News of the World
Discussion
Kwai Chang Caine said:
Well, I think you are jumping on a hysterical band-wagon.
I'd rather wait til we find out what is and isn't the case, not just a Guardian expose.
Look, I know a little girl was killed and her parents put through misery in court. That is truly terrible and I hope the perp' has a miserable time of it in prison.
However, it is not the crime of the century to listen to an unprotected mailbox. We don't know yet if the deletions were deliberate or the motives if they were.
I guess what I'm trying to say in a way that won't offend everyone (due to the nature of the crime involved) is that "don't protect your data...bad luck". Whoever you are. Whatever happens to you.
I apologise if this offends you (genuinely).
Because of course 13yr old girls should be worrying about this? or are even aware such a thing exists?I'd rather wait til we find out what is and isn't the case, not just a Guardian expose.
Look, I know a little girl was killed and her parents put through misery in court. That is truly terrible and I hope the perp' has a miserable time of it in prison.
However, it is not the crime of the century to listen to an unprotected mailbox. We don't know yet if the deletions were deliberate or the motives if they were.
I guess what I'm trying to say in a way that won't offend everyone (due to the nature of the crime involved) is that "don't protect your data...bad luck". Whoever you are. Whatever happens to you.
I apologise if this offends you (genuinely).
It will be interesting to see how far the knowledge of this went in the NOTW. I suspect it was the actions of an individual or two, with little concern as to what was actually going on in the rest of the organisation.
Any normal person can immediately get the sense that this is deeply wrong. I couldn't care too much about celebs and politicians to be honest, but an active missing girl case isn't on.
Any normal person can immediately get the sense that this is deeply wrong. I couldn't care too much about celebs and politicians to be honest, but an active missing girl case isn't on.
The Sun certainly has its finger on the pulse of public opinion on this case - as can be seen from their in-depth coverage.
http://twitpic.com/5lbxnf
http://twitpic.com/5lbxnf
You want hysteria?
A man down my way killed someone. There is no doubt of that, the evidence was substantial. NotW paid for a very expensive legal team, fronted by one of the most obnoxious and morally corrupt briefs I've ever met, and despite some of the team admitting that they knew the person was guilty they used trickery to get the bloke off.
You can suggest that the CPS should have been able to confound the defence but we're talking some of the most expensive legal minds here and some of the tricks they used were new to the SIO and CPS.
The chap then tried to murder someone else.
The tories should not be linked to this any more than any other party. However, Cameron should. He's mates with those who are up to their necks in this scandal. Once he knew, indeed the world knew, of their complicity he still continued with the meetings and dinners. He even hirered one as an advisor.
Further, we now have Bskyb being allowed to take over sky news. No connection between the frindship and the money Fox throws at the tories.
It's fair to say that no newspaper comes out of this without a blemish. Fox is just the worst of the bunch. It is utterly morally bankrupt.
There are journos out their risking their lives to bring us news, others who have stood up to oppression and our right to a free press. And then there's NotW.
Anyone remember their 'expose' of Bruno's mental problems? That was one of her's. Nice one, Beccy.
After their support for a murderer I never bought the paper again or its crap daily version. Is it too much to ask Cameron not to have Christmas dinners with the likes of Rebecca Wade?
Evidently it is.
A man down my way killed someone. There is no doubt of that, the evidence was substantial. NotW paid for a very expensive legal team, fronted by one of the most obnoxious and morally corrupt briefs I've ever met, and despite some of the team admitting that they knew the person was guilty they used trickery to get the bloke off.
You can suggest that the CPS should have been able to confound the defence but we're talking some of the most expensive legal minds here and some of the tricks they used were new to the SIO and CPS.
The chap then tried to murder someone else.
The tories should not be linked to this any more than any other party. However, Cameron should. He's mates with those who are up to their necks in this scandal. Once he knew, indeed the world knew, of their complicity he still continued with the meetings and dinners. He even hirered one as an advisor.
Further, we now have Bskyb being allowed to take over sky news. No connection between the frindship and the money Fox throws at the tories.
It's fair to say that no newspaper comes out of this without a blemish. Fox is just the worst of the bunch. It is utterly morally bankrupt.
There are journos out their risking their lives to bring us news, others who have stood up to oppression and our right to a free press. And then there's NotW.
Anyone remember their 'expose' of Bruno's mental problems? That was one of her's. Nice one, Beccy.
After their support for a murderer I never bought the paper again or its crap daily version. Is it too much to ask Cameron not to have Christmas dinners with the likes of Rebecca Wade?
Evidently it is.
I must admit to indifference about the crime of "hacking" into someones voicemail if it simply involved entering the default password. In the Dowler case it has gone a stage further because of the deletion of messages which could have given false hope to her family and friends. Its that bit I find wrong.
I also feel that there is a witchhunt against a couple of of people that were/are senior at NOTW and I am not sure it is justified. Well lets rephrase that. If there is evidence that they knew about the "hacking" its justified, however if there isn't and they maintain their innocence then surely in this country you are innocent until proved guilty?
Surely it is possible the investigator involved could have done it off his own back? Surely not every single expense has to go through the most senior people at NOTW? Surely its possible for the investigator/journalist who employed them to say we have a source without giving full details of the source or that it involved "hacking"?
Seems to me a lot of this is just point scoring against the Tories and the NOTW. Personally I dont have Sky, The Times, Sun, NOTW etc so cant stop having them. If I recall correctly Coulston (or whatever his name is) denied knowing about this "hacking" but resigned because it happened on his watch.
Surely we should be applauding him for actually having the courage to resign for something that happened on his watch unlike many politicans, local authority heads etc (although of course many that do resign go with a huge payoff which is also wrong). Having gone hasn't he paid the penalty for the crime and should now be allowed to get on with his life and do the jobs he wants to or people want him to?
I also feel that there is a witchhunt against a couple of of people that were/are senior at NOTW and I am not sure it is justified. Well lets rephrase that. If there is evidence that they knew about the "hacking" its justified, however if there isn't and they maintain their innocence then surely in this country you are innocent until proved guilty?
Surely it is possible the investigator involved could have done it off his own back? Surely not every single expense has to go through the most senior people at NOTW? Surely its possible for the investigator/journalist who employed them to say we have a source without giving full details of the source or that it involved "hacking"?
Seems to me a lot of this is just point scoring against the Tories and the NOTW. Personally I dont have Sky, The Times, Sun, NOTW etc so cant stop having them. If I recall correctly Coulston (or whatever his name is) denied knowing about this "hacking" but resigned because it happened on his watch.
Surely we should be applauding him for actually having the courage to resign for something that happened on his watch unlike many politicans, local authority heads etc (although of course many that do resign go with a huge payoff which is also wrong). Having gone hasn't he paid the penalty for the crime and should now be allowed to get on with his life and do the jobs he wants to or people want him to?
There is no difference, in my mind, between accessing someone's voicemail box and intercepting and reading their physical mail.
The penalties for the latter should be applied to the former.
And as for the senior editors fluttering their eyelashes and going "well, I didn't know about it", the correct response would seem to me to be "well, you f
king well should have known, because ensuring the legality and integrity of your sources is one of the things you get paid a lot of money to do".
>off to CJ's fantasy justice land<
Charge the actual phoner-upper (I hate the word "hacking" in this context) with theft, and the editor with conspiracy. Add a tasty bonus of perverting the course of justice, wasting police time, and conspiracy to do those things as applicable. Perhaps now editors will take their editing a bit more seriously.
>3 2 1, you're back in the room<
The penalties for the latter should be applied to the former.
And as for the senior editors fluttering their eyelashes and going "well, I didn't know about it", the correct response would seem to me to be "well, you f
king well should have known, because ensuring the legality and integrity of your sources is one of the things you get paid a lot of money to do".>off to CJ's fantasy justice land<
Charge the actual phoner-upper (I hate the word "hacking" in this context) with theft, and the editor with conspiracy. Add a tasty bonus of perverting the course of justice, wasting police time, and conspiracy to do those things as applicable. Perhaps now editors will take their editing a bit more seriously.
>3 2 1, you're back in the room<
Chrisgr31 said:
I must admit to indifference about the crime of "hacking" into someones voicemail if it simply involved entering the default password. In the Dowler case it has gone a stage further because of the deletion of messages which could have given false hope to her family and friends. Its that bit I find wrong.
I also feel that there is a witchhunt against a couple of of people that were/are senior at NOTW and I am not sure it is justified. Well lets rephrase that. If there is evidence that they knew about the "hacking" its justified, however if there isn't and they maintain their innocence then surely in this country you are innocent until proved guilty?
Surely it is possible the investigator involved could have done it off his own back? Surely not every single expense has to go through the most senior people at NOTW? Surely its possible for the investigator/journalist who employed them to say we have a source without giving full details of the source or that it involved "hacking"?
Seems to me a lot of this is just point scoring against the Tories and the NOTW. Personally I dont have Sky, The Times, Sun, NOTW etc so cant stop having them. If I recall correctly Coulston (or whatever his name is) denied knowing about this "hacking" but resigned because it happened on his watch.
Surely we should be applauding him for actually having the courage to resign for something that happened on his watch unlike many politicans, local authority heads etc (although of course many that do resign go with a huge payoff which is also wrong). Having gone hasn't he paid the penalty for the crime and should now be allowed to get on with his life and do the jobs he wants to or people want him to?
The problem is, I think, that there is no witchhunt. There is certainly some kind of witch around. I also feel that there is a witchhunt against a couple of of people that were/are senior at NOTW and I am not sure it is justified. Well lets rephrase that. If there is evidence that they knew about the "hacking" its justified, however if there isn't and they maintain their innocence then surely in this country you are innocent until proved guilty?
Surely it is possible the investigator involved could have done it off his own back? Surely not every single expense has to go through the most senior people at NOTW? Surely its possible for the investigator/journalist who employed them to say we have a source without giving full details of the source or that it involved "hacking"?
Seems to me a lot of this is just point scoring against the Tories and the NOTW. Personally I dont have Sky, The Times, Sun, NOTW etc so cant stop having them. If I recall correctly Coulston (or whatever his name is) denied knowing about this "hacking" but resigned because it happened on his watch.
Surely we should be applauding him for actually having the courage to resign for something that happened on his watch unlike many politicans, local authority heads etc (although of course many that do resign go with a huge payoff which is also wrong). Having gone hasn't he paid the penalty for the crime and should now be allowed to get on with his life and do the jobs he wants to or people want him to?
Wade is seemingly untouchable despite what has been revealed about what went on in the paper when she was in charge. It is clear that some 'misinformation' was given out yet those party to this seemingly have no penalty.
Whilst one must be careful wht one says some things are obvious. I would suggest that the editor in chief must know what is in each main article in the paper. That is their job. If one assumes that a blind eye was turned then that person is still culpable. However, one must ask whether this is likely.
Another matter, and something of an elephant, is why the initial police enquiry was not, shall we say, as thorough as one might have expected. There should be a a witchhunt there.
Phone hacking was widespread. A lot of the information that landed on the editor's desk would have come from such illegal activities. It is not as if this is a one-off, it was endemic.
We have a choice with Wade as to what we believe. Did she have suspicions that the phone hacking was still going on or was she incompetant? I can thing of no alternatives but I'm willing to listen.
She was in charge of the paper. Who else is there to blame?
The circumstantial evidence seems overwhelming.
What seems clear is that we are being lied to. We will never know the full story. However, Wade should have been avoided by Cameron once the news broke.
You need to follow the details as they are revealed. From what I've read over the months I have little doubt as to who should get the majority of the blame. There seems to be little in the way of defence coming from those in the frame other than they didn't know. Or might have known. Or would not like to say at this stage.
There are some very powerful people involved in this matter.
Du1point8 said:
Oakey said:
They cleared the inbox deliberately so new messages could be left and listened to. Wonder if they did the Mccanns too?
Are you suggesting that their 3 year old daughter had a phone?Or that they hacked the parents phones and they didnt notice messages dissapearing?
I think the messages are deleted because if someone else reads them then there are 'shown' as read. 'You have no new messages' but if you check you can find some tht are new to you.
Heres a question for you: If the phones voice mail box was full, and the police were monitoring it for new voice mails (as has been said), why weren't the police deleteing messages to make room for incoming? A mailbox full of calls from her woried friends was pretty useless.
Perhaps they were too busy knocking on the front door of the killer, yards from where she disappeared. 13 times. Without answer. And then giving up.
Question for Police: Why didn't you catch Levi Bellfield before he went on to kill again Mr Policeman?"
Answer: "Because he didn't answer his door when we knocked"..... idiots.
Another question: If someone else was clearing her mailbox during this investigation, why were they not traced at the time? Why are we hearing about this years later....? Are the police that incompetent?
Question: Were the parents really told that there was hope that she was alive at the time based on messages going missing from her mailbox? Is this really true, or has this been made up to spice up the storey? If they were told this, WHY? WHY would the police tell them this, raising their hopes? Were they even aware of this? Because it seems to have come as a surprise to them and has never been mentioned before now? Why didnt the defence team use this to discredit the case against Belfield? Is it because actually no one knew about it until the allegations in the guardian....?
Another question for those in the know: Can the 'hacker' be reprosecuted for this? He's already served time for this offence, can he serve time again? Hope so.
Perhaps they were too busy knocking on the front door of the killer, yards from where she disappeared. 13 times. Without answer. And then giving up.
Question for Police: Why didn't you catch Levi Bellfield before he went on to kill again Mr Policeman?"
Answer: "Because he didn't answer his door when we knocked"..... idiots.
Another question: If someone else was clearing her mailbox during this investigation, why were they not traced at the time? Why are we hearing about this years later....? Are the police that incompetent?
Question: Were the parents really told that there was hope that she was alive at the time based on messages going missing from her mailbox? Is this really true, or has this been made up to spice up the storey? If they were told this, WHY? WHY would the police tell them this, raising their hopes? Were they even aware of this? Because it seems to have come as a surprise to them and has never been mentioned before now? Why didnt the defence team use this to discredit the case against Belfield? Is it because actually no one knew about it until the allegations in the guardian....?
Another question for those in the know: Can the 'hacker' be reprosecuted for this? He's already served time for this offence, can he serve time again? Hope so.
Corsair7 said:
Heres a question for you: If the phones voice mail box was full, and the police were monitoring it for new voice mails (as has been said), why weren't the police deleteing messages to make room for incoming? A mailbox full of calls from her woried friends was pretty useless.
Perhaps they were too busy knocking on the front door of the killer, yards from where she disappeared. 13 times. Without answer. And then giving up.
Question for Police: Why didn't you catch Levi Bellfield before he went on to kill again Mr Policeman?"
Answer: "Because he didn't answer his door when we knocked"..... idiots.
Another question: If someone else was clearing her mailbox during this investigation, why were they not traced at the time? Why are we hearing about this years later....? Are the police that incompetent?
Question: Were the parents really told that there was hope that she was alive at the time based on messages going missing from her mailbox? Is this really true, or has this been made up to spice up the storey? If they were told this, WHY? WHY would the police tell them this, raising their hopes? Were they even aware of this? Because it seems to have come as a surprise to them and has never been mentioned before now? Why didnt the defence team use this to discredit the case against Belfield? Is it because actually no one knew about it until the allegations in the guardian....?
Another question for those in the know: Can the 'hacker' be reprosecuted for this? He's already served time for this offence, can he serve time again? Hope so.
^^This^^Perhaps they were too busy knocking on the front door of the killer, yards from where she disappeared. 13 times. Without answer. And then giving up.
Question for Police: Why didn't you catch Levi Bellfield before he went on to kill again Mr Policeman?"
Answer: "Because he didn't answer his door when we knocked"..... idiots.
Another question: If someone else was clearing her mailbox during this investigation, why were they not traced at the time? Why are we hearing about this years later....? Are the police that incompetent?
Question: Were the parents really told that there was hope that she was alive at the time based on messages going missing from her mailbox? Is this really true, or has this been made up to spice up the storey? If they were told this, WHY? WHY would the police tell them this, raising their hopes? Were they even aware of this? Because it seems to have come as a surprise to them and has never been mentioned before now? Why didnt the defence team use this to discredit the case against Belfield? Is it because actually no one knew about it until the allegations in the guardian....?
Another question for those in the know: Can the 'hacker' be reprosecuted for this? He's already served time for this offence, can he serve time again? Hope so.
Also, let's not forget that this whole thing is just an allegation made by a newspaper for idiots against another newspaper for idiots. Until something is proved I'll suspend my disgust.
MartinM said:
^^This^^
Also, let's not forget that this whole thing is just an allegation made by a newspaper for idiots against another newspaper for idiots. Until something is proved I'll suspend my disgust.
yes to the the first bit but Also, let's not forget that this whole thing is just an allegation made by a newspaper for idiots against another newspaper for idiots. Until something is proved I'll suspend my disgust.
Its not an allegation by the newpaper. They are reporting what the family have released I belive.
The family have released what the police have told them becasue the police after reading this guys notes found what he had done. They are visiting all his 'victims'. so they are reporting allegations by the police would be more fair would it not?.
Quite what the independant thinks NOTW support for sarahs law has to do with anything beats me but that paper is a joke as is the NOTW
Corsair7 said:
WHY? WHY would the police tell them this, raising their hopes? Were they even aware of this?
Would the parents not simply be ringing every 5 seconds (like id imagine most parents to do) and suddently, rather than getting the 'You cannot leave a message as the recipients mailbox is full' they would get 'Please leave a message'. However, its strange that it has just come out now because if I was them, I certainly wouldnt think someone had hacked the phone but would definately tell the police about it!
Does the public not get the newspapers that it deserves?
People are so dumb that they really do believe The Independent is actually presenting an independent objective opinion.
How many Governments of all shades of tie have now shied away from gripping this issue.
btw @ Derek Smith, your posts @ 7:58 and 8:37 today.
Well said Sir!
People are so dumb that they really do believe The Independent is actually presenting an independent objective opinion.
How many Governments of all shades of tie have now shied away from gripping this issue.
btw @ Derek Smith, your posts @ 7:58 and 8:37 today.
Well said Sir!F i F said:
So who else has had their messages "hacked."
I think it will be a VERY long list.
On Newsnight they mentioned the families of Ian Huntley's victims.
This is where it will unravel. Once this method of accessing someone's voicemail was learned by journalists it would have been used as far and wide as the journalist's morals* allowed. Compared to honest journalism, it would yield fast results very quickly. It would have been used on any story that had potential to sell papers.I think it will be a VERY long list.
On Newsnight they mentioned the families of Ian Huntley's victims.
The reason why other tabloids are rather quiet about so much of this (and related stories, such as Rebekkah Brooks paying Police for information) is that all of them will have done this. (Like our friend above, the journalists and editors told themselves that it's not really hacking.)
I suspect that the journalist used informants - asking friends/family where possible, or paid-for (police or telecoms insiders) where it wasn't - to get the phone number without mentioning what he would do with it. That much - at least - is routine for news journalists.
* FWIW, I'm an ex-journalist (not newspapers). And I've worked with some who had very different morals to me. In one case, someone who is now relatively senior at Associated Newspapers (Daily Mail et al) was with me being given a lift back to our office by a PR agent. She was a junior news journo and sat in the back, I was in the front chatting to teh PR as we drove through London. What I didn't realise is that she went through all of the PR's private and business mail that he'd left on the back seat while we were being driven back (as a favour). Sure, she was only after a story, and well - he was asking for it wasn't he...?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff