The UK press self-regulation body has dismissed allegations that phone tapping of celebrities was endemic and ongoing at British tabloid the News of the World. The PCC investigation began in July after the Guardian reported how the NotW paid out more than £1m to settle privacy lawsuits from public figures, including football …
This is the PCC that is...
...owned and operated by the newspaper industry
...staffed by newspaper representatives
...not independent in ANY way
And you are surprised?
Yes, this really does smack of bullshit.
All the injured parties are left wondering what the hell has happened and the print owners are laughing.
...what the Graun need to do is get one of the "victims" to make a complaint to their local force (definitely not the Met). And then if a police investigation turns up any evidence of wrongdoing not only will the NotW be in trouble, but the PCC will presumably be in bother as well. Something like Accessory After The Fact should cover it shouldn't it? Or how about an Attempting to Pervert?
Whilst I suspect wire-tapping WAS widespread (several "celebrities" have admitted to conversations with journalists in which they were asked about things they had only ever mentioned in phone conversations) the Guardian appears to be overlooking one crucial point;
The IPCC did not need to "provide evidence to contradict the FACTS in our report". There WERE no facts in the Guardian report. There were unsubstantiated, anonymous claims. We, in the real world, call them "rumours" or "gossip". Call me a sentimental old fool but, in the old days, you weren't allowed to convict someone based on gossip (unless they were a witch, obviously). It was not up to the IPCC to provide evidence to contradict the gossip, it was up to the Guardian to supply some evidence full stop. That's how it works.
Not only that but..
It's the PCC who is run by Paul Dacre. That's like putting Al Capone in charge of Scotland Yard.
Completely useless body.. reform it or abolish it.
"There WERE no facts in the Guardian report. There were unsubstantiated, anonymous claims. We, in the real world, call them "rumours" or "gossip"."
So every story that comes from an anonymous source is nonsense now? Thank god you weren't involved in the investigation into Watergate.
Anonymous, to make a point.
Follow the money...
Re: Anonymous sources
"So every story that comes from an anonymous source is nonsense now"
That's not what I said and you clearly know NOTHING about watergate. Several people were arrested after breaking in to Watergate. How is that a rumour or gossip?
How about I make up a rumour saying you fiddled your Taxes. If, after an investigation, there is nothing to back that up other than my rumour, are you happy to be convicted? Don't talk such bollocks!
Just because you (and I) don't believe it was true doesn't make the decision wrong if there was no evidence to back up our beliefs. If the Guardian's "source" wasn't prepared to put up there is fuck all the IPCC can do. And a bunch of imature conspiracy theorists whining ain't going to change the facts.
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Exploits no more! Firefox 26 blocks all Java plugins by default
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16