Jump to content

Recommended Posts

NOTW interfered with a murder enquiry, deleting phone messages and potentially destroying evidence. There is now a suggestion that they may have been bribing police and they certainly intimidated politicians. News International are hugely powerful, to the point that they have, for a long time, been above the law.

"..NOTW interfered with a murder enquiry, deleting phone messages and potentially destroying evidence..."


It is alleged the private investigator did this, not the NoW.


If you're one of the many on the anti-Murdoch gravy train please check facts.

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "..NOTW interfered with a murder enquiry, deleting

> phone messages and potentially destroying

> evidence..."

>

> It is alleged the private investigator did this,

> not the NoW.


Yes, a private investigator paid by the NoW

lol at the hypocracy of calling the people attacking NOTW a lynch mob....there's a paper that's never encouraged lynch mobs.



2/10 Silverfox.



The whole ugly thing is undefendable....and I like contrary positions.


Where I think there's a lot of hypocracy is that the public didn't give a shite when it was celebrities......which, legally and in all honesty morally was wrong, as, to be fair to him, that old poster SeanMac pointed out on several occasions and was right to do so.

In 2006, the information commissioner reported newspapers had used Stephen Whittamore, a private detective, to obtain information in breach of data protection law. Whittamore was used by many papers, not just News of the World. Listed here are the number of ?transactions positively identified? by the commissioner and (in brackets) the number of journalists at each title involved:


Daily Mail 952 (58)

Sunday People 802 (50)

Daily Mirror 681 (45)

Mail on Sunday 266 (33)

News of World 228 (23)

Sunday Mirror 143 (25)

Evening Standard 130 (1)

The Observer 103 (4)

Daily Express 36 (7)

The Sun 24 (4)

The Sunday Times 4 (1)

The Times 2 (1)


http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/focus/article667055.ece#next

But that's not what this whole thing is about is it?


Hacking is naughty, of course, and people will go to prison over this. It's old scores being settled, the Guardian fighting for it's very survival as it ceases printing newspapers and moves online (and presumably starts charging to view). Why do you think the BBC has given this 24-hour wall to wall coverage? Because of the threat a unified BSkyB poses to it of course.


I'm not denying this raises some fundamental questions of the abuse of power, relations with the establishment and the police, the role of a free press in society etc.


My point is the outraged masses calling for boycotts of the Murdoch press are unwitting pawns in the political games being played out by more sinister forces.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Where I think there's a lot of hypocracy is that

> the public didn't give a shite when it was

> celebrities......which, legally and in all honesty

> morally was wrong, as, to be fair to him, that old

> poster SeanMac pointed out on several occasions

> and was right to do so.



I agree with this point, but whilst it is still very wrong, I don't think it's in the same league morally as the Dowler thing.


What annoyed me a bit was the bbc ranting about the 7/7 victims' families having their privacy invaded. Not long after 7/7, they made a programme where they took the fiance of one of the victims to the home of the father of one of the bombers (unannounced) and filmed him confronting the poor man on his doorstep.


Now that was an invasion of privacy, and one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen on telly.

What mcmullan said on newsnight was "what better way to find out what people really think than by hacking into their phones"


If anyone wants to defend anything he says then go ahead but you can probably make any point better than him


Silverfox is tilting at windmills. Some vague idea that the guardian has even a teeny fraction of the power of the Murdoch press. But this shouldn't be a guardian v Murdoch thing ultimately. Even if they are the players, the revelations should be enough to freeze you to your core. If you want to use a comfort blanket of anti-guardian sentiment silverfox that's up to you. Do other papers do it too? Yep and let's have it all out on the table


And don't worry about murdoch. Unless his empire is killed off they will come back and (underhandedly and disgustingly) CRUCIFY the guardian. And miliband

This is incredibly important. One man Murdoch controls 40% of the UK's national print newspapers and desire's to replicat this oon Broadcast media.


Blair flew across the world when summoned by Murdoch. The first day of Cameron being Prime Minister Murdoch is seen leaving no.10 by the back door.


It is not safe for a democracy to have so much media controlled by one person who has been very clear in wanting to be the 'kingmaker' of British politics. With having such a huge share of the print media and with plans to do the same with broadcast media the old adage - power corrupts, etc - and clearly NoTW had been corrupt in ethical terms for many years.


We need to move on from a simplistic competition regulations in commercial terms of media which has allowed such aggregation of media power into regulations designed to limit political influence. I suspect limiting media ownership to 10-15% of print media with no cross ownership with broadcasting and requirement for UK citizenship ownership is required UNLESS they remain politically neutral and are regulated to remain so. The BBC is clearly influential but its charter is about keeping neutral.

Cameron seems to be curiously floundering on this one. He's usually up front leading on stuff like this, especially when public opinion is so united. But he seems to be dodging the limelight at every opportunity. Labour and the Lib Dems seem to be taking the reins here.


It'll be interesting if Labour word their BSkyB motion in a way that the Lib Dems and some Tories can support it.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Did you see that idiot ex-journo on newsnight the other night, when Steve Coogan laid into him? He

> actually tried to defend hacking into people's phones.


Do read Hugh Grant's NS article about him (as mentioned in my 26 April post on this page) if you've not already done so.

I see that Rupert and James Murdoch and Rebecca Brooks have all been asked to face the Parliamentary Committee on the 19th July. I imagine that the chairman of that committee will have relished the phonecall he made to Murdoch senior; no doubt he said "See you next Tuesday."

Good news coming out Reuters.


also


"Blair flew across the world when summoned by Murdoch. The first day of Cameron being Prime Minister Murdoch is seen leaving no.10 by the back door. "


James you forgot the near "deafening silence" from your own party when Vince got jumped by 2 NewsCorp sponsored Telegraph Journo's.


But hey in the end Vince went to war and it looks like war won.

Sometimes you have to laugh... Back in March, the Sun laid into a few members of the judiciary, berating them for being too soft. The campaign was called 'The Sun Says No To Soft Justice'. One of the judges targeted was... a Lord Justice Brian Leveson.


Let's hope he can show the Sun how hard he can come down on criminals, mainly by chucking a few of them in jail.

So i think we can lock this thread now, obviously the answer in the real world is No it was not ! Well done everybody of who involved. And well done to Ed Milliband for showing some leadership finally and Nick C & David C.


Remember any kind of censorship , however small has its roots in something rather unsavoury.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hope all the ‘high streets for people’ events went well! Very short notice probably for people living in the area and on a very hot day!  James McAsh just doesn’t know what to do next with Southwark Council Tax payers money. He advocates the few streets in the area that has a bus service and then shuts the routes down! Very annoying for people who want to go about their daily business and have already had restrictions brought in by McAsh. 
    • Thank goodness for Greg. I had an awful situation whereby I was notified that water was leaking from my flat into the flat below me. I was 150 miles away at the time and had a panicked journey home not knowing what I was going to face.   I called Greg (after seeing reviews on the forum) as soon as I arrived home in the evening and he arrived just after 10pm and was able to shut off the problem. He had to come back to finalise the job which turned out to be caused in a communal area whereby there was a blockage in the stack pipe.   Greg worked quickly, efficiently and informed me every step of the way as to what he was doing and why. He also cleaned up really well afterwards.  Greg's charges are very reasonable and he will definitely be my "go-to" if I have any other plumbing issues in the future.    
    • Real Life was released in 1978. Yes it is a classic album.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...