Hacking inquiry - Prosecutions

[Caulkhead]

Justayellowbadge said:

Dear Santa.

Piers Morgan.

Thanks,

JAYB

Yes please!

However I will vomit if I see Prescott once more pop up and moan about how unfair it's all been on him! Listen fatty, you were in power and had your parties nose up their arse for years and didn't do a thing because you were frightened you'd lose their support so it's a bit rich now playing the injured party!

[johnfm]

Oakey said:

johnfm said:

So, am I the only one wo thinks this is a huge waste of court time and money?


This case is fundamentally about people listening to voicemails in order to glean information to print stories.

Compared to, say, MPs expenses fraud and some aspects of the causes of the financial crisis beginning in 2007/9, this really is small beer.

Still, it distracts the public from the mayhem happening with the economy, government waste, excessive taxes etc.

You've been banging this drum since all this came about, do you have a vested interest? Are you a PI? A journalist? You seem to be protesting about it a little too much to be a bystander. Just curious.

Heh! Nope. No interest, vested or otherwise.

A whole bunch of b list celebs didn't bother to change the code on their voice mail. They suffered no tangible damage.

The only hacking that really matters was the Millie Dowler issue - and even then my bovvered bags empty.

There are such bigger fish to fry in politics and on the streets I would like to see the very limited prosecution resources used to put away bent MPs, rioters, bent coppers etc.

I think spending this much time and effort of listening to mobile phone messages in order to write newspaper stories is missing a much bigger picture.

Sum total benefit to society of this campaign will be immeasurable.

[drivin_me_nuts]

johnfm said:

Oakey said:

johnfm said:

So, am I the only one wo thinks this is a huge waste of court time and money?


This case is fundamentally about people listening to voicemails in order to glean information to print stories.

Compared to, say, MPs expenses fraud and some aspects of the causes of the financial crisis beginning in 2007/9, this really is small beer.

Still, it distracts the public from the mayhem happening with the economy, government waste, excessive taxes etc.

You've been banging this drum since all this came about, do you have a vested interest? Are you a PI? A journalist? You seem to be protesting about it a little too much to be a bystander. Just curious.

Heh! Nope. No interest, vested or otherwise.

A whole bunch of b list celebs didn't bother to change the code on their voice mail. They suffered no tangible damage.

The only hacking that really matters was the Millie Dowler issue - and even then my bovvered bags empty.

There are such bigger fish to fry in politics and on the streets I would like to see the very limited prosecution resources used to put away bent MPs, rioters, bent coppers etc.

I think spending this much time and effort of listening to mobile phone messages in order to write newspaper stories is missing a much bigger picture.

Sum total benefit to society of this campaign will be immeasurable.

You think so? The Millie Dowler case is an interesting one just by itself. That someone could do such a thing for their own benefit is one thing, that someone else would potentially pay for that information and then publish it regardless of the impact it might have upon a family's life is IMO absolutely worth prosecuting. 10 mill or 250 mill is neither here nor there. There is something more fundamental at stake here than what will be quite frankly small change... and in this case, I do believe tens of millions in fees is indeed small change for a case that needs to be torn apart, disected to the Nth degree and hopefully never be made 'profitable' again. I cannot help but wonder in the weeks to come the words 'bent' and 'copper' will be heard rather a lot.

[martin84]

A civilised democratic society doesn't decide which crimes to punish based on how much it costs. If we ran things like that then benefit cheats would always walk free because in most cases the amount they stole is a fraction of what it costs to take them to court.

[roachcoach]

I thought they *didnt* hack the girls phone, or was it the dead soldiers allegation that was mud slinging?

There was definitely one really serious accusation which was false.

[Digga]

martin84 said:

A civilised democratic society doesn't decide which crimes to punish based on how much it costs.

Totally.

I would add it should neither care who the accused or the victim is. Seems there are not just those who think they can operate beneath the law, but also above it.

[eccles]

johnfm said:

A whole bunch of b list celebs didn't bother to change the code on their voice mail. They suffered no tangible damage.

They shouldn't have to change their pin codes.
Several 'celebs' have mentioned the stress of having private information made public, when they've only told one person or immediate family. Imagine having to look at your nearest and dearest and thinking which one of you has been telling the press?

[XJSsometimeSoon]

Wouldn't it be fantastic if Rupert Murdoch distanced himself from Brookes et al, then in a twist she got so annoyed and dropped James Murdoch in the st on the stand and under oath, which was then enough to make some charges to stick.

Also, how I wish Piers Morgan could be shoe horned in to this.. those faked Iraqi abuse pictures really do anger me especially when I see him on some stty TV program talking about how ste their lives are to some crappy celebrity. He really does deserve a good long stint in prison and to have 'Big gay Al' as his new best friend and to make his arse look like the Japanese flag.

[Jasandjules]

martin84 said:

A civilised democratic society doesn't decide which crimes to punish based on how much it costs. If we ran things like that then benefit cheats would always walk free because in most cases the amount they stole is a fraction of what it costs to take them to court.

Indeed. We work on the basis that we agree to remove our right of retribution against those who wrong us because the state will take action. So it must.

I see no point in having a criminal justice system otherwise.