PDA

View Full Version : News of the World phone hacking scandal



Pages : [1] 2

IdleRich
18-01-2011, 03:53 PM
Don't think there is a thread on this yet but it looks as though it's finally all starting to come back and bite them on the ass. Should be good fun to watch all this come out. Main thing though is, what the fuck have the police being doing, it's been clear from the start that there was more to it but they've consistently declared the investigation closed and insisted that there was nothing more to be done. I don't get how they were allowed to do that when everyone could see that they were turning a blind eye to a crime that was committed by people right in the public sphere and related to the new government. Who makes these decisions and how have they been able to blatantly act against the public interest for so long?

IdleRich
18-01-2011, 03:55 PM
I'd like to know the NOW take on the latest revelations as well. Apparently they wrote an editorial congratulating the police on their correct decision to close the investigation earlier and, of course, they severely criticised their criticism from a select committee just before Christmas. Guess they won't apologise for any of that.

crackerjack
18-01-2011, 05:11 PM
I've been talking to myself about this over here (http://www.dissensus.com/showthread.php?9077-Journalistic-Standards/page2&highlight=journalistic) for some time now.

Nick Davies – author of Flat Earth News and Guardian's prime mover on the case – talks a lot in FEN about the cosy relationship between tabs and cops. They buy tales of celeb wrongdoings from the police (something Rebecca Brooks admitted, then later denied at parliamentary select committee - no wonder they wouldn't let her back for another hearing) and in turn get tip-offs on NotW stories about crime. And of course Andy Hayman, original inspector on this case, has now left the force and writes an occaional column for.....The Times.

But yes, it doesn't fully explain it - house of cards time now. Just a question of how much will there is to pull the whole thing own. There have been suggestions that Edmondson has ben hung out to dry – no legal fees, no gag money, unlike Mulcaire and Goodman – so NotW is now desperately trying to present itself as a responsible law-abiding publisher. Ain't gonna wash.

crackerjack
18-01-2011, 05:18 PM
As a side note, Cameron was pitiful on this on yesterday's Today - he went on about giving Coulson a second chance, as if they'd taken him on straight from a Young Offenders Institution. Refused to confirm or deny that AC had offered to quit, even though his own spokesman had officially denied it just that morning.

IdleRich
21-01-2011, 12:18 PM
Well, he's gone now anyway.

Sectionfive
21-01-2011, 12:27 PM
Edmonson was gonna shop him.
How much mileage to you think is left in it?

crackerjack
21-01-2011, 12:31 PM
Edmonson was gonna shop him.
How much mileage to you think is left in it?

On Coulson? Not much.

On NotW? Plenty. Lawsuits will be crashing in over next few weeks.

Incidentally, utterly shameful stuff from Adam Boulton, repeatedly trying to equate NotW phone-hacing with Guardian's use of wikileaks. Just mindboggling bullshit.

IdleRich
21-01-2011, 01:27 PM
"On Coulson? Not much."
Do you reckon? Isn't there a chance that he's perjured himself? Depends on what comes out in the near future I guess.
I guess it can't hurt Cameron any more though.


"On NotW? Plenty. Lawsuits will be crashing in over next few weeks."
Yes, yes, yes. What about the Met?

crackerjack
21-01-2011, 05:45 PM
Do you reckon? Isn't there a chance that he's perjured himself? Depends on what comes out in the near future I guess.
I guess it can't hurt Cameron any more though.


Yes, yes, yes. What about the Met?

fuck, fuck, fuck, just lost long post, so here's abbreviated version

My guesswork:

This story got its fuel from Coulson's position.

So who'll push it now?
Labour have their head-on-a-stick now he's gone and will want to avoid all-out war with RM.
Police don't want to investigate cos they look dodgy as fuck and some of their number could be sacked/jailed.
BBC doesn't want to be accused of anti-Murdoch agenda so will take its cue from the press.
The Guardian has done a great job but is a marginal paper which others are loth to follow. Many (esp. the Mail, the single most powerful paper in the country) also have too much to protect.

Even though the number of suing celebs will stoke the fires, ultimately a lot of people are gonna think this is a victimless crime.

Many rich people will get a lot richer from pay-offs and the odd trial, NI's fingers will be financially scorched and AC will stay out of jail.

And no coppers will be damaged in the course of this investigation.

IdleRich
21-01-2011, 06:03 PM
But surely they can't keep doing out of court settlements at a million pounds a pop - which means it's likely that someone will take them to court right?

crackerjack
21-01-2011, 06:18 PM
But surely they can't keep doing out of court settlements at a million pounds a pop - which means it's likely that someone will take them to court right?

Don't see why it would keep being £1m a pop - previous cases got that much cos NotW were trying to keep the story buried.

Now it's out, so it's a case of gauging damage done to individuals. There's also an issue of institutional culpability, but pursuing that would be a massive decision.

I dunno. I hope I'm wrong, but the way I see it you've got the govt, the police & the most powerful media company in the land on one side, one small but noisy leftie paper on the other, and the remainder of the press in the middle anxious for an excuse to look the other way.

IdleRich
21-01-2011, 07:51 PM
Don't see why it would keep being £1m a pop - previous cases got that much cos NotW were trying to keep the story buried.
Fair point - although I guess they must be pretty sick about the useless hush money they've already paid.

hucks
21-01-2011, 08:25 PM
the remainder of the press in the middle anxious for an excuse to look the other way.

Why's that? Genuine q. Why shouldn't the mail or the telegraph want to damage Murdoch? Although I agree that so far everyone has just been looking the other way. Don't get it.

crackerjack
21-01-2011, 09:27 PM
Why's that? Genuine q. Why shouldn't the mail or the telegraph want to damage Murdoch? Although I agree that so far everyone has just been looking the other way. Don't get it.

According to Flat Earth News the Mail was probably the most prolific corruptor of the police on Fleet St, so much so Paul Condon ordered an internal inquiry into relations between some of his officers and the paper.

And not just the police, but social security officials, phone companies etc. Here's a quote:


As one Mail veteran put it to me, "If the Mail go for you, they get every phone number you have dialled, every schoolmate, everything on your credit card, every call from your phone and from your mobile. Everything."

No suggestion the Telegraph operates that way, though it was interesting how during the MPs expenses scandal, the fact they'd paid £300k for stolen info (which sfaik is illegal) was almost never mentioned, probably cos it would've looked terrible for the political establishment to be seen trying to shoot the messenger.


edit: *not suggesting the ends didn't justify the means in the MPs' expenses case

The broader point is that when it comes to issues of press behaviour they tend to close ranks, much like any other institution. This story would've have gone anywhere without Nick Davies. It'll be interesting to see how many, if any, press awards he picks up for it.

crackerjack
22-01-2011, 02:28 PM
Alastair Campbell:


The four big issues flowing from yesterday are 1. Cameron’s judgement in appointing Coulson when it was so clear the News of the World phone-hacking story would unravel. 2. The growing sense of industrial phone-hacking by the News of the World and the reputational battering News Corp will take as more and more private cases are mounted against them. 3. The seeming desire of Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt to waive through News Corp’s attempted buy-out of BSkyB without proper consideration – let me warn him that will be a disaster if he does, not least for him and Cameron and 4, the growing stench surrounding the police handling of this, which will go centre stage as it emerges how much they knew and how little they investigated.

The talk is of Coulson today. But as things stand I would say that points 2, 3 and 4 are where this scandal is now headed. Cameron’s judgement will be tested once more when his government is forced to decide upon 3.

http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2011/01/22/with-coulson-gone-bigger-issues-now-confront-cameron-hunt-murdoch-and-the-police/

crackerjack
24-01-2011, 02:28 PM
Peston's got the goods. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2011/01/murdoch_employs_bp_strategy.html)

Money shot:



In this context, it matters that Mark Lewis - the solicitor who obtained a whopping settlement from the News of the World over the hacking of the phone of Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association - is preparing cases for clients alleging unlawful breach of privacy against media groups other than News International.

I spoke to Lewis yesterday, and the allegations of his clients are pretty hair-raising. Which implies that those other media groups (and they know who they are) should probably be conducting thorough internal reviews, to ascertain just how liable they may turn out to be.

Not to over-dramatise, this has all the potential for the newspaper industry to turn into its version of the MPs' expenses scandal.

IdleRich
24-01-2011, 05:42 PM
To paraphrase Kevin Keegan, I would fucking love it if that were the case.

crackerjack
24-01-2011, 09:40 PM
Ex-Liberal MP suing Mirror for hacking.

crackerjack
24-01-2011, 10:02 PM
Television does this to people. It raises them to a plane of imagined grandeur. What has this to do with the pair insulting Sian Massey, the assistant referee at the Wolves-Liverpool match, in a leaked exchange that arrives while Gray is suing Rupert Murdoch's News of the World over the phone tapping scandal? The point is that if either has a warning siren in his head alerting him to the folly of parading stupid prejudices at work then it has been knocked out of service by a life in football and TV.


2nd person (after Campbell) I've seen speculate about a possible link between Gray suing NotW and the leak of his stone-age sexism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/jan/24/richard-keys-andy-gray-sky

hucks
24-01-2011, 10:07 PM
That is a fantastically catty article. "Gray and Keys, who are unpopular with many viewers..."

crackerjack
24-01-2011, 10:10 PM
That is a fantastically catty article. "Gray and Keys, who are unpopular with many viewers..."

yeah, meant to post it in footy thread too

Inclined to believe what he says cos Paul Hayward's not usually like that - or maybe it's just that he doesn't usually write about TV presenters.

And Keys does seem like an almighty twat.

Sectionfive
25-01-2011, 04:24 PM
Andy Gray fired..

crackerjack
25-01-2011, 04:56 PM
Andy Gray fired..

Enjoying the conflation of these two stories. Makes for strange enemies. You can currently find David Aaronovitch and Alistair Campbell falling out on Twitter.

Sectionfive
25-01-2011, 04:59 PM
Enjoying the conflation of these two stories.


Yip, Murdoch is just scary really.

crackerjack
26-01-2011, 10:23 PM
Rolling along.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2011/01/news_internationals_new_hackin.html

grizzleb
27-01-2011, 02:00 AM
So hopeful that this ends with a serious plethora of convictions. Praying for it. I'd love to see Mel P behind bars. Incidentally.

crackerjack
27-01-2011, 09:43 AM
Enjoyed this para from today's Guardian about a case as recently as last year.



The Guardian has previously reported that Dan Evans was suspended in April last year. Details of the case remain concealed by court orders. However, a senior News International executive has claimed that Dan Evans' defence is that he phoned Kelly Hoppen's number for legitimate reasons and accidentally accessed her voicemail when the keys on his own phone got stuck.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/27/phone-hacking-kelly-hoppen-sues)

I've lost count of the times that's happened to me.

IdleRich
27-01-2011, 11:24 AM
That's the weakest argument I've heard since "they weren't targets they were surveyors' symbols".

crackerjack
28-01-2011, 12:27 PM
Starting to revise my opinion of all this. If it's true that Tessa Jowell's phone was hacked LAST FUCKING WEEK I can no longer see this as a Sinister Conspiracy to Destroy Our Freedom. I just think the nation's tabloid journalists are all on some kind of hack crack, they just can't help themselves.

I mean, why would you bother with her now anyway? Least of all when you must know the net is closing in on the whole filthy business.

grizzleb
28-01-2011, 02:28 PM
Unless you're quite convinced that nothing will come of it.

IdleRich
28-01-2011, 04:49 PM
"If it's true that Tessa Jowell's phone was hacked LAST FUCKING WEEK"
Seems completely weird and nonsensical - and it's not proven yet right? Anyway, as far as I can tell, the hacking procedure involves phoning the number in question and doing some jiggery-pokery with your buttons - if you use an anonymous pay-as-you-go then who can trace you?

crackerjack
28-01-2011, 04:56 PM
If they're using burners, they must be Wire fans and therefore Guardian journalists.

IdleRich
28-01-2011, 05:05 PM
What are burners? Phones you abandon? My friend used that years ago, he was basically running an illegal phone hacking service for jealous husbands etc He needed the phone itself to interrogate though and he ran his business and arranged meetings with the stolen phones from an anonymous phone - advertised the number in the Private Eye small ads. He wasn't/isn't a Guardian journalist though.

crackerjack
28-01-2011, 06:17 PM
What are burners? Phones you abandon?

Yup, as used in The Wire to avoid the wire.

IdleRich
03-02-2011, 12:51 PM
Dunno if this fits here but seems like more bad news for News Corp

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/03/eu-law-sports-rights

IdleRich
03-02-2011, 12:53 PM
Though maybe they could argue it decreases Sky's share of the airwaves and makes their takeover thing more reasonable?

crackerjack
03-02-2011, 01:42 PM
pretty thoughtful analysis of the stuff we talked about upthread

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/03/ed-miliband-rupert-murdoch-phone-hacking

that footy ruling is weird, but interesting - sky charge a packet for those little pint-glass-icon licences.

crackerjack
07-02-2011, 09:03 PM
You need to see this week's Dispatches. 4od if you missed it.

IdleRich
09-02-2011, 06:31 PM
Um, I missed it, anyway, the Met are looking worse and worse by the day

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


The Metropolitan police has announced that more public figures may have been the victims of phone hacking than previously thought.
After reviewing existing and new evidence, Scotland Yard admitted it may have misinformed potential hacking victims by telling them they had not been targeted by the News of the World.
Oops - it just gets more and more embarrassing for them.

IdleRich
09-02-2011, 06:46 PM
Also (from Graun too)


In written evidence published on the committee's website, Mosley said the Metropolitan police had recovered documents from Mulcaire's home in the course of the 2006 investigation leading to his arrest and that they proved Thurlbeck had instructed the private investigator to hack into phones belonging to public figures.

"Even a cursory examination of these papers will have identified a number of NoW journalists who had commissioned potentially illegal investigations by Mulcaire," Mosley said.
The police clearly failed to even attempt to do their job.

crackerjack
22-02-2011, 06:24 PM
The police clearly failed to even attempt to do their job.

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

IdleRich
25-02-2011, 01:43 PM
Funny that eh?
Anyway, now the judge has ordered Mulcaire to tell him who ordered the hacking - something you would have thought he ought to have been forced to do from the start but never mind - so maybe this is where it all kicks off. Again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/25/phone-hacking-case-mulcaire-coogan

crackerjack
12-03-2011, 10:40 AM
Absolute avalanche (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/11/news-of-the-world-police-corruption) of stuff (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/11/jonathan-rees-private-investigator-tabloid), old (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/11/nick-davies-andy-coulson-email) and new (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/11/scotland-yard-murder-case-daniel-morgan), in today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/11/phone-hacking-dark-arts-jonathan-rees).

Sectionfive
14-03-2011, 08:34 PM
http://www.thejournal.ie/notws-irish-editor-commissioned-hacker-to-intercept-emails-bbc-2011-03/?utm_source=shortlink

crackerjack
14-03-2011, 09:57 PM
http://www.thejournal.ie/notws-irish-editor-commissioned-hacker-to-intercept-emails-bbc-2011-03/?utm_source=shortlink

Panorama just screned - be up on iPlayer for those interested.

IdleRich
14-03-2011, 10:42 PM
Still following this all the time. Fucking typical that Yates has involved Carter-Ruck - are they the evillest group of people in the world? They're always to be found on the wrong side of an argument defending the indefensible, the rich against the poor. Bullying the little guy with all the weapons and threats at their disposal to prevent the truth coming out. It's a cliche but I honestly wonder how they sleep at night.

IdleRich
14-03-2011, 10:45 PM
Just in the last few years they've acted for Yates, Trafigura, The Church of Scientology and, worst of all, Simon Cowell.

crackerjack
15-03-2011, 10:32 AM
A super-injunction as well, wasn't it? What's he trying to suppress exactly? It's already come out that the DPP has criticised him for misinterpreting his statement on the law re. phone-hacking (ie Yates claimed it wasn't illegal if the victim had already heard the message).

He obviously saw this as his route to the top - much more like this and he'll be lucky to have a job in a year's time.

IdleRich
15-03-2011, 11:07 AM
I reckon his days are numbered - it seems that he deliberately pretended to misunderstand what constituted a crime of hacking (the thing about not hearing it first) and misled parliament over the number of victims. As I understand it he was asked the number and he replied "we can prove a crime against twelve" even though he knew full well that there were loads of extra ones where the crime hadn't actually been proven. Carter-Fuck (copyright Private Eye) are arguing that he didn't mislead because he wasn't actually saying that the number of victims was twelve, just the number of provable ones. To my mind, even if you accept that that was what he meant, that's still misleading the questioners because he answered a different question and allowed them to think it was the one they were asking.
Has it been cleared up for definite if the tax payer is paying for his solicitors yet? Would a freedom of information request get that? If he's getting that paid by the tax payer then it's shocking that such large sums of money should be paid to work directly against our interest. Not for the first time obviously.

crackerjack
15-03-2011, 11:39 AM
Has it been cleared up for definite if the tax payer is paying for his solicitors yet?

That would be interesting. Wonder how many annual copper-on-the-beat salaries Carter-Fuck charge by the hour.

IdleRich
15-03-2011, 12:10 PM
Private Eye reports


We asked the Metropolitan Police Authority, which eventually came back with a brief statement: “The Authority can approve expenditure on legal advice under strict criteria, subject to limits on the amount to be disbursed, for cases which have the potential to bring the organisation as a whole into disrepute.”
Which they interpret as meaning that the taxpayer is paying. Something they find particularly cheeky as Carter-Ruck are claiming that the Graun caused Yates “considerable personal and professional distress and embarrassment”. Their point being - why the fuck should the public care about his personal embarrassment?

More to the point, I'm amazed that any "strict criteria, subject to limits on the amount" would be met by an officer paying the most famous (and expensive?) libel solicitors in the land to bully people into pretending that he didn't say precisely what he did say.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=street_of_shame

Tentative Andy
05-04-2011, 02:17 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12974401

crackerjack
06-04-2011, 01:50 PM
As exclusively* predicted on Dissensus a few weeks back, Yates of the Yard may soon be off to Inspector's Knackered Yard (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/05/phone-hacking-john-yates-police).




*possibly not strictly true

IdleRich
07-04-2011, 10:44 AM
The last bit is pretty damning I'd say - a lot of it boils down to one's word against the other's but when it's clear that the original prosecution involved the wider interpretation of the law and the police went with it it's pretty much impossible for them to argue that they understood it the other way. In other words it looks very bad for Yates. Good.

crackerjack
07-04-2011, 09:42 PM
In other words it looks very bad for Yates. Good.

And it isn't getting any better.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/07/phone-hacking-john-yates-evidence

IdleRich
11-04-2011, 07:35 PM
Maybe it's gonna burn up the whole rope to the top.

crackerjack
12-04-2011, 10:22 AM
This paragraph is interesting, given how close Blunkett and Wade were.



Nevertheless, as a result of her evidence to the select committee, Brooks also became a target for the police. The Home Office warrant to intercept her phone calls is likely to have been signed by the then home secretary David Blunkett, whose own voicemail messages were then intercepted by the News of the World, according to journalists who worked there. It is understood that Brooks was warned that her phone was being tapped but she believed it was related to the leaking of the Hutton report to the Sun.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/11/rebekah-brooks-phone-hacking

Sectionfive
12-04-2011, 07:26 PM
http://www.newstatesman.com/newspapers/2011/04/phone-yeah-cameron-murdoch

crackerjack
12-04-2011, 09:33 PM
http://www.newstatesman.com/newspapers/2011/04/phone-yeah-cameron-murdoch

If that's the Hugh Grant thing it's bloody ace. (Can't actually open at the mo as Stephen Fry has just tweeted his admiration, so obviously the NS servers are on their knees).

IdleRich
14-04-2011, 01:15 PM
Yet another arrest at the NOW

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/14/news-of-the-world-journalist-arrested

Each new episode makes the NOW original "rogue reporter" defence more laughable and makes the Met's decision not to investigate properly appear more scandalous.

IdleRich
14-04-2011, 01:18 PM
What are the chances now of a) Coulson being done for perjury b) Rebecca Wade/Brooks going and c) Yates keeping his job?

crackerjack
15-04-2011, 10:26 AM
Now we're talking

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13092045

IdleRich
15-04-2011, 11:55 AM
Yes, good news indeed. I think at the time when she said that Coulson (who was also there) interrupted her and tried to pretend that she had said something different because he realised straight away that it was illegal.
I love the way that Brooks is arguing that when she said to the Commons committee


"(NoW) had paid police for information in the past"

It didn't mean that NoW had necessarily paid police for information in the past. And this is because


"My intention was simply to comment generally on the widely-held belief that payments had been made in the past to police officers"
What does that even mean?
Anyway, they're not gonna look to favourably on her after refusing to come back and clarify things are they?

Also, I enjoyed the bit in the Hunt's response to Prescott that


'the merger involved two established reputable media enterprises when they discussed it in November'"
The implicature there being that it doesn't any more. I suppose that the wider issue is that the reputability issue was dealt with then and however disreputable the company becomes it can have no bearing on the plurality discussion which is all that is yet to be decided. That may be the letter of the law but if so it's fucking bollocks.

Sectionfive
04-07-2011, 05:26 PM
Rough

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

hucks
04-07-2011, 05:48 PM
Rough

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

I feel naive for being shocked but there is literally nothing these cunts wouldn't stoop to

crackerjack
04-07-2011, 06:01 PM
No coming back from this. Brooks is done.

Will anyone end up in the dock though?

IdleRich
04-07-2011, 06:10 PM
Oops!

you
04-07-2011, 11:28 PM
No coming back from this. Brooks is done.

Will anyone end up in the dock though?

likely, if perverting the course of justice is upheld

crackerjack
05-07-2011, 12:57 AM
Tom Watson says it seems one of the Soham parents was hacked too. Really there needs to be a full judicial inquiry now. Shamefully none of the tabs are putting it front page. This goes way beyond NotW

IdleRich
05-07-2011, 09:32 AM
Are News International still paying for Mulcaire's defence? Seems he is the key to the whole thing and if he can be persuaded/forced to spill the beans it seems clear that it would implicate Brooks, Coulson etc etc

crackerjack
05-07-2011, 10:37 AM
Are News International still paying for Mulcaire's defence? Seems he is the key to the whole thing and if he can be persuaded/forced to spill the beans it seems clear that it would implicate Brooks, Coulson etc etc

There was talk on Newsnight of 5 'princes of darkness' at NotW who had the power to authorise Mulcaire's activities. Let's have their names and get them jailed.

Sectionfive
05-07-2011, 01:35 PM
http://twitpic.com/5lkack

IdleRich
05-07-2011, 01:39 PM
Rebekah Brooks "I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew - or worse - sanctioned these appalling allegations."

Surely she means "didn't know about or sanction".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14032287

crackerjack
05-07-2011, 01:46 PM
This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14031661) is unmissable, brutal. What a fucking worthless piece of shit the PCC is.

I gather Hugh Grant did himself proud on World at 1 again too.

Mr. Tea
05-07-2011, 03:21 PM
This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14031661) is unmissable, brutal. What a fucking worthless piece of shit the PCC is.


"I'm not going to go into that now..." - what a pompous cow.

Good on Andrew Neil, he's got the tenacity of Paxman but is coherent at the same time.

crackerjack
05-07-2011, 07:34 PM
C4 News tonight v ery interesting.

The Met are sooooooo bent.

Snow's interview with squirming NI lawyer also hugely entertaining.

matt b
05-07-2011, 10:38 PM
Next couple of days will be very interesting as NI's united front collapses...

sufi
05-07-2011, 10:53 PM
3 days left to send a message to Jeremy Hunt opposing Murdoch's BSkyB takeover http://t.co/936hgeb

do it

IdleRich
06-07-2011, 11:26 AM
Rebekah Brooks "I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew - or worse - sanctioned these appalling allegations."
Actually now that I think about it maybe it's cleverer than I realised - she obviously didn't sanction the allegations, she sanctioned the actions to which the allegations refer.

matt b
06-07-2011, 11:33 AM
Actually now that I think about it maybe it's cleverer than I realised - she obviously didn't sanction the allegations, she sanctioned the actions to which the allegations refer.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/news-allegations-evidence-2

crackerjack
06-07-2011, 03:28 PM
Just watching the parliamentary debate. Tom Watson has declared open war on Murdoch - accused James M of leading the cover-up and accused him of perverting curse of justice.

Simon Hughes accused Met of corruption and called for fit-and-proper test on Murdochs/NI.

Sectionfive
06-07-2011, 03:48 PM
yeah all kicking off.

A lot of of this happened on Labour's watch though.

Sectionfive
06-07-2011, 03:50 PM
Can't get them here easily but are the last two Newsnights worth tracking down?

crackerjack
06-07-2011, 03:56 PM
Can't get them here easily but are the last two Newsnights worth tracking down?

apparently last night was a cracker, mainly for the appearance of the ex NoW hack whose name I forget (the one Hugh Grant 'interviewed') Paul Mcsomething

muser
06-07-2011, 04:00 PM
he was hilarious

crackerjack
06-07-2011, 04:04 PM
A lot of of this happened on Labour's watch though.

Hughes is a LibDem.

Watson has been banging this drum for ages - it was his insistence on highlighting Coulson's role that broke the unanimity of the Select Committee report a couple of years back.

hucks
06-07-2011, 04:27 PM
yeah all kicking off.

A lot of of this happened on Labour's watch though.

Not sure how relevant that is. They didn't go on to employ one of the accused as head of communications.

Newsnight last night was rubbish, really boys clubby "you're naive if you think this doesn't happen" kind of bollocks. All in front of a massive picture Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. It was pretty distasteful stuff.

That NOTW hack was brilliant, though. Like the google images definition of alcoholic Fleet Street hack.

Sectionfive
06-07-2011, 04:34 PM
Not sure how relevant that is. They didn't go on to employ one of the accused as head of communications.

Yeah I know. The web is certainly big enough that any govt would have been aware of some this though no?


- Though maybe not to the extent of what we are hearing now I suppose

alex
06-07-2011, 04:40 PM
typical (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/06/andy-coulson-phone-hacking)

crackerjack
06-07-2011, 04:57 PM
Yeah I know. The web is certainly big enough that any govt would have been aware of some this though no?

Yes, certainly. Labour have been terrified of Murdoch since 92.

grizzleb
06-07-2011, 08:00 PM
We'll see a lengthy whitewash public inquiry which will 'resolve' the issue catagorically and will show 'police failings'. Nobody will get the sack or even disciplined in the police.

It will also show perhaps some 'systemic problems of accountability' in the NOTW and perhaps a few more NOTW people will be scapegoated, though I find it difficult to see how that would happen. Everyone was taping each other in the tabloid offices.

This has been a major news story for going on a number of year now with serious implications for the media and collusion between it and the and police, and only the Guardian has been reported it.

The red tops had tiny articles, if anything at all about the latest revelations on page 11, when normally there would be massive pictures on the front page about anything related to those cases. Absolutely disgusting.

computer_rock
06-07-2011, 08:30 PM
did someone say whitewash...

http://istyosty.com/tmp/cache/d912d8c3b5537f9d17a5f20dbeac5c41f1c70df8.html



FORMER News of the World Editor Rebekah Brooks yesterday said she was "sickened" by allegations that a private eye hired by the paper hacked tragic Milly Dowler's phone.
The News International boss vowed the "strongest possible action" if it was proved rogue operator Glenn Mulcaire had intercepted the 13-year-old's voicemail while she was missing.

crackerjack
06-07-2011, 08:59 PM
We'll see a lengthy whitewash public inquiry which will 'resolve' the issue catagorically and will show 'police failings'. Nobody will get the sack or even disciplined in the police.

It will also show perhaps some 'systemic problems of accountability' in the NOTW and perhaps a few more NOTW people will be scapegoated, though I find it difficult to see how that would happen. Everyone was taping each other in the tabloid offices.

This has been a major news story for going on a number of year now with serious implications for the media and collusion between it and the and police, and only the Guardian has been reported it.

The red tops had tiny articles, if anything at all about the latest revelations on page 11, when normally there would be massive pictures on the front page about anything related to those cases. Absolutely disgusting.

A few weeks ago I would've broadly agreed with this, but it's gone too far now. Some well-known names are going to do time, starting with Coulson for paying police and for perjury. Some coppers will lose their jobs, some may also do time. Brooks will probably escape the jail cell she deserves, but she'll go, possibly after the kind of interval that will let Murdoch pretend he hasn't had his arse handed to him by the namby-pamby muesli-munching Guardian. Think it's increasingly likely the BSkyB bid will be kicked into, if not the long grass, then a little light rough.

edit: the story is now on the front of every paper tomorrow. The reluctant foot-dragging Mail has also done an inside spread.

crackerjack
06-07-2011, 09:00 PM
did someone say whitewash...

http://istyosty.com/tmp/cache/d912d8c3b5537f9d17a5f20dbeac5c41f1c70df8.html

And News Intl can whitewash all they like - it's not their wall anymore.

crackerjack
06-07-2011, 09:02 PM
When he's not sticking his tongue halfway up Cameron's arse, Oborne is actually a pretty decent hack.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7075673/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml

crackerjack
06-07-2011, 09:36 PM
Hear tht Hugh Grant is on Question Time tomorrow. If he keeps this up he just might make it to PM irl.

crackerjack
06-07-2011, 11:28 PM
Oborne again.

This is pretty devastating.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100095686/david-cameron-is-in-the-sewer-because-of-his-news-international-friends/

faustus
07-07-2011, 06:39 AM
Brooks will probably escape the jail cell she deserves, but she'll go, possibly after the kind of interval that will let Murdoch pretend he hasn't had his arse handed to him by the namby-pamby muesli-munching Guardian.

Private Eye two weeks ago: http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=street_of_shame&issue=1291

hucks
07-07-2011, 09:57 AM
Oborne again.

This is pretty devastating.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100095686/david-cameron-is-in-the-sewer-because-of-his-news-international-friends/

Jeez, that's brutal. Oborne is a Tory I like. He's a middle class guy who loathes the upper class, right? Cos he can't join them. Hence all his references to "sets" and "cliques". I thought he didn't like Cameron at all, for that reason?

crackerjack
07-07-2011, 12:35 PM
Jeez, that's brutal. Oborne is a Tory I like. He's a middle class guy who loathes the upper class, right? Cos he can't join them. Hence all his references to "sets" and "cliques". I thought he didn't like Cameron at all, for that reason?

I don't know what his class politics are, but he's written some very admiring stuff about Cameron, claiming he could be touched by greatness. Think that probably relates to deficit-slashing and doing away with the more Bufton Tufton Tories. Very big on straight dealing though (he absolutely loathes Blair), so suspicious of the PR man in Cam and his gang.

hucks
07-07-2011, 01:07 PM
I don't know what his class politics are, but he's written some very admiring stuff about Cameron, claiming he could be touched by greatness. Think that probably relates to deficit-slashing and doing away with the more Bufton Tufton Tories. Very big on straight dealing though (he absolutely loathes Blair), so suspicious of the PR man in Cam and his gang.

To be honest, I'm probably wrong. I don't tknow where I got that from. Anyway. His book The Triumph of the Political Class is good.

Also, this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/07/david-cameron-protect-rightwing-newspapers) response from Conservative Home (who are soooo second rate) is a good laugh.

crackerjack
07-07-2011, 01:32 PM
To be honest, I'm probably wrong. I don't tknow where I got that from. Anyway. His book The Triumph of the Political Class is good.

Also, this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/07/david-cameron-protect-rightwing-newspapers) response from Conservative Home (who are soooo second rate) is a good laugh.

Montgomerie is a clown. I used to follow him on Twitter as a token Tory, but gave up cos he's just a right-wing automaton. Now I just make do with Fraser Nelson, who's a cunt, but smarter and more in touch with right-wing thought.

Funnily enough, both Nelson and Monty were slagging off the BBC last year for following the Guardian's lead in reporting hackergate (sorry) back when none of the other papers were touching it. I warned them at the time they'd look stupid when Coulson quit. This week I asked them if they regretted their earlier stance. No reply :( Guess Nelson's too busy demanding Orwell prizes for Oborne.

crackerjack
07-07-2011, 03:35 PM
Coulson arrest imminent, so they say

Sectionfive
07-07-2011, 04:01 PM
lol http://danwootton.tweetboard.com/my-personal-statement-on-news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-i-m-not-going-to-lie-having-a-column-in-2465909435/

crackerjack
07-07-2011, 04:26 PM
lol http://danwootton.tweetboard.com/my-personal-statement-on-news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-i-m-not-going-to-lie-having-a-column-in-2465909435/

ha ha, comment 2 FTW

Marina Hyde had some interesting stuff on Dan Wooton's not-hacking-but-not-exactly-honest style of journalism last week
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2011/jul/01/new-of-the-world-love-letter

Sectionfive
07-07-2011, 04:41 PM
NOTW being wound up.
Last one on Sunday.

crackerjack
07-07-2011, 04:45 PM
NOTW being wound up.
Last one on Sunday.

That's just shocking news. And not good. I feel sorry for (some of) the people losing their jobs, but they obviously figured this is the only way to turn the story round.

James Murdoch doesn't give a shit about papers - it's all about TV for him.

Sectionfive
07-07-2011, 04:49 PM
Hacks at the paper take the hit, Sky deal full steam ahead.

Heat off Cameron and the Met?

alex
07-07-2011, 04:50 PM
lol

Small consolation really, the Sun will just get more effort put into it.. fucking rag

IdleRich
07-07-2011, 05:01 PM
I guess this is the final desperate attempt to draw a line under the whole affair and basically sacrifice the NotW for the greater good of News International. Wonder if it will work - probably not if they find evidence that Brooks was involved (which must be out there somewhere) cos she's not at the NotW now.

Sectionfive
07-07-2011, 05:10 PM
Someone has registered sunonsunday.co.uk ....on Tuesday (5/7/11)


...

Leo
07-07-2011, 05:47 PM
murdoch is an evil genius: makes it look like he's closing NOTW for moral reasons, when it's actually a shrewd business decision. very few (if any) advertisers were going to continue buying ad space, and tons of readers were never going to buy it again, so he's essentially axed a tainted paper and shifted resources to the sun, which is speculated to be going 7 days a week.

crackerjack
07-07-2011, 05:58 PM
murdoch is an evil genius: makes it look like he's closing NOTW for moral reasons, when it's actually a shrewd business decision. very few (if any) advertisers were going to continue buying ad space, and tons of readers were never going to buy it again, so he's essentially axed a tainted paper and shifted resources to the sun, which is speculated to be going 7 days a week.

We'll see. He's not that clever if he's keeping Wade on.

Would love to know what she's got on him.

Sectionfive
07-07-2011, 05:59 PM
murdoch is an evil genius.

He really is the closest we have.

Sectionfive
07-07-2011, 09:49 PM
http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2011/07/07/is-murdoch-free-to-destroy-tabloids-records/



If News of the World is to be liquidated, Stephens told Reuters, it “is a stroke of genius—perhaps evil genius.”

Under British law, Stephens explained, all of the assets of the shuttered newspaper, including its records, will be transferred to a professional liquidator (such as a global accounting firm). The liquidator’s obligation is to maximize the estate’s assets and minimize its liabilities. So the liquidator could be well within its discretion to decide News of the World would be best served by defaulting on pending claims rather than defending them. That way, the paper could simply destroy its documents to avoid the cost of warehousing them—and to preclude any other time bombs contained in News of the World’s records from exploding.

sufi
07-07-2011, 10:13 PM
We'll see. He's not that clever if he's keeping Wade on.

Would love to know what she's got on him.
brooks has dirt on murdoch jr, who has the dirt on cam no doubt

uff, stinking stinking to high heaven, can't wait to see what tomoro will dredge up :D

crackerjack
07-07-2011, 10:19 PM
http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2011/07/07/is-murdoch-free-to-destroy-tabloids-records/

Don't understand this at all. NotW isn't a company, it's a paper published by News International or News Corp or whatever they're called. And it hasn't gone into liquidation, it's a brand being closed by its owner.

Anyway, regardless, there's an ongoing police investigation (which everyone involved accepts is now being done properly). I refuse to believe they can't prevent mass evidence destruction.

crackerjack
07-07-2011, 10:24 PM
brooks has dirt on murdoch jr, who has the dirt on cam no doubt

uff, stinking stinking to high heaven, can't wait to see what tomoro will dredge up :D

Starting to give serious thought to the idea that this might bring Cameron down...

And the coalition with it :)

sufi
07-07-2011, 10:24 PM
murdoch is an evil genius: makes it look like he's closing NOTW for moral reasons, when it's actually a shrewd business decision. very few (if any) advertisers were going to continue buying ad space, and tons of readers were never going to buy it again, so he's essentially axed a tainted paper and shifted resources to the sun, which is speculated to be going 7 days a week.
not sure this is really correct, the readers love to see the celebs filthy laundry and don't take the dead kids taboo as seriously as the media/political public circus, and they don't really give 2 fucks if the royals phones get tapped,
the point is it's against the law, and NOTW/NI are effectively above the law on this as noone is capable of holding them to account

i like k-punk take (http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/011851.html)on this all bringing in harigate and the rest,
and the image someone made of murdoch beast shedding a slimy tentacle to grow ever stronger on the bskyb bid
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lg0ahoPeAq1qzyn85o1_500.jpg

Leo
07-07-2011, 10:36 PM
not sure this is really correct, the readers love to see the celebs filthy laundry and don't take the dead kids taboo as seriously as the media/political public circus, and they don't really give 2 fucks if the royals phones get tapped,
the point is it's against the law, and NOTW/NI are effectively above the law on this as noone is capable of holding them to account.

but there are plenty of other equally sleazy tabloids where they can those same stories, aren't there? the money is in the advertising, and advertisers are regularly shamed into boycotting a particular media outlet (especially if they can essentially reach the same audience through a different media outlet).

computer_rock
07-07-2011, 10:47 PM
tom watson on c4 news basically said there is a lot more shit to be dredged up in the coming weeks, some of which implicates the sun under rebekah wade's editorship. there is no way she's going to come out of this with a job...

DannyL
07-07-2011, 11:12 PM
Christ, Milliband's a fucking muppet isn't he? You think he might have learned not just to repeat the same stock phrases over and over. David Cameron can sleep a bit easier.

Leo
08-07-2011, 03:00 AM
also, broadcast/film are (by far) the most profitable and top priorities for the future of news corp. print accounts for only 13% of revenue, and while NOTW might be profitable (i'm not clear on that), it's peanuts to news corp if it means they can appear to be absolved and move forward with BSkyB.

crackerjack
08-07-2011, 09:53 AM
also, broadcast/film are (by far) the most profitable and top priorities for the future of news corp. print accounts for only 13% of revenue, and while NOTW might be profitable (i'm not clear on that), it's peanuts to news corp if it means they can appear to be absolved and move forward with BSkyB.

Indeed (especially so when James, who couldn't give a toss about papers, takes over from his old inky dad), but judging from the response so far, it's not working. M3dia coverage has been universally cynical about his motives, closing down NotW to save RW's arse isn't a remotely clever move – it's a PR disaster.

What has she got on them? Let's play the hackergate Wade tapes.

IdleRich
08-07-2011, 10:46 AM
Surely her days are numbered. Maybe when she has more time on her hands she can put more effort into Blood and Fire.

IdleRich
08-07-2011, 11:39 AM
"I feel sorry for (some of) the people losing their jobs, but they obviously figured this is the only way to turn the story round."
Why feel sorry for them? From what I've read in the News of the World they will be living the life of riley on the dole, subsidized by the hardworking, honest taxpayer.

Sectionfive
08-07-2011, 02:17 PM
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0708/newsoftheworld_gallery.html

IdleRich
08-07-2011, 03:08 PM
Anyone heard a rumour that the Daily Star has been raided?

DannyL
08-07-2011, 04:18 PM
It's on the Guardian live blog, but nowt else so far.

I have to say I am fucking loving this.

And why sympathize with NotW journalists? Save it for someone who deserves it.

Sectionfive
08-07-2011, 04:23 PM
Cops were there for two hours and took a disc with a record of all Goodman's computer activity.

Surely any of the paper that were not in the spotlight have themselves well covered by now?

IdleRich
08-07-2011, 04:24 PM
This is interesting (from the Guardian live updates)


Renault has become the first advertiser to publicly extend its advertising boycott to cover all News International newspapers despite the publisher's decision to close the News of the World, Brand Republic reports. It reports that Renault - which spent £343,829 with the News of the World in the 12 months to the end of April, 2011, according to Nielsen - said in a statement:
As a result of the seriousness of the continued allegations of phone hacking by News of the World, Renault is reviewing its media advertising plans.
Pending the formal investigations, we currently have no advertising planned in any News International press titles in the immediate future.
If more follow suit then it shows that killing the NOW isn't working at all inn removing the taint from the Digger's company.

crackerjack
08-07-2011, 04:47 PM
Surely her days are numbered. Maybe when she has more time on her hands she can put more effort into Blood and Fire.

:D



And why sympathize with NotW journalists? Save it for someone who deserves it.


My sympathy is finite, and it extends to anyone sacked to save the hides of the rich and guilty. Not all NoW hacks are phone-hacking immigrant-baiting, lynch-mob-leading Tory-voting wankers, though I concede it might seem that way.

re Renault - if memory serves, they were the ones who pulled the plug on the Sun's "Hop off you Frogs" campaign by pulling advertising. Glad to see they haven't forgotten. (Don't buy French cars though - the parts cost a bomb and the computerised diagnostics means you have to get any minor engine repairs done at their own garages).

gumdrops
08-07-2011, 04:53 PM
this story is truly amazing. but i wonder how much normal ppl really care. surely if the notw kept going, in a month or two no one would care so much. its wrong to tap into soliders families phones and so on BUT i think most ppl accept that thats just how low down and dirty journalism goes.

Sectionfive
08-07-2011, 05:03 PM
xfactor's starting soon isn't it?

crackerjack
08-07-2011, 05:03 PM
this story is truly amazing. but i wonder how much normal ppl really care. surely if the notw kept going, in a month or two no one would care so much. its wrong to tap into soliders families phones and so on BUT i think most ppl accept that thats just how low down and dirty journalism goes.

There's a world of difference between the down & dirty journalism that taps a rich celeb's phone and the kind that jeopardises the investigation of a murdered schoolgirl fo the sake of a story. People realise that, they're not that amoral.

IdleRich
08-07-2011, 05:08 PM
Star are saying that they were just helping the police by giving them some emails relating to Goodman freelancing for them. We'll see I guess.

crackerjack
08-07-2011, 05:18 PM
Star are saying that they were just helping the police by giving them some emails relating to Goodman freelancing for them. We'll see I guess.

Seen talk from people with good reason to know that Star is too penny-pinching to pay for hackers. They're not one that's really been in the loop over this (Mirror and Mail should definitely be next in line) so that makes sense.

Leo
08-07-2011, 06:56 PM
There's a world of difference between the down & dirty journalism that taps a rich celeb's phone and the kind that jeopardises the investigation of a murdered schoolgirl fo the sake of a story. People realise that, they're not that amoral.

yeah, and pretty much every business article about this scandal implies the NOTW brand was too damaged to recover. and again, multitudes of unfazed faithful reader don't keep a paper financially afloat, it's the advertising. and major advertisers won't want to be associated with it.

i guess i can feel a little bit sorry for current reporters who weren't even there back when this stuff happened, and the non-writers who weren't involved (printers, delivery drivers, admin staff, etc.), but they still work for a sleazy tab, so sympathy is limited.

crackerjack
09-07-2011, 12:09 AM
Steve Coogan just battered Paul McMullan on Newsnight. Even Greg Dyke piled in for a kick. McMullan must love it, loves the attention, cos he keeps coming back.

baboon2004
09-07-2011, 04:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqrSGIg7ugU

Have to say I think Coogan comes across badly here. If he is taking the same cash as is being earned by these methods (and he doesn't deny it), and so calling someone else 'morally bankrupt' is a bit rich. Obv the other guy is morally bankrupt, but still!

People buy these papers - closing down the NotW, however welcome temporarily, ain't gonna change this. To me, the real question is, why the fuck do people feel the need to read in depth about the murder of a child, or the murder of a random person? We all do to some extent or other, and so a bit of self-interrogation rather than lambasting admittedly below-scum journalists is what's really needed. We ALL have dressed extremely morbid curiosoity up as something else at some stage or another. It's like blaming arms dealers for war or something - yes they're reprehensible, but come on!

And all these companies withdrawing their advertising from NotW - let's see what things they've been more than happy to put their money INTO... start with Lloyds?

And why are Tory minsiters not eviscerated like this on Newsnight, for putting into place cuts which have no purpose other than to destory lives? Thsi whole thing reeks of a massive outpouring of sanctimony/people feeling good about themselves to me. which again, we all do, but let's fucking admit it!

All that said, of course i'm glad the NotW is closing. I just don't think it's (a) completely because of this scandal (b) gonna change all that much in the end. And those families' lives are still fucked, however sanctimonious Steve Coogan gets (and most of what he says seems to be about him!).

vimothy
09-07-2011, 05:39 PM
Yes, Coogan initially seemed a bit taken aback by McMullan's use of the classic Chewbacca defence: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!"


Coogan: [Spluttering] Ah, I mean... wait a sec...

McMullan: [Sensing victory] Fairies will die if we can't tap the phones of abducted children and the families of dead soldiers, Mr Coogan. Do you want fairies to die, Mr Coogan? Do you?

Dyke: [With great mirth] I'm 82, you know!

Happily, he then went on to master the manoeuvre, incorporating a modified variant of the defence in his own case, adding that News of the World is "an asylum seeker-hating newspaper".

luka
10-07-2011, 08:56 AM
coogan looks like a cunt because he is a cunt. he is a good writere and performer of comedy and a cunt. NotW was a brillaint paper in many respects. utterly brillaint. no one came close. toxic, wicked and depraved, a force for evil which i wish had nevere existed and im glad its gone but so so good in so many ways. fake sheikh, thats brillaint.... whats sacha baron cohen got on the fake sheikh?

crackerjack
10-07-2011, 10:16 AM
Have to say I think Coogan comes across badly here. If he is taking the same cash as is being earned by these methods (and he doesn't deny it), and so calling someone else 'morally bankrupt' is a bit rich.

He takes money from Fox Movies to make movies for Fox and they're certainly not subsidised by NI (the other way round, if anything). He's clear it's UK tabs he objects to, not Murdoch. It's pretty weak to demand he either boycott the whole empire or be labelled a hypocrite.

alex
10-07-2011, 10:24 AM
Have to say I think Coogan comes across badly here. If he is taking the same cash as is being earned by these methods (and he doesn't deny it), and so calling someone else 'morally bankrupt' is a bit rich. Obv the other guy is morally bankrupt, but still!

not really, steve coogan isn't the one who needlessly hacked those victims phones. They have written enough shit and ruined enough fucking lives. And the way NI are always quick to have a pop at the BBC it's good to see dyke putting the fucking boot in, good on him.

crackerjack
10-07-2011, 11:09 PM
I've been wondering about all these comments from NI hinting that this was gonna get worse. Here's how...

http://twitter.com/#!/AnneBillson/status/90175698584612864

Sectionfive
10-07-2011, 11:14 PM
Just about to post it. Bad news for NI. Same with the Omagh bombings apparently.

Everything event in the last 15 years will probably be dragged up by the end of the summer.

crackerjack
11-07-2011, 12:16 AM
9/11 is the big one though, right? Not only does it internationalise it – to the very city where NI is based – it's trampling on the "sacred ground" of 3,000 dead.

And I believe the Americans are really down on hacking.

Sectionfive
11-07-2011, 12:51 AM
Definitely. The same people that have got so much traction from 9/11 are ones in his pocket too.
Should be interesting.


Also, don't know how recent this is Murdoch looks a lot better then he does London but it was uploaded today.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JyKeoY_hug

hucks
11-07-2011, 09:21 AM
9/11 is the big one though, right? Not only does it internationalise it – to the very city where NI is based – it's trampling on the "sacred ground" of 3,000 dead.

And I believe the Americans are really down on hacking.

Yeah, taking it international is going to fuck them so bad. But reading the story, they didn't actually do it. They tried, and were turned down. So I think it will be easy fo them to deny.

And on Coogan, he was a bit too angry for his own good, but the idea that he can't hate the NoTW and do films for Fox is crap. There are clearly degrees of culpability, and the idea that if you write for the Times, or appear on Gilette Soccer Saturday (best tv programme ever), or make a film with Fox you are involved in this just gives weight to the excuse that everyone is as bad as each other. Which is bollocks.

crackerjack
11-07-2011, 09:38 AM
Yeah, taking it international is going to fuck them so bad. But reading the story, they didn't actually do it. They tried, and were turned down. So I think it will be easy fo them to deny.

Yeah, sadly the tweet was a lot more exciting than the story, once I finally saw it. Also, I doubt anyone's gonna take the unsubstantiated word of a PI on anything right now. Notable that absolutely no one is running with this outside the Mirror.

droid
11-07-2011, 10:41 AM
"Hitler was nice to dogs..." Total Partridge moment there.

baboon2004
11-07-2011, 02:16 PM
Yeah, taking it international is going to fuck them so bad. But reading the story, they didn't actually do it. They tried, and were turned down. So I think it will be easy fo them to deny.

And on Coogan, he was a bit too angry for his own good, but the idea that he can't hate the NoTW and do films for Fox is crap. There are clearly degrees of culpability, and the idea that if you write for the Times, or appear on Gilette Soccer Saturday (best tv programme ever), or make a film with Fox you are involved in this just gives weight to the excuse that everyone is as bad as each other. Which is bollocks.

Sure there are degrees of culpability, which I completely agree with. In criticising Coogan for his sanctimony, it obv doesn't follow that everyone is as bad as each other, just that he comes across as a bit of a self-serving twat, that's all, and isn't the best person to have on there to criticise the notw guy (particualrly as it qucikly transpires he's more concerned about notw hacks bugging him than anything to do with the Dowler family etc)

Besides, at the other end of the scale is the all-too-familiar argument that who you work for and where you take money from doesn't matter all that much. And it does.

The BBC are generally cunts on a political level too, so Dyke can't say much. Refusing to televise adverts for a humanitarian crisis in Palestine etc etc (not sure if this coincided with his being there, but can't be arsed to check)... Who are they to stick it to the NotW? (this bit in ref to Alex's post btw)

baboon2004
11-07-2011, 02:27 PM
He takes money from Fox Movies to make movies for Fox and they're certainly not subsidised by NI (the other way round, if anything). He's clear it's UK tabs he objects to, not Murdoch. It's pretty weak to demand he either boycott the whole empire or be labelled a hypocrite.

It's pretty clear from the clip shown that all Steve Coogan cares about is Steve Coogan.

I guess more broadly than talking about SC, the point i'm eager to uphold here is that this whole story is more complicated than 'NotW does terrible things and ruins lives'. Sure it does, and what's come out is despicable, but some of those criticising are quite happy to overlook some of their own failings and stick the boot in to look good. Why? Because it's easy.

It's not a relative thing, person B doesnt' stop being a twat/ethically dubious because organisation A has done something worse. In my view, anyways. And it seems SO easy for person B types to profit from such circumstances by turning their suddenly wonderful moral compasses on As, and emerging as 'the good guys'. Bollocks to that.

crackerjack
11-07-2011, 02:35 PM
The BBC are generally cunts on a political level too, so Dyke can't say much. Refusing to televise adverts for a humanitarian crisis in Palestine etc etc (not sure if this coincided with his being there, but can't be arsed to check)... Who are they to stick it to the NotW? (this bit in ref to Alex's post btw)

He wasn't, and again, you must know that this is an absurd comparison.

baboon2004
11-07-2011, 02:37 PM
He wasn't, and again, you must know that this is an absurd comparison.

Why's it absurd? The BBC may be a more 'serious' less sensationalist news organ than the NotW, blah blah but hell, it's just as happy to take liberties witht he truth when it suits it. And no, it didn't perform the terrible phone hacking that the NotW did, but it took an indefensible political position on a humanitarian crisis (just as the first example that pops to mind), and ...er, who's to say which is worse (in the sense tht o compare is impossible, but they're both utterly morally repugnant)?

i don't buy this line that there's a serious news media and a 'gutter' news media and never the twain shall meet.

crackerjack
11-07-2011, 02:47 PM
Why's it absurd?

Because the BBC were intimidated out of it by the ton of shit that falls on the head of anyone doing anything that could be construed as taking a stance on I/P.

NI are (probably) guilty of proactive and systematic criminality, corruption and political bullying. It's not the same thing at all. It's not even on the same planet, let alone ballpark.

There's a logical conclusion to this train of thought, which basically says unless you live on hill subsisting off rain water and wild berries, you can shut the fuck up having a political opinion on anything.

baboon2004
11-07-2011, 02:57 PM
Because the BBC were intimidated out of it by the ton of shit that falls on the head of anyone doing anything that could be construed as taking a stance on I/P.

NI are (probably) guilty of proactive and systematic criminality, corruption and political bullying. It's not the same thing at all. It's not even on the same planet, let alone ballpark.

There's a logical conclusion to this train of thought, which basically says unless you live on hill subsisting off rain water and wild berries, you can shut the fuck up having a political opinion on anything.

So sentence 1, you're saying that they're spineless cowards who would rather avoid the unspecified 'ton of shit' (whatever such shit consists in) than make a straightforward and human moral decision to broadcast a humanitrain appeal. If so, I agree.

Para 2 - So the BBC don't engage in political bullying? You did WATCH their coverage of the recent spate of political protest in this country, I take it? Shamelessly gutless, and a clear illustration that (I know this is obvious, but bears repeating) it is fundamentally a governmental news organisation/stooge, and in no way an independent one. And the use of 'criminality' here is silly - whether it's against the law or not is irrelevant; what is important is whether it's ethically justifiable, and in both cases given, it wasn't.

Para 3 - oh,. come on, that's ridiculous. And it's the same desperate argument used by loads of people to justify not thinking about anything in a remotely political way...fro example, the eternal pretension that basic decisions such as where you work etc etc are not remotely political choices. Which is of course utter horseshit. "Oh, I can't be morally perfect therefore I won't even try, as long as i don't do something that people can obviously criticise (eg work for the NotW)"

Over and out, I'm back to work...

btw I agreed with what you said a few pages back about the fact that hammering/stigmatising everyone at the News of the World was a bit much, but perhaps from a different viewpoint - that why should these people get fucked/stigmatised, when loads of people work for equally horrible organisations and don't get stigmatised/shafted in the least?

alex
11-07-2011, 03:01 PM
Murdoch (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8227915.stm) & Co (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/30/robert-peston-james-murdoch-bbc) are always bashing the BBC???

Personally I think that gives them every right to go at NI? Their political stance on things doesn’t come into it imo?

RE: The person B & Organisation A points, I don’t see which person B is going to profit from this? And if person B has been caught doing Cocaine or whatever the hell person B got caught doing, it doesn’t really measure up against hacking a missing girls phone for an exclusive on a tabloid newspaper.

Slothrop
11-07-2011, 03:15 PM
Para 2 - So the BBC don't engage in political bullying? You did WATCH their coverage of the recent spate of political protest in this country, I take it? Shamelessly gutless, and a clear illustration that (I know this is obvious, but bears repeating) it is fundamentally a governmental news organisation/stooge, and in no way an independent one.
Although given that the Murdoch press tends to characterise the BBC as being somewhere to the left of Lenin, where does this leave the Murdoch press?

hucks
11-07-2011, 03:17 PM
So sentence 1, you're saying that they're spineless cowards who would rather avoid the unspecified 'ton of shit' (whatever such shit consists in) than make a straightforward and human moral decision to broadcast a humanitrain appeal. If so, I agree.

The ton of shit would have come from, among others, News International. That's worth noting.

IdleRich
11-07-2011, 03:34 PM
"Why's it absurd? The BBC may be a more 'serious' less sensationalist news organ than the NotW, blah blah but hell, it's just as happy to take liberties witht he truth when it suits it. And no, it didn't perform the terrible phone hacking that the NotW did, but it took an indefensible political position on a humanitarian crisis (just as the first example that pops to mind), and ...er, who's to say which is worse (in the sense tht o compare is impossible, but they're both utterly morally repugnant"
I think that the BBC took a considered (albeit wrong) decision on whether or not they ought to run the I/P thing. They were walking through a minefield and tried to make the right decision - I don't think that anyone at the NOW who was involved in hacking victims of terrible crimes can argue that they thought that they were doing the right thing, it's a totally different level of badness.

hucks
11-07-2011, 04:00 PM
Fuck. Ing. Hell. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/11/phone-hacking-news-international-gordon-brown)

Sectionfive
11-07-2011, 04:07 PM
sky bid wobbling now too.

Leo
11-07-2011, 04:19 PM
Fuck. Ing. Hell. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/11/phone-hacking-news-international-gordon-brown)


Confidential health records for Brown's family have reached the media on two different occasions. In October 2006, the then editor of the Sun, Rebekah Brooks, contacted the Browns to tell them that they had obtained details from the medical file of their four-month-old son, Fraser, which revealed that the boy was suffering from cystic fibrosis. This appears to have been a clear breach of the Data Protection Act, which would allow such a disclosure only if it was in the public interest. Friends of the Browns say the call caused them immense distress, since they were only coming to terms with the diagnosis, which had not been confirmed. The Sun published the story.


i believe rebekah brooks can plan on burning in hell.

droid
11-07-2011, 04:41 PM
Para 2 - So the BBC don't engage in political bullying? You did WATCH their coverage of the recent spate of political protest in this country, I take it?...

Look at it like this. Journalism is a game. The mechanics of the game are what they are, and all news organisations are teams, who (I believe) are subject to the propaganda model and various other structural and institutional causes which affect what, how, when and in how much detail they report the news. You can say that the game is corrupt, morally deficient etc... and yes, thats all true to some extent.

At the same time each team and each player on each team are subject to the 'rules' of the game - not making stuff up, not using unethical means to obtain information, not deliberately misquoting people etc...

Now, all teams bend the rules here and there, they commit the odd foul when the ref isn't looking, they tackle from behind now and then, they handball... what NOTW have done is the equivalent of bribing the refs, raping the other team, killing the opposing goalkeeper and throwing shit all over the spectators.

Sure, you can say that the whole game is crooked and that anyone that plays is up to their necks in it, but that doesn't invalidate the appalling behaviour of an individual team on the pitch.

crackerjack
11-07-2011, 04:54 PM
^ This

IdleRich
11-07-2011, 07:32 PM
Nice analogy Droid.
Anyway, is that unequivocal evidence that the Sunday Times and The Sun have been hacking as well? Presumably they will be pulled too in the next few days....
We should do a poll on how long Brooks can last - I say two days max.

you
11-07-2011, 07:43 PM
Droid - got to comment on this - Is that not a little morally apathetic? I'm getting very tired of the blurring of quite clear legal and moral lines in this whole debate - not droid but the coverage in general.

Accessing information that you are not allowed to access IS illegal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/aug/28/hacking.security), it doesn't matter if you are are doing so for good reasons ( such as a greater good ), doing it for fun or doing so dishonorable reasons such as selling papers - in short if you break a law you should expect to be punished for it, if you are aware of the crime or allowed it to continue you are, arguably, an accessory.

A footballer who speeds to training so he can be a better striker for a world cup match does not have his speeding fine waived, a carpenter who steels a chisel in order to complete a particularly nice bookcase for HRH will still get charged with theft.

droid
12-07-2011, 10:25 AM
Im not really making that specific argument. There are plenty of other aspects and degrees of the dark arts of journalism which aren't technically illegal - see Johann Hari for a recent example.

That said, I think the kind of shit the NOTW was involved in could conceivably be justified depending on what kind of story it is. There's been thousands of media investigations into all kinds of political and business frauds and scandals, many of which have involved ethically questionable methods - paying sources, using hidden cameras and wires - even wikileaks... I guess the acceptability of these kinds of methods relate directly to how 'important' the story is, who it targets and why they are targeted.

In an ideal world, media organisations would have a procedure in place to regulate this kind of behaviour, there'd be a range of criteria that would have to be filled and then signed off on by an editorial team. This would all be recorded, and when the story is published, the methods, and the rationale behind them would also have to be published. Similar to security services when they want to tap phones. You would have to have a proper independent regulator as well of course. That said, there should be some methods that are always out of the question.

IdleRich
12-07-2011, 11:51 AM
Problem with that is when a journalist gets signed off to investigate something and what they get isn't what they hoped to so they can't run the story. Then you've got someone who has been signed off to use underhand methods but to no end. I suppose that what I'm saying is that you can't really know what methods are justifiable until you know what the results are going to be and you can't know the results until you've used the methods.

droid
12-07-2011, 12:04 PM
Problem with that is when a journalist gets signed off to investigate something and what they get isn't what they hoped to so they can't run the story. Then you've got someone who has been signed off to use underhand methods but to no end. I suppose that what I'm saying is that you can't really know what methods are justifiable until you know what the results are going to be and you can't know the results until you've used the methods.

You'd have to have a proper checklist of criteria... ie: a reliable source comes to a journalist with a claim that Ed Milliband is a robot, he has schematics, e-mails and other kinds of evidence. The Guardian decides the info is reputable and sets up a hidden camera near his house and checks the license numbers of visiting cars. Hey presto, a van belonging to the Tyrell corporation arrives and loads millibot into the back for maintenance and the Guardian has its story. It would of course be a risk for the paper, which would hopefully discourage the use of these methods except in ironclad cases.

Just to make it clear, I would automatically rule out stories that aren't in the 'public interest', so essentially anything involving entrapment, private individuals or the private lives of public figures would be out of frame.

IdleRich
12-07-2011, 12:16 PM
But suppose the investigation reveals that he's not actually a robot, just an improbably boring and repetitive person? They've still done the surveillance. Maybe I'm naive but I'm more happy for the police to have those powers than I am for the press.

Slothrop
12-07-2011, 12:21 PM
FWIW, the PCC code already has a set of guidelines for when and how much intruding on privacy is acceptable, which I think make sense:


When intruding into privacy an editor should consider the following:

— There must be sufficient sustainable cause—it needs to be justified by the scale of potential harm.

— There must be integrity of motive—it must be justified in terms of public good.

— The methods used must be in proportion to the seriousness of the business in hand using minimum intrusion.

— There must be proper authority—it must be authorised at a sufficiently senior level with appropriate oversight.

— There must be a reasonable prospect of success—no fishing expeditions.



Of course, these are meant to cover the merely intrusive rather than the outright illegal, but I think a similar set of considerations applies. The last one is basically what Rich is talking about...

droid
12-07-2011, 12:26 PM
But suppose the investigation reveals that he's not actually a robot, just an improbably boring and repetitive person? They've still done the surveillance. Maybe I'm naive but I'm more happy for the police to have those powers than I am for the press.

They'd lose their license?

And what if the investigation regards police brutality or corruption?

Im just saying that a lot of good investigative journalism involves methods that are ethically borderline, but its seen as at least partially acceptable to use them when the target is an MP swapping money for influence or fiddling expenses.

The primary role of media in a democracy is (supposedly) to question and investigate governments, authority and elites, and there is some value in allowing the media certain leeway if there are actually attempting to fulfill this role.

droid
12-07-2011, 12:27 PM
FWIW, the PCC code already has a set of guidelines for when and how much intruding on privacy is acceptable, which I think make sense:



Of course, these are meant to cover the merely intrusive rather than the outright illegal, but I think a similar set of considerations applies. The last one is basically what Rich is talking about...

Yeah, thats pretty much spot on, it just needs to be backed up with serious consequences for those who violate it. Massive fines, and a licensing system for newspapers.

IdleRich
12-07-2011, 01:21 PM
Yeah, I'm not really disagreeing as such, it's just such a problem to see how to regulate this. What I mean is that they shouldn't lose their licence if they had a reasonable belief that caused them to investigate but the unfortunate and accidental upshot is that some investigative journalist has done something intrusive to no good end.
Enough about that though, interesting to see that the Times and Sun had lower than usual sales at the weekend. Maybe the contagion will spread.

IdleRich
12-07-2011, 07:05 PM
Weird how every time there is a new revelation News International demand all the information relating to it as though they still have some credibility as an organisation that is actually going to do anything about this - and as though they don't have all the information anyway.

Leo
12-07-2011, 07:39 PM
if this whole saga doesn't make you (even more) cynical, nothing will. in just the past week, it's been proven that huge numbers of journalists, top business executives, government employees, politicians, police and scotland yard are lying sacks of shit who will bend any rule and ignore any sense of decency for cold cash.

as john oliver said last night on the daily show, "a guy who got car-head from a transvestite hooker is now our nation's moral compass."

sufi
12-07-2011, 08:19 PM
Weird how every time there is a new revelation News International demand all the information relating to it as though they still have some credibility as an organisation that is actually going to do anything about this - and as though they don't have all the information anyway.you have to wonder whose campign it really is - i mean whose orchestrating the well-timed drip drip of new revelations to the public, carefully managed thru twitter and the mainstream press. given that the police shld have known all about it for ages, hugh g mentioned a while ago on newsnight superinjunctions episode that there were some right juicy revelations to come, the timing for sabotaging the bskyb bid seems neat, & would surely suggest high stakes & big players
or am i smelling conspiranoid?

crackerjack
12-07-2011, 08:42 PM
you have to wonder whose campign it really is - i mean whose orchestrating the well-timed drip drip of new revelations to the public, carefully managed thru twitter and the mainstream press. given that the police shld have known all about it for ages, hugh g mentioned a while ago on newsnight superinjunctions episode that there were some right juicy revelations to come, the timing for sabotaging the bskyb bid seems neat, & would surely suggest high stakes & big players
or am i smelling conspiranoid?

Well you'd have to ask Nick Davies that. But if there were some shadowy players controlling this, surely the time to dump on Murdoch was a few months back, when Jeremy Cunt made the initial decision to wave it through (with a few meaningless guarantees about Sky News impartiality - see last week's Private Eye for precisely what they're worth). If this had all come out then, the bid would be history by now.

grizzleb
12-07-2011, 11:50 PM
We also shouldn't forget Vince Cable in all this, and the time he went all alpha-politician in front of some giggling fittie reporters. Bskyb deal might have been dust if it not for that too. The cunt Murdoch is a jammy and slippery bastard, I'd still be surprised if the bid gets rejected or amended with any significant changes.

IdleRich
13-07-2011, 12:33 AM
Not so sure, Cameron voting for the motion saying that they should withdraw the bid is a very public dissociation from Murdoch, it will be difficult for him to change his views afterwards. Also, I'm enjoying watching this happening right at the eleventh hour, I think it can be most damaging at this point and watching all the mps squirming to change their minds whilst looking as though they haven't is fantastic entertainment too.

luka
13-07-2011, 08:38 AM
as it stands its dacre that will gain. a lot of people seem to be expecting the mail will get cuaght up in all this and perhaps they will. if not then all our crowing and schadenfreude will seem a bit hollow as murdoch is the lesser evil. i said before that the NoftW was a brillaint paper in many respcts and i meant it. the times did not suffer under murdoch either. most people would admit he was a very good owner of the times.

crackerjack
13-07-2011, 09:13 AM
as it stands its dacre that will gain. a lot of people seem to be expecting the mail will get cuaght up in all this and perhaps they will. if not then all our crowing and schadenfreude will seem a bit hollow as murdoch is the lesser evil. i said before that the NoftW was a brillaint paper in many respcts and i meant it. the times did not suffer under murdoch either. most people would admit he was a very good owner of the times.

The Times is a brilliant paper, probably the calmest, most honest we have. I'm not sure about Dacre being the beneficiary - not only will he have his own scandal to ride out (it'll come, for sure), but this changes everything. Papers simply won't be able to operate that way anymore.

luka
13-07-2011, 09:35 AM
not for a few weeks or so no....
i also am assuming the mail will get caught up but who knows.

luka
13-07-2011, 09:38 AM
the sydney morning herald used the "no sight more ridiculous than the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality” quote today and by coincidence my dad did too in an email. i think they are both right. it will have big repercussions for nws international but it wont change how things work in a more genereal way. or at last i will b suprised if it does.

alex
13-07-2011, 09:53 AM
Didn't Dacre hire one of the hack PI's for the longest time out of all of the papers? I could of sworn I read/heard that somewhere? The mail is more of a bandwagon jumper tbh

edit* enjoyed this http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/12/andy-hayman-phone-hacking-committee?INTCMP=SRCH

crackerjack
13-07-2011, 10:23 AM
Hayman's mock outrage when asked about bribe-taking was hilarious. Looked like it was the result of hours and hours of practice, just winds up like a massive flashing 'guilty' sign. He'd have been better off giving it the 'how very dare you?'

crackerjack
13-07-2011, 01:53 PM
Ha ha, some of these guys maybe enjoying themselves a little too much

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_RuG_94nZi8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

argh, fucking shitty embed fail again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RuG_94nZi8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RuG_94nZi8

crackerjack
13-07-2011, 02:19 PM
BSkyB withdrawn.

Feeling curious sense of pointlessness to life now :( how do we stay entertained until the trials begin?

muser
13-07-2011, 02:25 PM
Hayman's mock outrage when asked about bribe-taking was hilarious. Looked like it was the result of hours and hours of practice, just winds up like a massive flashing 'guilty' sign. He'd have been better off giving it the 'how very dare you?'

yea that was a terrible performance, i'm hoping the guardian hacks brookes or murdochs phone as it starts to quiet down a bit.

IdleRich
13-07-2011, 02:55 PM
Yeah, they're enjoying it too much, they're acting like little kids. To be honest it's exactly how I would behave too.

droid
13-07-2011, 04:23 PM
http://www.foxnewsuk.com/

crackerjack
13-07-2011, 05:09 PM
http://www.foxnewsuk.com/

:D

Must be said, since the story got too big to ignore/dismiss, Sky's coverage has been exemplary (stark contrast to when ND first broke it, and a couple of hacks from papers owned by NI sat around scoffing at the story on a TV channel 39% owned by NI). Just shows what proper regulation can do.

grizzleb
13-07-2011, 08:53 PM
The Times is a fucking establishment propaganda rag, I'm sorry. The editorials are full of utter guff, week by week.

luka
14-07-2011, 01:39 PM
its the times. of course its establishment for fucks sake. thats its raison d etre. if you want the socialist worker you buy the socialist worker.

grizzleb
14-07-2011, 02:11 PM
I use that as a basis on which to judge a newspaper. Just because it punts out a certain expected line with aplomb and consistency doesn't mean it's a quality newspaper. Eg - I'd magine the last 20 editions of the EDL's newsletters have been pretty consistent in their horrible content.

It's a rag.

crackerjack
14-07-2011, 02:39 PM
I use that as a basis on which to judge a newspaper. Just because it punts out a certain expected line with aplomb and consistency doesn't mean it's a quality newspaper. Eg - I'd magine the last 20 editions of the EDL's newsletters have been pretty consistent in their horrible content.

It's a rag.

consistency and quality aren't the same thing - you can be consistently shit (which I imagine the EDL's paper would be, if they have one). personally, i value good points well made when reading a paper, regardless of their line (up to a point).

crackerjack
14-07-2011, 02:48 PM
Return of the Luv Guv (http://www.slate.com/id/2299038/)

droid
14-07-2011, 03:03 PM
Invaluable:

http://www.bloggerheads.com/

Sectionfive
14-07-2011, 03:21 PM
Do you think its about time the feds pay a trip to Woofah towers then?

Sectionfive
15-07-2011, 12:48 AM
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/07/14/rebekah-brooks-should-go-now-urges-gaddafi/

baboon2004
15-07-2011, 09:17 AM
The Times is a brilliant paper, probably the calmest, most honest we have.

Not trying to stoke up any further arguments, genuinely (!), but the Times is awful right-wing bollocks. I say this as someone who grew up in a house where it was read, and who worked for a little bit at/on T2, albeit a decade ago (awful, AWFUL people in the main - I was there around 9/11, and people were laughing in a oh-aren't-we-so-sophisticated-and-ironic anti-American way the day after it happened, at American people talking on screen. Utter, despicable cunts.). Terrible in almost every conceivable way, hiding under a veneer of respectability and, well, calmness.

droid
15-07-2011, 10:09 AM
Do you think its about time the feds pay a trip to Woofah towers then?

The hacking of Grime's phone after its death took place under the former editor! We're reformed now.

hucks
15-07-2011, 10:25 AM
Not trying to stoke up any further arguments, genuinely (!), but the Times is awful right-wing bollocks. I say this as someone who grew up in a house where it was read, and who worked for a little bit at/on T2, albeit a decade ago (awful, AWFUL people in the main - I was there around 9/11, and people were laughing in a oh-aren't-we-so-sophisticated-and-ironic anti-American way the day after it happened, at American people talking on screen. Utter, despicable cunts.). Terrible in almost every conceivable way, hiding under a veneer of respectability and, well, calmness.

I thought even the calmness was lacking when I read the Sunday Times at the weekend. Their long piece on the hacking story talked of the "tyranny of the print unions" and called Ed Miliband and the Guardian lefties in a main news story. It was really shrill. I don't think it's a good paper at all.

crackerjack
15-07-2011, 10:56 AM
I thought even the calmness was lacking when I read the Sunday Times at the weekend. Their long piece on the hacking story talked of the "tyranny of the print unions" and called Ed Miliband and the Guardian lefties in a main news story. It was really shrill. I don't think it's a good paper at all.

No, the Sunday is a far-right piece of shit - as you say, the bias infects their news stories and Portillo is probably their most left-wing columnist FFS. The daily is good though, however unpleasant the people who staff it.

IdleRich
15-07-2011, 11:52 AM
So Brooks gone although she lasted a couple of days longer than my prediction. Don't get this bit though


"Brooks also faced an uncomfortable appearance before MPs on the Commons culture, media and sport select committee on Tuesday along with Rupert and James Murdoch to answer questions about the phone-hacking scandal."
Surely resigning doesn't get her out of that one?
Edit: Ignore me, it says in the next line that she willl still attend.

luka
15-07-2011, 12:19 PM
i cant imagine enjoying a pint with many guardian writers either for what its worth.
i think the times is fine. it is what it is. my point was that murdoch has been a good proprieter. the guardian has bettr sports writers. th times has terrible sports writers.
the guardian is undrrated by you lot though. it is th best paper. it broke all this stuff. wikileaks wouldnet hav teamed up with anyone else in the uk. i like kevin mitchell. i lik the cricket writers. i like larry elliot. ive got time for monbiot. visually its way ahead of the pack. that matters to me. th times is ugly.

luka
15-07-2011, 12:28 PM
its a bit silly just reading th comment pages of a paper tho and thn going oh i dont like this paper, i dont agree with thir opinions. whats the point of bing all right on lik the indy when you dont have money to pay reporters?

luka
15-07-2011, 12:29 PM
NoftW was very good visually too. The red tops gnerally are visually very bold and exiciting.

hucks
15-07-2011, 01:22 PM
i cant imagine enjoying a pint with many guardian writers either for what its worth.

the guardian is undrrated by you lot though. it is th best paper. it broke all this stuff. wikileaks wouldnet hav teamed up with anyone else in the uk. i like kevin mitchell. i lik the cricket writers. i like larry elliot. ive got time for monbiot. visually its way ahead of the pack. that matters to me. th times is ugly.

I have had a drink with many Guaridan writers who are good people and support the right football teams.

crackerjack
15-07-2011, 02:25 PM
I have had a drink with many Guaridan writers who are good people and support the right football teams.

Very true. Paul Hayward is a Brighton fan.

edit: as is/was David Lacey (if he's still there)

e/y
15-07-2011, 04:52 PM
Paul Hayward is a horrible, horrible writer, though. he just re-hashes the same trite shit about big clubs all the time. so do most of the others who champion The Best League In the World (Williams, the one who supports Everton, think there's one or two more).

that said, the Fiver writers (Doyle, Ronay, Barry) and the Podcast are amazing (Richardson is a demi-god in my eyes), and I don't think there's any paper / site out there with a better lineup of writers on foreign football than Sid Lowe / Rafa H / Bandini. Jonathan Wilson's and the Zonal Marking editor's pieces are always excellent, too. and I really wish Marcela Mora y Araujo started contributing again. so, for me anyway, the football section is great so long as you ignore the trivial / Prem-cheerleader stuff.

overall the Guardian is great. when I lived in Toronto, I'd often buy the print edition once or twice a week (even though it cost a stupid amount of money...for a student budget, anyway).

Sectionfive
15-07-2011, 06:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtC4gT-_Nj0

What reason could it possibly be.......?

IdleRich
15-07-2011, 07:00 PM
Good to see that Bob Dylan(schneider) is still telling it like it is. It's not NOW hacking that's the story really, it's just hacking in the abstract, blowing in the wind.

jenks
17-07-2011, 01:52 PM
Now Brooks arrested. I know it's been asked before but how does this 'arrested by appointment' work - is it all that common? Would it perhaps explain the resignation on Friday - she knew she was to be arrested on Sunday? Will it affect what she can say on Tuesday?

Sectionfive
17-07-2011, 06:54 PM
Will it affect what she can say on Tuesday?

This is what I thought. Can she hide behind a few "not wanting to prejudice the police inquire" lines now? Convenient as she has the dirtiest hands etc

hucks
17-07-2011, 08:18 PM
Now the chief of the Met's gone. Carnage.

jenks
17-07-2011, 08:29 PM
I cannot get my head round all of this - a few months ago only the guardian, a handful of mps and some people on twitter and here cared about this - the met said there was no case to answer and the tories had bumped Vince Cable off the BSkyB discussions - now I don't know who is going next.
What a fucking mess.

hucks
17-07-2011, 08:47 PM
And for what? How many extra sales did all the hacking actually get NOTW? It's one thing to bribe police to nobble a rival or something, another to get poxy little stories about celebs, royalty and murder victims.

Sectionfive
17-07-2011, 08:58 PM
Id have thought Cameron's chances of surviving the storm were good two weeks ago. The way things are going he could be gone by Christmas.

Big liability for the party now.

crackerjack
17-07-2011, 11:53 PM
Good to see that Bob Dylan(schneider) is still telling it like it is. It's not NOW hacking that's the story really, it's just hacking in the abstract, blowing in the wind.

ONly just realised what you were talking about. For those who haven't seen it, it's quite a farce.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/n9gOSsvLIO4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

embed fuck up again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9gOSsvLIO4

Leo
18-07-2011, 04:45 AM
ONly just realised what you were talking about. For those who haven't seen it, it's quite a farce.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/n9gOSsvLIO4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

embed fuck up again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9gOSsvLIO4

god, this is the worst attempt at spin i've seen so far. he complains that citibank and bank of america were hacked but no one's talking about those, they are all too busy piling on news corp. well, maybe that's because those banks were the victims of hacking, and in news corp's case, they were DOING the hacking!! what an ass.

crackerjack
18-07-2011, 10:09 AM
Another glimpse of the true depths of Murdoch's remorse - this (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576451812776293184.html?m od=djkeyword) from the WSJ

IdleRich
18-07-2011, 01:10 PM
Will Brooks' arrest have any effect on what she's able to say in her appearance tomorrow? If so, that's terrible. It could appear as though the police have arrested to prevent her saying anything that will incriminate them.

crackerjack
18-07-2011, 01:14 PM
That seems a widespread assumption. Be a concern if it was done for that reason, as Weeting has been seen as credible and honest investigation up till now. Still, the arrest hasn't saved Stephenson. Strong rumours Yates will be suspended today too.

crackerjack
18-07-2011, 01:17 PM
a few months ago only the guardian, a handful of mps and some people on twitter and here cared about this

It was me and Rich wot won it :D

grizzleb
18-07-2011, 01:50 PM
I'm pretty happy this is now as significant a story as it should have been a few years back. Well played for keeping up the pressure guys.

IdleRich
18-07-2011, 01:53 PM
Yep, dogged persistence to keep it on the front page of dissensus has finally paid off - beyond our wildest dreams I might add.

IdleRich
18-07-2011, 02:35 PM
Yates has resigned now.

mistersloane
18-07-2011, 07:00 PM
Sean Hoare found dead. Police say it's not suspicious. Populace say yeah right.

Sectionfive
18-07-2011, 07:19 PM
Would he have been a witness for prosecution against Coulson yeah?

crackerjack
18-07-2011, 07:35 PM
Would he have been a witness for prosecution against Coulson yeah?

Maybe, but a very poor one.

IdleRich
18-07-2011, 07:43 PM
I'd love to believe that Rebekah Brooks or Andy Coulson broke into his flat and forcibly administered a fatal dosage of heroin (like in Get Carter) but somehow I don't see it.

crackerjack
18-07-2011, 07:57 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/sean-hoare-news-of-the-world

Sectionfive
18-07-2011, 09:40 PM
lulz,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/mystery-bag-bin-rebekah-brooks


The Guardian has learned that a bag containing the items was found in an underground car park in the Design Centre at the exclusive Chelsea Harbour development on Monday afternoon.

The car park, under a shopping centre, is yards from the gated apartment block where Brooks lives with her husband, a former racehorse trainer and close friend of the prime minister David Cameron.

It is understood the bag was handed into security at around 3pm and that shortly afterwards, Brooks's husband, Charlie, arrived and tried to reclaim it. He was unable to prove the bag was his and the security guard refused to release it.

Instead, it is understood that the security guard called the police. In less than half an hour, two marked police cars and an unmarked forensics car are said to have arrived at the scene.

Police are now examining CCTV footage taken in the car park to uncover who dropped the bag. Initial suspicions that there had been a break in at the Brooks' flat have been dismissed.

David Wilson, Charlie Brooks's official spokesman, told the Guardian that Charlie Brooks denies that the bag belonged to his wife. "Charlie has a bag which contains a laptop and papers which were private to him," said Wilson.

"They were nothing to do with Rebekah or the [phone-hacking] case."

Wilson said Charlie Brooks had left the bag with a friend who was returning it, but dropped it in the wrong part of the garage. When asked how the bag ended up in a bin he replied: "The suggestion is that a cleaner thought it was rubbish and put it in the bin." Wilson added: "Charlie was looking for it together with a couple of the building staff.

"Charlie was told it had gone to security, by which stage they [security] had already called the police to say they had found something.

"The police took it away. Charlie's lawyers got in touch with the police to say they could take a look at the computer but they'd see there was nothing relevant to them on it. He's expecting the stuff back forthwith."

crackerjack
18-07-2011, 09:41 PM
You beat me to it!

Thank fuck we're back with the crazy shit.

hucks
18-07-2011, 10:39 PM
More lulz!


"We have owned Sun/News of the World - that story is simply phase 1 - expect the lulz to flow in coming days."

http://twitter.com/LulzSec/status/93066519910678528

crackerjack
18-07-2011, 10:51 PM
norty business
http://www.new-times.co.uk/sun/

Sectionfive
18-07-2011, 11:46 PM
Eh, Would outside people getting access to NI computers not throw a big spanner in any future investigation?

ifp
19-07-2011, 09:23 AM
New Private Eye front page raised a chuckle:
http://yfrog.com/kklkpqgj

crackerjack
19-07-2011, 09:34 AM
New Private Eye front page raised a chuckle:
http://yfrog.com/kklkpqgj

Gah, people have been making that joke for a fortnight...

Have high hopes of this issue of the Eye, though - the last one went to press just before the scandal broke and seemed like it was from another age. Much to make up for - they're promising a Street of Shame special.

don_quixote
19-07-2011, 10:38 AM
I have had a drink with many Guaridan writers who are good people and support the right football teams.

daniel taylor is a forest fan woop

don_quixote
19-07-2011, 02:55 PM
tooooooom watson is LOVING this

hucks
19-07-2011, 03:23 PM
Rupert is having a mare

/insight

Sectionfive
19-07-2011, 03:36 PM
http://twitpic.com/5sicy9

Leo
19-07-2011, 03:36 PM
james is pretty smooth. rupert looks like he needs a nap.

sufi
19-07-2011, 04:33 PM
email exchange between John Yates and the PM's Chief of Staff Ed Llewellyn, as referred to by John Yates in his Select Committee appearance this afternoon. Ed Llewellyn's reply was discussed and agreed with the Permanent Secretary at No10.


10 September 2010: John Yates to Ed Llewellyn
Ed,
Hope all well.
I am coming over to see the PM at 12.30 today regarding [redacted: national security] matters. I am very happy to have a conversation in the margins around the other matters that have caught my attention this week if you thought it would be useful.
Best wishes,
John Response:

10 September 2010: Ed Llewellyn to John Yates
John -
Thanks - all well.
On the other matters that have caught your attention this week, assuming we are thinking of the same thing, I am sure you will understand that we will want to be able to be entirely clear, for your sake and ours, that we have not been in contact with you about this subject.
So I don't think it would really be appropriate for the PM, or anyone else at No 10, to discuss this issue with you, and would be grateful if it were not raised please.
But the PM looks forward to seeing you, with Peter Ricketts and Jonathan Evans, purely on [redacted: national security] matters at 1230.
With best wishes,
Ed
just released...

muser
19-07-2011, 04:56 PM
haah

muser
19-07-2011, 04:57 PM
what happened there then