According to Private Eye.....
she was about to go on maternity leave shortly anyway, so the effect to the business is more or less the same.
Watch for her in another Murdoch empire job soon as the fuss dies down.
News International boss Rebekah Brooks, who has been at the centre of the phone-hacking scandal, has resigned from her post and apologised for the "hurt" her company had caused to crime victims and others. She confirmed in an internal memo to staff this morning that she was leaving the sister company of Rupert Murdoch's News …
They said she has been embarking on a serious course of Ugandan Discussions in order to bring a junior hacker into the world. Whether or not she does might be a different story...
I'm sure we can read all about it in the News of the Screws... oh wait....
Paris, because I mentioned discussing Uganda and there isn't an Idi Amin icon.
This post has been deleted by its author
Murdoch merely owns the company that owns the company that owned the NoTW. In my view that puts him far enough from the action so as to be unaware of it, or at least to introduce enough doubt about his knowledge and guilt.
RB on the other hand was NoTW editor. It does not seem possible that she could be unaware of what, it has emerged, was a common practice at the paper and the source of many front page stories. How could she edit the paper and not be aware of it ?
... or it pleases some people to think so. I personaly don't consider myself to be particularly niave, but hey - it's all depending on how much you know (or at least, think you do).
My Uncle gave me one of the most useful (and profound) pieces of advice I ever had when I was young. "The worsth crime in the world, is getting caught". Sadly, it took me a long time to really understand how true that is, and what it really signified about human nature.
I'm not going to waste your time stating the obvious - I'm not even going to bother to vote a certain post down. I'm sure there are many here as 'clueless' as me who know what I mean.
"... or it pleases some people to think so. I personaly don't consider myself to be particularly niave, but hey - it's all depending on how much you know (or at least, think you do)."
??
"My Uncle gave me one of the most useful (and profound) pieces of advice I ever had when I was young. "The worsth crime in the world, is getting caught". Sadly, it took me a long time to really understand how true that is, and what it really signified about human nature."
How profound that is. I got caught for riding my push-bike with out lights (at night would you believe). I hear about the massacres at (e.g. srebenica, rwanda, etc.) committed by loads of people who never got caught. I 'd look up to them if I wasn't hanging my head in shame.
"I'm not going to waste your time stating the obvious - I'm not even going to bother to vote a certain post down. I"
Good
"I'm sure there are many here as 'clueless' as me who know what I mean."
I doubt it.
Nope, if I had an honest cretin on one side who caused harm with some particular goal in mind (I wonder if you can point to any evidence that the big bad Murdoch was planning to blackmail anybody) versus a person who causes harm and discomfort because he gets pleasure from it then give me the thug any day of the week.
And I'm not making any moral judgment on whether people who murder their fellow citizens are "freedom fighters" but the people who are being murdered sure are. that is why they are "collaborating" with Teh Big Bad Imperialists. And Assange has openly and honestly admitted that they should be killed. Real collateral murder in Iraq much?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/assange-collaborators-deserve-to-die/239511/
"I wonder if you can point to any evidence that the big bad Murdoch was planning to blackmail anybody"
Astroturfing strategy #4: there's no proof of wrongdoing and the angry mob must stand down at once. Or maybe it's strategy #3 and the mob must be turned on the accusers.
Who knows? I'm not even sure which thug, Baked Beans whats us to "give" him, now, to be honest. Can you work it out, from reading all that crap? I think it's the one with a goal, in mind (or maybe he meant 'gaol' - in which case it could be any of them).
Anyway, he's posting about Julian Assange in a comments section about Rebecca Brookes resigning. All I can gather, is that he's asserting that the people who think News International did illegal things and should be investigated (preferably by some policemen who _didn't_ accept bribes), are the same people who think Anonymous are "heroes" and Assange should go free. Why he thinks this, is beyond me, unless he finds it easier to hate an enemy, with as one-dimensional a set of views, as his own.
(At least he's not passing judgement on "people who murder their fellow citizens"... Which was nice of him, I thought. That's the trouble with people, these days, you see? Too judgmental.)
I'm guessing that a highly regarded Guardian journalist wouldn't lie solely for the purpose of discrediting Assange, especially since the same journalist wrote a fawning tribute to him (WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy) . Besides it sounds like something many people of his political persuasion would say.
It's also worth noting the term that the One uses in place of redacting: damage reduction. So how much damage were you intending to cause in the first place Mr. Assange?
"Nick Davies is an unreliable journalist."
What's up, baked Beans? Suddenly found yourself with a lot more time on your hands? It's tough, when an employer goes to the wall, but times are hard, and arses have to be covered, you know?
Anyway, I'm sure the paper-bag-faced old bastard had your best interests at heart, really.
"Soooo I'm being paid by News Corporation now? Kay."
Well, you could be. Or you could be working for someone else who would rather we didn't look into this business too deeply. I believe some of the people involved have public relations businesses.
Or you could be a stupid template "Britard" whose life revolves around gossip and voting for the suited-and-tied idiot who claims to serve your best interests, conveniently endorsed by the toilet paper masquerading as a source of news which satisfies your cravings for easily-consumed trivia and opinions on things that you can't be bothered to understand. As a result, you might just be bitter that your favourite publication isn't being printed any more and are throwing a tantrum.
But so far you've only discredited yourself over and over again. So if this is your job, I hope someone isn't paying you for it. If this is your hobby, I suggest finding something you can hope to be good at, because this isn't it.
"At least he's not passing judgment on "people who murder their fellow citizens"... Which was nice of him, I thought. That's the trouble with people, these days, you see? Too judgmental."
Well since somebody here thinks they are "freedom fighters" I don't want to get into a political row. If you want me to get judgmental then no, no I don't believe people that blow up children using IEDs are freedom fighters. I guess your smartarse comment inadvertently puts you on the side of the big bad imperialists now. Sorry about that.
And if you're too god damned thick to understand what I'm saying I'll say it as simply as possibly:
People not criticize Assange/Anon when steal data. People criticize News of World when do. Me not know why. You do know why?
Do you understand that?
All performers to date, that is News International and the Metropolitain Police have made a dogs dinner of their communications. Why ?
All parties have access to skilled PR people. Before they open a mouth all the options are thrashed through until the right positive message is identified. So why are all these people behaving like four year olds caught in the larder.
They could all have put out far better apologies.
So something is hidden. They will get done for the petty crimes of bunging a few grand to coppers, RIPA and a host of other laws that they consider appropriate for the little people.