News of the World phone hacking

[Andy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14043336

Like most people i really didnt care about this when it was celebrities whining about their privacy, but now its coming out that terror victims and relatives of murder victims have been targetted by the news of the world, i gotta say thats absolutly outrageous! I really really hope somebody gets sent down for this, particullarly giving that milly dowlers parents false hope for so long, it really beggars beleif and makes you question what goes on in the name of a good story.

Heads need to roll for this one and looking at the way the public, politicians, sponsors and generally everybody is reacting to the latest developments, it looks as though they will indeed roll.

[Tricky]

Its definitely disgusting, and very revealing about how slimy and untrustworthy the media is. If you want to know what serving & past soldiers think now its been revealed that dead servicemens families were being hacked, look no further than here (caution, much strong language)
http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/165700-dead-soldiers-families-hacked-newspapers.html

http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/165554-how-low-can-tabloid-journo-go.html

[Rancid Carcass]

News of the World shutting down:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733

I guess there was simply no way back from this.

[Danny]

murdoch washing his hands of it and offering a sacrificial lamb to the masses to get mad at whilst they restructure and continue the practice somewhere else.

-on a personal note this doesnt surprise me, my relatives constantly pushed for me to switch from film to journalism in college and i even wrote a few things for local papers and i couldnt do it from a moral standpoint. I am a filmmaker, not for money or attention, but to tell stories and entertain people. By and large journalists are the parasitic antithesis to this. Its an industry no longer about reporting the facts. its preying on tragedy and dressing it as freak show. its picking and choosing the worst examples of a thing for sensationalist content and shilling papers, unbias facts be damned. Newspapers are the worst example of this.
I remember at school the teachers showed us a bunch of papers and said "these are the ones you read for liberal versions of the news and these are the ones you read for conservative" and even as a child this very idea as the norm was reprehensible to me. It's the truth though, an ironic one, that you never get the truth from papers anymore, just some sensationalist flavour of chinese whispers.
I would bet you good money that not only is this the tip of a very large iceberg but every paper probably does it and lies about it and will do so till they are found out.

[Neil]

We have a scandle in the UK at the moment as wide spread phone hacking by the press has come to light.

Saw this (video) interview with Hugh Grant (who helped to blow the story):-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052690

Worth a watch if only for his final comments to the 'journalist'...

[MinionZombie]

I do wish it'd be reclassed as "interception of voicemail" - because that's what it is. It's, by definition, not hacking. Nor is it by definition, phone tapping (both, particularly the former, have been used endlessly to 'sex up' this story ... a story that, frankly, doesn't require sexing up ... but that's the news media for you :rolleyes:).

Anyway - it's trying to access someone's voicemail by seeing if the password hasn't been changed by the user (from, for example, 12345) - if it hasn't, they gain access that way. That's not hacking - the ones who had messages successfully read without their consent didn't bother changing their password for their voicemail, and some right bastards from the newspapers (and not just the NOTD - indeed, the Mirror is the scummiest and low-down tabloid out there) have gone fishing for gossip, tittle-tattle, and sexed-up 'copy' for their stories to feed an insatiable public need for gossip and tittle-tattle that results in plenty of cash-money ... so considering some of the piousness from some sectors of the media, they should shut the fuck up and act like proper journalists (unlike Johann Hari, for example - but that's a separate journalism scandal) and ask some bloody questions.

The first of which should have been (months, or indeed years ago) - "if the NOTW is up to this, who else is up to it, and indeed what else are they up to?" - and yet that hasn't been asked. It's 100% untrue that the NOTW is the only one guilty of voicemail interception (and other such illegal practices to get stories), and frankly it's disgusting (on top of the sheer disgust of this story itself) that all the other stones are being left unturned while this rages on. In other words - I call bullshit on the media itself - and I do hope that the dirty practices are not only stopped (at all newspapers), but that they're exposed ... ... did I mention the Daily Mirror? Guido Fawkes showed them to be the dirtiest of the lot sodding months ago ... it's amazing that professional journalists don't do the digging that the blogosphere does.

The mainstream journos are just a bunch of press release churning pointless expenses-happy, self-important wankers who believe themselves to be Woodward & Bernstein (when they're anything but). That goes for television journalists too - particularly news presenters/commentators.

/rant :mad:

-- -------- Post added at 06:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

And another thing - I'm sick of all this 'guilty until proven innocent' garbage that the likes of Ed Milliband pushes all the time. No, in our society - as has been the case for so long now - you are innocent until proven guilty. The operative word being proven - you need proof.

Coulson was convicted of anything, there was no evidence to do so - but he was bad news nonetheless - a tainted brand, hence he went ... which reminds me, Miliband and Labour should watch their mouths and stop throwing stones about the glass house, what with having Tom Baldwin in the equivalient position in their team (another former NOTW guy). Nor can it be turned to anyone's advantage politically, because the worlds of politics and the media are so closely reliant on one another, it doesn't matter who is in power, there'll be a now-toxic-but-not-then editor of the NOTW or whatever who was hobnobbing with Prime Ministers at Christmas Parties stretching back to whenever ... they joined Dave at a party, but they also joined the Son of the Manse, and Bliar at similar shindigs ... ... so yeah - glass houses, throwing stones, etc.

So - being that a police investigation into all this is underway - surely it was stupid of Miliband to froth at the mouth (stones, glass houses, remember) ... you can't get involved in an on-going police investigation ... that's, you know, what's the concept? Oh yeah - that's how the fucking law works, you dumb shit! :rolleyes:

Investigations have to be conducted, without outside influence, proof has to be found, trials have to be conducted - and then only then can someone possibly be convicted. Indeed, they might very well be foudn *shock horror* innocent of something. The trouble is that shit sticks and the smell lingers around the afflicted from there-on afterwards, regardless of the fact they've been proven innocent. It's something that is perpetuated by the newspaper and TV news industries, who have little regard for the rule of law and the respect of an innocent verdict ... this assumed guilt bullshit, and this guilt by association. It's pretty ridiculous, and well, it's just not cricket ... the media perpetuates it, and of course it then sinks into the populace at large. We've all been guilty of presuming someone to be guilty - just by their names being associated with something - a suggestion is made (sometimes based on literally fuck all evidence) and the mental link has been made to ruin a reputation.

Indeed it's been shown to happen time and again with high profile murder cases - you get people who are totally innocent being hounded by the press, getting presumed guilt thrust upon them, and then oh hang about, they're totally innocent afterall. Nevermind, we won't apologise to them for ruining their lives, let's go and chase this ambulance over here, or make up some horse shit over there, or what have you...

/rant #2 :mad:

-- -------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 PM ----------

And this is worth a squizz:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7079708/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml

Remember Operation Motorman? You may not, because little was made it at the time — and nothing like the current phone hacking furore. Yet many of the themes are identical. In 2003, a private investigator called Steve Whittamore was busted. His job was to simply to snoop out information for various newspaper groups, often using illegal methods. They'd pay him, he'd hand over the information. It really was that simple. Until, that is, the Information Commissioner got its hands on his records, which included details of some of the transactions made between him and his client journalists. By 2006, it had emerged how many journalists had been caught paying Whittamore for information, and which publications they worked for. It was by no means limited to one or two titles, but dozens. In his cover piece for The Spectator this week (available to read here), Peter Oborne writes of that case: "The truth is that very few newspapers can declare themselves entirely innocent of buying illegal information from private detectives." Writing for the Evening Standard yesterday, our former editor Matthew d'Ancona also alighted on the Whittamore scandal. "It does not excuse any of the terrible things the News of the World is presently alleged to have done," he observes, "But it does provide some perspective."

We added a pair of graphs to Peter's article, which I've pasted at the top of this post for CoffeeHousers. They reveal a striking correlation. Turns out, those papers whose journalists were most implicated in the Whittamore bust are also those who have devoted the least number of reports to the phone hacking story. A coincidence? Perhaps. But, in any case, it certainly doesn’t inspire confidence.

[Andy]

Obviously i dont give a crap about celebrities and politicians getting their names dragged through mud but when murdered children are being targetting and the actions of this journalist have potentially altered the way the investigation went and dragged her relatives through more despair than nesscessary then it gets disgusting and offensive and thats why i think someone needs locking up for this. Dont even get me started on the allegations that former (Deceased) soldiers have potentially been hacked too!

And yes mz it is hacking, not all hacking is matrix style guys in black coats running fancy scripts and opening backdoors, in fact 90% of hacking is guess work and by its very defination, it means getting access to information which you are not entitled to access. So guessing somebodies password on their voicemail and using that to access it and listen to their messages is legally hacking.

[Neil]

News of the World shutting down:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733

I guess there was simply no way back from this.WOW! Just WOW!

-- -------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------


Obviously i dont give a crap about celebrities and politicians getting their names dragged through mud
Sorry! Can't agree with any reason that justifies anyones personal space being abused in such a way, celebrity, politician or not!

[MinionZombie]

From a while back (September 2010):
http://dizzythinks.net/2010/09/meanwhile-in-real-world.html

* Calling someone's mobile, waiting for it to go to voicemail and then entering their four digit pin (0000) is not hacking. Hacking is about circumventing security, not being presented with them and passing them.

** Calling someone's mobile, waiting for it to go to voicemail and then entering their four digit pin (0000) is not tapping. Tapping is the covert act of real-time interception of active communication links.

[SymphonicX]

Sorry! Can't agree with any reason that justifies anyones personal space being abused in such a way, celebrity, politician or not!


Agree 100%.
I won't chime too much in on this debate, working for some partly owned NI company.

I absolutely detest, however, this idea that because someone writes a song, makes a movie, writes a book, makes a TV show, stars in a play, or whatever, that we OWN them, we have a total and absolute right to their private lives. Clearly, in my eyes, this is wrong. Having their phones intercepted (MZ is absolutely right about the phrase "hacking" unnecessarily sensationalising these stories - hacking is traditionally asosciated with circumventing security in the same way theft is different from robbery.) or their bins gone through so WE can know about that person's relationship with his or her father/mother/lover etc...is madness. How is this our right? How is this shit even interesting? Why do they deserve their names to be dragged through ANYTHING?

I get it with people who are in positions of power - or people who exert influence over others - a good example is the Andrew Marr case - a political commentator who tried to get a super injunction over the details of his affair - his job is to question politicians about these and many other issues - so transparency is required for him to be a credible journo!!!

Tell me where its necessary for us to know who Liz Hurley shagged as a 16 year old? Tell me what exactly is compromised by that pathetic, pointless drivel?

[MinionZombie]

Symph makes a number of important points there - agreed on them all.

I wonder how many people decrying the alleged (nothing has been proven in a court of law yet ... funny how Ed Milliband et al have forgotten the basic, fundamental functions of law in this country) actions of some at the NOTW are prone to a bit of gossip themselves. How many of them have marvelled at the horse shit spread about in rags like Heat Magazine, for instance?

Clearly, a line has seemingly been approached at speed and crossed with little thought by those alleged to have done the deed. However, the shocking lack of exploration of the issue (i.e. what other illegal methods have been going on, and what other newspapers have been involved). Indeed there was an investigation into this sort of thing back in 2003 - and it was found that it was a mess - but the then Labour government did nothing about it, nor did they do anything about it prior to an election because they didn't want the papers turning on them ... so Milliband's righteous indignation rather makes me change the channel to something less hypocritical (he even met Murdoch a couple of weeks ago - and yet raised not a single concern with the man).

When it comes to hypocrisy and credibility - I think the public have a right to know - especially in the world of politics. Indeed, the Andrew Marr example is a perfect one. When it comes to chasing celebs and public figures to get a picture of them (*ahem* Princess Dianna *ahem*), and finding out/totally making up some gossip about some random celeb, then why is that of any importance? There are too many fame whores in our society today (perpetuated by garbage like X-Factor and reality TV in general) where vapid sacks of flesh gain millions for literally doing nothing of importance or note or talent or even vague intrigue, and those who follow these morons further perpetuate the cycle of uselessness.

/rant

[Tricky]

My girlfriend works for a large PR firm and I hear all sorts about the dirty ins & outs from the media, its a real eye opener! She does the PR for the army & housing associations but also has to write press releases for the tabloids and magazines etc, some of which are purely fictional but put out as news! Or the PR firm writes the articles, then some journalist puts their name to it & prints it as their own in the papers :rockbrow: I get to hear what all these super injunctions are about as well, obviously I keep it quiet though as I cant afford lawsuits on my paupers slary!
One thing though its amusing how that Rebakah Brooks managed to keep her divorce from Ross Kemp entirely out of the tabloids, I've heard stories about what really happened there, funny how she can hide that but prints out intimate details or pure gossip about anyone else famous who is getting a divorce or having a break up

[Andy]

WOW! Just WOW!

-- -------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------


Sorry! Can't agree with any reason that justifies anyones personal space being abused in such a way, celebrity, politician or not!


Agree 100%.
I won't chime too much in on this debate, working for some partly owned NI company.

I absolutely detest, however, this idea that because someone writes a song, makes a movie, writes a book, makes a TV show, stars in a play, or whatever, that we OWN them, we have a total and absolute right to their private lives. Clearly, in my eyes, this is wrong. Having their phones intercepted (MZ is absolutely right about the phrase "hacking" unnecessarily sensationalising these stories - hacking is traditionally asosciated with circumventing security in the same way theft is different from robbery.) or their bins gone through so WE can know about that person's relationship with his or her father/mother/lover etc...is madness. How is this our right? How is this shit even interesting? Why do they deserve their names to be dragged through ANYTHING?

I get it with people who are in positions of power - or people who exert influence over others - a good example is the Andrew Marr case - a political commentator who tried to get a super injunction over the details of his affair - his job is to question politicians about these and many other issues - so transparency is required for him to be a credible journo!!!

Tell me where its necessary for us to know who Liz Hurley shagged as a 16 year old? Tell me what exactly is compromised by that pathetic, pointless drivel?

While i agree with you guys in principle and pointing out what i was saying was that i really dont care about the latest celebrity exploits, it also causes me no offense. In other words, i dont care either way.

But you have to admit, there is a world of difference between posting the latest sleazy football players antics becuase his name sells and interfering in and jeopordising in a police investigation into a murdered child, that is the part that offends me.

[Danny]

But you have to admit, there is a world of difference between posting the latest sleazy football players antics becuase his name sells and interfering in and jeopordising in a police investigation into a murdered child, that is the part that offends me.

morally yes, ethically its all the same.

[Purge]

Boy, I would just hate to see this cause any problems for Murdoch.




Really, I would.




No really, I would.

[Publius]

From a while back (September 2010):
http://dizzythinks.net/2010/09/meanwhile-in-real-world.html

"Dizzy" versus the Federal Communications Commission:

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/voice-mail-fraud:

A hacker calls into a voice mail system and searches for voice mailboxes that still have the default passwords active or have passwords with easily-guessed combinations, like 1-2-3-4. (Hackers know common default passwords and are able to try out the common ones until they can break into the phone system.)

[SymphonicX]

"Dizzy" versus the Federal Communications Commission:

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/voice-mail-fraud:

Federal laws count the UK in too? Better stop jay-walking...lol

(jay walking...I got that from lethal weapon...)

[Andy]

Federal laws dont apply in the uk but under UK law one of the key definations of hacking is accessing information which you have no right or permission to access, The single most common form of hacking is guessing passwords and abusing default passwords on services and devices.

Its not glitzy or glamorous like people seem to think all hacking is but its the most widespread form and it is very much hacking.

[SymphonicX]

Federal laws dont apply in the uk but under UK law one of the key definations of hacking is accessing information which you have no right or permission to access, The single most common form of hacking is guessing passwords and abusing default passwords on services and devices.

Its not glitzy or glamorous like people seem to think all hacking is but its the most widespread form and it is very much hacking.

I have a problem with this definition. As I said its the difference between thievery and robbery. If you leave your house doors and windows unlocked, and something goes missing, you were thieved from - if you lock your doors, lock your windows, and someone breaks in - it is robbery. (Both are classed as burglary).

Same as, if you leave your bag open in a public area, someone steals something, you were thieved from. If you have your bag closed and someone threatens you with violence to take the contents, you were robbed!

So to "hack" someone's voicemail because they have left it unprotected shouldn't be hacking, hacking should require security measures being circumvented - if it wasn't protected, it was simply intercepted. It was always free on the information highway - the bag was open, the doors unlocked, so it was intercepted - in the same way a tenner blowing down the road becomes yours if you manage to catch it - but if you take it from someone who's made a deliberate effort to keep it safe - like putting it in a wallet, then you're not intercepting it - you're hacking in to the wallet, and stealing.

Both are roundabout ways of theft of information the thief isn't entitled to, but I think I've made my point.

[MinionZombie]

It might be a technicality to some, but I think it's an important distinction to make.

And I wonder how many people who are up in arms have themselves 'hacked' into the phone/email account/whatever of their partner/bf/gf/husband/wife/whatever? :sneaky:

[Andy]

I have a problem with this definition. As I said its the difference between thievery and robbery. If you leave your house doors and windows unlocked, and something goes missing, you were thieved from - if you lock your doors, lock your windows, and someone breaks in - it is robbery. (Both are classed as burglary).

Same as, if you leave your bag open in a public area, someone steals something, you were thieved from. If you have your bag closed and someone threatens you with violence to take the contents, you were robbed!

So to "hack" someone's voicemail because they have left it unprotected shouldn't be hacking, hacking should require security measures being circumvented - if it wasn't protected, it was simply intercepted. It was always free on the information highway - the bag was open, the doors unlocked, so it was intercepted - in the same way a tenner blowing down the road becomes yours if you manage to catch it - but if you take it from someone who's made a deliberate effort to keep it safe - like putting it in a wallet, then you're not intercepting it - you're hacking in to the wallet, and stealing.

Both are roundabout ways of theft of information the thief isn't entitled to, but I think I've made my point.

Well if we're talking about the law, a tenner floating down the street that you happen to catch isnt yours, your supposed to turn it into a police station and wait 6 weeks for it to be claimed or become 'abandoned property' and legally yours.

If you keep it without doing that, you are technically stealing and can be charged with theft.

:p

[Tricky]

In short, the media, especially reporters, are disgusting sharks who are willing to break any moral or ethical codes if it gets them a story, and if that doesnt happen then they just make them up :mad:

Remember how that vile Piers Morgan printed those pictures of supposed British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners? The photos were fake, yet the backlash over the photos in Iraq led to riots, deaths and a rise in insurgency, all because a tabloid made up a story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3716151.stm

And how the Reuters news group used photoshopped images on more than one occasion to show Israel in a bad light..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy

Then theres the BBC who are so biased its unreal! Honest question, is there any newsgroup out there that is truly unbiased, just presents the facts and nothing else, so that people can make their own minds up? :confused:

[MinionZombie]

Ugh, don't even get me started on news media (too late :p) - particularly television news - I was talking about this to a colleague of mine t'other week (we're from opposite sides of the political spectrum), and we both agreed that TV news is shocking, and has been for a long time. It's not news, it's opinion, bias-by-omission, and preening self-important news readers putting their spin on events - when it should be bloody simple and straight forward. Find out what the basic facts of a situation are - AND REPORT THEM AS-IS.

How hard can that be?!

What it is - is an abuse of power.

Indeed, relating to all that righteous indignation about the Murdoch BSkyB bid (in which Sky News wasn't included), here's an interesting article about the actual state of television (and internet) news provision in the UK ... it seems that the BBC are actually the monopoly, and like Sky News, ITV News, Channel 4 News et al, their news output is shit.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/07/the-bbc-has-a-monopoly-and-its-abusing-it-says-timmontgomerie.html
The basics boil down to:

TELEVISION ACCOUNTS FOR 73% OF NEWS

THE BBC ACCOUNTS FOR 70% OF TV NEWS COVERAGE

THE BBC IS EVEN MORE DOMINANT IN PROVIDING INTERNET NEWS

ANOTHER AREA WHERE THE BBC IS DOMINANT IS RADIO

DISCLAIMER: I'm speaking specifically about Television News - including the BBC's news output - not the BBC or Sky or ITN or Channel 4 in general (they have provided countless quality pieces of programming in the past, and will do in the future ... but their news output is shite).

While, yes, News International are the biggest players in newspapers here in the UK, readership of newspapers has been on the swift decline for years (the likes of Murdoch are dinosaurs of a bygone era), and being that the majority of news consumption is via the television (73%), News International becomes instantly less important - much like the rest of 'Fleet Street'.

Back to TV news in general though, the distinct lack of CONTEXT afforded to the few reported items is, frankly, shameful. It's irresponsible for so-called news providers to flog half the story (and you'd be lucky to get half of it) and call it quality reporting. BBC, Sky, ITN, C4 - the lot of them are all at it. A shocking lack of context, bias-by-omission, self-important presenters putting their own personal spin on events ... in short - wankers who are abusing a position of power to stroke their own egos and extend their personal 'closed circle' view of socio-political issues to the nation.

How hard is it to ask the simple questions and report back on the basic facts relating to them? How hard is it to report the news without putting your own spin on it? There's a lot of chirupping about Fox News (which I can't stand watching), but our old friend the glass house - riddled with stone-broken windows - returns, because without a doubt there's not one television news provider who can actually, truly, honestly, hold their heads high. The hypocrisy is stifling.

Personally, I get my news from the internet - and when it comes to politics - from a handful of blogs. The good thing about blogs is, they actually bother to do this thing called investigating an issue, and they provide full reasoned articles on issues in real-time ... and even better, if they've cocked something up, misrepresented something, or flat out lied about something, the readership will respond almost immediately to point out mistakes/untruths - and they'll back it up with evidence to clearly show something has been incorrect.

You don't get that instant reader/viewer feedback with the TV news giants, who couldn't give a shit about what the viewers actually think ... and they certainly don't give a shit about reporting facts, fully contextualised, without a hint of personal opinion thrust upon them by some arrogant newsreader (so you read an autocue, big whoop, get over yourself, you're not Woodward or Bernstein :rolleyes:).

/rant

*deep breath*

That's better. :D

-- -------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------

Unsurprisingly, the can of worms is starting to open...

http://order-order.com/2011/07/12/piers-morgan-knew-award-winning-scoop-was-hacked/

-- -------- Post added 13-Jul-2011 at 10:36 AM ---------- Previous post was 12-Jul-2011 at 07:48 PM ----------

Yet more worms from the can - Gordon Brown, clearly seeking revenge for News International ditching him and his party from their favour prior to last year's election - came out swinging that his son's medical records had been hacked by The Sun ... but The Sun has come out swinging calling 'bullshit on that':

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/sun-fights-back-over-browns-cystic-claim-044624984.html

Seemingly the info came from a member of the public who knew of Brown's son's illness, and the paper contacted the Brown's directly and sought their approval prior to publishing.

Oh that plot, it keeps getting ever thicker...

[SymphonicX]

Well if we're talking about the law, a tenner floating down the street that you happen to catch isnt yours, your supposed to turn it into a police station and wait 6 weeks for it to be claimed or become 'abandoned property' and legally yours.

If you keep it without doing that, you are technically stealing and can be charged with theft.

:p

Very good point hahaha

Yeah I defo give back all the money I find...

[BillyRay]

Looks like the FBI is looking into the Murdoch Empire phonehacking 911 victims' families:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43750733/ns/world_news-europe/

Will Faux News be next?

Please?

[Tricky]

Now that the americans have got wind that 9/11 victims families were "hacked" too, I would say the Murdoch empire will collapse like a house of cards soon. Good riddance, maybe we'll start getting some news that isnt celebrity obsessed, though I wont count on it...

[MinionZombie]

Now that the americans have got wind that 9/11 victims families were "hacked" too, I would say the Murdoch empire will collapse like a house of cards soon. Good riddance, maybe we'll start getting some news that isnt celebrity obsessed, though I wont count on it...

The shockingly shit state of television, and even newspaper, journalism and news reporting extends far beyond the Murdoch empire. The lot of it is shite.

[Danny]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/news-of-the-world-sean-hoare

so the guy who blew the whistle on this has been found dead and police are listing his death as "unexplained, but not suspicious". welp, i wonder how much it took to pay them off huh?

[Tricky]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/news-of-the-world-sean-hoare

so the guy who blew the whistle on this has been found dead and police are listing his death as "unexplained, but not suspicious". welp, i wonder how much it took to pay them off huh?

I hate to sound like a tin foil hat wearer, but it sounds awfully suspicious, perhaps it was a "walk in the woods" as per David Kelly? The thing thats bugging me about this now is that the genuine concern regarding "hacking" the Dowler family and the families of soldiers KIA has been pushed into the background, and its all about wailing celebrities and politicians, who are now having a witch hunt in revenge for their expenses abuses being revealed by the press a couple of years ago. I think the government will now use this as an excuse to gag the press which is not a good thing.

[MinionZombie]

Regarding Tom Baldwin - aka, why Ed Milliband and Labour should shut the fuck up and stop throwing stones from their glass house - there was an interesting link regarding him (who is still working for Labour, by the way, unlike Coulson - who hasn't been convicted or found guilty of anything he did prior to working for the government - who was long since given the heave-ho) and David Kelly.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-carr/simon-carr-baldwin-weakens-milibands-call-for-camerons-scalp-2315879.html

When the Tories look for a victim of Baldwin's journalism they present us with Lord Ashcroft. They don't see that sympathy for the suffering vulnerability of a billionaire is limited. More to the point is David Kelly – for Baldwin was the News International journalist used to get Kelly's name out.

For all the awfulness of the Milly Dowler case, the poor child was beyond the reach of this world when the journalists paid for her phone to be hacked. Baldwin's action as a communications agent for the government of the day started a chain of events which led directly to the death of Dr Kelly.

:rockbrow:

It's also pretty rich for any Labourites to be calling for Cameron's head (which is just plain ridiculous wishful thinking on the part of a gaggle of rabid lefties ... do remember we've still got a ridiculous economic situation that needs fixing, pension reform, health reform, etc etc etc - all things that the last lot did fuck all about for 13 years) when in recent times Labour have had Tom Baldwin, Derek Draper, Damian McBride, and last but far from least, Alistair-fucking-Campbell on their payroll.

And regarding journalism in general, this was an interesting post by Guido:
http://order-order.com/2011/07/16/we-are-on-the-verge-of-killing-popular-journalism/

Particular note the "blagging chart" - and which company is the worst offender? Nope, not NI - the Daily Mail is far ahead of them - but the worst offender is, surprise-surprise, Trinity Mirror Group, who print the bogroll known as the Daily Mirror ... and yet with the pathetic coverage of this story in the media (both televised and printed), you'd think it was all "evil Murdoch" and "those NI bastards" ... when in fact it's the ruddy lot of them, and indeed, those who protest too much are in fact the very worst offenders, both in general, but moreso due to their rank hypocrisy.

-- -------- Post added at 11:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 AM ----------

And here's a spiffing little post by Dizzy Thinks regarding some perspective when it comes to that handful of raving loonies on the rabid left calling for DC's resignation.

http://dizzythinks.net/2011/07/perspective.html

Prime Minister: Tony Blair
Allegation: Accused of modifying government policy relating to tobacco advertising in sports in return for a donation of £1 million to his political party
Truth Status: Not proven - opinions on truth dependent on personal prejudices. Donation eventually returned (although modified policy remained in force)
What Opponents Said: Resign
Political Status: Survived and won following two elections.

Prime Minister: Tony Blair
Allegation: Along with his Director of Commmunication accused of lying to Parliament by embelishing and "sexing up" the case for the Iraq War. Presure intensified by the sudden, mysterious death of whistleblower leading to multiple inquiries and conspiracy theories.
Truth Status: Not proven - opinions on truth dependent on personal prejudices.
What Opponents Said: Resign
Political Status: Survived and won following election.

Prime Minister: Tony Blair
Allegation: That peerages and knighthoods were offered and exchanged for loans and donations to the Labour Party. Staff in Downing Street including the Prime Minister questioned by Police.
Truth Status: Not proven - opinions on truth dependent on personal prejudices.
What Opponents Said: Resign
Political Status: Survived

Prime Minister: David Cameron
Allegation: That he previously employed someone who has since resigned, who may have - as yet to be proven but alleged by a whistle-blower who has suddenly died - acted criminally prior to his employment; and to have met with multiple times on both personal and business terms (in keeping with his two predecessors), the Chief Executive of a newspaper business.
Truth Status: What exactly is the allegation? Opinion will depend on personal prejudices.
What Opponents Said: Resign
Political Status: To Be Confirmed (oddly)

-- -------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------

Further to the issue of the rank hypocrisy coming from a certain portion of the media over this issue, I found this to be a nice little article:

http://www.thecommentator.com/index.php/article/304/who_s_left_the_new_liberal_establishment_have_one_ rule_for_themselves_and_others_for_everyone_else_

Commentators who regularly lambast dictatorships are happy to throw away presumption of innocence and a principle. Instead, all at NI are guilty by association, and the opportunity to destroy the majority of the right-wing press is too good to miss.

Freedom of speech and the press is only acceptable to them when it is suits their narrative. If the inquiry determines who has acted improperly and caused so much pain for the families involved then they should suffer the consequences, but the political point scoring over tragic events from years ago is appalling to watch.

The line is always the same, the Murdoch Empire is evil and their newspapers spout reprehensible bilge. This portrayal is in spite of the fact that over seven million people read it every week before it closed, compared to the two-hundred and seventy thousand ‘progressive majority’ that buy the Guardian.

...

But of course, the liberal-left can never find fault amongst themselves. It must all be Rupert Murdoch’s fault. A self-made business man with a net worth of $7.6billion who has created over fifty-thousand jobs must have personally asked for Milly Dowler’s phone to be hacked. Ed Miliband may consider this to be the best fortnight in his brief career as leader, but he would be wise to remember who the real victims are in this saga, and whether they enjoy being dragged through the press again.

[Legion2213]

Watched the proceedings today, the murdochs didn't come out of it too badly...especially Mrs Murdoch who reacted to the pie attack on Rupert like a total ninja tigres, she was completely awesome...unlike the attacker who was a total cock.

As for people trying to embroil Cameron in this...desperate measures by folk who still can't accept that the British public told them to fuck right off in a democratic election a year ago. All this happened on Labours watch anyway...they should be careful what cans of worms they start opening...

[MinionZombie]

Watched the proceedings today, the murdochs didn't come out of it too badly...especially Mrs Murdoch who reacted to the pie attack on Rupert like a total ninja tigres, she was completely awesome...unlike the attacker who was a total cock.

As for people trying to embroil Cameron in this...desperate measures by folk who still can't accept that the British public told them to fuck right off in a democratic election a year ago. All this happened on Labours watch anyway...they should be careful what cans of worms they start opening...

Well said, Sir.

Plus - I found this particularly hilarious for it's overflowing amount of hypocrisy:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2011/07/which-british-politician-has-rupert-murdoch-met-most.html

Let's record for posterity that during his evidence to today's special meeting of the Culture and Media Select Committee Rupert Murdoch said:

(a) The British politician he met most in recent years was Gordon Brown;

(b) At those meetings Brown never once raised phone hacking;

(c) Their children played together;

(d) Their wives became friends;

(e) Like Cameron, Brown preferred Mr Murdoch to enter 10 Downing Street by the back door.

It puts all of that faux outrage from Brown, last week, in perspective.

As for Jonnie Marbles - what a knob'ed - seems more like he's trying to boost his career (interesting that Newsnight all-but ignored him apparently, because in January Marbles appeared front-and-centre in a piece on UK Uncut ... that ill-informed, chips-on-shoulders, selectively-outraged, politically-extreme, so-called pressure group).

I saw the clip and, regardless of who it is, or what is being lobbed at them, attacking an 80 year old man just isn't on. Such actions are the reserve of idiots and angry political extremists with whoppingly large chips on their shoulders - but one thing it did do was to show up the sheer hysteria that has grown around this issue, which is, quite frankly, gotten way beyond proportion. Fleet Street and politicians of certain companies and sides are attacking, but they're throwing stones from within their own very frail glass house. It's interesting to note that the News of the World used to have a circulation of 7 million, meanwhile The Guardian (aka "the Grauniad") is currently still falling in circulation at a measily 270,000 ... yet it's the so-called Guardianistas who claim to have the "progressive majority" ... when they're not only far, far, far from a majority by any definition, but they're also far, far, far from actually being progressive. So yeah - hysteria - being pushed by tribalistic nutters who seek to force their agenda on everyone else, while completely ignoring that nobody is clean - and in fact, those who protest so much, are the dirtiest of the lot, not only due to their actions, but also because of their rank hypocrisy and faux outrage.

Meanwhile everyone else who worked at the NOTW have lost their jobs, the people who printed the NOTW have lost that contract, and then there's the myriad of problems facing the country right now - many of which have been built up over the last government's time in office, yet they just don't recognise it. Indeed, Labour specifically avoided having an inquiry into all this sort of thing because there was an election coming-up.

It'll be interesting to see PMQ's at lunch time - Cameron should come out swinging (like he did last week) - and that's another thing. Last week there was a load of Labourites asking the same goddamned question regarding Andy Coulson (who still hasn't been convicted of anything), and Cameron answered it repeatedly in the fullest way possible ... it was just pathetic of the Labour back benchers (and even front benchers) who kept asking the same question to try and make him look bad (when it just makes them look nothing short of childish), when they'd already received a complete and full answer which couldn't be misinterpreted. It was clear as fuck. Yet no - the opposition want to play dirty politics (they're adept at that, what with Tom Baldwin - who still works for them - Damian McBride, Derek Draper, and Alistair-fucking-Campbell) rather than sort out a reprehensible mess for which they've been responsible for as much, if not more than, anyone else.

/rant

-- -------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 AM ----------

Oh yeah, and another thing on that pie-flinger - apparently his girlfriend changed her profile, on Twitter or somesuch thing, to "Not funny. Not clever. Not your girlfriend." :lol:

Edit - here's the page itself: http://twitter.com/#!/pageantmalarkey