News Of The World, RIP

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:39 am

The Dirty Digger's Sunday UK filth-sheet, at one time the biggest-selling newspaper in the world, has fallen on its sword. Huzzah.

News International may well launch a replacement Sun On Sunday. Boo.

What really matters is where the filth-merchants end up writing or broadcasting in future. The ex-editors from the filth years, for example:

1994: Piers Morgan

1995: Phil Hall

2000: Rebekah Brooks (the ex-Mrs Ross Kemp, would you believe)

2003: Andy Coulson (ex-Number 10 communications director for The Incredible Cameron)

2007: Colin Myler

And the columnists.

Carole Malone, for example, may she rot in obscurity.

So. The News Of The World is dead. Yay, etc.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:02 am

They were the outfit that was tied to the recent phone tapping ruckus. Correct?

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:12 am

For the last five years, yes. And, unsurprisingly, corrupting officers of the Metropolitan Police. And, it wouldn't in the least bit surprise me, destroying evidence. And it was employees who did all that, not the company. I'm quite keen that they should be exposed and prosecuted right up the food chain.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:52 am

I've boycotted Murdoch goods for years. I'm delighted to see the NotW go; and doubly delighted that the damage really does seem to be going up the food chain to the Murdochs themselves.

With the country in a very bad mood anyway, this was not the time to get fingered for deleting Milly Dowler's voicemails in the hope of some juicy revelations (Milly Dowler was a murdered 13 year old whose case was national as a Missing Person issue for months. Deleting her voicemails gave the family false hope she was alive). The country just now is in the mood for blood.

What should I sacrifice to which God to ensure Murdochs Snr and Jnr are prosecuted, found not fit to take over BSkyB, hammered in the US courts under their foreign malpractice legislation, and convicted of being pondscum? Rebekah should just be handed over to NotW journos. (Wonder what dirt THEY can dish on the company, btw)

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:04 am

it is called Karma

and it has come back around...

they got nothing less what what the deserves

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 5:49 am

My cynical slant on current events ?

A master stroke by a wheeler dealer all powerful multi-millionaire.

All Mr Murdoch has done so publicly is to metaphorically, pop a pimple on the face of his global empire, for cosmetic reasons.

The poison is still there, but not contained within one operation, IF, it was before.

He can afford to erase a national institution for his own purposes.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:31 am

It's the kind of thing that is cultural and stems right from the top of the company. The private investigator is on record as stating the decision was by commitee not just a few rogue reporters. Are we really to believe that no one in senior management questioned why so much was being paid to him?

I hope it's the end of them taking over BskyB, not to mention commercialising the BBC. The most amazing thing is how labour can forget their own grovelling to murdoch and his poisonous bunch (and convince thenselves we hadn't noticed.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:41 am

You know, the most promising thing about this case as it develops is that responsibility DOES seem to be creeping up the food chain. It's the combination of paying off off the police together with the indication that other Newscorps titles use the same unethical, immoral and illegal methods that seems to be the real indicator.

Milliband may be weaselling on this one for party political reasons, but Cameron seems to want to deal with the issue - if only because of Coulson - and Lib Dems are delighted to get a chance to hack at Murdoch (see Vince Cable's incautious comments to Daily Torygraph journos who were quite happy to go along with the Murdoch Press' attacks on Clegg and the Lib Dems last year.)

Most delightfully of all, I've started to see other parts of the Murdoch Empire creaking as they try to deflect attention away from him. I already get the impression from other Sky News (part of my Virgin package and just now is the only time I've watched it) that it's unfair prejudice from the left wing BBC and Guardian against a successful private individual who is being targeted simply because he is successful.

Don't think the Guardian and BBC are going to let this drop anytime soon. Nor Parliament, nor the Police, nor the Public. Murdoch will probably get away with it somehow, but I really hope they can stop him getting hold of the rest of BSkyB. I hope for more, but cynicism says we'll be lucky to achieve even that much.

Most important thing is not to forget about it, don't buy a Murdoch paper and do cancel your Sky subscription. (I heard, I don't know how truthfully, that if you phone up to cancel over this issue, they offer you six months free. Go on - cancel anyway.)

Social media like this bypass the Press. We can talk direct to eachother and politicians without needing them. While we can, we can keep the pressure on this issue. Given that all walks of life from the Royals down have been affected by this it is a genuinely national issue.

BOYCOTT MURDOCH - YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:51 pm

BOYCOTT MURDOCH - YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Bit difficult as I have been doing that for years. Too bad though if you happen to live in an area with only sky available to you. The BBC seem to be exhibiting a certain amount of glee over all this, can't say I blame them as murdoch has v=been trying to oersuade givernment to do away with the licence fee for years. What I find incredible is that anyone even now still thinks they should be allowed to take over bskyb.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:44 pm

The BBC may be exhibiting some glee; I'm exibiting more, because this issue is still gathering steam. Can the momentum really be sustained? Chuckle. Twice in a year - we're definitely outside my expectation bracket! (The other one was Lib Dems in govt)

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:07 am

Clodhopper;1362599 wrote: The BBC may be exhibiting some glee; I'm exibiting more, because this issue is still gathering steam. Can the momentum really be sustained? Chuckle. Twice in a year - we're definitely outside my expectation bracket! (The other one was Lib Dems in govt)

I was in favour of the coalition to begin with now I think it will probably see the end of the Lib Dems as a political force for some time to come. They've compromised their principles too much imo. The tories needed them they didn't need the tories. As a lifelong liberal supporter I'm scunnered with them.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:23 pm

Does anyone remember the fat fraudster who flung himself off his yacht in the Atlantic twenty years back and got a state funeral in Jerusalem instead of a jail term in England? I seem to remember his dynamic son (as opposed to the gormless one) then took the flak and became the biggest personal bankrupt in UK history, though as he's just now starting a new 8-year disqualification from being a company director perhaps he had a predilection that way from the beginning.

Maybe history's echoing down the years.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:58 pm

Maybe Murdoch will get nailed for something over here too. The man is a menace to society.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:17 pm

News Corporation is instructive, given that the Murdochs own 38% of the voting shares of News International which gives them effective control of every company on that list. You'd not think one bloke could amass so many influential companies. Anything with the word Fox or Dow Jones in the title, Best FM, Sky, Star TV, even the National Geographic Channels. And SyFy, of all things. And didn't they sit on Tivo for years, suppressing its take-up?

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:23 am

Oh, I say. More gore on Fleet Street.Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International, has resigned, the company has confirmed. Her departure follows days of growing pressure for her to step down as the phone hacking crisis grew. News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch had been resisting the calls to remove her.

BBC News - Phone hacking: Brooks steps down over phone hacking

I do hope this won't prevent her from turning up next Tuesday at the House of Commons to be flambéd.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:47 pm

There's a very odd attempt at an apology in a statement by Rebekah Brooks:I feel a deep sense of responsibility for the people we have hurt

BBC News - Phone hacking resignation: Statements in full

You have no responsibility for the people you have hurt, Ms Brooks. You never did have. You had a professional, ethical and legal responsibility to each of the people you proceeded to, as you put it, hurt. You failed, blatantly, to bear that responsibility in mind, but you were never at any stage responsible for those people.

You were only ever responsible for your own actions and those of your employees. The struggle at this stage is in finding out what those actions were, and you're fighting all the way to prevent those actions from becoming public knowledge.

Your sole remaining responsibility is to lay all those acts in plain view as soon as possible, without picking and choosing. Get on with it.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:18 pm

spot;1362704 wrote: Oh, I say. More gore on Fleet Street.Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International, has resigned, the company has confirmed. Her departure follows days of growing pressure for her to step down as the phone hacking crisis grew. News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch had been resisting the calls to remove her.

BBC News - Phone hacking: Brooks steps down over phone hacking

I do hope this won't prevent her from turning up next Tuesday at the House of Commons to be flambéd.

He resisted because she is his adopted daughter.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:24 pm

mikeinie;1362723 wrote: He resisted because she is his adopted daughter.

Not in any legal sense, and the phrase might carry rather unpleasantly incestuous overtones not that I have a clue how she climbed her career ladder.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:03 pm

spot;1362724 wrote: Not in any legal sense, and the phrase might carry rather unpleasantly incestuous overtones not that I have a clue how she climbed her career ladder.

not sure what you mean by ' incestuous overtones' I just read in a paper that she was adopted and was his daughter. but then.. what can you believe in the media these days

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:52 pm

mikeinie;1362725 wrote: I just read in a paper that she was adopted and was his daughter. but then.. what can you believe in the media these daysNot that, for sure. This month's Guardian, for example, says "Murdoch has four daughters but regards Brooks as another, say observers, and perhaps the closest of the lot" - "regards" is a long way from actually being one. Beyond that it would be, I suspect, very difficult to prove a person wasn't adopted as a child but I've seen no hint in that direction and besides it would be a somewhat intrusive idea, suited more to gutter tabloid sensationalism than to a web forum.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:05 pm

And now the Met Police Commissioner has resigned too

He should have gone over the shooting of the Brazilian and a couple of times since so it's long overdue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/1 ... -statement

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:00 pm

Is it true that British Government officials are more susceptible to influence of big media moguls than those in the U.S.?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:40 pm

Ahso!;1362776 wrote: Is it true that British Government officials are more susceptible to influence of big media moguls than those in the U.S.?

I doubt it but have no way of comparing.

Given that all politicians are, by their very nature, influenced by the reporting of the big media I'd guess it was fairly even.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:15 am

To summarise the position of the Met, they confiscated as evidence absolutely all the 11,000 pages of notes and computer files and NoW emails to and from the chief freelance voicemail-tapper, and bundled it into binbags, and on the basis that they didn't read and analyse the content of the binbags they felt themselves in a position to say there was no evidence of wrongdoing. What was the quote last week? despite fresh allegations that thousands of public figures had been targeted, Mr Yates decided in July 2009 that there was no new evidence [...] This was despite Yates saying he had never seen the 11,000 pages from private investigator Glenn Mulcaire's notebooks, which had been seized by police. 'I'm not going to go down and look at bin bags,' he said. 'I am supposed to be an Assistant Commissioner. Perhaps I should have been more demanding. I am accountable, and it happened on my watch, and it's clear I could have done more.'

A senior Yard source said Mr Yates would not resign, adding: ‘He is an honourable man and he has done the right thing in making a very public apology.’? Nonsense, he's deliberately whitewashed matters while being the only authorised person in a position to physically get to the proof. Either all crime is investigated and prosecuted and sentenced impartially, whether it's white-collar crime or subsistence crime, or the police are a politicized bunch of criminal associates, there's no middle ground. Assistant Commissioner John Yates falls into the latter category which makes him unfit to be a public servant in any capacity. I'd happily see him jailed.

There seems to have been a widespread policy of "don't ask, don't tell" - to which we can now add "don't look". Why on earth does evidence get put into the dark anyway? A public policy of putting it online for everyone to trawl through would make matters far more accountable and transparent. Short of that it's time some large-scale document leaking happened, there's more stones to look under than just this one.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:29 am

spot;1362789 wrote: To summarise the position of the Met, they confiscated as evidence absolutely all the 11,000 pages of notes and computer files and NoW emails to and from the chief freelance voicemail-tapper, and bundled it into binbags, and on the basis that they didn't read and analyse the content of the binbags they felt themselves in a position to say there was no evidence of wrongdoing. What was the quote last week? despite fresh allegations that thousands of public figures had been targeted, Mr Yates decided in July 2009 that there was no new evidence [...] This was despite Yates saying he had never seen the 11,000 pages from private investigator Glenn Mulcaire's notebooks, which had been seized by police. 'I'm not going to go down and look at bin bags,' he said. 'I am supposed to be an Assistant Commissioner. Perhaps I should have been more demanding. I am accountable, and it happened on my watch, and it's clear I could have done more.'

A senior Yard source said Mr Yates would not resign, adding: ‘He is an honourable man and he has done the right thing in making a very public apology.’? Nonsense, he's deliberately whitewashed matters while being the only authorised person in a position to physically get to the proof. Either all crime is investigated and prosecuted and sentenced impartially, whether it's white-collar crime or subsistence crime, or the police are a politicized bunch of criminal associates, there's no middle ground. Assistant Commissioner John Yates falls into the latter category which makes him unfit to be a public servant in any capacity. I'd happily see him jailed.

There seems to have been a widespread policy of "don't ask, don't tell" - to which we can now add "don't look". Why on earth does evidence get put into the dark anyway? A public policy of putting it online for everyone to trawl through would make matters far more accountable and transparent. Short of that it's time some large-scale document leaking happened, there's more stones to look under than just this one.

I watched his interview, what it boiled down to is that head of the anti-terrorist squad (he was called in as the initial concern was the hacking of Royal phones) there were a lot of things going on that were more pressing at the time (London bombings etc) than a tabloid paper apparently hacking in to footballers phones. No doubt he would have came in for criticism if he diverted manpower from chasing down people trying to carry out terrorists attacks. It's only in hindsight the seriousness is apparent and even so it would not have been his priority. Hindsight is wonderful is it not?

posted by ahso

Is it true that British Government officials are more susceptible to influence of big media moguls than those in the U.S.?

The standing joke is american politicians can't be bullied you have to bribe them. How big an influence is fox news in the US and do your politicians run wary of them? That's one of his companies. TV news`here is fairly impartial in it's reporting one of the things he was pushing for was the doing away of the bbc and the requirement to be impartial and he also wanted to take over sky news. If he succeeded it would have been a disaster for democracy imo.

Politicians let him acquire such influence and reinforced it in their grasping for power they didn't need to feed in to his power and influence. The news of the world was the best selling paper in the UK and his other titles gave him access to a very large number of people. Thatcher again, changing competition rules so her mate could buy up so much of our media. She practically gave him BskyB. Sky news is fairly impartial as a news channel but he was after control of that which and the doing away of the BBC and the requirement for impartiality. He might have done some good for journalism (battle of wapping etc) but those who follow are a different kettle of fish. Too much power corrupts

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:48 am

gmc;1362793 wrote: I watched his interview, what it boiled down to is that head of the anti-terrorist squad (he was called in as the initial concern was the hacking of Royal phones) there were a lot of things going on that were more pressing at the time (London bombings etc) than a tabloid paper apparently hacking in to footballers phones. No doubt he would have came in for criticism if he diverted manpower from chasing down people trying to carry out terrorists attacks. It's only in hindsight the seriousness is apparent and even so it would not have been his priority. Hindsight is wonderful is it not? The alternative point of view, given that all the evidence they needed was actually under their control at the time, is they decided not to upset the applecart by tangling with the all-powerful News International for fear of media assault settling scores later. Or it might just boil down to who was sleeping with who that week - if it turns out Murdoch's executives were bonking the Archbishop of Canterbury in exchange for effectual prayer I'd not be at all surprised after what we've been hearing.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:07 pm

This is how to negate bad publicity. Note that it's about Fox News, very Murdoch, discussing the NoW, very Murdoch, voicemail crimes. What proportion of Fox viewers now think Murdoch's company was the victim rather than the perpetrator of "hacking", do you suppose. The chap speaking isan expert -- in corporate public relations. He is Robert Dilenschneider (below), former head of Hill and Knowlton and now head of the Dilenschneider Group, who recently was featured in an interview, "How to Manage a PR Disaster."

More on the 'Most Incredible' Fox News Travesty - James Fallows - National - The Atlantic

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:51 pm

I notice that the only person (to the best of my knowledge) prepared to give first-hand testimony that "the then NoW editor Andy Coulson had asked him to hack phones" was found dead today. I do hope they allow a proper coroner's inquest this time, we'd hate to have another number-10-related-death farrago like the one still rumbling around Dr Kelly.Hoare gave further details about the use of "pinging" to the Guardian last week [...] "There's more to come. This is not going to go away."

NoW phone-hacking whistle-blower Sean Hoare found dead

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:59 pm

I was in favour of the coalition to begin with now I think it will probably see the end of the Lib Dems as a political force for some time to come. They've compromised their principles too much imo. The tories needed them they didn't need the tories. As a lifelong liberal supporter I'm scunnered with them.

My view of the Lib Dems over the last year is that they have been comprehensively outmanoeuvered by the Tories. Should have forseen it - the LDs haven't any experience of power and the Tories have lots. Also, the LDs have been learning the difference between opposition and power - the Vince Cable indiscretion about going to war with NI last year being a good example.

The most obvious thing the Lib Dems bring to the Govt is the complete lack of movement over Europe. Given the loony right this is a good thing. Though I have to say that keeping us out of the Euro seems to have been a good idea. And I don't say anything complimentary about the Tories without damn good reason!

It is very difficult to say what actual effect the Lib Dems have on policy, because there seems to be a clear effort to talk of Government policy and collective responsibility, rather than Party politics; and also because they are the minor partner.

I think you are right that the Lib Dems will suffer at the next election. Hey ho. I don't think they are as bad as you do, but unless this government turns out to be a great success (very unlikely) Lib eral Democracy will pretty much vanish from the national political picture.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:13 pm

This is how to negate bad publicity. Note that it's about Fox News, very Murdoch, discussing the NoW, very Murdoch, voicemail crimes. Half the Fox viewers now think Murdoch is the victim of "hacking". The chap speaking is

an expert -- in corporate public relations. He is Robert Dilenschneider (below), former head of Hill and Knowlton and now head of the Dilenschneider Group, who recently was featured in an interview, "How to Manage a PR Disaster."

How very interesting. I've been reading a lot of comments from the public in response to the BBC articles on this, and it is noticeable that you will find a few comments on every thread I've seen saying EXACTLY the same as this pair of jokers: "There are serious issues out there, why are the BBC/we/the govt wasting time on this unimportant issue?" The similarity is SO close that I wonder if NI employees are being told to get out there and defend NI on the internet.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:17 pm

It would be a huge story if the BBC checked IP addresses and they lead back to a PR firm. Wikipedia went public when they found such evidence years ago and the embarrassment was extreme.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:18 pm

chuckle. Oh my...we can but hope.

Just had a look at the make up of the Select Committee that will interview the Murdochs and brookes tomorrow. Weird. A lot of right wing Tories, Leftish Labour, and a solitary Lib Dem. Compulsory watching, imo.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:21 am

Nick de Bois vetoed the (entirely normal) replacement of one Labour member of the Select Committee with another late last night, deliberately (I presume) making sure there is no time to find a second replacement. This means that the make-up of the Committee is 5 Tory, 4 Labour and 1 Lib Dem. The (Conservative) Chair of the Committee will thus have the deciding vote.

I understand that the Murdochs COULD be asked to give their responses under oath, but only if the Committee decides it wants to. Is this a Conservative stitch up? Right wing Tories protecting a fellow tycoon? Can anyone think of another reason? The Labour MP vetoed says she has no idea why she was vetoed and has never met or had dealings with Nick de Bois.

Quite impressed with Sir Paul Stephenson so far.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:53 am

James Murdoch has talked solidly and said nothing so far. Nothing at all.

Standard News International technique: Admit nothing whatever until forced by unequivocal evidence. Then revert to admitting nothing.

Regarding my comment above about some Tory plot, it is perhaps more likely that Nick de Bois is a stupid twit.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:53 am

Frankly pathetic questioning by everyone except Tom Watson. The ONLY thing good I can see in this is that the ignorance of James and Rupert Murdoch about what was going on in their organisation is simply unbelievable.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:56 am

Oh gosh. Minor violence. And now the sitting will end and the Murdochs slime away in the distraction.

I am very very cross indeed at the moment.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:16 am

Oh! They're back! Mrs Mensch is asking good questions, too.

Does anyone here believe the Murdochs are beinbg honest and open with the Committee?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:02 am

Rebekah Brookes now.

Isn't it amazing that no-one at NewsCorps knows anything about anything unless it has been published in the Guardian or shown on Panorama?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:42 am

spot;1362789 wrote: To summarise the position of the Met, they confiscated as evidence absolutely all the 11,000 pages of notes and computer files and NoW emails to and from the chief freelance voicemail-tapper, and bundled it into binbags, and on the basis that they didn't read and analyse the content of the binbags they felt themselves in a position to say there was no evidence of wrongdoing. What was the quote last week? despite fresh allegations that thousands of public figures had been targeted, Mr Yates decided in July 2009 that there was no new evidence [...] This was despite Yates saying he had never seen the 11,000 pages from private investigator Glenn Mulcaire's notebooks, which had been seized by police. 'I'm not going to go down and look at bin bags,' he said. 'I am supposed to be an Assistant Commissioner. Perhaps I should have been more demanding. I am accountable, and it happened on my watch, and it's clear I could have done more.'

A senior Yard source said Mr Yates would not resign, adding: ‘He is an honourable man and he has done the right thing in making a very public apology.’? Nonsense, he's deliberately whitewashed matters while being the only authorised person in a position to physically get to the proof. Either all crime is investigated and prosecuted and sentenced impartially, whether it's white-collar crime or subsistence crime, or the police are a politicized bunch of criminal associates, there's no middle ground. Assistant Commissioner John Yates falls into the latter category which makes him unfit to be a public servant in any capacity. I'd happily see him jailed.

There seems to have been a widespread policy of "don't ask, don't tell" - to which we can now add "don't look". Why on earth does evidence get put into the dark anyway? A public policy of putting it online for everyone to trawl through would make matters far more accountable and transparent. Short of that it's time some large-scale document leaking happened, there's more stones to look under than just this one.

Well, he's gone now - who's next?

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:24 pm

Clodhopper;1362847 wrote: Does anyone here believe the Murdochs are being honest and open with the Committee?To a large extent yes, though inserting convenient (if indistinguishable) lies where revealing an inconvenient truth would wreck their entire position. The essence of their argument is that they were too distant to know, that NoW was a low-class scum-rag neither of them admired, that owning it was a relic of the past, that killing it was their contribution that week to making the planet a cleaner place. I'd believe all that.

Brooks was somewhat different. What came over is her limpet nature toward anything with power. Cameron Cameron Cameron Cameron. Eww.

I was much more interested in Sir Paul and the Yates chap. Somehow or other the evidence brought in relating to Mulcaire is now capable of fingering dozens of NoW and police. It was always capable of that. The police who first trawled it must, absolutely must, have known it was capable of that, and they locked it up in the hope that it would meet the evidence incinerator later this decade.

The Guardian did their shock-articles on NoW practices with all the proof already in the Yard's keeping and what happened? Nobody went and looked to see if they were right. I reckon nobody went and looked because some of them knew damn well what would happen if they did. That's the criminal underbelly of the Met, and neither Sir Paul nor that Yates chap exposed it.

Did they know? Maybe not. After all Yates' time at the Met he can't possibly be believed if he claims not to have reason to have expected it though. His refusal to allow anyone near the proof is damning. He's accountable, and it happened on his watch, and it's clear he could have done more.

As for Jonathan May-Bowles and his shaving foam, if they keep the prat on remand for a month I'd be entirely happy. Two months, even. A fine's inadequate, the fool should be locked up until he's been forgotten about.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:15 pm

Oh my. Cross your fingers, not that I think it's true but... LulzSec say they'll release big Murdoch email archive

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:54 pm

spot;1362859 wrote: Oh my. Cross your fingers, not that I think it's true but... LulzSec say they'll release big Murdoch email archive

That would be magnificent - 99.9% booring rubbish but, oh, that 0.1% could be sooo damning.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:51 pm

Oh my. Cross your fingers, not that I think it's true but... LulzSec say they'll release big Murdoch email archive

Would be great but I won't hold my breath.

If the Murdochs really are as ignorant of what is going on their whole organisation as they claim they are of the NotW then I dread to think what is going on. I for one will take a lot more convincing they don't encourage that sort of behaviour as part of the basic culture of Newscorp - no matter what pretty pamphlet of ethical standards gets passed round (and laughed at).

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:48 pm

Well, I've been following the debate in the Commons today. Glad to say that it's clear that MPs were not taken in by the "evidence" given. Whether that means the Enquiries will REALLY get anywhere I don't know, but the membership of the Leveson Enquiry (the main one into media practices across the board but especially NotW, and media relationships with the police and politicians) looks promising:

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty

George Jones, former Daily Telegraph political editor

Sir David Bell, former chairman of the Financial Times

Elinor Goodman, former Channel 4 political editor

Lord David Currie, former chairman of Ofcom

Sir Paul Scott-Lee, former West Midlands chief constable

And headed by Lord Justice Leveson, who prosecuted Rose West and was Judge in the Damilola Taylor case.

Interestingly in our more devolved UK these days, it was specifically mentioned that the terms of the Enquiry have been discussed with the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and some amendments made as a result.

Yesterday I was very frustrated at the well, mild, questioning. Today, it seems the Committees were deliberately being cautious because of the police issues already ongoing and my impressions were affected by my own intense desire to see the Murdochs spitted, grilled and spat out.

As it is, the report back to the Commons seems to be that the Murdochs are not believable and Yates and Hayman are looking very dodgy. Sir Paul Stephenson perhaps less so, but well, who knows?

Sometimes - often, perhaps - the Reports of these Enquiries are quietly shoved under the carpet. Somehow, I doubt this one will be. Apart from anything else, the Leveson Enquiry will report before the end of this Parliament, and the Lib Dems won't let it be ignored. I think the Tories know that if they try to nobble it, the Government will fall.

I think current attempts by Labour to keep pinning this on Cameron are missing the mood of the country, and look hypocritical given the extent of Labour contacts with Murdoch during their governments. The ONLY Party that can honestly point the finger of blame in this matter is the Liberal Democratic one, and apart from a very necessary reminder from Simon Hughes that the Lib Dems have been saying Murdoch is a cancer at the heart of our political establishment for 20 or so years they have not done so, as the priority is to get on with it.

If this really is followed up, then some major changes in how things are done at the heart of power will result. I very much hope so, anyway.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:19 am

I think current attempts by Labour to keep pinning this on Cameron are missing the mood of the country, and look hypocritical given the extent of Labour contacts with Murdoch during their governments.

Methinks you are being charitable. I think labour suffer from short term memory loss and genuinely don't remember sucking up to murdoch just as they manage to forget any responsibility they might have for the present financial state of the country. I hear Gordon Brown is working on his his autobiography, the working title is "it wasn't me it was him over there"

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:12 pm

We speculated whether James Murdoch slipped indistinguishable lies into his testimony to make it hold together and not show the holes.

BBC News - James Murdoch evidence questioned by former executives

They're starting to get unpicked.Tom Watson asked Mr Murdoch: "When you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the full" email suggesting hacking was more widespread than had been admitted. Mr Murdoch replied: "No, I was not aware of that at the time".

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:33 am

Methinks you are being charitable. I think labour suffer from short term memory loss and genuinely don't remember sucking up to murdoch just as they manage to forget any responsibility they might have for the present financial state of the country. I hear Gordon Brown is working on his his autobiography, the working title is "it wasn't me it was him over there"

I think it's absolutely apparent that Cameron DID discuss the BSkyB bid with Brookes and Murdoch, but given that Labour were doing equivalent Browntongue jobs in their time and the whole area has now been busted open this is small beer compared with the issue of cleansing the entire Augean stable. Brown's autobiog's title should be "Lust for Power for its Own Sake (and not a clue what to do with it)."

spot: Oh yes.

And since this is his own execs, knowing their parts will come out in the various investigations who are signalling their willingness to spill the Beanos, one assumes more and more of this sort of thing will start to come out.

The culture of NewsCorps is one of plausible deniability and fear, backed by the information processing ability and financial clout of the Group. It is a culture of complete amorality identical to the one we saw in BP and its subsidiaries and partners in the Gulf disaster.

Big Business is concerned only with the bottom line, and morality in business tends to cost money, at least in the business mind. It is why business cannot be allowed to self regulate and why one of the duties of the UN should be the regulation and investigation of Multinationals. (NB that I regard this as a general rule, and there are, I'm sure, honourable exceptions).

Post by **spot** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 3:26 am

Yesterday's headlines were rather interesting I thought.

News International instructed IT consultants to prune email archives. That's not to clean up the visible email displays to users, that's to eliminate evidence, regardless of how the deletion request is worded. The archive is meant to be there as a permanent raw source, it's an audit trail.

HCL discloses 'email deletion' requests from News International

And it's News International, not the News of the World. It was at a time when the company had promised to cooperate to the fullest extent in uncovering the criminal activities of Murdoch employees.

If that leaves James Murdoch "a person who can be relied on to exercise proper stewardship of a publicly quoted company" I would be shocked. It's a blatant attempt to make any police investigation and subsequent prosecution more difficult and it was done on his watch, regardless of who got their hands dirty giving the orders.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:30 am

I think that whilst we all tut and utter snorts of disgust at the hacking of murder victims phones, we as a nation need to look to ourselves for the beast we have created.

We have a nation who wallow In the misery of others and enjoy nothing more that reading the most Intimate details of people's lives. In short, we have created the demand for this kind of gutter journalism.

Some relish In the misery when high profile people screw up In life and naturally, If there Is a demand, there Is always some-one who will oblige that demand. If some people got out there and made a life for themselves then maybe weather Cheryl Is returning to Ashley, will be of no Interest to them.

Whilst the actions of these journalists and the corruption behind It are deplorable, the nation has systematically demanded more and more sensationalism. Now, It has blown up, the nation tuts and snorts In disgust.

Post by **spot** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:54 am

Speak for yourself, Oscar. None of that comes close to either my motivation or that of my acquaintances.