior reporter at the paper, on their radar. None of them has been interviewed before.
> 
> Mr Miskiw's involvement with Mr Mulcaire was highlighted by the Culture and Media Select Committee last year when his signature was found to be on a contract agreeing to pay the private investigator £7,000 in relation to a story about the PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor.





> Mr Miskiw failed to provide testimony to the select committee. He told The Independent that he had contacted MPs to "explain his position". A search of the Commons library reveals a doctor's note saying he was unwell and could not testify.


Old evidence turns up again.

The interesting thing is that this all blew up because the press had become so cock sure of itself that they were publishing minor stories about the royal family that could only have come from voice intercepts or a very very deeply placed source. Violation of the law had become so routine and so beyond the interest of the authorities to persue that they were simply sloppy and greedy. 

It had become so pervasive that the police now look corrupt to a wide number of people as they tried not to upset the apple cart. This was not a nod and a wink to the occasional short cut in investigating but almost a private intelligence service tacitly beyond the law. No matter people try to frame it this situation needs sorting.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

cesare said:


> It's clearly not trolling...






			
				Forum rules said:
			
		

> Repeated efforts to derail the debate could result in forum access termination.


This obsessed poster is stalking me from thread to thread, posting either ACAB rubbish, having a personal go at me and the accuracy of what I post and / or misrepresenting what I have posted.  If that is not "repeated efforts to derail the debate" then I do not know what is.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> This obsessed poster is stalking me from thread to thread, posting either ACAB rubbish, having a personal go at me and the accuracy of what I post and / or misrepresenting what I have posted.  If that is not "repeated efforts to derail the debate" then I do not know what is.



No, she is not.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

cesare said:


> No, she is not.


Please stop attempting to derail this thread (and then no doubt me for doing so).


----------



## tarannau (Sep 9, 2010)

This seems to be db's new tactic - he accused me and Butchers iirc of pretty much the same yesterday.

He should realise that folks have a right to disagree with and challenge his assertions on a bulletin board. The remarkable thing is that he beleives that these people are trying to 'goad' him, as if anyone arguing against his often dubious points must be wrong and he couldn't possibly be expected to restrain himself or argue constructively.

It's a hypocritical load of nonsense sadly, a wearying delusional appeal for special treatment. He'd be better advised not to post such circular nonsense in the first place, or to have the determination to argue his points clearly and constructively afterwards.


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

Extraordinary.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

tarannau said:


> This seems to be db's new tactic <snip>


More content free drivel intended only to derail the thread.  Please stop.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please stop attempting to derail this thread (and then no doubt me for doing so).


 

You started the derail at #94. And, incidentally, you've made yourself look exceedingly unreasonable and silly by using that particular post of ymu's to report - because fridgie agreed with her a couple of posts further back.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Extraordinary.


Oh well, looks like all the normal people have just lost another interesting thread, wrecked by The Collective.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh well, looks like all the normal people have just lost another interesting thread, wrecked by The Collective.



Wrecked by you at #94


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

cesare said:


> You started the derail at #94.


Just for the record, for the benefit of all the normal readers of this thread and for the mods, _this_ is Post #94:



detective-boy said:


> This is now the third thread on which you have attempted to precipitate a derailing.  You know perfectly well that I have no intention of directly engaging with you, so please stop quoting my posts and directing questions or comments specifically to me.
> 
> Trolling reported.


So I, er started the derail by, er, politely asking people to stop attempting to derail the thread.  Proof indeed of the trolling of these idiots and, as I predicted, then lying so as to blame me for doing so, something that they have succeeded with time and time again in the past.

Pathetic.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Just for the record, for the benefit of all the normal readers of this thread and for the mods, _this_ is Post #94:
> 
> 
> Proof indeed of the trolling of these idiots and, as I predicted, then lying so as to blame me for doing so, something that they have succeeded with time and time again in the past.
> ...



All normal readers of this thread will probably be wondering why you reported ymu's post to the mods - after a mod agreed with her  You are entirely the architect of your own grievances.


----------



## Santino (Sep 9, 2010)

Andy Coulson is a cunt.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2010)

Santino said:


> Andy Coulson is a cunt.


 
He most certainly is but who is the bigger cunt Coulson or Piers Moron?

On the one hand Coulson was clearly complicit in an illegal phone hacking mess which saw one of his underlings end up in court, on the other Moron was clearly complicit in a share fixing scandel which saw a couple of his underlings end up in court.

Moron got away with it, don't be surprised if Coulson slips the noose, again.

Anyway, who's the bigger cunt?


----------



## Santino (Sep 9, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> He most certainly is but who is the bigger cunt Coulson or Piers Moron?
> 
> On the one hand Coulson was clearly complicit in an illegal phone hacking mess which saw one of his underlings end up in court, on the other Moron was clearly complicit in a share fixing scandel which saw a couple of his underlings end up in court.
> 
> ...



Nick Clegg?


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh well, looks like all the normal people have just lost another interesting thread, wrecked by The Collective.


I invite all interested parties to click on my user name > posts made by user and identify all those posts I made in the wee small hours last night to ascertain whether d-b has any factual basis for his claims.


----------



## Santino (Sep 9, 2010)

ANDY COULSON IS A CUNT is the current subject.


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2010)

Hi. Can I just remind some users of the "ignore poster" feature?


----------



## pk (Sep 9, 2010)

Funny thing is - the security codes to access a great many phones are still the same now as they were 10 years ago.

The default codes are unchanged. So this could still be happening now.


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Hi. Can I just remind some users of the "ignore poster" feature?



No. If he's going to make unfounded accusations, I am going to respond to them. This is ridiculous. He deluges the mods with reported posts made with no basis whatsoever, and yet again a mod comes on to make a general warning to all concerned. I want him to provide evidence that I am trolling him, an accusation he's made on multiple threads where I have simply disagreed with him. He's deluded. He's been pulling this crap for months, against multiple posters, and you're still giving him the benefit of the doubt.


Happy to take this to a separate thread to avoid derailing this one, but this ain't right.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

.


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> I invite all interested parties to click on my user name > posts made by user and identify all those posts I made in the wee small hours last night to ascertain whether d-b has any factual basis for his claims.


 
.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Happy to take this to a separate thread to avoid derailing this one, but this ain't right.


All I have done is ask you not to derail this thread ... so feel free to start what you like.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 9, 2010)

Agree. Ignoring isn't really an option if one poster is consistently making groundless and delusional complaints about many others, alleging all kinds of bad behaviour about specific posters without anything approaching evidence or sanction. Nor should challenging one poster's opinions be considered 'goading' or likely to derail the thread, simply because others cannot exhibit self control.  Nothing positive will change that way - in fact it'll get worse if unchallenged, as it has already.

And on that note I'll leave it. Coulson remains at risk though - his denials just seem increasingly implausible as more and more people break cover and talk about the culture of the NoW newsroom, where these intercepts seemed endemic.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

tarannau said:


> Ignoring isn't really an option if one poster is consistently making groundless and delusional complaints ...


Ah ... you finally understand my situation ... except that in my case it is the other way around - ignoring (which is what I am constantly told to do) isn't really an option if _multiple_ posters are consistently making "groundless and delusional complaints" about what an individual poster has posted ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> No. If he's going to make unfounded accusations, I am going to respond to them. This is ridiculous.


 
I agree with this. At some point, a mod is going to have to tell d-b to fuck the fuck off when he reports a poster for taking him to task. 

How about mods put d-b's pms on ignore for a month instead.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2010)

Coulson or Moron?

Its a straight question.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Ah ... you finally understand my situation ... except that in my case it is the other way around - ignoring (which is what I am constantly told to do) isn't really an option if _multiple_ posters are consistently making "groundless and delusional complaints" about what an individual poster has posted ...


 
No, I don't. You trying to act the knob as retaliation for perceived slights is simply trolling really. And also you're frankly delusional - most posters don't endlessly accuse others of misrepresenting them, come up with paranoid guff about 'the collective,'  nor go off on a moan or swearfest when their posts are even slightly queried. I'd work on my empathy, communication skills and self control if I were you.

Posters have commented on specific points of yours in recent threads, only for you to accuse them of derailing things and then running off to the mods with delusional reports of persecution. It's meagre stuff frankly, borne of your inability to take criticism or entertain theories other than your own.


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> All I have done is ask you not to derail this thread ... so feel free to start what you like.


 
No need to start one. I bumped the thread where your behaviour was already being discussed.


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

Please, take it over there guys. No more derailing of this thread.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

tarannau said:


> No, I don't.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 9, 2010)

Is there any inaccuracy in my post DB? Isn't that exactly what's happened of late? You haven't acused people of being in a collective against you, continually alleged misrepresentation,  reported posts a number of times, nor have you lost control plenty of times, shouting cunt at pretty much all present? Honest answer please - I'm happy for you to correct me here. 

Remarkable, isn't it? And now we're back to the rolleyes stage of denial again


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

Can you take it to the other thread please tarannau? This one is rather good, and there are people trying to have a discussion on it. The other one is crap, so it doesn't matter how much shit gets flung on it - and it's already been used to discuss the last incident where he pulled this stunt.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 9, 2010)

There's no point is there? I'm not going to go onto a call out thread specifically intended to badmouth or gather 'evidence' on another poster.

Equally I'm far from satisified that this thread has ended up like so many others that DB's on, complete with delusional, unfounded accusations and then, remarkably, all posters getting an equal slap on the wrists after yet another reportfest. It's daft and will continue endlessly with those kind of weak 'one size fits all'  actions - I  don't believe a side cross-thread essentially slagging off a poster will help, or even stop this stuff sprouting over ever more threads.


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

It's not a call-out thread. It's a thread in feedback which has already been derailed into a discussion of the unjustified bannings the other weekend. You don't have to post on it, but please stop derailing this one. Ta.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 9, 2010)

it's a call out thread with you calling a poster out on this cross-threaded post here. And I think it's bad form to ask people to contribute on those terms

I'd like a resolution as much as the next bod, but that isn't the way imo


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

I'm not asking you to contribute. I'm asking you to quit fucking this thread up.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 9, 2010)

It's fucked up already. And cross-threading to another place to essentially discuss and slag off another poster makes me deeply uncomfortable. I'd rather see this thread meet its natural end than start the precedent of 'assemble here to discuss another poster'


----------



## Santino (Sep 9, 2010)

A summary of the issues from a legal point of view:

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/09/metgate-guide-to-current-issues.html


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 9, 2010)

Now in parliament

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167404.stm


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

Santino said:


> A summary of the issues from a legal point of view:
> 
> http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/09/metgate-guide-to-current-issues.html


 


> What caused the Metropolitan Police investigation to be so apparently misconducted?
> 
> Here the crucial allegation of the New York Times is that there was an improper relationship between the Metropolitan Police and News International.


This is the critical bit. I'm actually very surprised that Cameron hasn't sacked Coulson already in a damage limitation exercise. There was a point where he might just have been able to get away with pretending that Coulson was the only issue here. It can't be doing him any good hanging on to the guy. Is it just political ineptness - for which he has plenty of form?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> This is the critical bit. I'm actually very surprised that Cameron hasn't sacked Coulson already in a damage limitation exercise. There was a point where he might just have been able to get away with pretending that he was the only issue here. It can't be doing him any good hanging on? Is it just political ineptness - for which he has plenty of form?


 
There's a point at which it becomes (in their view) less damaging just to hold on. They've badly miscalculated on this one. There's a slight hint at wider complicity amongst higher up tories, that's another potential reason for this 'backing'.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Please, take it over there guys. No more derailing of this thread.


Oh look!  The Collective's chief psycho nutjob has spoken!


----------



## Santino (Sep 9, 2010)

I wonder what the consequences would be if Coulson caves in, and confirms that not only did he do it, but that Cameron knew he did it.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2010)

Santino said:


> I wonder what the consequences would be if Coulson caves in, and confirms that not only did he do it, but that Cameron knew he did it.


 
Cameron would have to stand down and Clegg becomes PM


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 9, 2010)

Cameron is peripheral to all this.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2010)

Santino said:


> I wonder what the consequences would be if Coulson caves in, and confirms that not only did he do it, but that Cameron knew he did it.


 
Cameron's position would be untenable, but Coulson is never going to cave in and admit anything.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Cameron is peripheral to all this.


 
He's not - it's entirely to do with Cameron (whether it is or not).


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Cameron would have to stand down and Clegg becomes PM



 

He'd just do a Pontius Pilate on it, and everyone would suck it up preferring that to the alternatives.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Cameron is peripheral to all this.


 
No he's not.  Cameron chose Coulson knowing all about this affair, it's either a lack of judgment or complicity with wrong doing.


----------



## Santino (Sep 9, 2010)

Posy Tory twat using the term 'blagging' in Parliament lol


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> No he's not.  Cameron chose Coulson knowing all about this affair, it's either a lack of judgment or complicity with wrong doing.


 
It does smell bad. But Cameron _is_ utterly inept.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2010)

The debate's on atm btw: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/main/Player.aspx?meetingId=6564


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> It does smell bad. But Cameron _is_ utterly inept.


 
For an ex pr man hes does strangly seem to be a walking pr disaster.


----------



## Santino (Sep 9, 2010)

It almost as if being in PR was just a crappy excuse for a job he got through family connections while waiting for a safe Tory seat. Almost as if.


----------



## Chris P Duck (Sep 9, 2010)

There an ex-NOTW journo now on the World at One (Radio 4) saying yeah, yeah we all hacked phones.. you had to get to get a story etc ... nothing wrong as they were up against a load of crooks. 

He can't see what the prob is . Sorry mate it's illegal, that's the whole fucking point of all this.  This bloke is basically spilling the beans and he seems to thick to realise it.

Listening to this Coulson is toast...


----------



## Sgt Howie (Sep 9, 2010)

Chris P Duck said:


> There an ex-NOTW journo now on the World at One (Radio 4) saying yeah, yeah we all hacked phones.. you had to get to get a story etc ... nothing wrong as they were up against a load of crooks.
> 
> He can't see what the prob is . Sorry mate it's illegal, that's the whole fucking point of all this.  This bloke is basically spilling the beans and he seems to thick to realise it.



Well he's being more careful than you give him credit for, there's a public interest defence if a reporter does it to expose corruption or crime or whatever.

The point is that they were also doing it to catch out z-list celebs shagging other z-list celebs.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 9, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> No he's not.  Cameron chose Coulson knowing all about this affair, it's either a lack of judgment or complicity with wrong doing.


 
"this affair" was over. It had been investigated by the Parliamentary Committee (which reported in Dec), the police weren't interested and there was no evidence to counter Coulson's own evidence to the Committee that he knew nothing on the hacking.

Until someone signs a witness statement, there still isn't - it remains part of a New York newspaper punch up between Murdoch and another, with New Labour holding the coats of one side.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2010)

> Motion
> 
> Privilege - To refer mobile phone hacking issue to the Committee on Standards and Privileges



They decided for referring the issue to the Committee - can of worms opened.


----------



## Chris P Duck (Sep 9, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> The point is that they were also doing it to catch out z-list celebs shagging other z-list celebs.


Still illegal though. Where do you draw the line trying to catch out z-list celebs shagging other z-list celebs ? How about MP's, royals, c-list celeb's, b-list celeb's etc.. are they game as well. 

The game is up for Coulson and Camerons head in the sand defense.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 9, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> For an ex pr man hes does strangly seem to be a walking pr disaster.


His government is starting to shape up more like a Major\ Brown than a Thatcher\ Blair. Gaff prone with a weak center. His team are going to have to toughen up pretty damn quick if they are going to appear to be any better than dead men walking in a years time.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Well he's being more careful than you give him credit for, there's a public interest defence if a reporter does it to expose corruption or crime or whatever.


There is no general "public interest" defence to a criminal offence.  There is _definitely_ no public interest defence to an offence of unlawful interception of communications under s.1 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (which is the core criminal offence being alleged) that I am aware of.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2010)

You don't get to decide how defences choose to defend.


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> His government is starting to shape up more like a Major\ Brown than a Thatcher\ Blair. Gaff prone with a weak center. His team are going to have to toughen up pretty damn quick if they are going to appear to be any better than dead men walking in a years time.


It started well before they got into government. They were on for a landslide victory, virtually anointed by the media months before the election, and they managed to achieve ... a hung parliament. The Lib Dems didn't even increase their share of the vote to provide them with a reasonable excuse. The Tories are a complete disaster area full of complete and utter incompetents. A pineapple should have been able to beat Brown the way the media were beating him and Labour up.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 9, 2010)

cesare said:


> They decided for referring the issue to the Committee - can of worms opened.


The debate sounded like sheep who had suddenly realised they had enough numbers to go after the wolves...... wonder if the courage will last past next week? Still there are some big scalps in fleet street there for the taking. 

Any reasonable investigation is going to open up the tabloids to very extensive damages claims. This is starting to gain momentum.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> The debate sounded like sheep who had suddenly realised they had enough numbers to go after the wolves...... wonder if the courage will last past next week? Still there are some big scalps in fleet street there for the taking.
> 
> Any reasonable investigation is going to open up the tabloids to very extensive damages claims. This is starting to gain momentum.



Who was the guy speaking immediately after the one next to Vaz, do you know?


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> "this affair" was over. It had been investigated by the Parliamentary Committee (which reported in Dec), the police weren't interested and there was no evidence to counter Coulson's own evidence to the Committee that he knew nothing on the hacking.
> 
> Until someone signs a witness statement, there still isn't - it remains part of a New York newspaper punch up between Murdoch and another, with New Labour holding the coats of one side.


 
You lib dems have really fallen into line behind Cameron.

It looks like a dodgy cover up last time, are you honestly asking us to accept that the editor knew nothing of what was going on?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 9, 2010)

cesare said:


> Who was the guy speaking immediately after the one next to Vaz, do you know?


No idea, I remember Tom Watson waffling then Simon Hughs anecdotes and then Vaz mindnumbing congratulating everyone. Mind went a bit dead after that.

Just checked the Guardian blog, possibly Paul Farrely one on the Media comittee that investigated the original allegations.


----------



## ymu (Sep 9, 2010)

Live blog of it here.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 9, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> You lib dems have really fallen into line behind Cameron.
> 
> It looks like a dodgy cover up last time, are you honestly asking us to accept that the editor knew nothing of what was going on?


 No, I'm stating facts.

"dodgy" isn't the standard of evidence normally relied on as the basis for criminal  convictions or job sackings.

To repeat; where's the witness statement? Without that, this is just so much Internet guff again.


----------



## cesare (Sep 9, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> No idea, I remember Tom Watson waffling then Simon Hughs anecdotes and then Vaz mindnumbing congratulating everyone. Mind went a bit dead after that.
> 
> Just checked the Guardian blog, possibly Paul Farrely one on the Media comittee that investigated the original allegations.


 
Ah, yes, thanks for that - I think it was him. Spoke well, I thought.

Edit: Actually, it was Simon Hughes. Argh.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> No, I'm stating facts.
> 
> "dodgy" isn't the standard of evidence normally relied on as the basis for criminal  convictions or job sackings.
> 
> To repeat; where's the witness statement? Without that, this is just so much Internet guff again.


This is not at the "evidence to convict" stage, we are not even at the charging part of the investigation yet. It is about enough evidence to re-open the investigation. That has been achieved with some ease.

Never watch The Wire?


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> No, I'm stating facts.
> 
> "dodgy" isn't the standard of evidence normally relied on as the basis for criminal  convictions or job sackings.
> 
> To repeat; where's the witness statement? Without that, this is just so much Intrnet guff again.



I'm not a prosecuter, I'm just some guy on a message board passing an observation that I'm 99% sure Coulson was up to his neck in it.  What do you think?


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 9, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> This is not at the "evidence to convict" stage, we are not even at the charging part of the investigation yet. It is about enough evidence to re-open the investigation. That has been achieved with some ease.
> 
> Never watch The Wire?


Never heard of it.

There might now be sufficient evidence to fire it up again, as 'Yates of The Yard' has indicated  - my point was there wasn't between Dec and now. There is absolutely nothing chargable yet though.

And "dodgy" is utterly meaningless.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Sep 9, 2010)

Chris P Duck said:


> Still illegal though. Where do you draw the line trying to catch out z-list celebs shagging other z-list celebs ? How about MP's, royals, c-list celeb's, b-list celeb's etc.. are they game as well.
> 
> The game is up for Coulson and Camerons head in the sand defense.


 
Er, yes, that was the point I was trying to make if you read my post.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Never heard of it.
> 
> There might now be sufficient evidence to fire it up again, as 'Yates of The Yard' has indicated  - my point was there wasn't between Dec and now. There is absolutely nothing chargable yet though.
> 
> And "dodgy" is utterly meaningless.


 
Do you believe that the editor of the paper knew nothing of the illegal phone tapping that his underlings were using as sources for their stories?

In short do you believe Andy Coulson?


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 9, 2010)

Don't be fucking retarded.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Sep 9, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There is no general "public interest" defence to a criminal offence.  There is _definitely_ no public interest defence to an offence of unlawful interception of communications under s.1 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (which is the core criminal offence being alleged) that I am aware of.


 
I was talking about the PCC code rather than the law although the latter remains ambiguous; the trial judge in the Goodman case made it fairly clear in his ruling that the nature of the "investigation" was extremely relevant. The info commissioner sought an amendment to RIPA so that a journalist would get a jail sentence if they breached the act without a public interest defence. The fact that News Corp, Associated, MGN etc protested and it was not activated (it still could be by a minister) could be used by the defence.

In practice it's extremely unlikely that the CPS would prosecute an English Woodward and Bernstein if they were cracking voicemails to get a legitimate story and even less likely that a jury would convict. The point is that the Screws was going on fishing expeditions and there was absolutely no public interest in the bulk of what they were publishing as a result.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Don't be fucking retarded.


 
Sorry, but why the distasteful abuse?

I asked you a direct question seen as you were being dismissive of me, I was just trying to get a straight answer as I didnt fully understand your position.  

Your response, quite frankly is as unnesccesary as it is unpleasant.

edit: Actually do you know what, fuck it, seems pointless on a day like today.  You can go on ignore, it also means I won't have to see the rubbish you post all over the cricket threads.  Oh and nice choice of phrase by the way, really marks you as a person.  Do you ever stop to think who that other person may be?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 9, 2010)

I do hope Piers Morgan is not too comfortable over at CNN. I have a feeling he will be needing a few return flights to London in the coming year. 

Infact other than the Guardian, Indy, Times and Telegraph Id say fleet street editors are going to have to do a lot of fast talking. I am assuming the broadsheets general type of stories mean any hanky panky they have engaged in should have a reasonable chance of a public interest defence. Coulson has just been the lever to get this mess out in the open.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 9, 2010)

I'd agree with that; Coulson is a symptom currently dress as villian because it suits a number of vested and fringe interests.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Sep 9, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> I do hope Piers Morgan is not too comfortable over at CNN. I have a feeling he will be needing a few return flights to London in the coming year.
> 
> Infact other than the Guardian, Indy, Times and Telegraph Id say fleet street editors are going to have to do a lot of fast talking. I am assuming the broadsheets general type of stories mean any hanky panky they have engaged in should have a reasonable chance of a public interest defence. Coulson has just been the lever to get this mess out in the open.


 
What makes you assume that the broadsheets have clean hands? I doubt that when, say, David Brown went from the People to the Times or when Luke Harding went from the Mail to the Guardian they suddenly forgot all the shortcuts for beating the opposition to a story.

The broadsheets certainly don't restrict themselves to "general type of stories" as anyone who picks up a paper every morning will tell you.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> I do hope Piers Morgan is not too comfortable over at CNN. I have a feeling he will be needing a few return flights to London in the coming year.


 
Old Piers is fine, he's virtually untouchable these days.  If he can get away with the whole city slickers shit he can get away with anything.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 9, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> What makes you assume that the broadsheets have clean hands?


I dont. Just saying they are less likely to have gone fishing for celeb stories. If they do get caught with the hand in the cookie jar to fucking bad.



London_Calling said:


> I'd agree with that; Coulson is a symptom currently dress as villian because it suits a number of vested and fringe interests.


No Coulson was arrogant enough to run a story on the royal house hold that could only have come from a voice mail, a story about a bloody princes tendon for gods sakes, then after being given a free pass with a soft soap inquirey aimed for the highest profile media job in the country a job that would attract any number of enemies. The plank swaggered around as the new Alistair Cambell when this whole IED was waiting to explode.

He is being portayed as a villian because he is a villian. Two of his staff went to prison and he stayed schtum, they got £80 000 unfair dismissal payouts _after being convicted*_! 

*(edited yep 6 months after conviction)

Fuckers toast.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> I dont. Just saying they are less likely to have gone fishing for celeb stories. If they do get caught with the hand in the cookie jar to fucking bad.
> 
> 
> No Coulson was arrogant enough to run a story on the royal house hold that could only have come from a voice mail, a story about a bloody princes tendon for gods sakes, then after being given a free pass with a soft soap inquirey aimed for the highest profile media job in the country a job that would attract any number of enemies. The plank swaggered around as the new Alistair Cambell when this whole IED was waiting to explode.
> ...


 
Yup.


----------



## agricola (Sep 9, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> What makes you assume that the broadsheets have clean hands? I doubt that when, say, David Brown went from the People to the Times or when Luke Harding went from the Mail to the Guardian they suddenly forgot all the shortcuts for beating the opposition to a story.
> 
> The broadsheets certainly don't restrict themselves to "general type of stories" as anyone who picks up a paper every morning will tell you.


 
Exactly.  I have mentioned it before but I really urge anyone who has not already done so to read _Flat Earth News_ for the best background to this topic you will ever recieve.


----------



## T & P (Sep 9, 2010)

In related news, Labour MP Chris Bryant has just called Sky News' Kay Burley 'dim' on live TV during an interview about the phone tapping


----------



## elbows (Sep 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> To repeat; where's the witness statement? Without that, this is just so much Internet guff again.


 
Oh another cheap attempt to dismiss things just because they involve people talking on the internet. lol.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> To repeat; where's the witness statement? Without that, this is just so much Internet guff again.


 
I think your probably seriously underestimating this story its not a red herring like the crap about william hague.
If the govts director of communications was behind phone tapping surely?


----------



## agricola (Sep 9, 2010)

T & P said:


> In related news, Labour MP Chris Bryant has just called Sky News' Kay Burley 'dim' on live TV during an interview about the phone tapping




As bad as Burley is, Bryant is a truly odious creature.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> ... although the latter remains ambiguous; the trial judge in the Goodman case made it fairly clear in his ruling that the nature of the "investigation" was extremely relevant. The info commissioner sought an amendment to RIPA so that a journalist would get a jail sentence if they breached the act without a public interest defence. The fact that News Corp, Associated, MGN etc protested and it was not activated (it still could be by a minister) could be used by the defence.


Please link to your source for all of this.  It makes no sense at all to me as you are describing it.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 9, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> ... should have a reasonable chance of a public interest defence.


There isn't one.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 10, 2010)

elbows said:


> Oh another cheap attempt to dismiss things just because they involve people talking on the internet. lol.


 I'm sure you're right. Today I feel overwhelmed by substance.


tbaldwin said:


> I think your probably seriously underestimating this story its not a red herring like the crap about william hague.
> If the govts director of communications was behind phone tapping surely?


I don't think Hague was  "a red herring", just schooboy  excitement.

I do think this is entirely a substantive issue. But I don't think Coulson is the villian - this went on before he was Editor and (at the very leasst) he turned a Nelson's eye. This is more about Murdoch's  social and political agenda and philosophy. 

It's also about the comfortable relationship between Murdoch's papers and Scotland Yard - some of whom find employment as columnists with Murdoch when they retire from the force. People are under-estimating the Murdoch > Scotland yard linkage.


----------



## ymu (Sep 10, 2010)

Oh well done! You caught up with page 1. Good going!


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 10, 2010)

And away from the Coulson fixation.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 10, 2010)

MPs must be loving this - a chance to get some against the meeja, after being kicked around by the meeja for years -


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 10, 2010)

MPs allege there were threatened by News International during previous investigation.

Course it was all through insinuation so nothing could be proven.On the one hand 'no shit sherlock' on the other hand its nice to get this on the record....


----------



## ymu (Sep 10, 2010)

Yep. Real momentum building up here. Hughes was banging on about this in his speech yesterday - that others hadn't testified in 2006 because of threats from News International. Now that this is public knowledge, the threat is largely useless. Should give the weasels the courage to see this through.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Sep 11, 2010)

In my book it's a contempt of parliament.

See the thread at http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/333254-MPs-backed-off-over-phone-hacking-probe


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 11, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> MPs allege there were threatened by News International during previous investigation.


If this is true (and there seems little reason to doubt it) it is of _massive_ concern and is evidence that the media in this country are _totally_ out of control.

The media are a potential force for great good or great evil within a society.  Ironically this story illustrates both simultaneously, with the work of the New York Times an excellent example of the good that can be done in exposing wrongdoing and News International a dire example of the evil that can be done when the media begin to focus on shite that is of "interest to the public" instead of on matters of genuine "public interest" and believe themselves to be above the law.

I am personally aware of a number of people who have declined to become involved in public life, despite being well-qualified to do great good, because they know that if they even incur the wrath of the powerful forces who run the media they are likely to be targetted by the scandal-hounds and that (a) they simply do not want their friends and family subjected to that and / or (b) they know that there is _something_, often very trivial and a long time ago, that is there to be found and which whilst of no genuine concern to anyone else would sell a few more copies of the News of the Screws and hence would be plastered all over the front pages for a day or two, causing massive personal stress and difficulties in their private lives (things that, incidentally, are there to be found in the backgrounds of the very journalists, editors and proprietors hypocritically "exposing" them).

This means that we, the public, are deprived of the talents of incresaing numbers of people who could make our society better, leaving the way clear for less talented, but boring and bland, individuals to take the roles instead.  I find this sad.   

Now we hear similar allegations made to prevent elected MPs from doing their jobs ...  

The powerful interests who own the media need to be reined in.  The excesses of the media need to be curbed.  No longer should they be allowed to simply scream "Freedom of the Press" whenever anyone suggests any sort of genuine oversight, accountability or control.  There is a _massive_ responsibility inherent in the role of the media.  The media have shown themselves entirely incapable of recognising this responsibility, let alone discharging it.  

They should be absolutely hammered over this.


----------



## agricola (Sep 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> They should be absolutely hammered over this.


 
They should, but they wont - if anyone does go it will just be Coulson, and possibly one or two other sacrifical lambs at the NOTW, and then everyone will go back to conducting far worse examples of the black arts (actively corrupting cops, other public employees and workers at BT and credit card firms for instance) for stories that would struggle to amount to fuck all, whilst simultaneously attacking the BBC for its many sins (being a success being the worst, of course) and being sucked up to by the political classes.   

There is no major political party, and only a tiny handful of MPs (almost all of whom are entirely without influence), who would dare to take them on to the extent that would be required to sort them out.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 13, 2010)

Brain Paddick and Steve Coogian instigate a judicial review.

Paddick claims they had information that could only have come from the phone answer machine as it was held by himself and his partner. My guess is this is not going after the Met so much as they may not have had the details of this specific hack taken in the raid. If not it could show that alot of hacking has not yet been uncovered. Could be wrong and that is just me speculating.

And another of the firebreathing Scottish lefties gets in on the act.


> Court files show Mulcaire now faces orders to disclose the names of all News of the World employees involved with the hacking of former MP George Galloway and football agent Sky Andrew.
> 
> Both men are suing Mulcaire and the News of the World's parent company, News Group, for breach of privacy.


 Joining  Sheridan who has called Coulson as a witness on an ongoing court case. 

Another day in the news then. Good work.


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2010)

On that bombshell...


----------



## agricola (Sep 13, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Another day in the news then. Good work.


 
Its actually Paddick and Chris Bryant who have instigated this action, with Coogan (and others) taking separate action against the NOTW - as is clear from the article.  The presence of Bryant (who as I said above is one of the most odious of the New Labour creatures - as his voting record and cheerleading for the immensely wasteful Defence Training PFI scheme demonstrates) is questionable, especially as his claim is much weaker than Paddick's.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 13, 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/13/phone-hacking-legal-action-police



> The actor and comedian Steve Coogan tonight joined the list of public figures who are taking legal action over alleged phone-hacking by the News of the World.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 13, 2010)

I think people started of thinking notw right wing rag bugging a few lefties .But this could blow up in their face because people like paddick, coogan etc are involved this could get interesting


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 16, 2010)

> McMullan was willing to give information to Scotland Yard, which has agreed to look at new evidence in the phone-hacking affair. However, when a senior detective approached him this week, he was told he would be interviewed "under caution", on the basis that anything he said could be used to prosecute him.
> 
> The same threat was made to Sean Hoare, the former News of the World reporter who told the New York Times that Coulson "actively encouraged" him to intercept voicemail messages. On Tuesday, Hoare was interviewed under caution and is understood to have told police that the use of the caution meant he was unable to help them.
> 
> McMullan, who has taken legal advice, is refusing to comply....



Pigs trying to cover it up and threatening potential witnesses.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/16/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-witness


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 16, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Pigs trying to cover it up and threatening potential witnesses.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/16/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-witness


It's nothing of the sort.  It's the "pigs" applying the law which is there to _protect the rights of suspects_.  If there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person may have committed a criminal offence they are _obliged_ to interview them under caution.  Failure to do so is a breach of the law.  (PACE Code of Practice C, paragraph 10.1) (http://tna.europarchive.org/2010041.../2008_PACE_Code_C_(final)2835.pdf?view=Binary).  There are _clear_ grounds to suspect that the various reporters now "blowing the whistle" (or "settling old scores" as some would have it ...) are themselves suspected of criminal activity.

You _should_ be have been (genuinely) getting annoyed if they had not because (a) it would have failed to respect the rights of the suspect / witness; (b) it would have ensured that any "evidence" provided could not have been used in evidence (against anyone, probably) and (c) it would have been totally valid grounds to suggest that the police were "out of control"  ... 

(ETA:  It also shows that the caution is doing _exactly_ what it was designed for - putting people on notice that they were suspected of offences, that they had no obligation to incriminate themselves and that anything they did say _could_ be used against them ... in this case causing those concerned to decide that they did not want to risk that).


----------



## Santino (Sep 16, 2010)

This will bubble along for a year or two I think.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 16, 2010)

Fuck off dibble..they're (the police in cahoots with murdoch's lot) trying to keep people quiet.  Halfwit.

I can tell when you're talking rubbish by the way...your posts look like a fucking appendice.


----------



## agricola (Sep 17, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Fuck off dibble..they're (the police in cahoots with murdoch's lot) trying to keep people quiet.  Halfwit.
> 
> I can tell when you're talking rubbish by the way...your posts look like a fucking appendice.


 
DB is not wrong though.  From last week's Guardian article:



> Paul McMullan, a former features executive and then member of the newspaper's investigations team, says that he personally commissioned private investigators to commit several hundred acts which could be regarded as unlawful, that use of illegal techniques was no secret at the paper, and that senior editors, including Coulson, were aware this was going on.



In the light of that information McMullan *has* to be interviewed under caution (which will probably entail him being cautioned, and reminded prior to the interview starting that he has the right to legal advice, that he does not have to stay with the officer (ie: he isnt being detained and the interview can end at any time he chooses) and he is not under arrest).  It would be an abuse of McMullan's rights if he were not interviewed under the circumstances, and it is not emphatically not something that the OB can waive when they know, or have good reason to believe beforehand, that someone is likely to admit committing possibly criminal acts - which they do in this case because McMullan has apparently admitted to it in an article for a national newspaper.

For the Guardian to call this "a threat" is nonsensical.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 17, 2010)

McMullen is a old hack, a former tabloid journalist, he seems to be demanding the police arrest him. He wants his bit of theater, his moment when he says how he has helped the police before as other cases where he has acted illegally and they have not treated him like this. 

The more press coverage this story gets, the less it can be buried so I guess fair play to him.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 19, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Fuck off dibble..they're (the police in cahoots with murdoch's lot) trying to keep people quiet.  Halfwit.
> 
> I can tell when you're talking rubbish by the way...your posts look like a fucking appendice.


Please stop attempting to derail this thread, no doubt intending to then blame me if you succeed.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 20, 2010)

Are there any updates on this story? Looks like the Tories are going to keep him despite him being massivelly implicated in phone tapping.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Are there any updates on this story? Looks like the Tories are going to keep him despite him being massivelly implicated in phone tapping.


 
you're not familiar with google then.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=co...lnt&sa=X&ei=BkyXTMWrFYeMswb9pLVk&ved=0CBYQpwU


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 20, 2010)

agricola said:


> Its actually Paddick and Chris Bryant who have instigated this action, with Coogan (and others) taking separate action against the NOTW - as is clear from the article.  The presence of Bryant (who as I said above is one of the most odious of the New Labour creatures - as his voting record and cheerleading for the immensely wasteful Defence Training PFI scheme demonstrates) is questionable, especially as his claim is much weaker than Paddick's.


now John Prescott's getting in on this


----------



## Santino (Sep 22, 2010)

Drip, drip...



> A private investigator paid by journalists to illegally obtain information about celebrities and public figures has said he was a fall guy for the powerful newspaper groups he worked for. Steve Whittamore told Radio 4's PM programme that he had played "Oliver to the press's Fagin".



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/21/newspapers-fall-guy-steve-whittamore


----------



## agricola (Sep 22, 2010)

Santino said:


> Drip, drip...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/21/newspapers-fall-guy-steve-whittamore


 
Whittamore is (or was) emphatically part of the wider problem, rather than just Coulson - as the report states the _Mail_ and _Mirror_ used him a lot more than the NOTW did, so one wonders whether this will ratchet up the pressure on Coulson at all.  

God knows what he is whinging about though, anyone else who had directed as much corrupt activity as he is alleged to have done (and indeed was convicted of - he got access to the PNC via a CAD operator at Wandsworth) would be looking at a far more substantial prison sentence than the two years suspended sentence he in fact recieved.


----------



## detective-boy (Sep 23, 2010)

agricola said:


> God knows what he is whinging about though...


Whilst he undoubtedly got off ridiculously lightly, I got the impression that he was whinging about the fact that his paymasters (i.e. the journalists and media organisations that employed him to do what he did) didn't get prosecuted at all.

I must say I have some sympathy for that view.  There used to be an old adage that the Courts treated handlers more severely than thieves on the basis that if there was no-one to receive something then the thief would have less incentive to steal it in the first place.  That most _definitely_ applies here - if the media didn't want the info. Whittamore _et al_ wouldn't have been getting hold of it at all.


----------



## Santino (Oct 4, 2010)

Might be given some fresh impetus by Dispatches tonight: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-58/episode-3

Nicely timed for the conference


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 4, 2010)

Ta for the heads up on that Santino.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/oct/04/andy-coulson-news-of-the-world-phone-hacking



> New phone-hacking witness speaks up
> 
> Another witness has come forward to claim that during his editorship of the News of the World, the Downing Street communications chief, Andy Coulson, knew about illegal phone-hacking by his staff.
> 
> ...


----------



## agricola (Oct 4, 2010)

Santino said:


> Might be given some fresh impetus by Dispatches tonight: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-58/episode-3
> 
> Nicely timed for the conference


 
It is somewhat odd this.  On the one hand, Coulson is clearly lying when he claims he had no idea of what was going on (given that he was the one authorising the spending on these types of things, he has resigned for it (or rather did after Goodman got nicked) and in any case the practice is endemic in Fleet Street as a whole).  On the other hand, what Coulson is alleged to have done is about 1.1% as bad as what Campbell is known to have done in the same office (never mind what he actually did), as Peter Oborne well knows, and in any case occured prior to him working with the Tories.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 4, 2010)

I assume Dispatches will be dismissed cos its an anonymous allegation


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 4, 2010)

And because it's mad Peter Oborne, last on telly for Dispatches complaining that Zionist lizards controlled the media and before that whining that the media were now controlling the lizards through a pervasive culture of spin.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 4, 2010)

Was shit. Dispatches is fucking gash.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 4, 2010)

Didn't see it.  Saw this in the grauniad about it:-





> Dispatches raises an unresolved question over whether the officer who was in charge of the original investigation, the then assistant commissioner Andy Hayman, was himself a target of the News of the World.
> 
> When Channel Four asked him whether his name appeared anywhere in the evidence collected by his officers, he replied: "I have never been told whether my own telephone was hacked." Hayman now works for News International.


Nothing dodgy there, is there? 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/03/phone-hacking-scandal-andy-coulson


----------



## agricola (Oct 4, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> And because it's mad Peter Oborne, last on telly for Dispatches complaining that Zionist lizards controlled the media and before that whining that the media were now controlling the lizards through a pervasive culture of spin.


 
Wrong on both counts, though hardly surprising given that its you who posted it.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 4, 2010)

agricola said:


> Wrong on both counts, though hardly surprising given that its you who posted it.


 
Oborne fronted the Dispatches on the pro-Israel lobby, yes? Prior to this, he wrote many books and articles about the culture of spin, no? So what are you disagreeing with? Or are you saying that he's a credible and universally respected figure?


----------



## agricola (Oct 4, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Oborne fronted the Dispatches on the pro-Israel lobby, yes? Prior to this, he wrote many books and articles about the culture of spin, no? So what are you disagreeing with? Or are you saying that he's a credible and universally respected figure?


 
Now if you had said that you would have been a lot more correct than your first attempt.  As it happens, in my opinion Oborne is a lot more credible than most in his field.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 5, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> Fuck off dibble..they're (the police in cahoots with murdoch's lot) trying to keep people quiet.  Halfwit.
> 
> I can tell when you're talking rubbish by the way...your posts look like a fucking appendice.


 
that programme last night, unlike the one on the unions , was brave and pro-democracy so respect!! It is frightening that Murdoch has not only New Labour bigwigs scared but even the old bill!


----------



## stavros (Oct 5, 2010)

I just wish the Beeb would have the balls to analyse the Murdochian empire, given the shit they get from his "newspapers". A wider investigation into all the various owners of newspapers, Barclays, Harmsworth, Dirty Des, Lebedev, etc, would be welcome too.


----------



## Santino (Oct 5, 2010)

The Dispatches programme is not available on 4OD or youtube.


----------



## paolo (Oct 5, 2010)

stavros said:


> I just wish the Beeb would have the balls to analyse the Murdochian empire, given the shit they get from his "newspapers". A wider investigation into all the various owners of newspapers, Barclays, Harmsworth, Dirty Des, Lebedev, etc, would be welcome too.


 
The Beeb are in a shitty position with respect to that. Now that the Murdochs have gained some currency to the idea that the Beeb are too big etc, it would look defensive and therefore 'prove' News International's position.

That's why it's very important that other media sources - e.g. C4 & The Graun in this case - continue to spotlight tangible issues with the Murdoch empire.

The Beeb hopefully won't be shrinking violets, but I doubt they'll lead the charge.


----------



## stavros (Oct 6, 2010)

As I said, it's a wish.


----------



## paolo (Oct 7, 2010)

stavros said:


> As I said, it's a wish.


 
It would be my wish too. My frustrations were at the situation, not your post.


----------



## stavros (Oct 7, 2010)

A more realistic wish, although unlikely with the Tories in power, would be to replace the toothless waste of space that is the Press Complaints Commission with an independent body with some balls to actually punish the outright lies which are so much a feature of our print press.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 8, 2010)

stavros said:


> A more realistic wish, although unlikely with the Tories in power, would be to replace the toothless waste of space that is the Press Complaints Commission


The Press Complaints Commission??? AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHA. What are they actually _for?_


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 9, 2010)

stavros said:


> A more realistic wish, although unlikely with the Tories in power, would be to replace the toothless waste of space that is the Press Complaints Commission with an independent body with some balls to actually punish the outright lies which are so much a feature of our print press.


That is the absolute opposite of what they are likely to do, being clearly believers in the power and effectiveness of self-regulation (e.g. Bin Audit Commission, bring in audit by private sector companies paid for by the public body being audited.  Bin Security Industry Authority, bring in self-regulation by organised crime - sorry, the security companies themselves...)


----------



## stavros (Oct 9, 2010)

You've got to question a regulatory body which has Paul "Vagina Monologues" Dacre sitting on it, the editor of the most complained-about paper in the country.


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 10, 2010)

Just got chance to watch the Despatches programme.  No real surprises in terms of content ... but chilling confirmation for the point I have made a number of times previously about the media being able to harass and break anyone they like and, through veiled (or otherwise) threats to do so, preventing proper oversight.  As I have previously said, the general fear that the media will slaughter you if you are in a "public" position and you upset them in some way prevents good people taking up those "public" positions in the first place as (like me) they know that their lives would not withstand the scrutiny that the media would give them, not because of any history of criminal or other wrongdoing, nor even of hyposcrisy, but simply of salaciousness and "morality" (bearing in mind that any sort of "kinky" sex, any sort of affair or dalliance or even association with a friend or relative who has a chequered history is sufficient for a front page splash, complete with misleading headline).  This is bad enough (as it mitigates against us getting the best taking roles in public life) but, based on this programme it is even worse.  

I had assumed that intelligent people would have done as I have done and self-assessed their situation before taking up public roles.  But it appears there are people who have either been so naive not to have seen this issue coming or who have hoped it will never happen to them and who have taken up public roles and who are now being cowed by the fear from doing their duty.  The Plaid Cymru MP bottled it.  John Whittingdale MP, Chair of the relevant committee taking evidence bottled it.  Perhaps even senior police officers bottled it.  This is _hugely_ damaging to our democracy.

The media are way, way, way too big for their boots in the UK.  They are a cancer at the heart of our democracy and Murdoch is the most malignant part of that cancer.  It may be too late to address the issue now.  It will certainly be too late if we do not do so soon.  

Depressing shit ...


----------



## Dan U (Oct 13, 2010)

Gruniad asked for evidence by the Met

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/13/metropolitan-police-guardian-phone-hacking



> The Metropolitan police have written to the Guardian asking for any new material the paper holds about phone hacking at the News of the World.
> 
> The request follows a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary last week that contained further evidence that the practice was widespread at the tabloid paper.
> 
> ...



Letter is on the link, its quite amusing


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

That's very slow off the mark, eh?


----------



## Dan U (Oct 13, 2010)

more diversions from dibble imo


----------



## ymu (Oct 13, 2010)

Dan U said:


> Letter is on the link, its quite amusing


That is fucking ace! 



> Seeking to obtain evidence from the Guardian should, it seems to us, be a matter of last
> resort for the police.  You will no doubt appreciate the complex ethical issues that can arise
> where confidential sources are concerned.  I am sure the NYT and Dispatches would take a
> similar view.  But the fact that three separate news organizations have been able to uncover
> ...



Well worth reading in full!


----------



## detective-boy (Oct 14, 2010)

Mildly amusing ... but hardly one of the classic sarcastic letters of our time ... and somewhat undermined by Rusbridger, whilst seeking to parade his superiority, demonstrating his ignorance of the law by suggesting that the police _could_ simply choose to ignore the requirements of PACE by interviewing people who they (clearly) suspect of criminal offences without doing so under caution and by offering them immunity from prosecution.

He also starts of well, or badly (depending on whether it was deliberate or not) by referring to Det Supt Haydon as "DS Haydon".  Any competent journalist would know that "DS" is the abbreviation for Detective Sergeant (i.e. three ranks below Detective Superintendent) ... I fear Rusbridger did not use it deliberately to wind up the recipient but did so out of ignorance ...


----------



## ymu (Oct 14, 2010)

Funnily enough, I'm a tad less worried by a journalist being a bit hazy on the technicalities than I am by the police apparently not knowing what is in their own files, or having to seek advice from journalists because they apparently have no idea how to conduct an investigation. Or at least, that is the impression they are giving in their desperate attempts to avoid investigating the police cash-cow and propaganda machine that is the Murdoch empire.

I do hope they're allowed to keep digging for a nice long time. I want that pit deep enough to bury them.


----------



## Santino (Nov 6, 2010)

Coulson interviewed by police 'as a witness', coinciding with the BBC news strike.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/06/andy-coulson-police-interview-hacking


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 6, 2010)

Santino said:


> Coulson interviewed by police 'as a witness', coinciding with the BBC news strike.


Two implicit criticisms of the police in thirteen words.  Oh, and no comment whatsoever on the substantive issue! Well done!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2010)

Wow, that's actually passing into astonishing. 

Seek help.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 6, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Seek help.


You're the obsessed stalker.  You're the one who needs fucking help.


----------



## Santino (Nov 6, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Two implicit criticisms of the police in thirteen words.  Oh, and no comment whatsoever on the substantive issue! Well done!


 
Was the first criticism the use of the phrase 'as a witness'? Because that's a direct quotation from the article I linked, emphasising the purely factual matter that he wasn't arrested or under caution.

Feel free to apologise now.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 6, 2010)

Santino said:


> Was the first criticism the use of the phrase 'as a witness'?


Yes.  It was no doubt used by the Guardian as an implicit criticism because they would _love_ to see him arrested (despite the fact that there has been criticism of the police for interviewing people under caution as it "scares" them into silence ...)

If you were unaware of that implied meaning then of course I apologise.  But even a single implied criticism in thirteen words which entirely avaoid any comment on the substantive subject matter is still quite impressive ...


----------



## Santino (Nov 6, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  It was no doubt used by the Guardian as an implicit criticism because they would _love_ to see him arrested (despite the fact that there has been criticism of the police for interviewing people under caution as it "scares" them into silence ...)
> 
> If you were unaware of that implied meaning then of course I apologise.  But even a single implied criticism in thirteen words which entirely avaoid any comment on the substantive subject matter is still quite impressive ...


 
Have you read the article?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 7, 2010)

Santino said:


> Have you read the article?


Yes.


----------



## Santino (Nov 7, 2010)

Had you read it before you posted your waffle?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 7, 2010)

Santino said:


> Had you read it before you posted your waffle?


Yes.

Now do you have a fucking point to make?


----------



## Santino (Nov 7, 2010)

Calm down. I started this thread to keep in one place updates on a complicated and developing story. The post that caused your tantrum was merely the latest in a long line of links to relevant articles.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 7, 2010)

Santino said:


> Calm down.


Instead of preaching, how about making the point you are clearly hinting at with your tedious questions.

Or making any comment on the Guardian story you linked to if, as you now claim, your thirteen word post was not meant to be anything other than descriptive of the facts ...


----------



## Santino (Nov 7, 2010)

You've lost me now. Let's not make this thread about you, please.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 7, 2010)

Santino said:


> You've lost me now. Let's not make this thread about you, please.


You're the one who started it.  I simply asked what point you were trying to make with your stupid questions.  It's not really _that_ difficult is it?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 7, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> the words 'under caution were] no doubt used by the Guardian as an implicit criticism because they would _love_ to see him arrested (despite the fact that there has been criticism of the police for interviewing people under caution as it "scares" them into silence ...)
> 
> If you were unaware of that implied meaning then of course I apologise.  But even a single implied criticism in thirteen words which entirely avoid any comment on the substantive subject matter is still quite impressive ...



That's paranoia. The Guardian were simply reporting facts.


----------



## Santino (Nov 7, 2010)

Stop it now. I'm asking you not to ruin this thread by turning it into another chapter of the detective-boy story. Please give it a rest.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 11, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> That's paranoia. The Guardian were simply reporting facts.


If you had followed the tone of their coverage of this issue from the start, I would suggest you would conclude otherwise.  They would _love_ to see Coulson nicked and have been seeking to orchestrate it for ages!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  It was no doubt used by the Guardian as an implicit criticism because they would _love_ to see him arrested


I'm sure the _grauniad_ would love to see coulson arrested (I certainly would!), but why was it 'no doubt' meant as criticism? Why not - as seems more plausible to me - them being mealy-mouthed, with one eye to the libel laws, and the fact that NewsCorp retains the services of some of ther world's foremost libel lawyers? to me, that read like simply workaday, cautious reporting of a news story they could hardly ignore


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I'm sure the _grauniad_ would love to see coulson arrested (I certainly would!), but why was it 'no doubt' meant as criticism?


In the vast majority of cases they would simply say "has been interviewed by".  In this particular case there has been a long running debate about whether the interviews are under caution or not, with arguments that they should be (to demonstrate how serious the police are taking it and that they are recognising the suspected criminality of those involved) or they shouldn't be (because by doing so it "scares" them into saying nothing).

In the context of that, and with the Guardian being a leading paper in the debate, I read their phraseology as being somewhat loaded.  I may be wrong ... but I'd put money on not being!  (You may well be right about the cold, dead hand of the lawyer though!)


----------



## Santino (Nov 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In the vast majority of cases they would simply say "has been interviewed by".  In this particular case there has been a long running debate about whether the interviews are under caution or not, with arguments that they should be (to demonstrate how serious the police are taking it and that they are recognising the suspected criminality of those involved) or they shouldn't be (because by doing so it "scares" them into saying nothing).
> 
> In the context of that, and with the Guardian being a leading paper in the debate, I read their phraseology as being somewhat loaded.  I may be wrong ... but I'd put money on not being!  (You may well be right about the cold, dead hand of the lawyer though!)



In a case where there has been a long running debate about whether interviews are under caution or not, is it not incumbent upon a journalist covering the story to mention exactly under what condition a person has been interviewed, with a concise phrase such as 'as a witness'?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

Santino said:


> In a case where there has been a long running debate about whether interviews are under caution or not, is it not incumbent upon a journalist covering the story to mention exactly under what condition a person has been interviewed, with a concise phrase such as 'as a witness'?


Maybe.  We'll not agree on what we read into it.


----------



## Santino (Nov 17, 2010)

> The private investigator at the centre of the phone-hacking scandal has been ordered by a high court judge to reveal who instructed him to engage in the illegal interception of voicemail messages of public figures.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/17/glenn-mulcaire-phone-hacking-judge


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 17, 2010)

> and the Sky Sports presenter Andy Gray.


Even their own.


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 17, 2010)

It's not going to happen but if there were the 'right' results in a couple of cases just now it would be a *savage* blow to the power of the Murdoch press in the UK.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 18, 2010)

That latest judicial ruling could well be dynamite, but it all depends on the timeframe they eventually agree - and what the next obstructive tactic is by mulcaire and/or NewsCorp


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2010)

Santino said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/17/glenn-mulcaire-phone-hacking-judge


 
That PI is as dodgy as they come - likely to sell his his silence and do the time.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you had followed the tone of their coverage of this issue from the start, I would suggest you would conclude otherwise.  They would _love_ to see Coulson nicked and have been seeking to orchestrate it for ages!



Belatedly seen this.

Suggest you read Nick Davies' scrupulously thorough investigative work -- as I have throughout -- a lot more carefully, and try applying some objectivity.

The NoTW's _already known_ behaviour overall is hardly worth anyone's strenuous defence. Even a few Tories are very concerned about it.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 19, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> Suggest you read Nick Davies' scrupulously thorough investigative work -- as I have throughout -- a lot more carefully, and try applying some objectivity.


I have read his stuff ... but it's scrupulous thoroughness makes no difference whatsoever to The Guardian's attitude to whether Coulson should be arrested and interviewed under caution or whether he should be interviewed as a witness without caution.  Personally I would agree with what I think is clearly their view: that he should be nicked and interviewed under caution like anyone else suspected of serious crime. 



> The NoTW's _already known_ behaviour overall is hardly worth anyone's strenuous defence. Even a few Tories are very concerned about it.


I'm not defending anything (and I'm not sure why you think otherwise ... ).  I personally believe that all involved should be prosecuted to the fukll extent of the criminal law and should be sued for every fucking penny.


----------



## agricola (Nov 21, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> Belatedly seen this.
> 
> Suggest you read Nick Davies' scrupulously thorough investigative work -- as I have throughout -- a lot more carefully, and try applying some objectivity.
> 
> The NoTW's _already known_ behaviour overall is hardly worth anyone's strenuous defence. Even a few Tories are very concerned about it.



I agree, but as Davies clearly demonstrates this issue is not just about Coulson and the NOTW, they werent even the worst offenders.  It needs to be dealt with on the widest possible basis.


----------



## hiccup (Nov 23, 2010)

Coulson staying put says "government source.


----------



## laptop (Nov 25, 2010)

hiccup said:


> Coulson staying put says "government source.



Does he have the PM's "full confidence" or is it not that bad for him yet?


----------



## Santino (Dec 9, 2010)

He's in court later today, as a witness in the Sheridan trial: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/coulson-faces-uncomfortable-day-in-court-2155002.html


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

> In a change of policy which has significant implications for the prime minister's media adviser, Andy Coulson, who used to edit the paper, police have said they will no longer provide all public figures with a summary of potentially relevant phone-hacking evidence in their possession.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



They're getting desperate.

Perhaps they'd rather look incompetent than admit they're corrupt?


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 15, 2010)

Sienna Miller - prosecuting the bad kind of hacking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/15/phone-hacking-sienna-miller-evidence

So it rumbles on, slowly climbing the greasy NOTW pole. Much like Watergate did for the Nixon administration.


----------



## ymu (Dec 16, 2010)

I was about to post that, and I will, seeing as you couldn't be arsed to quote from it. 



> Lawyers have secured explosive new evidence linking one of the News of the World's most senior editorial executives to the hacking of voicemail messages from the phones of Sienna Miller, Jude Law and their friends and employees.
> 
> In a document lodged in the high court, the lawyers also disclose evidence that the hacking of phones of the royal household was part of a scheme commissioned by the newspaper and not simply the unauthorised work of its former royal correspondent, Clive Goodman, acting as a "rogue reporter", as it has previously claimed.
> 
> ...


----------



## pk (Dec 16, 2010)

Coulson is a lying cunt, hope he's jailed for this.


----------



## ymu (Dec 16, 2010)

Fuck Coulson. I hope to see a large proportion of the Met go down for this.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 16, 2010)

I want to go and work somewhere that a non-executive manager can sign off on payments totally £100K without any kind of authorisation from anyone higher up. I'm also sure that Mr R Murdoch would be happy knowing that junior managers can authorise that level of remuneration to a freelancer.


----------



## Santino (Jan 5, 2011)

Hello, what's this...




			
				Guardian twitter said:
			
		

> News of the World news editor suspended over 'serious allegation' of phone hacking. More details soon


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> Hello, what's this...


Actually, it's ello, ello . .


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 5, 2011)

This is likely to do with Sienna Miller's action against the NOTW.


----------



## hiccup (Jan 6, 2011)

More grist to the mill:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jan/06/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-keir-starmer


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 6, 2011)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> This is likely to do with Sienna Miller's action against the NOTW.


It certainly is!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 6, 2011)

This is like Watergate. It's slowly working it's way up the chain of command.


----------



## agricola (Jan 7, 2011)

hiccup said:


> More grist to the mill:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jan/06/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-keir-starmer


 
Perhaps, though as I said earlier in the thread Greenslade should remember what happened to previous investigations of the kind he is demanding - how utterly disinterested (with a very few exceptions) a deeply compromised Fleet Street were in reporting it, the total lack of support that politicians gave to the Police and CPS, and the laughable sentences that were handed out at the end of it, even though at least one of the investigations (Operation Motorman) involved allegations of far more serious criminal activity (active corruption of public servants, including police officers and staff, breaches of secure databases) than the current scandal does.  

I can well understand why the Met and CPS might not want to reopen such an investigation - given the vast cost it will entail, the very low likelyhood of any kind of decent sentences at the end of it, the immense pressure that will be brought to them (one suspects that, once Coulson goes all the outraged commentators will slink off) and, most of all, the vast scale of what will be (indeed, what has been if Motorman is any guide) uncovered by any kind of serious and in-depth look at what the Press have been doing... after all, the behaviour that is being criticized is not limited to the NOTW.


----------



## laptop (Jan 8, 2011)

agricola said:


> (Operation Motorman) involved allegations of far more serious criminal activity (active corruption of public servants, including police officers and staff, breaches of secure databases) than the current scandal does.


 
Deeply unfortunate name for the operation.

Ta v much for the link, though... yes, once Coulson goes there could well be a rustle of things swept back under carpets... or once the Murdoch/Sky thing is over... or...


----------



## Santino (Jan 8, 2011)

Drip, drip...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/08/phone-hacking-police-murdoch-coulson?CMP=twt_fd



> The scandal threatening to engulf the News of the World will intensify this week when the Metropolitan police hands over previously undisclosed documents relating to the hacking of celebrities' mobile phones while the paper was edited by Andy Coulson, David Cameron's communications director.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 15, 2011)

And yet more....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/14/dpp-news-of-the-world-phone-hacking



> The Crown Prosecution Service yesterday announced that it would mount a "comprehensive" review of phone-hacking material held by the Metropolitan police in a dramatic volte-face prompted by recent revelations in the courts......


----------



## Santino (Jan 15, 2011)

According to Tom Watson (Lab MP) Coulson's departure from Downing Street has been pencilled in for 25th January.


----------



## Santino (Jan 15, 2011)

Paul Gascoigne has arrived on this thread with a chicken and a fishing rod.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/15/paul-gascoigne-phone-hacking



> Paul Gascoigne, the former England footballer, is to become the latest celebrity to sue the News of the World, alleging that he was a victim of the phone-hacking scandal that has rocked Rupert Murdoch's media empire.


----------



## laptop (Jan 15, 2011)

Santino said:


> Paul Gascoigne has arrived on this thread with a chicken and a fishing rod.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/15/paul-gascoigne-phone-hacking





> the comedian Steve Coogan has also issued proceedings and that Chris Tarrant, the television presenter, and the jockey Kieren Fallon are expected to launch legal actions soon.



These are all moves to discredit the campaign to prosecute the _NotW_? Can't we have Stephen Hawking or Dame Maggie Smith or someone with... _gravitas_?


----------



## laptop (Jan 15, 2011)

Santino said:


> According to Tom Watson (Lab MP) Coulson's departure from Downing Street has been pencilled in for 25th January.


 
Where's that from? His website is redirecting to some online pharmacy...


----------



## Santino (Jan 15, 2011)

laptop said:


> Where's that from? His website is redirecting to some online pharmacy...


 
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2011/01/12/a-snap-election-promises-cameron-the-glory-he-craves/

2nd paragraph.


----------



## laptop (Jan 15, 2011)

Santino said:


> http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2011/01/12/a-snap-election-promises-cameron-the-glory-he-craves/
> 
> 2nd paragraph.



Ta...



> I challenged Clegg in the members’ lobby over his decision to break the convention on how by-elections are called by Parliament. It wasn’t his response that was interesting. It was his demeanour. Some people find me a little brusque on occasion, but I wasn’t being rude or particularly direct with the deputy PM.
> 
> His face was pallid and drawn over with worry lines. His eyes couldn’t maintain contact with mine. He almost covered his face with his arms. It was as if he wanted to roll up into the foetal position.  He is a most unhappy man.



Er, maybe. But not that unusual a response from a Cabinet minister accosted by a differently-sane MP


----------



## teqniq (Jan 17, 2011)

Interesting use of words by Dave the rave (or lack of them):



> David Cameron said today he has given Andy Coulson, his director of communications, a "second chance" following revelations about phone-hacking at News of the World when he was editor and warned that his aide should not be "punished twice for the same offence"......
> 
> ...But he notably did not say, as he as done in previous comments about the affair, that he accepted his PR chief's assurances that he had been unaware of hacking during his editorship of the tabloid.
> 
> ...



In relation to the bit I've put in bold, not really Dave because if he actually _did_ know what was going on then surely that's a criminal offence which he hasn't been tried for?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/17/david-cameron-andy-coulson-second-chance


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 17, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> This is like Watergate.


it really is, isn't it? It just keeps getting better and better, with the reputation of both the met and NOTW receiving a fresh kicking each day


----------



## laptop (Jan 17, 2011)

Looks like Dave's pre-distancing himself from Andy, to me...


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 17, 2011)

laptop said:


> These are all moves to discredit the campaign to prosecute the _NotW_? Can't we have Stephen Hawking or Dame Maggie Smith or someone with... _gravitas_?


they're not the sort of people NOTW readers enjoy reading the goss about!


----------



## Santino (Jan 17, 2011)

I heard that Heather Mills was preparing to sue them, but it turned out that her case had insufficient merit and would not have had a good chance of being successful.


----------



## agricola (Jan 17, 2011)

Santino said:


> I heard that Heather Mills was preparing to sue them, but it turned out that her case had insufficient merit and would not have had a good chance of being successful.


----------



## stavros (Jan 17, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> they're not the sort of people NOTW readers enjoy reading the goss about!


 
They would if they had an affair.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 17, 2011)

Santino said:


> I heard that Heather Mills was preparing to sue them, but it turned out that her case had insufficient merit and would not have had a good chance of being successful.


 
Isn't there another we phrase that makes that point slightly more succinctly.... whistles.....


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2011)

Keep pulling:



> News Corporation's defence that phone hacking at the News of the World was the work of a single "rogue reporter" was on the verge of collapse tonight after Glenn Mulcaire, the private detective at the centre of the case, said the paper's head of news commissioned him to access voicemail messages.


----------



## laptop (Jan 17, 2011)

stavros said:


> They would if they had an affair.


 
* loses lunch *


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 18, 2011)

By cameron saying he deserves a second chance this implies his guilt.This as further to run NI can't settle all these claims out of court


----------



## agricola (Jan 18, 2011)

Some comedy from Press Gazette:

http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/edi...ns-on-press-gazettes-phone-hacking-questions/


----------



## laptop (Jan 18, 2011)

> ["Private investigator" Glenn] Mulcaire is understood to have submitted a statement to the high court this [Monday] afternoon confirming that Ian Edmondson, the paper's assistant editor (news) asked him to hack into voicemail messages left on a mobile phone belonging to Sky Andrew, a football agent. Andrew is suing the paper for breach of privacy.
> 
> Grauniad



News International's lies are unravelling...


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 18, 2011)

Better by the day. As I remarked earlier in the thread, I can't think of an organisation that would sanction signing off £100K for _anything_ without someone properly senior to sign it off. If there is, I want to go and work there.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 19, 2011)

stavros said:


> They would if they had an affair.


oh, you deeply sordid person....


----------



## stavros (Jan 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> oh, you deeply sordid person....


 
Not me, but the average News of the Screws reader.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2011)

stavros said:


> Not me, but the average News of the Screws reader.


Yes, very true....
(the thought of those two having rumpy is still shocking tho'!)


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 20, 2011)

I reckon that if Prof Hawking had been a bit more famous when he dumped his first wife and married his nurse there might've been a Screws angle:

'Paralysed Prof Dumps Wife for Naughty Nurse'


----------



## Santino (Jan 21, 2011)

Coulson putting out a statement this afteroon.

Good day to bury bad news?


----------



## T & P (Jan 21, 2011)

The Guardian has some breaking news in its ticker that Andy Coulson is "to issue a personal statement" shortly.

Is the cunt resigning? Here's hoping...


ETA: damn, beaten to it ^


----------



## Santino (Jan 21, 2011)

T & P said:


> ETA: damn, beaten to it ^


 
In your face, T & P!


----------



## Dan U (Jan 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> Coulson putting out a statement this afteroon.
> 
> Good day to bury bad news?


 
the cynic in me thought the same thing.

the massive cynic in me wonders whether the Tories leaked the story about Johnsons Mrs and blamed it on Balls to create a shit storm for Coulson to sneak out the back door in.

23.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 21, 2011)

Going according to Radio 5!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2011)

Question is, whose he taking down with him?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jan 21, 2011)

T & P said:


> The Guardian has some breaking news in its ticker that Andy Coulson is "to issue a personal statement" shortly.
> 
> Is the cunt resigning? Here's hoping...
> 
> ...



BBCNews saying that he has resigned with a personal statement to come in a bit


----------



## Echo Base (Jan 21, 2011)

Yeah hes gone.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Question is, whose he taking down with him?



Who do you think he could? He is an establishment man now, I guess he will lie low for a bit and then walk in to another job.

I wonder is The Sun will report it!


----------



## Santino (Jan 21, 2011)

According the Twitter too.

Fucker. He was meant to stay and drag down his boss with him.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2011)

Dan U said:


> Who do you think he could? He is an establishment man now, I guess he will lie low for a bit and then walk in to another job.
> 
> I wonder is The Sun will report it!


 
God knows, whoever appointed him i suppose, if he comes clean and says they were told about what he'd been up to at least. But they'll keep him sweet won't they? That's how they do it.


----------



## Santino (Jan 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> According to Tom Watson (Lab MP) Coulson's departure from Downing Street has been pencilled in for 25th January.


 
Four days (or two working days) out.


----------



## Santino (Jan 21, 2011)

Bet Campbell's annoyed he didn't get to gloat about this on QT yesterday.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jan 21, 2011)

YES.
Edit: Likelihood of prosecution now?
Edit again: Also, likehihood of Coulson getting some work with Murdoch's US interests?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> Bet Campbell's annoyed he didn't get to gloat about this on QT yesterday.


 
I'm fairly certain that Campbells having a good old gloat wherever he is right now.

Dammit, can't find the relevant Blackadder scene from 'Head' where Percy goes on about gloaters...

And YES!


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jan 21, 2011)

Coulson's statement

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/21/andy-coulson-phone-hacking-statement?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## Santino (Jan 21, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Coulson's statement
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/21/andy-coulson-phone-hacking-statement?CMP=twt_gu


 
Mendacious cuntbag.


----------



## ovaltina (Jan 21, 2011)

Hope they don't find somebody competent to replace him


----------



## Santino (Jan 21, 2011)

The temptation will be to get another Murdoch apprentice.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 21, 2011)

Coulson's hugely competent at his job - to the point that even Campbell has said that the 'relaxed Dave' image for Cameron is working. High praise indeed from an arch enemy.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> But they'll keep him sweet won't they? That's how they do it.



This is what I think. I really can't see Coulson bringing the whole thing down, although I'd happily be proved wrong!


----------



## ovaltina (Jan 21, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> Coulson's hugely competent at his job - to the point that even Campbell has said that the 'relaxed Dave' image for Cameron is working. High praise indeed from an arch enemy.


 
Maybe, but he still managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory during an election against a knackered, discredited and unenthusiastic 3-term Labour govt. The tactic of repeating the same propaganda over and over (Labour's reckless deficit, all in this together etc etc) wore thin a while ago too.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

Dan U said:


> I wonder is The Sun will report it!


If there's one time I'm looking forward to reading the _Sun_ and the _NOTW_, it's tomorrow. Look out for the biggest and most embarrassed meejah squirm in British History!


----------



## Santino (Jan 21, 2011)

Apparently Piers Morgan says Coulson is a 'good man'. Can't work out who comes off worse out of that.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> God knows, whoever appointed him i suppose, if he comes clean and says they were told about what he'd been up to at least.


As the person who appointed him editor of NOTW is prolly called 'murdoch', or at the very least a News Int board member, the chances of him taking anyone else above him down is somewhere near zero. Ditto, anyone in govt: "that predates his employment with us, we still belive in him, he's doing the honourable thing by resigning, and we appointed him in bad faith"  


> But they'll keep him sweet won't they? That's how they do it


look out for a huge, massive consolation prize for coulson. It's carrot and stick; "OK andy, bloody rough luck on you, but tell you what, if you keep shtum on where the bodies are buried, we've got this wonderfully challenging new role for you in NYC on a basic salary of $500,000 pa"


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> Four days (or two working days) out.


pretty good tipping from Tom Watson there...


----------



## Santino (Jan 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> pretty good tipping from Tom Watson there...


 
The rest of the article was about a General Election planned for May. 

Which would be plausible if the sequence of events goes like this:  local elections > Lib Dems wiped out > party panics/splits and leaves the government > election called.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 21, 2011)

Which is becoming more and more likely tbh


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> Apparently Piers Morgan says Coulson is a 'good man'. Can't work out who comes off worse out of that.


 
That's got to be a mafioso-style kiss of death. 

Mind you Morgan used to work for that fucking Murdoch rag.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> ...Fucker. He was meant to stay and drag down his boss with him.


 
Which one?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> The rest of the article was about a General Election planned for May.
> 
> Which would be plausible if the sequence of events goes like this:  local elections > Lib Dems wiped out > party panics/splits and leaves the government > election called.


I wouldn't bet against it tbf. there's only so many stuffings the LDs will take before bottling it


----------



## ymu (Jan 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> The rest of the article was about a General Election planned for May.
> 
> Which would be plausible if the sequence of events goes like this:  local elections > Lib Dems wiped out > party panics/splits and leaves the government > election called.


 
That doesn't work for a general election in May though. I can't see how that works - they'll surely try to get their gerrymandering through before heading into an election. I can't see them calling one before then - especially with the polls giving Labour a solid majority with the current set up.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2011)

They'#d have to call it in April - 4 weeks before the locals and Scottish ones.


----------



## cointreauman (Jan 21, 2011)

Nothing is off limits for the scummy tory government, but when (not if) Cleggy's Gang implode (which they will) then the game is up and they will take a chance on picking up a working majority and could call an election anytime. School summer holidays would be the worst time for them but mid September onwards......

For me the sooner the better, especially as they are causing major ripples with the NHS debacle they are foisting on us. GPs running the budget - pure shopkeeper stuff to hide the real agenda of getting the big private medical companies on board. No matter what tosser replaces Coulson - that is one big story to smother.

Might be time for Clegg to offer to lead the labour party or anyone else who would have him.

C


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2011)

Er...what?


----------



## Santino (Jan 21, 2011)

Clegg's made his choice. He's with the Tories now (either parachuted into a safe seat, or in the Lords), whatever else happens to the Lib Dems. There's no way back for him.


----------



## killer b (Jan 21, 2011)

lol

http://bristle.wordpress.com/2011/0...on-definitely-isnt-going-to-grass-up-coulson/


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They'#d have to call it in April - 4 weeks before the locals and Scottish ones.


I reckon they'd see that as too risky


----------



## laptop (Jan 21, 2011)

killer b said:


> lol
> 
> http://bristle.wordpress.com/2011/0...on-definitely-isnt-going-to-grass-up-coulson/


 
So that's official, then


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I reckon they'd see that as too risky


 
It's not going to happen.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 21, 2011)

Ok then, late June early July election - allowing for aftermath.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2011)

Why? How? The tories don't want an election. Most of the lib-dems don't.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

as I may have said earlier, the only thing IMO that will precipitate a GE is an absolute implosion/revolution/coup in the LDs. i think this *will* happen at some point - I just don't know for sure when. Could be after the may elections pasting, could be 3 years hence
e2a; what I mean is; LD implopsion -> LD regime change -> LDs decide only hope of salvation = collective atonement/repudiation of previous sins -> minority tory govt -> vote of confidence


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> as I masy have said earlier, the only thing that will precipitate a GE is an absolute implosion/revolution/coup in the LDs. i think this will happen at some point - I just don't know for sure when. Could be after the may elections pasting, could be 3 years hence


 
Even then most of them will stay with the tories out of commitment and careerism. No need for an election in that scenario.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's not going to happen.


not that way no


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Even then most of them will stay with the tories out of commitment and careerism. No need for an election in that scenario.


won't "screw everyone else - save your own hide!" form just a strong appeal to their careerism?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2011)

An election now won't save any of them though. Only hanging on and hoping the economy turns round in/by 4 years time will. And they'd rather take their salary and pensions for the next four years than chuck it away for sure now. An early election is the last thing these careerists want.


----------



## cointreauman (Jan 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> An election now won't save any of them though. Only hanging on and hoping the economy turns round in/by 4 years time will. And they'd rather take their salary and pensions for the next four years than chuck it away for sure now. An early election is the last thing these careerists want.


 
BA

Yep - cannot disagree with you there.

In fact ra big fail by the LDs in the locals is likely to entrench the tory lickspittles in parliament to tough it out for that very reason.

Noses in the troughs and up Cameron's arse time still.

C


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

hmm...interesting, let me ponder that. Do you really think they've got the balls (the LDs, that is) to tough it out through four years of pure, burning hatred?

The reason why I ask is - I doubt their spine. We picketed Lynne Featherstone's constituency office recently, as well as a protest at a local event she attended. She's a minister, and she looked terrified and *awful *- like she could pass out/collapse any minute. i've heard similar about other MPs in SW London (Brake and davey, from my mates there).

I'm thinking they've built up a dependency over the years on their self-image as the principled good guys (yeah, I know, a load of balls, but _they_ believe it), and all the hatred that's gonna rain down on them will truly shatter them. It might just persuade enough to try a mass 'sinking ship ratting' exercise. 

This is all new to them, - tories are old hands in handling being hated, it's practically a military medal to them. Not so LDs. I genuinely wonder if the bottle is there to tough it out


----------



## Santino (Jan 21, 2011)

I think some of them still pin their hopes on establishing a 'centre-left' alternative, the founding myth of which will be a 'principled' stand on some civil liberties issue leading to a split.


----------



## cointreauman (Jan 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> hmm...interesting, let me ponder that. Do you really think they've got the balls (the LDs, that is) to tough it out through four years of pure, burning hatred?
> 
> The reason why I ask is - I doubt their spine. We picketed Lynne Featherstone's constituency office recently, as well as a protest at a local event she attended. She's a minister, and she looked terrified and *awful *- like she could pass out/collapse any minute. i've heard similar about other MPs in SW London (Brake and davey, from my mates there).
> 
> ...


 
It depends on whether Clegg stays in place to be honest. Additionally there is only so many "made up - phoney baloney" jobs that could be used to buy off the likes of Hughes et al.

My reasoning is simplified - the LDs are supporting the Conservatives in everytghing they do and whatever they bleat on about "having their say and influence in policy" the reality is little more than sound bites and crumbs from the top table.

The LDs are enjoying "power" for the first and last time in living memory - they will not want to go to the electorate now or any time in the future despite the discomfort of many. The Torygraph LD surgery ambushes are history now - so whatever the personal feelings of the LD elected - none have publicly challenged where the party is being led.

I worked in and aroung the House of Commons from 1987 till 2004 and to see the "chosen" ones at work is dispiriting. From recollection I would say the first question asked by a backbencher after elevation to a ministerial post is "What type of car do I get?" and local memory from those in the know was of one of Maggies nonces was "A Rover 416 - I want a Jaguar". They like the priveliges and even if the PM has sliced the official chauffeured cars to bits they want all that goes with the position. So if they feel that they can have a 5 year run of grace and favour then why not expect them to do it. Don Foster down in the Bath constituency is getting loads of flak but riding it out. The newer LD MPs will be easily led. 
It woud need the grass roots to change the coalition agreement - Clegg will not do it.

C


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

One thing I should've said in my previous post; I expect this implosion to come in the form of a grassroots revolt, led by councillors and activists. I do NOT expect it to come from LD ministers, and not primarily from MPs. so 'they' in that post refers mainly to the former groups, a significant number of whom are going top get their first ever real taste of a local elections catastrophe in four months time


----------



## ymu (Jan 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> One thing I should've said in my previous post; I expect this implosion to come in the form of a grassroots revolt, led by councillors and activists. I do NOT expect it to come from LD ministers, and not primarily from MPs. so 'they' in that post refers mainly to the former groups, a significant number of whom are going top get their first ever real taste of a local elections catastrophe in four months time


There are some councillors plotting. Question is whether they can succeed. Thread here.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 21, 2011)

> The LDs are enjoying "power" for the first and last time in living memory



No - Clegg and his Orange Book mob are 'enjoying' power; seemingly the left-leaning bit of the Lib-dems aren't, if the YouGov poll that said '80% of Lib-dems don't trust Clegg' is anything to go by.


----------



## cointreauman (Jan 21, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> One thing I should've said in my previous post; I expect this implosion to come in the form of a grassroots revolt, led by councillors and activists. I do NOT expect it to come from LD ministers, and not primarily from MPs. so 'they' in that post refers mainly to the former groups, a significant number of whom are going top get their first ever real taste of a local elections catastrophe in four months time


 


kyser_soze said:


> No - Clegg and his Orange Book mob are 'enjoying' power; seemingly the left-leaning bit of the Lib-dems aren't, if the YouGov poll that said '80% of Lib-dems don't trust Clegg' is anything to go by.



Agree about the grass root level. There is a growing number of local LD activists who talk a good "gunpowder plot" in the pub but I await whether they will target Don Foster from inside the local groups.

Whether there is a distrust of Clegg or not - no one has come out to directly challenge where he has led them to date. Bribery and early elevation to Under Secretary of Sttate for the noisiest.

C


----------



## stavros (Jan 22, 2011)

It'll be interesting to see if the next series of The Thick Of It does anything to do with Coulson, where the Malcolms of this world become the news.


----------



## agricola (Jan 22, 2011)

stavros said:


> It'll be interesting to see if the next series of The Thick Of It does anything to do with Coulson, where the Malcolms of this world become the news.


 
.


----------



## stavros (Jan 22, 2011)

True, but not with the Murdochian connection.

Iannucci's said that the hung parliament threw a lot of their ideas for the next series in the dustbin, but knowing his past form I'm sure he'll come with something on a similar level of genius.


----------



## Santino (Jan 22, 2011)

There may - or not - be a massive cache of tapes recorded by a NOTW journalist during the glory days of phone hacking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/22/secret-tapes-news-of-the-world


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2011)

That particular story wasn't in the paper version of Saturday's Guardian** -- fascinaing stuff 

ETA : **That's because they're Observer people -- but the online article was dated Sat and flagged as Guardian 



			
				Obs said:
			
		

> Heard the one about the assistant editor running a business from his desk importing vodka and other goods from eastern Europe? It's on the tapes.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 23, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/23/gordon-brown-police-phone-hacking

Chris Huhne's had a little chip at the NOTW and Coulson this morning. I'd expect he'll get a call from Nick telling him to STFU.


----------



## laptop (Jan 23, 2011)

Oh, and phone-hacking scandal threatens more newspapers


----------



## weltweit (Jan 23, 2011)

Gordon Brown apparently approached the police to see if his phone was hacked when he was at the treasury. 

Some of those complaining make me eugh .... some of them .. why would anyone want to hack their phones!? 

However, why were there not similar outrages back when people used analogue mobiles which could be listenned in to with a scanner? or were there?


----------



## ymu (Jan 23, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Gordon Brown apparently approached the police to see if his phone was hacked when he was at the treasury.
> 
> Some of those complaining make me eugh .... some of them .. why would anyone want to hack their phones!?
> 
> However, why were there not similar outrages back when people used analogue mobiles which could be listenned in to with a scanner? or were there?


I think it's covered by broadly similar laws - although you have to actually catch people at it for there to be outrage. A lot of the technology for this is fairly recent - this scam is based on being able to pick up messages remotely, which is a fairly recent technology, at least in terms of being widespread enough to be of use to a 'journalist'.

The CPS made a fucking bizarre excuse for reopening the investigation. Previously, you see, they had interpreted the law to mean that it was only illegal to listen to other people's phone messages if they hadn't already listened to them themselves. Now, remarkably, they think they've found some wiggle room to make a case for it being a bit fucking dodgy regardless. Funny that .... It should be quite interesting to watch the Met and the CPS try to extract themselves from the corrupt little mess they've made for themselves.


----------



## laptop (Jan 23, 2011)

ymu said:


> The CPS made a fucking bizarre excuse for reopening the investigation. Previously, you see, they had interpreted the law to mean that it was only illegal to listen to other people's phone messages if they hadn't already listened to them themselves. Now, remarkably, they think they've found some wiggle room to make a case for it being a bit fucking dodgy regardless.


 
That was always a bizarre and feeble "oh fuck make it go away" response from the CPS.

There was always a case to be brought, I submit, under the Computer Misuse Act 1990: 



> *1)* A person is guilty of an offence if—
> 
> 
> (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer [_amended 2006 to add:_, or to enable any such access to be secured] ;
> ...


----------



## ymu (Jan 23, 2011)

Of course there's always been a case. It's fucking ridiculously transparent. Still, it makes for a better chance of flushing out some bent coppers now too, as they have no hope of containing this. Every cloud and all that.


----------



## agricola (Jan 23, 2011)

ymu said:


> Of course there's always been a case. It's fucking ridiculously transparent. Still, it makes for a better chance of flushing out some bent coppers now too, as they have no hope of containing this. Every cloud and all that.


 
Perhaps, though I would hazard a guess that now Coulson has gone the pressure will let up a great deal - after all, as has been said (both here and in the Guardian article above) the dark arts extend over almost all of the print media, and if anything what happened at the NOTW was some ways towards the minor end of what was going on.  Its certainly not in the papers interest for that to be exposed, and one imagines (given how previous investigations have fared) that it wont be in many politicians interests either.


----------



## treelover (Jan 23, 2011)

Coulson was heavily involved in the Condems brutal tabloid smear campaign against 'benefit scroungers'


----------



## ymu (Jan 23, 2011)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though I would hazard a guess that now Coulson has gone the pressure will let up a great deal - after all, as has been said (both here and in the Guardian article above) the dark arts extend over almost all of the print media, and if anything what happened at the NOTW was some ways towards the minor end of what was going on.  Its certainly not in the papers interest for that to be exposed, and one imagines (given how previous investigations have fared) that it wont be in many politicians interests either.


 
You're forgetting the rather large number of very angry, and mostly very rich, celebs who aren't as afraid of News Corp as the politicians are and aren't as much in their pockets as the cops are. It's also a very useful weapon in the battle to stop Murdoch taking over BSkyB. I don't think it's going away any time soon.


----------



## stavros (Jan 23, 2011)

Common opinion seems to be that Coulson will go to News Corp in America. After Piers Moron, perhaps they can take all our tabloid journalists and return the favour for Iraq.


----------



## agricola (Jan 23, 2011)

ymu said:


> You're forgetting the rather large number of very angry, and mostly very rich, celebs who aren't as afraid of News Corp as the politicians are and aren't as much in their pockets as the cops are. It's also a very useful weapon in the battle to stop Murdoch taking over BSkyB. I don't think it's going away any time soon.


 
Most of those celebs depend to an extent on the papers though, or at least they depend on the PR industry which depends on the papers - hence why all the bad practice (of which, as I said above, this is a very mild example) continues to go on despite fairly regular severe impacts on the lives of the celebs concerned; lets face it if they were that angry then they would have kicked off long before now.  The current numbers probably have more to do with lawyers smelling large settlements for not that much work, tbh.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 23, 2011)

I'm thinking/hoping it isn't just going to "go away" ......


----------



## ymu (Jan 23, 2011)

agricola said:


> Most of those celebs depend to an extent on the papers though, or at least they depend on the PR industry which depends on the papers - hence why all the bad practice (of which, as I said above, this is a very mild example) continues to go on despite fairly regular severe impacts on the lives of the celebs concerned; lets face it if they were that angry then they would have kicked off long before now.  The current numbers probably have more to do with lawyers smelling large settlements for not that much work, tbh.


 
Well, having 3000 celebs try to screw their £million hush money out of Murdoch would be fun, but it's gone way beyond that. Not least the CPS being forced to pretend a bit harder that they're going to take it seriously, and surely no way the Met can now escape independent scrutiny over their handling of it so far. AFAIK, there is no need for a victim to press charges in order to bring a prosecution, and no longer any excuses not to prosecute.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 24, 2011)

agricola said:


> Most of those celebs depend to an extent on the papers though, or at least they depend on the PR industry which depends on the papers - hence why all the bad practice (of which, as I said above, this is a very mild example) continues to go on despite fairly regular severe impacts on the lives of the celebs concerned; lets face it if they were that angry then they would have kicked off long before now.  The current numbers probably have more to do with lawyers smelling large settlements for not that much work, tbh.


true - but why should John Prescott, Simon Hughes, Max Clifford and Elle McPherson be running scared of the Wapping skinheads?


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 24, 2011)

Either I'm not getting the full deal here or the Met have acted way, way beyond what's acceptable; apart from everything that went before (and that was far too much anyway), Gordon Brown wrote 6 months ago to Scotland Yard about his phone calls being accessed while he was_ Chancellor of the Exchequer_ and hasn't even had a reply?

Jesus, can you imagine if someone in the markets had known of this wheeze.

This is hugely serious stuff and the Met have just sat on it.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 24, 2011)

just to help everyone out, here is a full list of possible victims


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 24, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Either I'm not getting the full deal here or the Met have acted way, way beyond what's acceptable; apart from everything that went before (and that was far too much anyway), Gordon Brown wrote 6 months ago to Scotland Yard about his phone calls being accessed while he was_ Chancellor of the Exchequer_ and hasn't even had a reply?
> 
> Jesus, can you imagine if someone in the markets had known of this wheeze.
> 
> This is hugely serious stuff and the Met have just sat on it.


I agree - this has left the Met looking very, very bad indeed and if there's a public enquiry, some officers will be up to their necks in it


----------



## teqniq (Jan 24, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> This is hugely serious stuff and the Met have just sat on it.



Bottom line imo, is that heads should roll (if not for collusion then incompetence) nor should any found to be guilty in this respect be allowed to sidle comfortably into some lucrative little consultancy number.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 24, 2011)

teqniq said:


> Bottom line imo, is that heads should roll (if not for collusion then incompetence) nor should any found to be guilty in this respect be allowed to sidle comfortably into some lucrative little consultancy number.


 
Well, even phone hackers have human rights. Not sure how you're going to restrict their right to work wherever they find employment.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 24, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Well, even phone hackers have human rights. Not sure how you're going to restrict their right to work wherever they find employment.


 
Hmmm I suppose so, the whole thing just completely disgusts me that's all.


----------



## gosub (Jan 24, 2011)

was intersting to see how the Sunday Times covered this, : front page : the lawyer pursing the legal action against other papers, though that fits with this, also an intersting article in the Scottish edition (don't know if it was in the London edition) attriubiting Coulson's resignation to Tommy Sheridan's cross examination of him last month.

Don't beleive the Brown bit, did he not bring it up when he was in power coz it was such an embarssing security breach? - oportunism.


----------



## agricola (Jan 24, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> true - but why should John Prescott, Simon Hughes, Max Clifford and Elle McPherson be running scared of the Wapping skinheads?


 
Because Clifford relies on the papers to run his business, Prescott might have similar problems in his own party soon, McPherson will probably be paid off, and Hughes... well he might keep running with it, I suppose.  

As for the Met and CPS and their failure to prosecute, as I have said before on this thread I can well understand why they are reluctant to do so given the failure of previous investigations on the same topic.  Any reasonably detailed, in-depth look at what the NOTW was doing will inevitably go on to what the rest of Fleet Street was doing, will almost certainly attract the ire of what would probably be a united press and its assorted hangers-on, would probably require at least dozens of officers for a prolonged period of time, and would probably only result in piffling sentences (Goodman got four months, Mulcaire six, the people convicted in _Motorman_ - including a Met civilian worker who had been paid to access the PNC - got conditional discharges) anyway.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 24, 2011)

agricola said:


> Because Clifford relies on the papers to run his business, Prescott might have similar problems in his own party soon, McPherson will probably be paid off, and Hughes... well he might keep running with it, I suppose.
> 
> As for the Met and CPS and their failure to prosecute, as I have said before on this thread I can well understand why they are reluctant to do so given the failure of previous investigations on the same topic.  Any reasonably detailed, in-depth look at what the NOTW was doing will inevitably go on to what the rest of Fleet Street was doing, will almost certainly attract the ire of what would probably be a united press and its assorted hangers-on, would probably require at least dozens of officers for a prolonged period of time, and would probably only result in piffling sentences (Goodman got four months, Mulcaire six, the people convicted in _Motorman_ - including a Met civilian worker who had been paid to access the PNC - got conditional discharges) anyway.


answer to para1; fair enough, except that I was quibbling why all those celebs would let wariness at pissing off NI win over their natural and justified anger at what is, whichever way you look at it, an outrageous violation of privacy.
Answer to para 2; I see your point, and that's where the met have a huge problem; they've handled this so very, very badly so far that [possibly the only way to rescue their reputation, given that this is so very politically sensitive, is by holding a huge investigation now, and by being seen to be taking action. Ditto their overlords in HMG.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 24, 2011)

Heads must roll. 

You know, we've got a shitty bunch of people in this country, it's about time we had a proper constitution of peoples' rights to get rid of this 'it might be legal, it might not be' crap. 

This shit's the logical follow-on from cheque-book journalism.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 26, 2011)

Latest News: Ian Edmondson has now been sacked by the NoTW, and it's confirmed they had Steve Coogan's number
e2a: The Met have now launched a new inquiry


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 26, 2011)

> Because Clifford relies on the papers to run his business,



No he doesn't. The newspaper stuff is by far and away the most visible part of his operation, but the real day-to-day stuff is involved in taking commissions for celebrity appearances & endorsements, not to mention the sleb mags and websites across the UK, Europe and elsewhere. It would potentially hurt a lot of his clients were they not visible in the Sun and NotW - especially since the papers would be running negative stories - but this kind of thing can be contained and spun elsewhere.


----------



## teqniq (Jan 26, 2011)

As being reported on R4 atm:-



> Police have launched a fresh investigation into phone hacking after receiving "significant new information", Scotland Yard has said.
> 
> The information relates to hacking at the News of the World in 2005, which led to its royal editor being jailed.
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12290535


----------



## weltweit (Jan 26, 2011)

Apparently Murdock is in town and cleaning shop, he is where the new info is coming from, but according to R4 Andy Coulson is not named in the new info.


----------



## Santino (Jan 26, 2011)

This is properly kicking off now.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 26, 2011)

Newsnight just now.


----------



## Santino (Jan 27, 2011)

OMG this is too good:



> Details of the case remain concealed by court orders. However, a senior News International executive has claimed that Dan Evans's defence is that he phoned Kelly Hoppen's number for legitimate reasons and accidentally accessed her voicemail when the keys on his phone got stuck.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/27/phone-hacking-kelly-hoppen-sues


----------



## laptop (Jan 27, 2011)

Santino said:


> OMG this is too good:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/27/phone-hacking-kelly-hoppen-sues


 
Stuck with what?

* Googles pics of Kelly Hoppen *

* Is fired as football presenter *


----------



## Maggot (Jan 27, 2011)

I suspect that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Widespread throughout News International and other media groups too.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

And now the acting head of the Met is being hauled before the MPA to explain why the Met invastigation was so pisspoor. better and better!


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

Maggot said:


> I suspect that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Widespread throughout News International and other media groups too.


very probably, but ol' Rupe's the newspaper proprietor you'd want to see hurt most. He's in London right now, and getting hands on in a way he's not done for years. Given that all this is happening at the same time as he's trying to get approval for the sky buyout, the bastard must be rattled


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2011)

These allegations of hacking _within the last year_ are new aren't they?


----------



## creak (Jan 27, 2011)

Yep, fresh last night/today I think.

Edit: Before then it was just the period up to 2006 that was being investigated.


----------



## laptop (Jan 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> These allegations of hacking _within the last year_ are new aren't they?


 
I've been actively looking for coverage and I've not seen anything before this morning's papers...


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> These allegations of hacking _within the last year_ are new aren't they?


the Kelly Hoppen ones? yes, I think they are.
<rubs hands with glee>


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 27, 2011)

Guardian smorgasbord page of NotW hacking stuff


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

...and now m'lud Norman Fowler, no less and in full pomposity mode, has called for a full inquiry!


----------



## southside (Jan 27, 2011)

39% stake, going for an allout purchase of bskyb.

Shit hitting fans,

Sports reporters sacked,

Iffy political communications bloke resigns,

Dodgy hackenings in the Murdock camp, its a conspiracy I tell you, a conspiracy.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

...or,alternatively,it's simply a very, very bad week indeed for the Murdochs and News International


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> ...and now m'lud Norman Fowler, no less and in full pomposity mode, has called for a full inquiry!


 
Is that the one who tried to feed his daughter a giant hamburger during BSE1?

Nope, that was Selwyn-Gummer. Still, he _looks_ like a Norman.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> These allegations of hacking _within the last year_ are new aren't they?


never mind last year, tessa jowell reckons she was hacked LAST WEEK!!!


> ITV's political reporter Lucy Manning tweets:
> 
> Tessa Jowell confirms to ITV News she has been in touch with police this week about possible attempt to hack into her phone last week


This just keeps on giving


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

Fucking hell, nealy THREE THOUSAND phones involved!
That is utterly stunning;


> 12.00pm: Was phone hacking conducted on an industrial scale? The Guardian discovered that 4,332 names or partial names, and 2,987 mobile phone numbers, were involved; the Data Blog list mentioned earlier shows the names of the 120 of them so far identified.


----------



## agricola (Jan 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Fucking hell, nealy THREE THOUSAND phones involved!
> That is utterly stunning;


 
I dont know why the Guardian is acting surprised that the numbers are that large, after all they previously reported that Whittamore's network had accessed thousands of confidential records and corrupted numerous public and private employees to get that access.  Nor do Lord Fowler's comments (and Prescott where he described NI as a "rogue company") hold that much water - they (Fleet Street) are all at it, and almost certainly are still at it right now.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

agricola said:


> I dont know why the Guardian is acting surprised that the numbers are that large,


don'tcha know? No-one does high moral tone outrage like the liberal left!



> they (Fleet Street) are all at it, and almost certainly are still at it right now.


I'm inclined tothink you're right, but do you have anything to substantiate this?


----------



## agricola (Jan 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I'm inclined tothink you're right, but do you have anything to substantiate this?


 
If reporters at News International felt able to listen in to other peoples voicemail within the last few months, despite one of their own being jailed, and the issue being one of the most massive political / media stories of the last five years, then I have very little doubt that the rest of Fleet Street (lets not forget that the Mail and Trinity Group used the Whittamore network far more than News International did) is continuing to do similar, or far worse, things.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 27, 2011)

I agree, but I meant anything specific, concrete examples etc


----------



## laptop (Jan 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I agree, but I meant anything specific, concrete examples etc


 
There are a lot more cases waiting to come before the courts... have patience 

Wouldn't want to prejudice them. Nor, for that matter, take the heat off Murdoch right now...


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 27, 2011)

There were rumours a couple of years ago about the DM paying NHS & other medical staff to pass on medical details, don't think anything came of it. Obv all the papers pay off OB for tidbits too.


----------



## agricola (Jan 27, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I agree, but I meant anything specific, concrete examples etc


 
None that I know of.


----------



## laptop (Jan 27, 2011)

kyser_soze said:


> There were rumours a couple of years ago about the DM paying NHS & other medical staff to pass on medical details, don't think anything came of it. Obv all the papers pay off OB for tidbits too.


 
There was a mention of that last week in _Private Eye_, if I recall correctly, with reference to someone who'd moved to the _NotW_


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 27, 2011)

It's a lot of fun at the mo; Murdoch pulling his hair out at every new development, stuck in London and not daring to leave for Davos, the possibility of owning all of BSkyB slipping further through hs fingers every hour . . . The BBC reporting a News Corp statement saying is disappointed the BBC  ran with this story as their lead . . . newsreaders barely able to keep straight faces,  just a good old-fashioned, fast-paced, could-go-anywhere beano. Joy!


----------



## teqniq (Jan 27, 2011)

More from the Graun:-



> Tessa Jowell, the former Labour cabinet minister, has hired lawyers to seek to discover who hacked into her phone on 28 separate occasions as the scandal engulfing the News of the World prompts a growing list of public figures to seek legal redress....



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/27/phoning-hacking-row-tessa-jowell


----------



## killer b (Jan 27, 2011)

anyone got any idea what size payout someone might expect from suing the NoW over this? is there a potential 3000 lawsuit there? nice...


----------



## Santino (Jan 27, 2011)

killer b said:


> anyone got any idea what size payout someone might expect from suing the NoW over this? is there a potential 3000 lawsuit there? nice...


 
Max Clifford is supposed to have got £1 million.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 27, 2011)

So that's Jowell, Prescott and Bryant...all high up Labour ministers of the last government?   No tories?

Blair, apparently, never used a mobile while in office, btw.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 28, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> So that's Jowell, Prescott and Bryant...all high up Labour ministers of the last government?   No tories?
> 
> *Blair, apparently, never used a mobile while in office, btw*.



He used to send Ali Campbell out to use the phone box on Whitehall, like Paulie does Henry & Little Paulie in _Goodfellas_


----------



## Badgers (Jan 28, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It's a lot of fun at the mo; Murdoch pulling his hair out at every new development, stuck in London and not daring to leave for Davos, the possibility of owning all of BSkyB slipping further through hs fingers every hour . . . The BBC reporting a News Corp statement saying is disappointed the BBC  ran with this story as their lead . . . newsreaders barely able to keep straight faces,  just a good old-fashioned, fast-paced, could-go-anywhere beano. Joy!


 
Marvellous isn't it  

I picture him like Monty Burns yelling feebly at his idiot son and wearing coats made of endangered species


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 28, 2011)

> Murdoch offered opinions on various news items. But it was when he referred to the Andy Gray story that eyebrows were raised. First he said "this country has lost its sense of humour" and anything Gray said was "not worse that what women say about other women". When reminded that Gray had been sacked, Murdoch silenced the meeting, saying: "There are other reasons for sacking Andy Gray."



gruan link

You never used to get leaks of what Murdoch was saying, that I recall.


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> gruan link
> 
> You never used to get leaks of what Murdoch was saying, that I recall.


 
Of course you did, when it was in his own interest to do so (as this is, lets face it that article is replete with info from "_friends of_" and "_allies of_").


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 29, 2011)

Indeed.   It's definitely the first time in decades they've looked shaky.  A lot of people just now are probably thinking about possible jail sentences.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 30, 2011)

Great piece on Rupert Murdoch just up on the Adam Curtis blog
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/01/rupert_murdoch_-_a_portrait_of.html


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 30, 2011)

That's a fascinating read.   Cheers.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2011)

Jesus H Christ, now Bob Crow is involved!


----------



## ymu (Jan 31, 2011)

Oh dear. Murdoch may have finally bitten off more than he can chew!


----------



## gosub (Feb 1, 2011)

they were covering this on the one o'clock news on radio 4. Had a discussion between editor of the FT and the Head of the PCC. FT bloke was bigging up Rusbridger and was pretty contemptuous of the PCC. 

I would guess Murdoch way to get ahead of the curve is to push for root and branch reform of the PCC, after all this story is bigger than one paper, and that's the 3rd national editor that's publicly dissed the PCC whilst broadcast media bang on about statutory regulation...


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 2, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12348159

Craig Oliver, former Controller of English at BBC Global News to replace Coulson as No. 10 communications chief.


----------



## Gingerman (Feb 2, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> It's a lot of fun at the mo; Murdoch pulling his hair out at every new development, stuck in London and not daring to leave for Davos, the possibility of owning all of BSkyB slipping further through hs fingers every hour . . . The BBC reporting a News Corp statement saying is disappointed the BBC  ran with this story as their lead . . . newsreaders barely able to keep straight faces,  just a good old-fashioned, fast-paced, could-go-anywhere beano. Joy!


A story that keeps on giving,all good stuff,long may Murdoch suffer discomfort


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 2, 2011)

gosub said:


> they were covering this on the one o'clock news on radio 4. Had a discussion between editor of the FT and the Head of the PCC. FT bloke was bigging up Rusbridger and was pretty contemptuous of the PCC.
> 
> I would guess Murdoch way to get ahead of the curve is to push for root and branch reform of the PCC, after all this story is bigger than one paper, and that's the 3rd national editor that's publicly dissed the PCC whilst broadcast media bang on about statutory regulation...


 
If it's the same FT dude, he was speaking at some dinner the other night and said that everyone in the national press should be scared shitless about this stuff, not just because it's not just happened at NewsInt, but that it could lead to some privacy legislation with actual teeth - he also singled out the Telegraph's sting on Vince Cable as an example of irresponsible journalism.


----------



## gosub (Feb 2, 2011)

The Media Show was good today, Rusbridger interviewed primarily over Assange, then asked to comment on phone hacking, followed by 15 mins of the head of the PCC squirming over phone hacking. Though as far as she is concerned other than hacking they do a good job over things like bereavement.


----------



## stavros (Feb 2, 2011)

The PCC is so piss-poor it needs a nickname, much like the Fundamentally Supine Authority or Serious Farce Office. Has anyone spotted anything or come up with a good one themselves?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 2, 2011)

stephj said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12348159
> 
> Craig Oliver, former Controller of English at BBC Global News to replace Coulson as No. 10 communications chief.


 
On Newsnight tonight they were saying he was a bit unknown and had hidden political affiliations, well they are out in the open now. Apparently he was a good "news man".. whatever that means.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2011)

stavros said:


> The PCC is so piss-poor it needs a nickname, much like the Fundamentally Supine Authority or Serious Farce Office. Has anyone spotted anything or come up with a good one themselves?


Probity Cop-Out Commission?


----------



## agricola (Feb 3, 2011)

stavros said:


> The PCC is so piss-poor it needs a nickname, much like the Fundamentally Supine Authority or Serious Farce Office. Has anyone spotted anything or come up with a good one themselves?


 
Press Controlled Commission


----------



## Santino (Feb 3, 2011)

agricola said:


> Press Controlled Commission


 
Winner.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2011)

Agreed!


----------



## ymu (Feb 5, 2011)

Oh dear. Vodafone is implicated. That's a bad PR hat-trick for them then. 



> "Andy Coulson knew a lot of people did it at the Sun on his Bizarre [showbiz] column and after that at the NOTW," McMullan claimed.
> 
> McMullan, who is now a pub landlord, also described a flourishing trade in private information at the News of the World, which he said was regularly supplied with details of celebrities' medical records and mobile phone pin numbers.
> 
> ...


----------



## weltweit (Feb 5, 2011)

And, all you had to do to avoid this IIRC was change your access code from the default 0000 to something else. 

Anyone in public life today who has not changed their code is a mug.


----------



## Santino (Feb 5, 2011)

weltweit said:


> And, all you had to do to avoid this IIRC was change your access code from the default 0000 to something else.
> 
> Anyone in public life today who has not changed their code is a mug.


 
Except when someone from Vodafone rang up the News of the World and sold them your new code.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 5, 2011)

Santino said:


> Except when someone from Vodafone rang up the News of the World and sold them your new code.


 
I accept that that is possible but I expect only a small number of people at Vodafone would have had access to such information so with any luck they should be nabbed.


----------



## agricola (Feb 5, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I accept that that is possible but I expect only a small number of people at Vodafone would have had access to such information so with any luck they should be nabbed.


 
Yes, but its precisely those sort of people that the papers / private investigators dealt with, not only with Vodafone but with nearly any public or private body (including the police and NHS) who held data that might be of interest to the story (or in Ian Hislops case, to get his unlisted phone number so a hack could ring him up and brag about it).


----------



## Combustible (Feb 5, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I accept that that is possible but I expect only a small number of people at Vodafone would have had access to such information so with any luck they should be nabbed.


 
It doesn't necessarily require collusion from Vodafone.  Hacks could also phone up Vodafone with easily found personal information, pretending to be the person and claiming they forgot their PIN.


----------



## Santino (Feb 9, 2011)

Ticking along nicely:




			
				The Guardian said:
			
		

> Just a fortnight after reopening their inquiry, in the wake of an 18-month campaign by the Guardian, police said a re-examination of the evidence they had held for years, but failed to fully investigate, combined with new evidence from the Sunday tabloid, had thrown up an "important and immediate new line of inquiry". The new investigation, they said, had already established "reasonable evidence" that up to 20 people, mainly prominent public figures, were targeted by the paper.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/09/phone-hacking-lord-prescott


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 10, 2011)

Read last night that the Fire union dude is thinking of suing the Sun for the same thing after they ran the stories about his extra-marital shagging at the TU Congress, during the LFU strike.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 10, 2011)

So did Coulson lie under oath in the Sheridan perjury trial?  It would extraordinary chutzpah to lie in a perjury trial then again it takes extraordinary chutzpah to pretend he knew nothing about the whole mess.

Is Coulson going to join Sheridan in prison?


----------



## tarannau (Feb 10, 2011)

Combustible said:


> It doesn't necessarily require collusion from Vodafone.  Hacks could also phone up Vodafone with easily found personal information, pretending to be the person and claiming they forgot their PIN.


 
FWIW I know this has happened on more than a few occasions, if only because an acquaintance was working for one of the big operators on key accounts and took phonecalls from a pretend Simon Cowell amongst others.


----------



## elbows (Feb 22, 2011)

Oopsie!

Phone hacking: Senior Met officers dined with News of the World editors

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/22/phone-hacking-police-editor-dinners



> Senior Metropolitan police officers were enjoying private dinners with News of the World editors at the same time as the force was responsible for investigating the phone-hacking scandal, it has been disclosed.
> 
> A list of meetings that Scotland Yard has handed over to the Metropolitan Police Authority, which supervises the service, discloses eight previously unpublicised private dinners and five other occasions during which senior officers met with newspaper executives.
> 
> Two of the dinners came at particularly sensitive moments and are likely to revive fears that Scotland Yard's handling of the phone-hacking scandal may have been compromised by a desire to avoid alienating the UK's biggest-selling newspaper.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

Phone hacking: Mulcaire must reveal who hired him in Coogan case



> In legal actions brought by the comedian Steve Coogan and the former Sky Sports presenter Andy Gray, Mulcaire must now respond to inquiries about the names of News of the World journalists who ordered his services and the identity of celebrities whose phones were hacked.



What's his silence worth?


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2011)

Is NOTW still paying his legal costs?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

..and a lot more quite soon i expect.


----------



## Santino (Mar 11, 2011)

Not going away.



> Prescott was told by the Met in January that his phone messages may have been intercepted by Mulcaire, following its decision to reopen its investigation into phone-hacking. He claimed that further evidence would shortly emerge proving that a journalist at the Sunday Times, another Rupert Murdoch-owned paper, was hacking into mobile phone messages.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/11/police-officer-parliament-phone-hacking


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2011)

More:

Murder trial collapse exposes News of the World links to police corruption



> A man cleared of murder can be named as a private investigator with links to corrupt police officers who earned £150,000 a year from the News of the World for supplying illegally obtained information on people in the public eye.
> 
> Jonathan Rees was acquitted of the murder of his former business partner, Daniel Morgan, who was found in a south London car park in 1987 with an axe in the back of his head. The case collapsed after 18 months of legal argument, during which it has been impossible for media to write about Rees's Fleet Street connections.
> 
> ...


----------



## Santino (Mar 11, 2011)

This just gets better and better/worse and worse.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Mar 11, 2011)

In countries where the press don't resort to spying and blackmail and thuggery to obtain gossip on celebrities, newspapers aren't anything like as interesting.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 11, 2011)

Combustible said:


> It doesn't necessarily require collusion from Vodafone.  Hacks could also phone up Vodafone with easily found personal information, pretending to be the person and claiming they forgot their PIN.


 
Yep I happen to know one of the <insert name of mobile operator here> bods who happened to take a phone call from a pretend Simon Cowell with much the same story. It's actually such a known scam that they had in place a key account team not based in India- something of a selling point for the network in those circles apparently.


----------



## Gingerman (Mar 11, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/11/jonathan-rees-private-investigator-tabloid
More on Rees,looking very icky for Coulson


----------



## laptop (Mar 11, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/11/jonathan-rees-private-investigator-tabloid
> More on Rees,looking very icky for Coulson


 
Indeedy. What a tasty story...



> Rees, who had worked for the paper for seven years, was jailed for planting cocaine on a woman in order to discredit her during divorce proceedings. After his release from prison Rees, who had been bugged for six months by Scotland Yard because of his links with corrupt police officers, was rehired by the News of the World, which was being edited by Andy Coulson.
> 
> The revelations *call into question David Cameron's judgment* in choosing Coulson as director of communications at 10 Downing Street in May 2010. Both he and the deputy prime minister had been warned in March 2010 about Coulson's responsibility for rehiring Rees after his prison sentence.



You don't say


----------



## teqniq (Mar 12, 2011)

Just when you thought it couldn't get any more sordid:



> A man cleared of murder can be named as a private investigator with links to corrupt police officers who earned £150,000 a year from the News of the World for supplying illegally obtained information on people in the public eye.
> 
> Jonathan Rees was acquitted of the murder of his former business partner, Daniel Morgan, who was found in a south London car park in 1987 with an axe in the back of his head. The case collapsed after 18 months of legal argument, during which it has been impossible for media to write about Rees's Fleet Street connections....




http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/11/news-of-the-world-police-corruption


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 13, 2011)

All of these articles are strongly implying police corruption and collusion.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 13, 2011)

The whole Rees/morgan story is _stunning_


----------



## laptop (Mar 13, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> All of these articles are strongly implying police corruption and collusion.


 
Good Lord! A reasonable person could _never_ conclude that from the words used, taken as a whole. Your Honour.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 13, 2011)

With Coulson up to his neck in it, I might add.  I wonder if he's being held onto as a convenient head to roll at the right time.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 13, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> With Coulson up to his neck in it, I might add.  I wonder if he's being held onto as a convenient head to roll at the right time.


more importantly,this gives Cameron a huge problem-and Labour,a golden stick to beat him with


----------



## teqniq (Mar 14, 2011)

More dirt in the graun and on R4 this morning - the guy who used to be an intelligence officer who was on R4 sounded distinctly unhappy: 



> The News of the World phone-hacking scandal is set to reach a new peak of embarrassment for the paper and for Scotland Yard with the naming of the sixth and most senior journalist yet to be implicated in illegal news-gathering.
> 
> A BBC Panorama programme claims that Alex Marunchak, formerly the paper's senior executive editor, commissioned a specialist snooper who illegally intercepted email messages from a target's computer and faxed copies of them to Marunchak's News of the World office.
> 
> The embarrassment is heightened by the fact that the target was a former British army intelligence officer who had served in Northern Ireland and was in possession of secrets which were deemed so sensitive that they had been suppressed by a court order....



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/13/phone-hacking-panorama-names-journalist


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 15, 2011)

Military shit?  The Irish editor having court-restricted stuff stolen...this is beyond celebrity gossip.

That's national security, it's about fucking time a high up MP stepped fucking in and got to grips with this shit.

They are not seriously going to sit back and shut up while all this is coming out? 
  Some independent body should step forward and demand the right to take this over.


----------



## gosub (Mar 16, 2011)

I'd go the other way, affairs of state has a stronger "public interest" defense than poking through Sienna Miller (or whoever else is suing)'s private life


----------



## Santino (Mar 24, 2011)

Yates of the Yard giving evidence to Select Committee right now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167512.stm




			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> The culture, media and sport committee will question John Yates, assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, following comments he made to MPs last year that the Met could only prove that hacking took place in a small number of cases.
> 
> Yates, who may appear before the committee as early as Thursday, told the home affairs select committee in September the Met would only be able to act in about 10-12 cases because the Crown Prosecution Service had adopted a narrow interpretation of the legislation which outlaws it.
> 
> ...


----------



## cemertyone (Mar 24, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Military shit?  The Irish editor having court-restricted stuff stolen...this is beyond celebrity gossip.
> 
> That's national security, it's about fucking time a high up MP stepped fucking in and got to grips with this shit.
> 
> .




A lot of this has to do with the military intelligence officer having had access
to (and dealings with) one of the British governments higher agents within the IRA..suppossed to be 
"steak-knife".....who was the head of their "security unit" and was responsible
for debreifiing their vol`s after there arrests etc etc..
He`s done a runner from Ireland (some say to Italy)...
But its only a matter of time before hes found dead on a beach..either by ex-members or M15..to stop him revealing the truth...


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 24, 2011)

Santino said:


> Yates of the Yard giving evidence to Select Committee right now.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167512.stm


bet he was bloody bricking it!Loved it that him and Keir Starmer have each effectively said the other misled parliament


----------



## laptop (Mar 24, 2011)

Yates / Starmer (Met / Crown Prosecution Service) spat continues: now they've narrowed it down logically to "one of us is lying".


----------



## hiccup (Mar 28, 2011)

http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/...-archive-phone-hacking?cat=media&type=article

Funny they've just found these now.


----------



## laptop (Mar 29, 2011)

hiccup said:


> http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/...-archive-phone-hacking?cat=media&type=article
> 
> Funny they've just found these now.


 
Good Lord! The IT department had backups. Who'd a thunk it? 


Half a terabyte of backup emails...


----------



## Dan U (Mar 29, 2011)

probably took them all this time to cleanse them of the offending emails relating to this case.

plus all the usual OMG GET ME SOME C0CA!NE ones


----------



## ohmyliver (Mar 29, 2011)

I can only hope they get accidentally leaked to the general public.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 29, 2011)

Dan U said:


> probably took them all this time to cleanse them of the offending emails relating to this case.
> 
> *plus all the usual OMG GET ME SOME C0CA!NE ones*


----------



## hiccup (Apr 5, 2011)

Phone hacking: NoW journalists arrested

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/05/phone-hacking-affair-now-journalists-arrested


----------



## Santino (Apr 5, 2011)

LOL


----------



## T & P (Apr 5, 2011)

There have been suggestions in the press recently that the ultimate target of the prosecution might be Rebekah Brooks herself. Here's hoping that's the case


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

I was sorta hoping it'd bring down a large section of the Met and the entire Murdoch empire.

Too ambitious?


----------



## laptop (Apr 5, 2011)

T & P said:


> There have been suggestions in the press recently that the ultimate target of the prosecution might be Rebekah Brooks herself. Here's hoping that's the case


 
Here's hoping that they can find the will and the way to hold the Chief Executive responsible. Wossname. Kane, is it?




















Oh, look. Porcine aviation.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 5, 2011)

ohmyliver said:


> I can only hope they get accidentally leaked to the general public.


 
Yeah that'd be interesting. Could be all sorts of fun things on the Sun / News of the World mailservers ... 

"Protestor killed by plod, you are invited to a meeting to brainstorm smear tactics with met at 3pm"


----------



## Dan U (Apr 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> I was sorta hoping it'd bring down a large section of the Met and the entire Murdoch empire.
> 
> Too ambitious?


 
When I read about James Murdoch getting a recent bump up News Corp and moving to the USA, a part of me did wonder if he was getting out of dodge before the shit hit the fan.


----------



## ymu (Apr 5, 2011)

Dan U said:


> When I read about James Murdoch getting a recent bump up News Corp and moving to the USA, a part of me did wonder if he was getting out of dodge before the shit hit the fan.


 
Yeah, looks that way. Slightly cryptic article from Peter Preston about that. I'm not sure what he's trying to say, or if he's trying to say any more than that.


----------



## Dave Mullen (Apr 5, 2011)

Hopefully Coulson and Brooks will be getting their respective collars felt soon. I think Cameron should be getting nervous due to his friendship with Brooks and the fact that he was aware of Rees before he became P.M.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 5, 2011)

The business of the phone hacking just won't go away lol


----------



## killer b (Apr 5, 2011)

in a car park somewhere, is there a mysterious man telling two hungry young guardian journalists to 'follow the money'?


----------



## laptop (Apr 6, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yeah, looks that way. Slightly cryptic article from Peter Preston about that. I'm not sure what he's trying to say, or if he's trying to say any more than that.


 
I'd love to see the draft of this that went *to* the lawyers:



> Well, for chattering media classes, the nightmare of phone hacking never abates. Scotland Yard's third try at a proper investigation seems like the full Monty at last. More and more names enter the frame week by week. MPs on influential select committees scent much blood to come.
> 
> Could James, who, after all, signed the big cheques that settled some hacking suits, be wounded in this battle himself? Is New York a safety zone out of the line of fire?


----------



## laptop (Apr 6, 2011)

Coming soon to a private security firm near you:


----------



## Santino (Apr 7, 2011)

Naughty boy:



> A Guardian investigation has found that all four leading mobile phone companies dispute evidence that Yates has given to a select committee about police efforts to warn public figures whose voicemails were intercepted by the News of the World.
> 
> During the original police inquiry in 2006 phone companies identified a total of at least 120 politicians, police officers, members of the royal household and others whose voicemail had been accessed by Glenn Mulcaire, the NoW's private investigator. Yates told the home affairs select committee last September that police had "ensured" the phone companies warned all of their suspected victims. But all four companies have told the Guardian police made no such move and that most of the victims were never warned by them.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/07/phone-hacking-john-yates-evidence


----------



## laptop (Apr 8, 2011)

laptop said:


> Coming soon to a private security firm near you:


 
Update: supermarket checkout. If he's lucky.


----------



## mack (Apr 8, 2011)

NOW admits liability http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13014161


----------



## hiccup (Apr 8, 2011)

mack said:


> NOW admits liability http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13014161


 


> "It is now apparent that our previous inquiries failed to uncover important evidence and we acknowledge our actions were not sufficiently robust."



lol


----------



## laptop (Apr 8, 2011)

> The BBC's business editor Robert Peston called it an "absolutely dramatic development". He said the company believed most claims will be settled for less than £100,000 each.
> 
> "I understand the company's hope would be that in total it will pay out less than £20m," he added.
> 
> ...



Fat chance of keeping it to £20M, then


----------



## ymu (Apr 8, 2011)

There's over 3k names on the lists.

And the courts should surely set punitive damages at the same sort of level as the hush money paid out to early complainants?


----------



## agricola (Apr 8, 2011)

ymu said:


> There's over 3k names on the lists.
> 
> And the courts should surely set punitive damages at the same sort of level as the hush money paid out to early complainants?


 
And thats just the NOTW.  Max Clifford is on BBC News 24 now pointing out (as Nick Davies did in _Flat Earth News_, and as many have done on this thread already) that this is in no way limited to the Murdoch papers.


----------



## ymu (Apr 8, 2011)

Indeed. Bankrupting all of them would be nice, but bankrupting NewsCorp would be especially sweet.


----------



## Santino (Apr 8, 2011)

I seem to recall Prescott saying that he didn't need the money and so wouldn't be settling for compensation, so we'll see how that plays out.


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 8, 2011)

mack said:


> NOW admits liability http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13014161


 Def trying to draw a line in the sand,the drip drip effect ob hurting them,hope it dos'nt work


----------



## ymu (Apr 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> I seem to recall Prescott saying that he didn't need the money and so wouldn't be settling for compensation, so we'll see how that plays out.


 
It's hard to see how they can settle any more out of court - well, they can, but the cat is already out of the bag. Would money-grubbing celebs settle for less than the half million to a million mark to keep them out of court?

And if damages were to be awarded via court proceedings, would they decide to use the hush money settlements as a suitable guide to the appropriate amount?

And how many of the several thousand names on their lists would be part of a class action.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 9, 2011)

laptop said:


> Fat chance of keeping it to £20M, then


 
That's what i think what sort of money can they afford .If say one victim accepts 500,000 will the others aim for that or more.If murdoch thinks this is the end i think he is mistaken


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> class action.


 
I had to look up last month what "class action" means in the UK, for other reasons. Answer: not much.

The point of a US-style "class action" is that it can represent an entire class of claimants, named or unnamed - "everyone who had their phone tapped by order of News International," or "everyone mentioned on Mulcaire's lists," say.

A UK "group action" covers only those who specifically sign up to it. The point there would be to minimise the legal fees (for some mind-boggling value of "minimal") on *both* sides.

Now, if you're a sleb, and you can face the up-front costs, the more effective tactic would seem to be to bring a *separate* action. 

You're saying to Murdoch: "you can give me a million now, or you can spend a million fighting it to the Supreme Court and *then* give me £800,000 and my costs as well".


----------



## ymu (Apr 9, 2011)

Cheers.

I can't see the courts allowing zillions of individual cases though. Presumably they can force a group action?


----------



## laptop (Apr 9, 2011)

ymu said:


> I can't see the courts allowing zillions of individual cases though. Presumably they can force a group action?


 
"But then, Mr Murdoch, we feel we have a strong case that we have a distinct interest from the other claimants. We could appeal that... another £200k each side, say?" 

The law - especially the civil law - resembles poker more than anything


----------



## audiotech (Apr 9, 2011)

'George Galloway claims to have seen evidence his phone was tapped.'

http://video.stv.tv/bc/news-election-galloway-20110406/


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 9, 2011)

audiotech said:


> 'George Galloway claims to have seen evidence his phone was tapped.'
> 
> http://video.stv.tv/bc/news-election-galloway-20110406/


 
According to that interview george says he as been offered money,which is very interesting


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 10, 2011)

> Victims of phone hacking by the News of the World have rejected an apology from News International, amid reports further arrests over the scandal are likely.
> 
> The newspaper published a prominent public apology on page two of its print edition today, but the move – which came two days after the parent company issued a similar statement – showed no sign of calming the fury of those affected.
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/10/now-phone-hacking-reject-apology

Meanwhile...



> Rupert Murdoch used his political influence and contacts at the highest levels to try to get Labour MPs and peers to back away from investigations into phone hacking at the News of the World, a former minister in Gordon Brown's government has told the Observer.
> 
> The ex-minister, who does not want to be named, says he is aware of evidence that Murdoch, the chairman of News Corporation, relayed messages to Brown last year via a third party, urging him to help take the political heat out of the row, which he felt was in danger of damaging his company.
> 
> Brown, who stepped down as prime minister after last May's general election defeat for Labour, has refused to comment on the claim, but has not denied it. It is believed that contacts were made before he left No 10. The minister said: "What I know is that Murdoch got in touch with a good friend who then got in touch with Brown. The intention was to get him to cool things down. That is what I was told."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/09/phone-hacking-rupert-murdoch-gordon-brown


Trying to offer cash settlements isn't going to make it go away Murdoch!


----------



## Balbi (Apr 10, 2011)

Is that the sound of Great Birnam wood marching on Wapping?


----------



## rikwakefield (Apr 10, 2011)

I fucking love it.


----------



## Santino (Apr 11, 2011)

Christ almighty:



> Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, blocked an attempt by Gordon Brown before the general election to hold a judicial inquiry into allegations that the News of the World had hacked into the phones of cabinet ministers and other high-profile figures.
> 
> As News International prepares to pay compensation to victims of the illegal practice, the Guardian understands that Britain's most senior civil servant took steps to prevent an inquiry on the grounds that it would be too sensitive before last year's general election.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/10/gordon-brown-hacking-inquiry-civil-service


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Apr 11, 2011)

Well well, what a surprise.  Murdoch leans on UK Government to get his own way. Doubtless Broon bottled a confronation with the Australian one, for fear of losing the Murdoch support.  Murdoch the organ grinder, UK Gov the monkey.  Need anyone say more?


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 11, 2011)

Gets murkier and murkier ,got a feeling NI's appol and compensation ain't going to bring an end to the saga


----------



## Dave Mullen (Apr 11, 2011)

It looks as if N.I. are getting more desperate each day. I strongly suspect that there is more to come out. Seems like Coulson is getting hung out to dry. There is also the potential that he can be done for perjury in respect of his evidence at the Sheridan trial, althhough 

I am quite concerned however that I agreed with what Boris had to say on the matter but I suspect he is only doing that to distance himself from his Bullingdon club mate in the run up to the mayoral election next year.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> Christ almighty:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/10/gordon-brown-hacking-inquiry-civil-service


 
Its almost as if they didn't want to win the election.


----------



## newbie (Apr 11, 2011)

the NOTW is only part of this.  Yates is squirming because of his evidence in front of the select committee.  Although currently a side-story, there's a a separate investigation going on into how much the police have been feeding to the newspapers (paper*s*, this isn't just one bad apple).  In many ways that- and the political influence wielded to cover up the NOTW story- and more serious than watching Murdoch wriggle because his hacks tried to find out about the sex life of some actress.   

John Sergeant was on Question Time on Friday saying that many years ago a tabloid went though his rubbish bin and came up with some allegations, so he went to the police and the detail of his complaint was all over the papers the next day. 

For myself I'm far less concerned about the NOTW exposing sleb hypocrisy, by whatever dodgy subterfuge or 'hacking' (= dialing someone's voicemail and discovering they didn't set a password  )- there's a strong case that is in the public interest in the widest sense- than I am about the police having such a cosy, and paid, relationship with journalists.  That, after all, is how so many stories appear about suspects to some front page case, on the very edge of legality and to my mind, highly prejudicial to any subsequent trail. Think about that landlord bloke arrested but not charged in Bristol a few weeks back.


----------



## Santino (Apr 11, 2011)

newbie said:


> For myself I'm far less concerned about the NOTW exposing sleb hypocrisy, by whatever dodgy subterfuge or 'hacking' (= dialing someone's voicemail and discovering they didn't set a password  )- there's a strong case that is in the public interest in the widest sense-


 
Bollocks. This isn't just about celebrities, it's about a media organisation stealing information from government ministers responsible for regulating and overseeing that media organisation. And, if the rumours are to be believed, it's about a media organisation hacking the phones of the families of children who have been murdered.


----------



## laptop (Apr 11, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Doubtless Broon bottled a confronation with the Australian one, for fear of losing the Murdoch support.



He'd already lost it, hadn't he?

Mind, if they'd gone ahead, the entire election would have been Brown -v- Murdoch dirt-fest.

And then they'd have faced the risk of winning...


----------



## coltrane (Apr 11, 2011)

stephj said:


> Meanwhile...
> 
> Rupert Murdoch used his political influence and contacts at the highest levels to try to get Labour MPs and peers to back away from investigations into phone hacking at the News of the World, a former minister in Gordon Brown's government has told the Observer.
> 
> ...


 

There was a NOTW hack on Radio 5 Live yesterday morning chatting about news in general. 

The NOTW's damage limitation exercise sincere apology on Page 2 was brought up. 

The ex-minister's allegation in the Observer, that Murdoch leaned on Brown to go easy on NOTW, was airily dismissed by the NOTW hack as an "unnamed source".  I choked on my toast i was laughing so much.


----------



## ymu (Apr 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> Bollocks. This isn't just about celebrities, it's about a media organisation stealing information from government ministers responsible for regulating and overseeing that media organisation. And, if the rumours are to be believed, it's about a media organisation hacking the phones of the families of children who have been murdered.


 
I think it has quite a lot to do with the police selling them information and then not investigating the allegations against them, too.


----------



## newbie (Apr 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> Bollocks. This isn't just about celebrities, it's about a media organisation stealing information from government ministers responsible for regulating and overseeing that media organisation.



personally I'm in favour of media scrutiny of politicians.

I'm also in favour of scrutiny of the media, by both politicians and other media.



> And, if the rumours are to be believed, it's about a media organisation hacking the phones of the families of children who have been murdered.


 
That's a rumour I haven't heard.  

However, one story I did read last week involved a woman whose flatmate had an email conversation about her sex life, which was then copied across the internet and reproduced for me to read in the Metro & Sun, with photos.  The treatment she received was outrageous and there is no excuse whatsoever for treating her the way they did.  The same is quite possibly true of the family you mention.  But phone hacking had nothing to do with her story, and the fact that it was used against the family isn't particularly crucial.  

The mechanisms by which the tabloids get their stories vary and sometimes they get something important, like the fake sheik nailing that Ferguson woman for selling access to "prince" Andrew the dodgy arms dealer (who is currently in Indonesia flogging jets to the regime so they can put down their dissidents) and sometimes they target, and hurt, ordinary people, people who've done nothing at all to put themselves into the public eye.  Ensuring press freedom while in some way protecting those who deserve protection is a serious issue, but it's not one that revolves around phone hacking.  

If the News of the World didn't exist we'd have to invent it.


----------



## newbie (Apr 11, 2011)

Santino said:


> Bollocks. This isn't just about celebrities, it's about a media organisation stealing information from government ministers responsible for regulating and overseeing that media organisation.


 
btw do you mean Jowell, the ex minister whose hubby, sorry _estranged_ hubby, is currently on trial for being a mafia bagman?  If so she deserves everything she gets and a whole lot more.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 11, 2011)

The police behavour in the investigation and relation to NI, is quite rightly coming to the fore


----------



## DexterTCN (Apr 11, 2011)

Good. 

George Galloway was pointing out that he was an MP when hacked so it's contempt of parliament.   Didn't that business minister say this stuff couldn't be taken into account for the bsb bid?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 11, 2011)

There were two who were jailed but received substantial payouts from News International. If that payout was in anway conditional on them remaining quiet is there not a possible charge of perversion of the course of justice?


----------



## ymu (Apr 11, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Good.
> 
> George Galloway was pointing out that he was an MP when hacked so it's contempt of parliament.   Didn't that business minister say this stuff couldn't be taken into account for the bsb bid?


 
Apparently, because its been referred on the basis of competition it cannot also be referred on the grounds that they're dodgy fuckers. Sounds like the kind of excuse the CPS would be proud to come up with ...


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2011)

Brooks called in for questioning.



> Detectives investigating illegal news-gathering at the News of the World are planning to question Rebekah Brooks, the paper's former editor who is now Rupert Murdoch's chief executive in the UK, according to police sources.
> 
> The revelation came on the day that Brooks denied to MPs that she had "knowledge of any specific cases" of police officers being paid for information by any newspaper – despite having told MPs eight years ago that her journalists had paid officers in the past.
> 
> ...


----------



## laptop (Apr 12, 2011)

> In a joint statement on Monday Yates and Starmer said: "Neither of us had responsibility for this case at the time it was originally prosecuted. We have, therefore, both sought to interpret, as best we can, the original documentation and the recollections of those involved. The relevant information is now in the public domain.
> 
> "We, and others in our organisations, would now like to focus together on the current investigation, in the same way that we work closely and constructively on a daily basis on numerous other cases and complex issues."
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/11/rebekah-brooks-phone-hacking



Translation: our respective PR departments have banged our heads together. We have established in our evidence to Parliament that one of us us lying, to Parliament. *Please* do not ask which.


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2011)

Sounds about right.


----------



## Badgers (Apr 12, 2011)

38 Degrees email: 



> We've teamed up with Avaaz to demand the government calls a full inquiry into phone hacking, and halt the BSkyB takeover process until all the facts have been established. [3] We will be delivering the emergency petition this Friday.


http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/Murdoch_BSkyB_takeover_phone_hacking_petition#petition


----------



## hiccup (Apr 12, 2011)

Oh _bravo_:

http://www.newstatesman.com/newspapers/2011/04/phone-yeah-cameron-murdoch



> Me: So, have you been leant on by the NoW, News International, since you blew the whistle?
> 
> Him: No, they've kept their distance. I mean, there's people who have much better records - my records are non-existent. There are people who actually have tapes and transcripts they did for Andy Coulson.
> 
> ...


----------



## teqniq (Apr 12, 2011)

^^
Hehehe.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2011)

News of the World assistant news editor James Weatherup has been arrested...Guardian newsflash thing

edit: that's twice today they've flashed an untrue story - it's a 'senior journalist'.


----------



## Badgers (Apr 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> News of the World assistant news editor James Weatherup has been arrested...Guardian newsflash thing


 
This is the best news I have had all day, just mentioned on the BBC radio too


----------



## hiccup (Apr 14, 2011)

story on the beeb now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13078353


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 14, 2011)

Hugh Grant - Bugging the Bugger 

Great piece 


> Me But if you could, would you think that was illegal? Do you think that should be illegal?
> Him I'd have to say quite possibly, yeah. I'd say that should be illegal.
> Me But a mobile phone - a digital phone . . . you'd say it'd be all right to tap that?
> Him I'm not sure about that. So we went from a point where anyone could listen in to anything. Like you, me, journalists could listen in to corrupt politicians, and this is why we have a reasonably fair society and a not particularly corrupt or criminal prime minister, whereas other countries have Gaddafi. Do you think it's right the only person with a decent digital scanner these days is the government? Whereas 20 years ago we all had a go? Are you comfortable that the only people who can listen in to you now are - is it MI5 or MI6?


----------



## nick h. (Apr 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> News of the World assistant news editor James Weatherup has been arrested...Guardian newsflash thing
> 
> edit: that's twice today they've flashed an untrue story - it's a 'senior journalist'.


 
He was News Editor several years ago when I sold him a story. I can't say I'm surprised he's caught up in this. Then again, who isn't guilty? I haven't read the thread, so apologies if this has been said, but all the tabloids and plenty of the broadsheets have been behaving as if they're MI5 for years. Going through bins, putting tracking devices on cars, buying secrets from hotel staff, secretaries, nurses, gym employees etc. Look how brazen Rebekah Wade was about bribing the Police - she thinks it's normal. No doubt wi-fi hacking is rife. They probably think it's no worse than telephoto lenses and directional microphones. Everything is justifiable when you're chasing a story - it's all in the public interest! The only surprise in all this is that the Guardian is ratting people out. Journalists are supposed to look after each other. They often move from a tabloid to a broadsheet or the other way. So nobody spits in the soup. Privacy laws hurt everyone. Perhaps the Guardian thinks it's whiter than white? Or that fucking over Murdoch and the Tories justifies the breaking of omerta?  Where will it all end?


----------



## Kippa (Apr 15, 2011)

If it is proven that phone tapping abuse was systemic in some/most/all of Murdoch's media outlet that this could be big enough to bring the Murdoch empire down?


----------



## Santino (Apr 15, 2011)

> A criminal investigation into claims journalists paid police officers for information is being considered by Scotland Yard, it has been confirmed.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13092045


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Hugh Grant - Bugging the Bugger
> 
> Great piece


That _almost_ earns him a pardon from the revolutionary firing squad that _Love, Actually_ earnt him.
good show, useless posh twat


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

nick h. said:


> The only surprise in all this is that the Guardian is ratting people out. Journalists are supposed to look after each other. They often move from a tabloid to a broadsheet or the other way. So nobody spits in the soup. Privacy laws hurt everyone. Perhaps the Guardian thinks it's whiter than white? Or that fucking over Murdoch and the Tories justifies the breaking of omerta?


I believe it's their attempt to stop the BSkyB buy-up


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> _Love, Actually_


Revolting film


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 15, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Revolting film


indeed - hence the reevolutionary firing squad.
Mine will be a revolution with _exquisite_ taste


----------



## newbie (Apr 15, 2011)

Santino said:


> > A criminal investigation into claims journalists paid police officers for information is being considered by Scotland Yard, it has been confirmed.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13092045



curious, isn't it, that the police didn't think it worth following that up in 2003.  Coincidence, of course, that just then a certain prime minister needed all the political help he could get.  And another coincidence that the whole hacking story has only really resurfaced since the last election.


----------



## agricola (Apr 15, 2011)

newbie said:


> Curious, isn't it, that the police didn't think it worth following that up in 2003.  Coincidence, of course, that just then a certain prime minister needed all the political help he could get.  And another coincidence that the whole hacking story has only really resurfaced since the last election.



I dunno, they were following up similar allegations as part of Operation Motorman at much the same time as Wade made these comments, and that investigation did contain allegations that police employees (both officers and staff, albeit it was only a civilian that faced charges) had been paid for information.


----------



## newbie (Apr 15, 2011)

well yes, the scandal was exposed, acknowledged and then quietly ignored so that no boats were rocked, particularly boats that might have political implications.  

Now, of a sudden, there's 45 cops working on phone hacking and a possible investigation into remarks made 8 years ago.  It's hard to believe that there isn't something going on below the surface.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 16, 2011)

It still seems a case that seems to need someone to start talking on. They need to get some weight on someone to start naming names and going up the food chain.


----------



## stavros (Apr 16, 2011)

Has it been raised in either House yet? Prescott, as a victim, would be the obvious source for the Lords, especially now out of government he seems to have miraculously found the ability to criticise the Murdoch press.


----------



## Santino (Apr 16, 2011)

Tom Watson has been on it for a long time in the Commons.


----------



## stavros (Apr 17, 2011)

You're right, I had seen him but somehow forgot about it. Have the Lords woken from their slumbers at all to discuss it?


----------



## Santino (Apr 17, 2011)

One Lord has:


----------



## laptop (May 12, 2011)

Phone hacking: How the Met 'misled courts, parliament and public' Grauniad is relentless: bless!


----------



## ymu (May 12, 2011)

laptop said:


> Phone hacking: How the Met 'misled courts, parliament and public' Grauniad is relentless: bless!


Yeah, the Guardian does give good mission.


----------



## Santino (May 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> Yeah, the Guardian does give good mission.


 
They must either think that they're in the clear of any similar accusations, or be desperate to establish their credentials as the anti-hacking paper in the hope that any mud that does come their way doesn't stick too much.


----------



## laptop (May 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> They must either think that they're in the clear of any similar accusations, or be desperate to establish their credentials as the anti-hacking paper in the hope that any mud that does come their way doesn't stick too much.


 
I seem to recall that the _Observer_ was in the frame.

As with the _Sun_ and _NotW_, no love lost there


----------



## ymu (May 12, 2011)

Santino said:


> They must either think that they're in the clear of any similar accusations, or be desperate to establish their credentials as the anti-hacking paper in the hope that any mud that does come their way doesn't stick too much.


 
They're not the kind of paper that is likely to have any problems. Which is why they were the only media outlet plugging away at this for so long. The smug editorial line is unbearable, but they're worth checking for the stuff no one else will publish - Tomlinson video was them, phone-hacking their exclusive for a long time, wikileaks, the Palestine Papers. They do a lot of good content that just isn't to be found many other  mainstream places. And for that, they deserve some praise.


----------



## agricola (May 12, 2011)

ymu said:


> They're not the kind of paper that is likely to have any problems. Which is why they were the only media outlet plugging away at this for so long. The smug editorial line is unbearable, but they're worth checking for the stuff no one else will publish - Tomlinson video was them, phone-hacking their exclusive for a long time, wikileaks, the Palestine Papers. They do a lot of good content that just isn't to be found many other  mainstream places. And for that, they deserve some praise.


 
I dunno, on this issue at least I think the main driving factor is that Nick Davies happens to work for them.


----------



## stethoscope (May 13, 2011)

100k damages payout to Sienna Miller
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13390991


----------



## Santino (May 23, 2011)

Apparently at one time the News of the World was hacking... other Murdoch-owned newspapers. 



> The original police inquiry in 2006 found evidence that Mulcaire had succeeded in intercepting the voicemail of the then editor of the Sun, Rebekah Brooks. The current police inquiry is believed to have discovered that Mulcaire also targeted the Sun's former editor and columnist Kelvin MacKenzie. Both would have been rich sources of intelligence about the Sun's activities.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/22/phone-hacking-journalist-lawsuit


----------



## Streathamite (May 23, 2011)

Santino said:


> Apparently at one time the News of the World was hacking... other Murdoch-owned newspapers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh yes! That is just too beee-yooo-tiful for words!


----------



## Santino (May 23, 2011)

News on whether there will be a judicial review on phone hacking is imminent.


----------



## laptop (May 23, 2011)

Santino said:


> News on whether there will be a judicial review on phone hacking is imminent.


 
There is a judicial review - Prescott, Brian et al. 

Are we expecting a result already, or another one?


----------



## pk (May 23, 2011)

laptop said:


> There is a judicial review - Prescott, Brian et al.
> 
> Are we expecting a result already, or another one?


 
Prescott initially lost his appeal for a judicial review to take place - now it appears he's been granted his review.

This should put some bent cops in the dock.


----------



## Santino (May 23, 2011)

Story here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/23/phone-hacking-lord-prescott



> Lord Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, on Monday won his latest bid to mount a legal challenge over the Metropolitan police's handling of the News of the World phone-hacking case.
> 
> He and three others – Labour MP Chris Bryant, former Scotland Yard deputy assistant commissioner Brian Paddick and journalist Brendan Montague – had asked a high court judge to give them the go-ahead for a judicial review.


----------



## Streathamite (May 23, 2011)

Santino said:


> Story here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/23/phone-hacking-lord-prescott


useful that an ex-top cop, an ex-dep PM AND a hack are common plaintiffs on this one, as it were


----------



## DexterTCN (May 31, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/31/phone-hacking-ali-dizaei

Ali Dizaei has another thread on another matter but this is relevant here.



> Dizaei said he was "shocked and appalled" after detectives told him his police phone may have been hacked.


You have to wonder when the police found out that police phones were being hacked and what action they took after the discovery.   

This must surely be a much more serious criminal offence given that it would have been used for operational matters.

The Sky News link http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Phone-Hacking-Ali-Dizaei-Is-Told-He-May-Have-Been-Targeted-By-News-Of-The-World/Article/201105416002907?lpos=UK_News_First_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_16002907_Phone_Hacking%3A_Ali_Dizaei_Is_Told_He_May_Have_Been_Targeted_By_News_Of_The_World
(a redirect from a google news link, don't know why)
...shows that they are shitting themselves - look at the emphasis in red, the posting of the notw apology.

Two policemen now...one openly gay and outspoken on cannabis and one active in supporting coloured plods, both of whom were (as far as I can recall) the subject of some scrutiny from the force.


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Two policemen now...one openly gay and outspoken on cannabis and one active in supporting coloured plods, both of whom were (as far as I can recall) the subject of some scrutiny from the force.




No wonder a Scotland Yard press officer was seen (as I recall the report) "wildly waving his arms about" and strongly suggesting that the force shouldn't touch the Murdoch papers.


----------



## DexterTCN (May 31, 2011)

Which implies the force was...is...still protecting certain parts of the media for reasons unknown.


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Which implies the force was...is...still protecting certain parts of the media for reasons unknown.


 
I'd suggest symbiosis.

Take, for example, all the contempt of court (or sailing close to the wind) that the press indulge in - based on quite innocent unguarded coppers' comments - between arrest and charge of high-profile suspects, as discussed here whenever there's a _crime celebre_. It must make convictions so much easier to obtain.

Particularly when Dizaei and Paddick were going through various hearings...


----------



## Streathamite (May 31, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Which implies the force was...is...still protecting certain parts of the media for reasons unknown.


not just that; it's that they've got in so deep with the murdoch empire that they can't extricate from that or hide the fact, so they prolly think they might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb


----------



## DexterTCN (May 31, 2011)

Large parts of both most likely, guys.  In fact probably the same thing just as much.   More interesting court cases to come, surely.


----------



## ymu (May 31, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Which implies the force was...is...still protecting certain parts of the media for reasons unknown.


 
Does it need to be any more complex than the coppers on the Murdoch payroll, often feeding private dicks leads fr hacking purposes as well as getting paid direct for leaks?


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2011)

ymu said:


> Does it need to be any more complex than the coppers on the Murdoch payroll, often feeding private dicks leads fr hacking purposes as well as getting paid direct for leaks?


 
That's basically a "bad apple" theory.

Senior press officers, for example, didn't get there by being stupid enough to take cash. They get paid loads for being completely the creatures of the command - who (these days) probably didn't take cash either.

They calculate _interests_. Politically.

I would hope that these questions can be explored at judicial review


----------



## DexterTCN (May 31, 2011)

ymu said:


> Does it need to be any more complex than the coppers on the Murdoch payroll, often feeding private dicks leads fr hacking purposes as well as getting paid direct for leaks?


Sitting MPs, high profile policemen?   They wouldn't shit where they eat in cases like that.


----------



## Streathamite (May 31, 2011)

somehow, I think the names Rees, Whittamore and mulcaire are gonna occupy a LOT of print space over the next few months!


----------



## agricola (Jun 2, 2011)

laptop said:


> That's basically a "bad apple" theory.
> 
> Senior press officers, for example, didn't get there by being stupid enough to take cash. They get paid loads for being completely the creatures of the command - who (these days) probably didn't take cash either.
> 
> ...


 
I have said this oft times on this thread - but IMHO the way the Met has dealt with this is probably more about the complexity, scale, potential rewards of (the _Motorman_ defendants got conditional discharges), likely grief that would result and difficulty involved in any wide-ranging, fair and comprehensive investigation, than it is about protecting corrupt cops (though of course its almost certain that there are officers and staff who have been acting corruptly on behalf of the media).  

What went on at News International is not unique, indeed if _Flat Earth News_ and previous enquiries are any indication they were by no means the worst offenders.  An investigation that looked at everything that had gone on (which it would probably have to, in order to be fair) would require hundreds of cops, months of work, would come up against the active opposition of almost the entire print media, its political hangers-on (who was it Coulson worked for again?) and a small army of lawyers, and even if they did get convictions, they might only result (as _Motorman_ did) in sentences that might be termed piffling.  It would make cash-for-honours seem low-key and uncontroversial by comparison.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Sitting MPs, high profile policemen?   They wouldn't shit where they eat in cases like that.


 Ya think?

Precisely why the desperate attempts at cover-up innit. Paddick and Dizaiei were both brought down from within. There's some serious shit to come out here.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 2, 2011)

ymu said:


> Ya think?
> 
> Precisely why the desperate attempts at cover-up innit. Paddick and Dizaiei were both brought down from within. There's some serious shit to come out here.


actually, Paddick wasn't. The Daily Fail did for him as Commander of Lambeth cops, but he was subsequently promoted to DAC, and then retired some time after. Also, dizaei was convicted of trying to frame someone (he's now out on appeal), so I'd like to see the case for either of them being 'brought down from within' (but |I'd agree they had enemies 'within', as the most senior gay copper and asian copper, respectively)


----------



## laptop (Jun 2, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> actually, Paddick wasn't. The Daily Fail did for him as Commander of Lambeth cops, but he was subsequently promoted to DAC, and then retired some time after.



But there _was_ a leaking campaign against him while he was DAC (around unfounded allegations concerning a boyfriend - I think these got as far as an internal Met investigation but not sure); and soon after that he was made DAC I/C paperclips as a heavy hint that he _should_ retire.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2011)

laptop said:


> But there _was_ a leaking campaign against him while he was DAC (around unfounded allegations concerning a boyfriend - I think these got as far as an internal Met investigation but not sure); and soon after that he was made DAC I/C paperclips as a heavy hint that he _should_ retire.


Exactly. And tgat Dizaei was bent doesn't mean they weren't out to get him.

This is power struggles in the Met and some dirty laundry at least one faction is determined to hide.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 2, 2011)

laptop said:


> But there _was_ a leaking campaign against him while he was DAC (around unfounded allegations concerning a boyfriend - I think these got as far as an internal Met investigation but not sure); and soon after that he was made DAC I/C paperclips as a heavy hint that he _should_ retire.


no, you're conflating the two.the boyfriend allegations were the _Mail_ thing, the internal bust-up was over De Menezes, (someone as yet unidentified trying to shift blame onto him , and BC reching foer his lawyers) with most of the latter unproven. Paddick did get sidelined into the 'paperclips' job tho, but my understanding of it was that he was only to glad to retire (full pension, natch) by that point.
e2a; reason why he was glad to go was that the only met job he ever really loved was Lambeth Commander


----------



## laptop (Jun 2, 2011)

I'd better shut up now, because I'm forgetting at the moment what I heard from whom and under what conditions


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 2, 2011)

laptop said:


> I'd better shut up now, because I'm forgetting at the moment what I heard from whom and under what conditions


worry not - we've known each other long enough etc. you're thinking of James renolleaux, Paddick's ex, who was given *£100k and a one-way plane ticket out of the country* by the _Mail_, in return for alleging he smoked spliff in Paddick's presence. Oddly, the Met supported him to the hilt over that (one can only presume they wanted exclusive rights to stitching up their employees...)


----------



## Santino (Jun 8, 2011)

It won't go away.



> Pressure is building on the Metropolitan police to expand their phone-hacking inquiry to include a notorious private investigator who was accused in the House of Commons on Wednesday of targeting politicians, members of the royal family and high-level terrorist informers on behalf of Rupert Murdoch's News International.
> 
> 
> Guardian inquiries reveal that the former prime minister Tony Blair is among the suspected victims of Jonathan Rees, who was involved in the theft of confidential data, the hacking of computers and, it is alleged, burglary. According to close associates of Rees, he also targeted:
> ...





http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/08/phone-hacking-kate-middleton-tony-blair


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2011)

That was the guy who walked after the case against him collapsed, over the Daniel Morgan murder, morgan being the guy who was about to blow the roof off a network of corrupt cops and private dicks in S E London. Rees almost defines 'dodgy'.
Oh this is getting juicier and juicier


----------



## laptop (Jun 8, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> juicier and juicier


 


> The Guardian has previously identified other suspected targets of Rees, including Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger, George Michael, Linford Christie, Gary Lineker, Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan, and the family of the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe.



Whee...  Can't not be a _NotW_ story, can it? Oh, wait...


----------



## laptop (Jun 8, 2011)

> According to journalists and investigators who worked with him, Rees exploited his position as a freemason to make links with masonic police officers who illegally sold him information



Uh-oh... will News International manage to set up a smokescreen of tinfoil?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2011)

laptop said:


> Uh-oh... will News International manage to set up a smokescreen of tinfoil?


don't think it'll work, this one's too far gone, and dumping on the NOTW may be the only way for the met to lessen the shower of shit they themselves are in.
in fact, to me this looks like the murdoch press's biggest f-up since Hillsborough
e2a; especially now that saint Kate of middleton is involved!


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 8, 2011)

*John Yates, who later supervised the failed phone-hacking inquiry for 19 months;*

It's worth repeating...isn't it. 

I'm nearly in tears just now.


----------



## Gingerman (Jun 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> It won't go away.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice to see this back in the news,gotten a bit quiet recently on the old hacking front.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 9, 2011)

lolz



> Other police contacts are said to have been blackmailed into providing confidential information. One of Rees's former associates claims that Rees had compromising photographs of serving officers, including one who was caught in a drunken state with a couple of prostitutes and with a toilet seat around his neck.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/08/phone-hacking-scandal-jonathan-rees


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 9, 2011)

> An investigator who worked for Rees claims he was also occasionally commissioning burglaries of public figures to steal material for newspapers. Southern Investigations has previously been implicated in handling paperwork that was stolen by a professional burglar from the safe of Paddy Ashdown's lawyer, when Ashdown was leader of the Liberal Democrats. The paperwork, which was eventually obtained by the News of the World, recorded Ashdown discussing his fears that newspapers might expose an affair with his secretary.


----------



## ymu (Jun 9, 2011)

Keep digging, The Met. We'd like this hole deep enough to bury you and News International together. 

Pauper's grave is fine, but make it good and deep.

Maybe line with garlic, if you have time for any fancy touches.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 9, 2011)

More on Rees and the coppers "on the square"
Oh, this gift that keeps on giving...


> The Guardian has been told that Rees spoke openly about obtaining confidential data belonging to senior politicians and recorded their names in his paperwork. One source close to Rees claims that apart from Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell, he also targeted Gaynor Regan, who became the second wife of the former foreign secretary Robin Cook; the former shadow home secretary Sir Gerald Kaufman; and the former Tory cabinet minister David Mellor.


----------



## laptop (Jun 9, 2011)

From what looks like a catch-up rewrite in the Indy:



> Among the other targets were the former Conservative MP David Mellor, who as the former national heritage secretary threatened tighter regulation of the press and who was subsequently disgraced for his affair with an actress obtained with the help of covert recording equipment.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...glary-fraud-and-computer-viruses-2294967.html



If that recording equipment does what it says here, can I have some?


----------



## stavros (Jun 9, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Nice to see this back in the news,gotten a bit quiet recently on the old hacking front.


 
It's only the Graun pushing though isn't it? In the mainstream press at least. My parent's Torygraph had a gigantic picture of Middleton on the cover this morning then a very short article. Bit surprised the Indie and the Beeb aren't digging into the Digger too.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 9, 2011)

stavros said:


> It's only the Graun pushing though isn't it? In the mainstream press at least. My parent's Torygraph had a gigantic picture of Middleton on the cover this morning then a very short article. Bit surprised the Indie and the Beeb aren't digging into the Digger too.


WRT the Indie and the Torygraph, that maybe because of the long-standing unwritten convention that newspapers don't investigate other 'papers misdeeds


----------



## stavros (Jun 9, 2011)

The would account for the Torygraph, as well as the Mirror, Fail, Express et al, but aren't the Indie and the Graun competing for a similar demographic?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 9, 2011)

stavros said:


> The would account for the Torygraph, as well as the Mirror, Fail, Express et al, but aren't the Indie and the Graun competing for a similar demographic?


sure, but if I was to back any paper to 'rebel' against that convention, it would be the Graun rather than the Indie. Their occasional bouts of quirky awkwardness are their redeeming feature


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 9, 2011)

I'm sure a lot of the other papers, primarily the tabloids, were at it as well.   Not on the same scale, most likely.

I'm sure most papers respect the unwritten rule that they don't go for each other but now we have targeting of people who were directly involved in the (so-called) policing of the press (Kaufman, Mellor,) the senior plod of the (so-called) original investigation into the hacking claims and apparent complicity all over the place, a plod famous for hunting corrupt cops....fucking everyone?   This is possibly the biggest story in this country ever.    

Bugging, blackmailing, bribing, lying in court, complicity in so much shit.   With the weight of the police and murdoch's lot along with ...well along with anyone they could bully, blackmail, buy.     



> “The Metropolitan Police are in possession of paperwork which details the dealings of criminal private investigator Jonathan Rees. It strongly suggests that on behalf of News International he was illegally targeting members of the Royal Family, senior politicians and high-level terrorist informants. Yet the head Operation Weeting has recently written to me to explain that this evidence may be outside her terms of reference.”
> 
> Mr Cameron said he was unaware of any terms of reference governing the Met’s investigation, adding: “They are able to look at any evidence and all evidence they can find.”



Cameron is unaware of any terms of reference.....what a normal person would be called no go areas?

I would have thought that, seeing as how he lost Coulson through this...he would be very aware of the 'terms of reference'.   What is he some fucking dummy that isn't paying attention to this?  My bum.   He probably laid out the terms of reference himself.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 9, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Cameron is unaware of any terms of reference.....what a normal person would be called no go areas?
> 
> I would have thought that, seeing as how he lost Coulson through this...he would be very aware of the 'terms of reference'.   What is he some fucking dummy that isn't paying attention to this?  My bum.   He probably laid out the terms of reference himself.


Yeah, my jaw dropped at that bit as well. bollocks is he unaware. he must think people are really stupid, to think they'll fall for that


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 9, 2011)

Alistair Campbell just brought it up on This Week, BBC1.


----------



## agricola (Jun 10, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> I'm sure a lot of the other papers, primarily the tabloids, were at it as well.   Not on the same scale, most likely.


 
Actually it was (at least based on the Information Commissioners investigation into Whittamore) the _Mail_ who were the worst offenders.  As for "terms of reference", Cameron was actually correct - albeit with the proviso that I am sure he, the rest of the political class and the wider print media would desperately hope the investigation *does* have terms of reference limiting it to those bad apples at News International, otherwise as you say this massive scandal is more likely to see the light of day, and lots of people will be off to jail (probably for proper terms now, not the joke sentence that Whittamore et al got).


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 10, 2011)

I read that excellent Nick Davies Guadian article about Jonathan Rees this morning -- it's a follow up of the first one by Davies about him, a couple of months ago. The first one came straight after that murder trial collapsed and dug up enough dodgy shit of its own, but this second one is pretty damned juicy too.

My question is, how easy will it be for the Police at all, to be able to avoid extending their investigation to cover the Rees related areas? Ther's talk in the article of them having already seized 'boxes and boxes' of Rees' paperwork.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 10, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> I'm sure a lot of the other papers, primarily the tabloids, were at it as well.   Not on the same scale, most likely.
> 
> I'm sure most papers respect the unwritten rule that they don't go for each other but now we have targeting of people who were directly involved in the (so-called) policing of the press (Kaufman, Mellor,) the senior plod of the (so-called) original investigation into the hacking claims and apparent complicity all over the place, a plod famous for hunting corrupt cops....fucking everyone?   This is possibly the biggest story in this country ever.


actually, you have a point there. It's astonishing the other 'papers aren't covering it; i can only assume they're scared shitless of their misdeeds coming out


----------



## agricola (Jun 10, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> My question is, how easy will it be for the Police at all, to be able to avoid extending their investigation to cover the Rees related areas? Ther's talk in the article of them having already seized 'boxes and boxes' of Rees' paperwork.


 
It depends - on the one hand there is the pressure from the Guardian and (more importantly, unless they pay everyone off) the ongoing legal issues which should mean the investigation has to be seen to be as thorough and wide-ranging as possible, but on the other hand there is the strong interest that nearly everyone involved has (including the various Labour figures, who lets not forget were quite happy to see all this going on when they were in power) in that it doesnt turn into some kind of great purge* of Fleet Street and its hangers-on.

* albeit unlike the Soviet example this one will probably have been well-deserved


----------



## laptop (Jun 15, 2011)

And Ryan Giggs piles in


----------



## laptop (Jun 16, 2011)

And now it seems that Rebecca Brooks had her phone hacked.

That'd be the editor of the _Scum_, hacked by the _News of the Screws_


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 16, 2011)

they've gone and hacked _one of their own?_ Fucking priceless!


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 16, 2011)

This may also be Brookes starting to cover her own arse.  And the beeb have that link in entertainment and arts for some reason.


----------



## stavros (Jun 16, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> And the beeb have that link in entertainment and arts for some reason.


 
I suppose it is quite good fun to watch and hope for the Dirty Digger's empire to implode. I'm not holding my breath though.


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2011)

There's got to be a decent chance that he'll die before it's all resolved.


----------



## stavros (Jun 16, 2011)

Santino said:


> There's got to be a decent chance that he'll die before it's all resolved.


 
Isn't Mummy Murdoch still alive though, at somewhere over 100? If not, I think she snuffed it fairly recently, so family history suggests we may have to live under his rule somewhat longer.


----------



## ymu (Jun 17, 2011)

It would certainly be interesting to know how much in damages NI can afford before the whole business is threatened.

Anyone got an idea. Cos this is potentially billions just on what we know so far.


----------



## stavros (Jun 17, 2011)

stavros said:


> Isn't Mummy Murdoch still alive though, at somewhere over 100? If not, I think she snuffed it fairly recently, so family history suggests we may have to live under his rule somewhat longer.


 
She is still about, at 102.


----------



## laptop (Jun 17, 2011)

ymu said:


> It would certainly be interesting to know how much in damages NI can afford before the whole business is threatened.
> 
> Anyone got an idea. Cos this is potentially billions just on what we know so far.



Bit difficult to disentangle the accounts of all the tax-haven companies


----------



## stavros (Jun 22, 2011)

I browse my parents' copy of the Torygraph, and it was noticeable how little of the NI-Met-hacking story they've covered, perhaps because it might involve charges of hypocrasy. Today they give a reasonably-sized space to the Ryan Cleary story. Good to have things in proportion.


----------



## laptop (Jun 23, 2011)

39-year-old woman, not a journalist, arrested in Yorkshire...


----------



## Santino (Jun 23, 2011)

The News of the World confirm that she was not a *full-time* member of staff.

Glad they've cleared that up.


----------



## stavros (Jun 23, 2011)

A lot of their stories, at least those not just copied off the wires, will be written by freelancers, won't they? Thus, they won't officially be members of NI/NOTW staff.


----------



## laptop (Jun 27, 2011)

laptop said:


> 39-year-old woman, not a journalist, arrested in Yorkshire...


 
Now:



> The woman, believed to be Terenia Taras, contributed more than 30 stories for the News of the World as a freelance between 1998 and 2004, although Scotland Yard would not confirm this.
> 
> A spokesman for Scotland Yard said she had been bailed to return to a West Yorkshire police station in mid-October.
> 
> ...



This is starting to sound strangely familiar, but I can't work out why...

It's in a story about another journalist being arrested... no details of that one yet.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 27, 2011)

"If your enemy is stronger than you, attack him at the corners."  (kinda)  Sun Tsu, The Art of War.

Jail and a destroyed reputation (of whatever ilk) is a horror for most journos I'm sure but those under the NI umbrella will be sure that they'll be looked after (to a degree) when they come out.

The freelancers not so much?  But their testimony could be cumulatively damning.   Or indeed their off-the-record finger pointing could be very interesting.

On the other hand it could be the start of the dilution of NI culpability, starting to drip, drip tar others more and more.

Or a bit of both.


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Jail and a destroyed reputation (of whatever ilk) is a horror for most journos I'm sure but those under the NI umbrella will be sure that they'll be looked after (to a degree) when they come out.


 
Only to the extent that it generates a profit for the shareholders.


----------



## stavros (Jul 3, 2011)

Yes Rupert, whatever you say Rupert.


----------



## Santino (Jul 4, 2011)

Holy fucking Christ.




			
				The Guardian said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 4, 2011)

Blimey, journo's really will go to any lengths to get their story.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 4, 2011)

Fucking hell.


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 4, 2011)

Fuck me, how low were they willing to go to get a story.  I can only imagine how that would have messed with the families emotions at the time, it would have been a such a strong ray of light to think she was receiving and deleating her messages, awful.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 4, 2011)

Santino said:


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


fuck me, that is just about as low as you could ever get


----------



## ymu (Jul 4, 2011)

Bury them.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 4, 2011)

wonder if the rest of the media will pick this up now a tabloid favourite has been treated fucking disgracefully

scum.


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2011)

The killer blow, surely? They can fuck with politicians, clebs and royalty with impunity, but murdered kids will surely raise the ire of the british public?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 4, 2011)

betcha no tabloid will rin with that story - shamefully


----------



## magneze (Jul 4, 2011)

killer b said:


> The killer blow, surely? They can fuck with politicians, clebs and royalty with impunity, but murdered kids will surely raise the ire of the british public?


+1


----------



## tarannau (Jul 4, 2011)

You wish. It'll be shushed under the carpet again. Murdoch may make a visit over again for PR shots of 'angryface' once more, they'll vow to turn over a new leaf and Hunt will wave the takeover through and consolidate their market position regardless. Be nice to think it'll be different, but the chances of this Govt wanting to upset Murdoch will be zero. Expect a minor slap on the wrists and some token prosecutions at best, some folks hung out to dry.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 4, 2011)

http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk...t_to_sue_News_of_the_World_for_phone_hacking/
They were desprate to prove Stagg was the murderer,even tried to set him up it seems.


----------



## ymu (Jul 4, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk...t_to_sue_News_of_the_World_for_phone_hacking/


 
Come on Colin. You get 'em.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 4, 2011)

I'm now praying for the Dowlers to either sue, or take out a private criminal prosecution, although I'd quite understand it if they just wanted the whole world to leave them alone for good.


----------



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

Streathamite said:


> I'm now praying for the Dowlers to either sue, or take out a private criminal prosecution


 
or a contract


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> or a contract


I'd certainly not object to that either, provided the subject of it was senior enough in the hierarchy at Stalag Colditz
e2a: like a murdoch, brooks, or any senior editor or exec
e2aa: I meant Stalag Wapping, of course!


----------



## laptop (Jul 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I'm now praying for the Dowlers to either sue,



_Guardian_ says they are suing...



> or take out a private criminal prosecution



It'd be a scandal if the CPS didn't now bring a public prosecution, including Brooks...


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

laptop said:


> It'd be a scandal if the CPS didn't now bring a public prosecution, including Brooks...


 
I agree, but they probably will fail to do so, for the reasons already identified.  

TBH I think Boris's idea about having a sort of truth and reconciliation commission approach to this is probably the best way to sort the problem out long-term, albeit of course with financial penalties for the guilty (paid out as compensation for the victims), a requirement for full disclosure, and savage punishments for attempted concealment, or for offences carried out during the process, or after the process has finished.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 5, 2011)

laptop said:


> _Guardian_ says they are suing


oh, let it happen....


----------



## laptop (Jul 5, 2011)

agricola said:


> I agree, but they probably will fail to do so, for the reasons already identified.



Then - take note Keir Starmer and Paul Stephenson both - there fucking better be a judicial review of the decision not to prosecute; and I think I know who'd be up for demanding one; and you're both toast if they get one. 

This isn't about the Computer Misuse Act any more. This is tampering with (potential) evidence and obstructing the police in the course of an investigation.


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

laptop said:


> This isn't about the Computer Misuse Act any more. This is tampering with (potential) evidence and obstructing the police in the course of an investigation.


 
Its not though - this misbehaviour is a minor part of a much wider, much worse and profoundly more disgusting scandal.   It is that scandal that needs to be dealt with, otherwise stuff like this, and worse, will keep happening.


----------



## laptop (Jul 5, 2011)

agricola said:


> Its not though - this misbehaviour is a minor part of a much wider, much worse and profoundly more disgusting scandal.   It is that scandal that needs to be dealt with, otherwise stuff like this, and worse, will keep happening.


 
I wasn't thinking about the general wrongness just then.

I was thinking about charges:

that carry a heftier sentence;
which, as a matter of interference with the judicial process, ought to propagate further up the food-chain; and 
would present a DPP or a Commissioner with some difficulty in explaining to their Lordships why they were *not* pursued.


----------



## laptop (Jul 5, 2011)

> executives including Ms Brooks are expected to learn more in a previously scheduled meeting with Scotland Yard on Tuesday.
> 
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b5d52c4-a670-11e0-ae9c-00144feabdc0.html



Watch this space...


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 5, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14024079
Not a great week for NI


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 5, 2011)

laptop said:


> I wasn't thinking about the general wrongness just then.
> 
> I was thinking about charges:
> 
> ...



Other priorities ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...er-22-times-for-impersonating-an-officer.html


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 5, 2011)

can anyone quickly outline the Met's role in all this and why they look somewhat complicit in it?


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> can anyone quickly outline the Met's role in all this and why they look somewhat complicit in it?


 
They had a previous inquiry (search this thread for "Motorman") which resulted in flip all sentences despite some strong evidence being presented and corrupt behaviour by police officers and staff being exposed,  the scale of what has gone on is almost certainly massive and would probably require hundreds of detectives working for months and months to even begin to sort out, and the political / media pressure that might result from a full-scale investigation would be huge.  If they are guilty of anything it is repeatedly trying to draw boundaries around an investigation, only to see events smash through those boundaries and reveal progressively more and more of what Fleet Street have been up to.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> can anyone quickly outline the Met's role in all this and why they look somewhat complicit in it?


News International are used as a mouthpiece by the Met, some of their officers were paid for information by the hackers, one of their officers was warned off investigating the internal leads by the Met PR team, they've buried every lead that might make Murdoch look bad, the chickens are coming home to roost.


----------



## laptop (Jul 5, 2011)

Better & better... 



> Channel 4 News has made claims about how the News of the World placed senior police detective under surveillance at a time he was investigating the murder of a private eye with links to individuals who worked for the paper.
> 
> ...It said a Detective Chief Superintendent Dave Cook, a senior police officer who appeared on Crimewatch, claimed he was told by colleagues that he was under surveillance by News of the World in 2002.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/05/phone-hacking-live-updates


----------



## laptop (Jul 5, 2011)

From the above: 



> NoW was investigating whether Cook was having an affair with Jackie Haynes, a Crimewatch presenter who was in fact his wife.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 5, 2011)

^^
Class.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 5, 2011)

Well, looking back at the beginning of this thread over a year ago, I was a little doubtful as to just how much evidence the Guardian might have had over possible phone hacking. I now eat my words!


----------



## laptop (Jul 5, 2011)

Milly Dowler phone hacking: Speaker grants emergency Commons debate

www.parliament.uk video feed crashes around 15:30, maybe?

Above time is a guesstimate. Can't see a time on the site.


----------



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

stephj said:


> Well, looking back at the beginning of this thread over a year ago, I was a little doubtful as to just how much evidence the Guardian might have had over possible phone hacking. I now eat my words!


 
that'll be painful, having to whack a monitor to get at the innards of the computer and eat them (if you're using a mac)


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 5, 2011)

Ex-NotW Paul Mulcaire on Newsnight just now said Rebecca knew about it.


----------



## laptop (Jul 5, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Ex-NotW Paul Mulcaire on Newsnight just now said Rebecca knew about it.


 
Good Lord! How could she possibly have known? 

Daily Mail going long on it - and interesting picture editor's choice:




'Course, they're squeaky-clean, yes?


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Ex-NotW Paul Mulcaire on Newsnight just now said Rebecca knew about it.


 
Of course she did.  They published a story in April 2002 that could only have come from listening to her (Milly's) voice messages, and told Surrey Police about it.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 5, 2011)

agricola said:


> Of course she did.  They published a story in April 2002 that could only have come from listening to her (Milly's) voice messages, and told Surrey Police about it.


 
Of course she did. As did Coulson. As Robert Peston reported on BBC News. The pair of them should go down for this. And bring the fucking tories down with them (fat chance but I can dream)


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

trashpony said:


> Of course she did. As did Coulson. As Robert Peston reported on BBC News. The pair of them should go down for this. And bring the fucking tories down with them (fat chance but I can dream)



Lets not forget the party who were in power (and quite far up Murdochs arse themselves, lets not forget) for most of the time this was going on.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 5, 2011)

agricola said:


> Lets not forget the party who were in power (and quite far up Murdochs arse themselves, lets not forget) for most of the time this was going on.


 
True. They're all a bunch of fucking cunts aren't they?


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

Five prime ministers and the Met are up to their necks in it. Let's take them all out.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 5, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/05/phone-hacking-live-updates
Mumsnet has pulled its advertising...from *Sky*.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 5, 2011)

Ah ha 
Payments to the police 

Lies upon lies upon lies.
Watch out Cameron.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 5, 2011)

Fuck, I would love it if this whole thing sucked News International into the ground like the ugly fucking succubus it is.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

I'd be happy with a decent privacy law.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 5, 2011)

Is it me or does it look very much like NewsCorp is happy to hang Coulson out to dry-re the emails re paying police-in order to try and save Wade?!


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I'd be happy with a decent privacy law.


 
Maybe, but dont forget that most of the things they were doing were illegal, in some cases (interfering with murder investigations, corrupting police officers and staff) very illegal.  (edit) Having a new law wont be of much use when old ones arent adhered to.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Agreed, but I'd contend the platform (for  phone hacking) was a media culture based on the absence of a right to privacy.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Is it me or does it look very much like NewsCorp is happy to hang Coulson out to dry-re the emails re paying police-in order to try and save Wade?!


 
Brooks (nee Wade) is gone too, I reckon. Can't see her lasting out tomorrow. They're trying to sever the trail to Downing Street now, I think. The minions have one final use.


----------



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

not much of a use is it, to get fired so that temporarily cameron can evade contagion.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 5, 2011)

agricola said:


> Maybe, but dont forget that most of the things they were doing were illegal, in some cases (interfering with murder investigations, corrupting police officers and staff) very illegal.  (edit) Having a new law wont be of much use when old ones arent adhered to.


 
Absolutely, a privacy law will also allow corrupt politicians to use the law to cloak their behaviour. The laws re what the NotW did were simply ignored, what's to say, and where's the evidence, a new, far more dangerous, Privacy Law, would be adhered to?


----------



## yardbird (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> They're trying to sever the trail to Downing Street now, I think.


 
Yup.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Absolutely, a privacy law will also allow corrupt politicians to use the law to cloak their behaviour.


 
I've never heard any discussion or reference to a proposed privacy law without a public interest exemption?


----------



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

London_Calling said:


> I've never heard any discussion or reference to a proposed privacy law without a public interest exemption?


 
what about the one being created by stealth here? where that godwin tosser (iirc) could get a super injunction to hide having an affair in which there was a clear public interest


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> Brooks (nee Wade) is gone too, I reckon. Can't see her lasting out tomorrow. They're trying to sever the trail to Downing Street now, I think. The minions have one final use.


 
I doubt the trail leads to Downing Street, unless it turns out that Cameron was behind some of this.  It does however definately head off in the direction of other parts of Fleet Street.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> what about the one being created by stealth here? where that godwin tosser (iirc) could get a super injunction to hide having an affair in which there was a clear public interest


After the enactment of a privacy law there  wouldn't be super injunctions - they are the product of a lack of guidance from Parliament in the first place.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 5, 2011)

agricola said:


> I doubt the trail leads to Downing Street, unless it turns out that Cameron was behind some of this.  It does however definately head off in the direction of other parts of Fleet Street.


 
The trail lezads directly to Cameron, he is dinner pals with these fuckers. Coulson got the job when Cameron knew he was dodgy. He ok'd Murdoch getting the rest of Sky. Try as he might Cameron is intricately connected-usually after the fact- but certainly knowingly aware of where the stench is coming from.....


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 5, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> After the enactment of a privacy law there  wouldn't be super injunctions - they are the product of a lack of guidance from Parliament in the first place.


 
Unless of course those injunctions were written into the law which is entirely possible if not very likely.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Well, there has to be a recognition of the European Court's position... but a privacy law makes us more equal before the law - your average punter caught in the tabloid stare wouldn't need £30,000.


----------



## agricola (Jul 5, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> The trail lezads directly to Cameron, he is dinner pals with these fuckers. Coulson got the job when Cameron knew he was dodgy. He ok'd Murdoch getting the rest of Sky. Try as he might Cameron is intricately connected-usually after the fact- but certainly knowingly aware of where the stench is coming from.....


 
He is chums with them - but then again so was Blair, and Brown did have a go at being friendly as well.  Nor should we forget that this problem of the dark arts is not limited to News International; the stench is coming from all around Fleet Street.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

agricola said:


> I doubt the trail leads to Downing Street, unless it turns out that Cameron was behind some of this.  It does however definately head off in the direction of other parts of Fleet Street.


 
The Met have now started saying that they didn't investigate properly because of orders from Downing Street. That's the Downing Street of five different PMs, BTW.

All we have to do is watch them tear each other apart.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 5, 2011)

Who from the Met has said that?


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Who from the Met has said that?


John Yates, IIRC. Today.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> He is chums with them - but then again so was Blair, and Brown did have a go at being friendly as well.  Nor should we forget that this problem of the dark arts is not limited to News International; the stench is coming from all around Fleet Street.


 
Agreedm they're all in it. Millibands new press man is also ex News International.


----------



## yardbird (Jul 6, 2011)

I would think that at least two people on urban have been hacked.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2011)

ymu said:


> John Yates, IIRC. Today.


 
If he had, it would be by far  the biggest story of the day, week and year.

So a link would be nice - if you can recall?


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> If he had, it would be by far  the biggest story of the day, week and year.
> 
> So a link would be nice - if you can recall?


 
It was one of the news programmes on today. Possibly Nick Robinson. I'm sure there will be a written mention shortly. You might even stumble across one yourself, you never know.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2011)

More bullshit.


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> More bullshit.


 
Very overconfident for someone who doesn't appear to have taken any interest in the news today.

It might be my overactive imagination/compulsive lying/mentalist thing. Or it might be you being a weirdly aggressive little prick.

We'll see, I guess.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2011)

ymu said:


> It might be my overactive imagination/compulsive lying/mentalist thing.


 It might just be.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)




----------



## claphamboy (Jul 6, 2011)

MPs are due to debate the issue for three hours on Wednesday afternoon [today], following prime minister's questions. < BBC

Should be interesting.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 6, 2011)

And, now claims they hacked the phones of 7/7 victims' families. 



> Families of 7/7 bombing victims may have had their phones hacked by the News of the World, it has emerged.
> 
> A solicitor representing some of the relatives said one family had been contacted by police and told their phone may have been hacked in 2005.
> 
> ...



Now, when can we expect Coulson to be arrested?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 6, 2011)

As mentioned in the other thread, you have to assume everyone remotely newsworthy since at least 2002 was hacked, literally_ everyone_ - pinpointing these people is  emotive but that's all.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 6, 2011)

I don't understand what anyone hoped to gain from hacking the families of the 7/7 victims.  What on earth was the purpose?


----------



## killer b (Jul 6, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> As mentioned in the other thread, you have to assume everyone remotely newsworthy since at least 2002 was hacked, literally_ everyone_ - pinpointing these people is  emotive but that's all.


 
yeah, it was clearly just routine. for each story: check your facts, check the cuttings, get glenn to hack their voicemail.


----------



## Santino (Jul 6, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I don't understand what anyone hoped to gain from hacking the families of the 7/7 victims.  What on earth was the purpose?



Possibly some of them may have enjoyed themselves in some way some time after their loved ones died. That's often considered newsworthy.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> I doubt the trail leads to Downing Street, unless it turns out that Cameron was behind some of this.  It does however definately head off in the direction of other parts of Fleet Street.


 
It brings into question Cameron's judgement - surely he must have known something.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 6, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I don't understand what anyone hoped to gain from hacking the families of the 7/7 victims.  What on earth was the purpose?


 
Because they're always quite happy to start digging for absolutely any gossip/dirt they can find about someone, whether or not they are a victim, or the family of one.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> He is chums with them - but then again so was Blair, and Brown did have a go at being friendly as well.  Nor should we forget that this problem of the dark arts is not limited to News International; the stench is coming from all around Fleet Street.


 
They're all in it up to the eyeballs, the press, politicians and Police.  Its no wonder the first enquirey was cut short as it was in everyones interest for that to happen.

The silience from so many papers this morning is deafening.  What's the Express leading on?  Salt and health nazis.  Nice one.


----------



## past caring (Jul 6, 2011)

Coulson lives only a couple of streets away - a cycle past every morning on the way to work and it's been quite funny seeing the boot on the other foot with the scrum of journalists, photographers and TV crews outside the place.

The missus, ever sympathetic and keen to ensure the welfare of our neighbours, went round to pop a note through the door last night.



> Hope you and your family are enjoying all the attention. Wonder what the missus thinks about the merits of a privacy law now, eh? Or are you sleeping on the couch still?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 6, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> What's the Express leading on?  Salt and health nazis.  Nice one.



I did a double take when I saw it this morning. Very telling, their silence.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)

Mail & Express will be next in line.....they're probaby doing some of this


----------



## laptop (Jul 6, 2011)

> The Yard has shown as strange a reluctance as successive prime ministers on four continents to cross News International's shadowy Australian Mr Big, the Ernst Blofeld of global media, whose white Persian cat, Sheila, is said to drink the blood of Sun readers' children. Mr Big would have to be caught personally hacking the Pope's voice mail ("It's God here, Benny, please ring me back") before being in trouble.



Michael White


----------



## laptop (Jul 6, 2011)

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?


----------



## 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


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)

Servers removed from NoTW Head Offices?

*0*

Some investigation.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)

Tweet following Morrisons decision not to pull advertising:



> Hacking murdered girls and terrorists victims families phones is brought to you by #NOTW, sponsored by #Morrisons


----------



## dennisr (Jul 6, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Tweet following Morrisons decision not to pull advertising:





The will be a special 2(00)-1 offer on advertising rates at the moment - how else are they able to keep their prices so low at the till


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

Coulson testified at Tommy Sheridan's trial didn't he, pretty sure he stated then, under oath, that he was not aware of any hacking - is he now saying he was aware, and if so, is that not grounds for perjury? and if it is perjury, what does that mean for the Sheridan verdict?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 6, 2011)

marty21 said:


> Coulson testified at Tommy Sheridan's trial didn't he, pretty sure he stated then, under oath, that he was not aware of any hacking - is he now saying he was aware, and if so, is that not grounds for perjury? and if it is perjury, what does that mean for the Sheridan verdict?



Really?  Tommy the Sheridan may be a total oaf, in my opnion, but if he's been turned over in such a way, let's hope he gets full redress through the legal system.


----------



## agricola (Jul 6, 2011)

marty21 said:


> Coulson testified at Tommy Sheridan's trial didn't he, pretty sure he stated then, under oath, that he was not aware of any hacking - is he now saying he was aware, and if so, is that not grounds for perjury? and if it is perjury, what does that mean for the Sheridan verdict?


 
Sheridan gets off, Coulson goes to prison.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 6, 2011)

agricola said:


> Sheridan gets off, Coulson goes to prison.


 That would be very


----------



## marty21 (Jul 6, 2011)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/Tommy-Sheridan-39might-not-have.6795925.jp

press are talking about this - Labour MP Tom Watson has mentioned it - he is having a stormer at the moment.


----------



## laptop (Jul 6, 2011)

dennisr said:


> The will be a special 2(00)-1 offer on advertising rates at the moment - how else are they able to keep their prices so low at the till


 

Should we club together and buy one?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 6, 2011)

laptop said:


> Better & better...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


jesus, the Danny Morgan affair coming up _again!_


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 6, 2011)

marty21 said:


> Coulson testified at Tommy Sheridan's trial didn't he, pretty sure he stated then, under oath, that he was not aware of any hacking - is he now saying he was aware, and if so, is that not grounds for perjury? and if it is perjury, what does that mean for the Sheridan verdict?


 
Could mrean a whole load of things but it certainly means, if the claims and e-mails News Int. have given up that he committed perjury and deserves the jail if so. The point is however that Coulson was a defence witness not part of the prosecutions case. Which certainly makes for interesting deliberations.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 6, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> They're all in it up to the eyeballs, the press, politicians and Police.  Its no wonder the first enquirey was cut short as it was in everyones interest for that to happen....



Precisely. Which is also why, in part I've found some of the reporting concerning the latest revelations laughable inasmuch as one or two people on R4 have kept insisting that there wasn't the 'momentum' or the 'will' to do anything much about it previously as the public were perceived as being at best ambivalent as most of the victims were celebs or MP's. Whilst this may to some degree be true I imagine the 'They're all in it up to the eyeballs' hasn't helped a great deal.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)




----------



## teqniq (Jul 6, 2011)

from the guardian ticker: 





> LATEST: Scotland Yard tonight told George Osborne that his name and home phone number appeared on notes kept by private investigator Glenn Mulcaire and former News of the World reporter Clive Goodman. More soon ...


 

I was thinking deckchair and popcorn the other day but perhaps knitting would be more appropriate....


----------



## ymu (Jul 6, 2011)

I have juice and snacks and am bedded in for the night.


----------



## laptop (Jul 6, 2011)

teqniq said:


> from the guardian ticker:
> 
> 
> 
> > LATEST: Scotland Yard tonight told George Osborne that his name and home phone number appeared on notes kept by private investigator Glenn Mulcaire and former News of the World reporter Clive Goodman. More soon ...


 
Now that is what I call attacking your own 

Wonder what messages Bernanke left from the Fed? Hey! An insider trading scandal _as well_!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)

Report that they had the phone numbers of families of uk servicemen who died in Iraq


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 6, 2011)

Above is a Telegraph report


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2011)

Oh boy. The story that keeps on giving. Now we have a NotW reporter acting to pervert the course of justice in favour of a murder suspect - it's the Daniel Morgan case again:



> Brooks was summoned to a meeting at Scotland Yard where she was told that one of her most senior journalists, Alex Marunchak, had apparently agreed to use photographers and vans leased to the paper to run surveillance on behalf of Jonathan Rees and Sid Fillery, two private investigators who were suspected of murdering their former partner, Daniel Morgan. The Yard saw this as a possible attempt to pervert the course of justice.
> 
> Brooks was also told of evidence that Marunchak had a corrupt relationship with Rees, who had been earning up to £150,000 a year selling confidential data to the News of the World. Police told her that a former employee of Rees had given them a statement alleging that some of these payments were diverted to Marunchak, who had been able to pay off his credit card and pay his child's private school fees.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-rebekah-brooks







> Paperwork in the possession of the Yard's Operation Weeting is believed to show that Mulcaire [got details of Detective Chief Superintendent David Cook] on the instructions of Greg Miskiw, the paper's assistant editor and a close friend of Marunchak.



Mmm. I smell a leak from the Yard to the Guardian, breaking ranks. Alternatively, and less interestingly, they've got unredacted papers off some of the lawyers acting for others whose phones were hacked.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2011)

Great thread - well started.


----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2011)

Dan U said:


> fuck all will happen, hardly any news org has picked this up in the UK, no surprise there


 
lol


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 18, 2011)




----------



## Santino (Jul 18, 2011)

This thread is like the cool early EPs to that other thread's best-selling album.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 18, 2011)

Hipster thread.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 18, 2011)

This thread is like the Lee Perry-helmed Wailers sessions, that only those in the know knew about before Marley hit us with "Catch A Fire".


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 20, 2017)

agricola said:


> Whittamore is (or was) emphatically part of the wider problem, rather than just Coulson - as the report states the _Mail_ and _Mirror_ used him a lot more than the NOTW did, so one wonders whether this will ratchet up the pressure on Coulson at all.
> 
> God knows what he is whinging about though, anyone else who had directed as much corrupt activity as he is alleged to have done (and indeed was convicted of - he got access to the PNC via a CAD operator at Wandsworth) would be looking at a far more substantial prison sentence than the two years suspended sentence he in fact recieved.


More on Whittamore - and the _Mail_:

‘Mail’ lawyers threaten ByLine over articles on convicted phone blagging PI Steve Whittamore


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 7, 2022)

DaveCinzano said:


> More on Whittamore - and the _Mail_:
> 
> ‘Mail’ lawyers threaten ByLine over articles on convicted phone blagging PI Steve Whittamore


A mere 5 years on and things are slowly heating up...









						Doreen Lawrence, Prince Harry and others launch legal action against Daily Mail publisher
					

Famous figures including Elton John accuse Associated Newspapers of ‘gross breaches of privacy’




					www.theguardian.com
				




A feisty response from the Mail's wigs:



> Associated Newspapers vehemently denied the allegations.
> 
> A spokesman for the company said: “We utterly and unambiguously refute these preposterous smears which appear to be nothing more than a pre-planned and orchestrated attempt to drag the Mail titles into the phone hacking scandal concerning articles up to 30 years old.
> 
> “These unsubstantiated and highly defamatory claims – based on no credible evidence – appear to be simply a fishing expedition by claimants and their lawyers, some of whom have already pursued cases elsewhere.”


Best hope no disgruntled hacks ever screenshotted any lawyer notes off PMS or FastFoto eh lads 🤷


----------

