Re "The hypocrisy is astounding."

That is indeed one of the most striking things about all recent statements from key players within the senior levels of NI, the impression of hypocrisy one get. However, IMO, it is likely the case that to a considerable extent they do *not* actually get it, hard though that may be to believe. Hypocrisy requires that one *knows* that one is pretending to have a moral code whilst not actually practising what one is preaching. One should not underestimate the self-justifying pathology that such people are capable of exhibiting. Such types are fully capable of believing in their heart of hearts that they have not done anything wrong even when what they are doing is blatantly illegal. An American hotel-heiress who got caught bending by the US tax authorities a decade or so ago famously remarked that "rules are for the little people" (one assumes she was referring to me and thee and not leprechauns!). In this way these sociopaths (for that is what they are) manage to project (before they are eventually caught out) a very convincing front - because they have succeeded in convincing themselves.

BTW, if anyone feels that I have gone a touch over the top in using the term "sociopath" I include the URL to a list of the symptoms - I think that you will recognise many of the characteristics the moment you read them! A certain wealthy and influential businessman and his chums are positively *clinical* examples.

http://www.sociopathicstyle.com/traits/classic.htm

RE: The hypocrisy is astounding

Until she's sentenced to some serious porridge it's not enough.

In the interests of journalistic integrity.......

... I should point out that his name is (apparently) Mockridge.

@frank ly

Ah, so someone at El Reg has a sense of humour?

Business as usual in both camps then.

@frank ly

"... I should point out that his name is (apparently) Mockridge."

So he's not a *real* bridge but just a fake or simulacrum of one?

Can't... stop...

giggling in office

Wrong.

That would be the Obama 2012 campaign already in progress as the Truthiness Czar.

<total silence from the Totally Transparent Obama Administration>

AC@09:56

Prepare for red hot ginger-on-moron action.

It'll be interesting to see where La Brooks pops up next.

Tuesday, 14:30, Parliament.

Popcorn.

indeed

You can almost see her semtex and ballbearing jacket as she runs into the machine gun fire wearing a big hat saying 'I did it all, shoot me, not the Murdochs!'

plus 1

for the term "meatshield" especially as she has burnt up on re entry!

and I have to say

Private Eye is continuously on the money. Forget the Gruaniad, this is worth buying. Bit of a shame that having predicted the current press crisis their publishing schedule did not fit. The Guardian has been good but without Private Eye it would have been nothing.

Re: Avoiding tax

Yes - no issues with avoiding tax.

If, on the other hand, you publish articles criticising banks and multinationals for avoiding tax while doing the same, you are open to being accused of hipocrisy. Or treating readers to the "banks are bad, lefty media outlets are good, m'key?"

@LFP

Would that be the same story the Eye have been banging on about for years? Along with the dodgy tax affairs of many UK companies, including several newspaper groups.

Of course, legally avoiding tax, whilst reprehensible, is in no way comparable to hacking a missing girls's voicemail and bribing police, which ARE illegal.

Seems to be the latest meme from the right - attack the tax affairs of the Guardian, now that attacking Johann Hari is no longer a goer.

Well, I think it's mainly Paul Staines

... who is, basically, a more secretive version of Julian Assange - with fewer sources, more skin-pigmentation and slightly better jokes.

@IT veteran

"Would that be the same story the Eye have been banging on about for years? Along with the dodgy tax affairs of many UK companies, including several newspaper groups.

Of course, legally avoiding tax, whilst reprehensible, is in no way comparable to hacking a missing girls's voicemail and bribing police, which ARE illegal.

Seems to be the latest meme from the right - attack the tax affairs of the Guardian, now that attacking Johann Hari is no longer a goer."

Actually attacking a company which is AVOIDING PAYING ITS PROPER TAX by using off shore tax shelters , while at the same time its attacks a government that is trying to mean an economy cocked up by Labour is wrong?

You dont see anything wrong in them spouting off about morals, while denying tax revenue that could be used to buy decent protection for our soliders and resources for our children?

What makes their crimes even worse is they hold themselves up as some kind of moral gaurdian(sic) and defender of the week, while their tox executives screw this country out of tax revenue.

Your defence is that other companies do it, and Private Eye has been banging on about this for years..you are right , privater eye has been banging on about this for years and the thing with private eye is they tend to get their man in the end ;)

Comment below

It may or may not be hacking. It is still illegal to intercept telecommunication messages not intended for you.

Same as reading someones post.

Sorry Vladimir...

... But i could not disagree with you more!

I potentially could agree if the hacking (and it was hacking - illegal entry into an electronic device without permission. The technical details of how it was done are irrelevant.) was done in the interest of news worthy stories. Actual news worthy stories. And there exists a public interest defence in such cases, in fact, in the past MP's have been caught out doing illegal things by means of deception and illegal entry. This is considered legal due to being in the public interest.

But the fact of the matter was that, the hacking that the NotW was doing was not in the public interest, it was in the sole interest of peddling cheap trashy headlines to morons and selling more newspapers.

And for the examples you mentioned - if the hacking had been done to try to prove that there was collusion between MP's and industry lobbyists then no one would be complaining. Tony Blair's actions where immoral for certain, but unfortunately they were not illegal under UK law. Yes there are more serious crimes out there, but by the same token then you may as well ask the police not to bother dealing with assaults and robberies because theres murders happening out there.

The NotW journalists (ironic that theyve always been called Hacks!) broke the law and they did so not for some high ideal of journalism or attempting to unearth a stroy that it is in the public interest to know, but solely to peddle utter tat, and make a bit of profit from others misery. If that doesnt deserve the full hand of justice then i dont know what does...

Hypocrisy indeed...

In case you hadn't noticed, the hacking story only reached epic proportions when it was revealed that some non-shmucks were affected too. It had rumbled on for years before that.

It's funny how in another comment you draw a distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion and then proceed to rant about the lobbyists on the digital economy bill - how do you think many of the avoidance schemes stay or become legal? I would suggest that tax lobbyists do more damage than any of the examples you cite.

Damn straight it's a crime against democratic society. The phone hacking, while pretty illegal, isn't the big issue - it's the suborning of police officers.

"peddling cheap trashy headlines"?

Not quite. Trashy headlines are just a lucrative sideline.

The *main* reason for the hacking was to build up a dossier of dirt on any potential political or business opponent. The lurid headlines in the NoTW were just a means to keep the threat real.

Any attempt to regulate the press? We'll smear you.

Any attempt to reign in the Murdoch empire? We'll smear you.

Any attempt to investigate criminal wrongdoing? We'll smear you.

There have been numerous examples of inappropriate influence on government policy by large media organisations. Just look at what happened to Labour's (eminently sensible) proposals on regional news. I dread to think what tactics led the UK Government to agree to Sky's monopoly on satellite broadcasting. The bodies must be buried *somewhere*.

The success of the Murdoch business empire is about much more than a few quid here and there from the red tops. It is about elimination of all competition, based on Rupert's freedom to do whatever the hell he likes.