Coulson & Brooks hacking trial starts today
Discussion
So we learnt that AC also had his phone tapped too.....
F*$k me! is that the corner stone of this defence
In a pit of snakes, one snake bit another one, the bitten one isn't a snake anymore ?
Let us not forget what these people did, tapped the phones of relatives of dead soldiers, parents of dead children
F*$k me! is that the corner stone of this defence
In a pit of snakes, one snake bit another one, the bitten one isn't a snake anymore ?
Let us not forget what these people did, tapped the phones of relatives of dead soldiers, parents of dead children
Mermaid said:
theironduke said:
Mr_B said:
Quick, lets get rid of the evidence and all those computers, lets hide them behind this bin in a car park..... genuis.
How can seemingly intelligent people be so stupid? http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/update/2013-09...
I don't know how not having that 'policy book' will impact on the re-investigation of that case. Perhaps someone should have made a copy of that 'policy book'?
And in this case it was reported that Cleveland police didn't have any paper audit trail to explain or justify the imprisonment of the lawyer:
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10419148.Fou...
So while members of the Murdoch empire may have been eavesdropping on Sara Payne's phone and campaigning for Sarah's Law it could seem that Devon and Cornwall police were consciously sitting on, closing down a paedophile investigation that had more victims and leads.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020273/Sa...
Martyn Underhill is now the PCC for Dorset. Did he speak at the Leveson Inquiry or Weeting? When he says his phone was 'hacked' was it his mobile phone voice mail service left on the default settings? Or was it a bit more involved than that? I was assuming and hoping that a police officer wouldn't leave their voice mail on the factory default settings but who knows.
I'm not sure how the press snooping for dirt on people compares with a former police officer saying that the family and friend of Stephen Lawrence were watched with a view to getting 'dirt' on them.
It could all seem much of a muchness, the use of the same techniques and games.
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 5th November 02:24
Two things that have come out from yesterday is that there is a video of her two security guards frantically searching through a pile of binbags at the back of her flat, desperately trying to find a bag which allegedly contains some missing documents and at least one laptop, while she stands watching them. That I would like to see.
Also she sent texts/emails basically saying that if the worst came to worst she could feed one of her subordinates to the wolves to ensure that both her and Murdoch Jnr would keep their jobs. "I'm properly ring fenced," she writes.
Within two days she was fed to the wolves.
What a horrible piece of work she appears to be. Wonder what newspaper she'll end up editing when she inevitably just gets a slapped wrist for this?
Also she sent texts/emails basically saying that if the worst came to worst she could feed one of her subordinates to the wolves to ensure that both her and Murdoch Jnr would keep their jobs. "I'm properly ring fenced," she writes.
Within two days she was fed to the wolves.
What a horrible piece of work she appears to be. Wonder what newspaper she'll end up editing when she inevitably just gets a slapped wrist for this?
Chimune said:
audidoody said:
Unless password cracking software had been used I'm not sure the term "hacking" is appropriate. They just keyed in default network passwords (0000).
i agree totally but thats a bit subtle for the media !My guess is that, as a victim, you wouldn't make any distinction.
EskimoArapaho said:
Well, that's a fine distinction to make as long as you also agree that someone who just wanders in your unlocked front door isn't a proper burglar.
My guess is that, as a victim, you wouldn't make any distinction.
Perhaps. But as the 'phone hacking' doesn't involve physical visiting of a property - that would be an effort after all - just dialling your number followed by the whatever retrieval method and '0000' it's more akin to picking up your post from the communal table in the hallway...perhaps?My guess is that, as a victim, you wouldn't make any distinction.
The term 'hacking' is just the media doing what it does best - bigging up some commonplace activity with a sheen of glamour.
The Hypno-Toad said:
Two things that have come out from yesterday is that there is a video of her two security guards frantically searching through a pile of binbags at the back of her flat, desperately trying to find a bag which allegedly contains some missing documents and at least one laptop, while she stands watching them. That I would like to see.
Also she sent texts/emails basically saying that if the worst came to worst she could feed one of her subordinates to the wolves to ensure that both her and Murdoch Jnr would keep their jobs. "I'm properly ring fenced," she writes.
Within two days she was fed to the wolves.
What a horrible piece of work she appears to be. Wonder what newspaper she'll end up editing when she inevitably just gets a slapped wrist for this?
What you said.Also she sent texts/emails basically saying that if the worst came to worst she could feed one of her subordinates to the wolves to ensure that both her and Murdoch Jnr would keep their jobs. "I'm properly ring fenced," she writes.
Within two days she was fed to the wolves.
What a horrible piece of work she appears to be. Wonder what newspaper she'll end up editing when she inevitably just gets a slapped wrist for this?
Ring fenced, eh? I wonder, madam, if you would like to review that suggestion?
I'm a little concerned though. We would appear to be seeing a substantial case being made yet they've not pleaded, not to any of it.
The way the charges have been put would tend to mitigate against partial pleading though (I am told by a lawyer). She'd be unlikely to receive much in the way of remission so to speak. Further, there is the snowball effect. The jury might feel that one case has not been made out but she's really guilty so they will find her guilty of the lesser charges whereas if it was just the major ones, they might feel convinced.
I would agree with my correspondent that there is no accounting for juries. That's not a criticism of the jury system, just an observation.
As for what she will be fit for once the bruhahah has died down: she was picked for her role as editor because she was identified (by an aged man who had no reason to listen to reason from advisors) as someone to promote. It is probable that this sort of career move will happen again.
We've had people convicted of serious offences take to the speaker circuit, and earn a decent income (despite suffering from Alzheimer's disease), we've had those who've gone to prison for perverting the course of justice making come backs. On the other hand, in the old days of Profumo, an indiscretion meant he felt an obligation to resign and not only that, but to change his (and his famous wife's) whole direction in life.
Profumo spent a lot of his life helping down and outs in the East End of London, at one time just doing menial jobs around what was virtually a doss house. Can't see this being such a Damascus moment from Brookes, nor her intimates either.
EskimoArapaho said:
Well, that's a fine distinction to make as long as you also agree that someone who just wanders in your unlocked front door isn't a proper burglar.
My guess is that, as a victim, you wouldn't make any distinction.
while I take your point on the distinction (due to ripa & dpa)...they aren't a burglar My guess is that, as a victim, you wouldn't make any distinction.
Derek Smith said:
What you said.
Ring fenced, eh? I wonder, madam, if you would like to review that suggestion?
I'm a little concerned though. We would appear to be seeing a substantial case being made yet they've not pleaded, not to any of it.
The way the charges have been put would tend to mitigate against partial pleading though (I am told by a lawyer). She'd be unlikely to receive much in the way of remission so to speak. Further, there is the snowball effect. The jury might feel that one case has not been made out but she's really guilty so they will find her guilty of the lesser charges whereas if it was just the major ones, they might feel convinced.
I would agree with my correspondent that there is no accounting for juries. That's not a criticism of the jury system, just an observation.
As for what she will be fit for once the bruhahah has died down: she was picked for her role as editor because she was identified (by an aged man who had no reason to listen to reason from advisors) as someone to promote. It is probable that this sort of career move will happen again.
We've had people convicted of serious offences take to the speaker circuit, and earn a decent income (despite suffering from Alzheimer's disease), we've had those who've gone to prison for perverting the course of justice making come backs. On the other hand, in the old days of Profumo, an indiscretion meant he felt an obligation to resign and not only that, but to change his (and his famous wife's) whole direction in life.
Profumo spent a lot of his life helping down and outs in the East End of London, at one time just doing menial jobs around what was virtually a doss house. Can't see this being such a Damascus moment from Brookes, nor her intimates either.
I'm sure the way she has conducted herself in the past will actually be seen as a positive in todays business environment. Plus she no doubt has one hell of an address book.Ring fenced, eh? I wonder, madam, if you would like to review that suggestion?
I'm a little concerned though. We would appear to be seeing a substantial case being made yet they've not pleaded, not to any of it.
The way the charges have been put would tend to mitigate against partial pleading though (I am told by a lawyer). She'd be unlikely to receive much in the way of remission so to speak. Further, there is the snowball effect. The jury might feel that one case has not been made out but she's really guilty so they will find her guilty of the lesser charges whereas if it was just the major ones, they might feel convinced.
I would agree with my correspondent that there is no accounting for juries. That's not a criticism of the jury system, just an observation.
As for what she will be fit for once the bruhahah has died down: she was picked for her role as editor because she was identified (by an aged man who had no reason to listen to reason from advisors) as someone to promote. It is probable that this sort of career move will happen again.
We've had people convicted of serious offences take to the speaker circuit, and earn a decent income (despite suffering from Alzheimer's disease), we've had those who've gone to prison for perverting the course of justice making come backs. On the other hand, in the old days of Profumo, an indiscretion meant he felt an obligation to resign and not only that, but to change his (and his famous wife's) whole direction in life.
Profumo spent a lot of his life helping down and outs in the East End of London, at one time just doing menial jobs around what was virtually a doss house. Can't see this being such a Damascus moment from Brookes, nor her intimates either.
What I would really like to see with her is an Agent Kujan moment. That split second realisation that its all about to come crashing down and that her famous, well connected friends aren't going to rescue her this time.
I very much doubt that will happen though. Its all a game to these people and although I'm guessing a few of them are enjoying making her sweat nothing will truly come of it. That fact that she may well have authorised the hacking of a dead girls phone, who probably died in terrible fear, means nothing to her. Its just the same as some pop star getting caught with gak up his nose and tart on his cock.
Get the story, beat the others, laugh about it down the wine bar later. In a decent world, if people got found out doing that the next career they should have after prison, should be shouting at the bins round the back of Lidi with a dog on a piece of string.
The Hypno-Toad said:
Also she sent texts/emails basically saying that if the worst came to worst she could feed one of her subordinates to the wolves to ensure that both her and Murdoch Jnr would keep their jobs. "I'm properly ring fenced," she writes.
This is about as bad as it can get for her for an aggravating factors point of view.Assuming it is made out in court it will almost certainly in my view ensure that she gets a lengthy prison sentence.
The Judge will not like this aspect of her behaviour one little bit.
Judges do not like big people who are willing to sacrifice little people to save their own skins.
Edited by RSoovy4 on Tuesday 5th November 10:49
EskimoArapaho said:
Chimune said:
audidoody said:
Unless password cracking software had been used I'm not sure the term "hacking" is appropriate. They just keyed in default network passwords (0000).
i agree totally but thats a bit subtle for the media !My guess is that, as a victim, you wouldn't make any distinction.
Hacking = armed robbery ( takes time, appropriate tools, skills and planning )
Accessing someone's voicemail = shop lifting (Joe Shmo walks into a shop, sticks some spaghetti down his trousers. Walks out )
Shop lifting is not the same as armed robbery.
Pressing 0000 when you get to someone's voicemail message, is not hacking.
Chimune said:
EskimoArapaho said:
Chimune said:
audidoody said:
Unless password cracking software had been used I'm not sure the term "hacking" is appropriate. They just keyed in default network passwords (0000).
i agree totally but thats a bit subtle for the media !My guess is that, as a victim, you wouldn't make any distinction.
Hacking = armed robbery ( takes time, appropriate tools, skills and planning )
Accessing someone's voicemail = shop lifting (Joe Shmo walks into a shop, sticks some spaghetti down his trousers. Walks out )
Shop lifting is not the same as armed robbery.
Pressing 0000 when you get to someone's voicemail message, is not hacking.
Just because a house has old fashioned single pane windows with no locks, it's not any less of a burglary than one on a house with up to date UPVC and deadlocks.
It was hacking.
The Don of Croy said:
EskimoArapaho said:
Well, that's a fine distinction to make as long as you also agree that someone who just wanders in your unlocked front door isn't a proper burglar.
My guess is that, as a victim, you wouldn't make any distinction.
Perhaps. But as the 'phone hacking' doesn't involve physical visiting of a property - that would be an effort after all - just dialling your number followed by the whatever retrieval method and '0000' it's more akin to picking up your post from the communal table in the hallway...perhaps?My guess is that, as a victim, you wouldn't make any distinction.
The term 'hacking' is just the media doing what it does best - bigging up some commonplace activity with a sheen of glamour.
Google said:
One of the most famous hackers in the world, and later security consultant Kevin Mitnick, popularized the term "social engineering", pointing out that it is much easier to trick someone into giving a password for a system than to spend the effort to hack into the system. He claims it was the single most effective method in his arsenal.
Edited by Oakey on Tuesday 5th November 11:12
RSoovy4 said:
This is about as bad as it can get for her for an aggravating factors point of view.
Assuming it is made out in court it will almost certainly in my view ensure that she gets a lengthy prison sentence.
The Judge will not like this aspect of her behaviour one little bit.
Judges do not like big people who are willing to sacrifice little people to save their own skins.
I appreciate that this may well be a "piece of string" question, but what's your estimation of the likely sentence, should she be found guilty?Assuming it is made out in court it will almost certainly in my view ensure that she gets a lengthy prison sentence.
The Judge will not like this aspect of her behaviour one little bit.
Judges do not like big people who are willing to sacrifice little people to save their own skins.
The Don of Croy said:
The term 'hacking' is just the media doing what it does best - bigging up some commonplace activity with a sheen of glamour.
Alternatively, downplaying this activity and claiming it's not hacking is what scumbags (like Paul McMullen, not necessarily you!) do to make the invasions of privacy seem trivial. I'm 99 percent sure that, at the time, the hackers and their editors thought "well, it's so easy that it's not really hacking, is it?" It's a cognitive dissonance thing. Hacking is simply deliberate and unauthorised access to privately held data. That's all.
And it's been that way forever. You might like to refer back to Shifreen's hacking of Prince Phillip's Prestel account (the one that prompted the Computer Misuse Act) or read "The Cuckoo's Egg" (a great example of the how trivial password security was/is widespread).
Edited by EskimoArapaho on Tuesday 5th November 12:19
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff