The real story
The real story is why the MET has been so lukewarm in finding out who was involved in the phone hacking as it might lead to a certain private detective firm with links to former members of her majesty's Constabulary.
Prime Minister David Cameron has today backed calls for public inquiries into the "absolutely disgusting" phone hacking allegations against The News of the World. Speaking in Westminster at his weekly PMQs, Cameron said he wanted inquiries not only into those claims against the News Corp-owned newspaper, but also to look at …
this prat (murdoch) buy out BskyB. c'mon lads get over and sign the avaaz.org petition before the slimy prick owns all the media and then our governbent.
Oh and cameron. Same shit different day. usual conlib policy of ignoring the issue untill it bites them in the arse.
If we don't stop this no-one will!
avaaz.org (do it, now)
Well, true the Coalition haven't exactly shone in their handling of this to date, but then most of the real trouble took place during a Labour administration. Particularly the (deliberately???) botched police investigation.
The truth is that no-one is going to come out of this without some shit sticking to them, politicians, police or the press in general, let alone Murdochs various 'organs'.
The big question is, will the various parties finally regain their collective nerve and try to bury the worst of it???
Was a frequent visitor to Downing St and close to the Blairs during his time as our glorious leader. NewsCorp have stuck like glue to UK government since Thatcher. The ConDems (isn't that a bit M$) are/were just more of the same. She was also 'close' to Gordo when he was trying to prop up his empire... I saw an interesting bit of footage on newsnight with Gordos people trying to get cameras switched off when Brooks came into focus while Gordo was out and about.
As mentioned earlier, this shit has been going on for decades. If all the journos that have worked for the NOTW during the phone hacking period are followed to their new jobs, there won't be many media organizations left untainted by this.
I see the usual suspects are commentating without using a single brain cell ..
@NaughtyHorse et al , had you engaged your brain, you would have noticed How the Mirror, People and Star etc etc have barely said a word on the subject ! GUESS WHY!!!
If you think this is just with the NOTW or Tory support you must be off your rocker, where exactlky do you think all the red tops and a lot of the broadsheets have been getting their info. THEY ARE ALL CRAPPING THEMSELVES!
Most remiss of me not to mention Private Eye! However, they're not a newspaper so I'll use that as a fairly bombproof excuse.
El Reg of course have not shied from reporting it either, as have several other sources, but of the as-was Fleet St papers, most have treated it like a scab. They acknowledge its presence but refuse to pick at it in case it turns into a bloody mess that gets on them too.
I think you need to check where the story regarding Milly Dowler's phone. It was way back in April IIRC and the Grauniad along with the rest of the papers ignored the story until very recently.
Assuming that the press are ignoring this story because they are also at it isn't necessarilly correct. It's one possibility, another is that they are scared of action for contempt, publishing stories into ongoing investigations seems to have landed the press in hot water recently. And another is simply that repeating other people's stories tends to stick in the throat for many journos, particularly when they are repeating a story that seems to have been broken by a non-journalist.
Nothing has been proven yet... Highly likely on what we've heard, however!
If true then the Journalist(s?) and his/her 'team' has interfered with criminal investigations in a serious way. I believe the penalty is for this would be serious porridge.
Three questions must be asked.
1. Who else was involved - It can't be just Newscorp reptiles? Try most media and many police.
2. Has it happened in other countries or is UK just a soft target? Will/can we hand over discovered materials?
3. Were did they derive the idea that it was acceptable to invade anyone's (let alone the phone and family of a potential murder victim) privacy in this manner? All your secrets are ours, the state is ALL, and we own your Ass. I suspect you'll have to go back to the 60's and 70's to find the origin
I get the strong impression that those in power are not just ambivalent to the will of the citizen (who pay's their wages, after all) but actively dislike and disparage them. Some re-balancing is called for but there is no political entity interested or capable of taking on the task!
I'm betting that Downing Street would really make good on their threats, and send him a Strongly Worded Memo.
Actually, I'm being a bit ridiculous, aren't I? More like a respectful suggestion to please consider moving future orphan devouring to after the watershed.
Nonsense. Everyone knows Murdoch eats his victims alive.
You're all nuts. Murdoch doesn't give a toss about regional politics, as evidenced by the way he owns both left-wing and right-wing newspapers and tv stations all over the world. I've never heard any plausible accusations against him except for anti-trust and other financial shenanigans. He only cares about money. He doesn't seem to be interested in manipulating public opinion (except to buy more of his products, of course - that's called marketing).
I wouldn't be unhappy to see him as World President (although I don't think he'd want the job).
... it seems quite clear that there is a determination to get to the bottom of this.
There are 'journalists', 'investigators', editors, proprietors and police who are now dreading a criminal investigation and public inquiry. It's also fairly clear that Ofcom will intervene in the BSkyB takeover.
Quite a good day.
Guys, your comments will not be allowed on the beeb....you cannot infer that anyone is, may be, may have been, may possibly ever be, may have worked for, may be working for, may be anything at all to do with any person, organisation or even a brick, that may at any time be capable of litigation or defamation. Ever.
It cannot even be suggested that people move from ofcom to lucrative positions in politics/industry.
So that only leaves, say, the best part of a few thousand or so mobiles whose voicemails were criminally accessed while she wasn't on holiday, right? And something else was distracting her while that was happening, right?
What next, Rupe? "A big boy did it and ran away", maybe?
Vince Cable was right about Murdoch, and it's time for Vince's party colleagues in and out of the Millionaire's Cabinet to stand up and be counted.
Oh hang on, that's not going to happen is it. The NotW and the Fake Sheikh etc already have more than enough on their Westminster stooges (expenses? what else?)...
Bar stewards, the lot of them (including the Met, but more on that later).
I don't have a degree in media studies; however it occurs to me that an Editor takes responsibility for content published in their chip paper. If your attitude is 'bring me the news, I don't care how you do it.' then you ought to be liable for any criminal negligence that occurs as a result of that.
I find it very hard to believe that an editor would not have some idea of who the sources are for the newspaper and/or their methods of obtaining their information. I realise newspapers operate in a morally grey area *some* of the time but there is a marked difference between, say, obtaining classified information on the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and what we are hearing about now. Personally, I will only be satisfied if every person who had a hand in this serves some jail time, saddling them with a criminal conviction on their file for the rest of their lives.
While we're here: How much are Dave and his chums (who aren’t involved) enjoying this?
Clegg: "You're looking happy today Dave"
DC: "Yes Nick, a bandwagon just went by and I've jumped on it right at the front. The plebs won't be talking about our cock-ups again for another week or so."
You must remember that although Ms Brooks was Editor at the time of the incident, the duty of responsibility is different between an Editor and (say) a Minister.
So if there some fall out in a government department due to ethical shortcomings, newspaper editors will be calling for the appropriate Minister's head as the person with ultimate responsibility.
If, however, there are alleged shortcomings in a newspaper, the Editor would not see the need to resign, because its is 'inconceivable that she would have been involved'.
'One rule for them, another for us' could be a basic summary
This has probably been going on for years and considered normal practice by reporters. It's time to put a stop to it.
It seems to me that if Brooks knew about this (and I'm sure she did) then she should be jailed.
If she didn't know that she should be fired for not supervising her staff properly. Either way she should not be able to get off the hook. Unfortunately the likelihood is that in a few days it will all blow over and nobody will get held accountable.
The timing of these revelations are suspiciously close to the BSkyB inquiry and I suspect that the details were leaked by Murdoch's competitors to put pressure on that inquiry. Otherwise it would probably never have come out.
The NotW has repeatedly done the police's PR job, pushing out stories which in many cases are complete fabrications to misrepresent cases of police bungling and misdeeds in anti-terror cases and elsewhere. Meanwhile, it seems new emails reveal that Coulson knew full well of payments to police officers for information (something he denied under oath at Tommy Sheridan's perjury trial, which itself would be perjury if the emails are genuine).
Turns out that the senior copper involved in many of these bungled police actions that were spun over by the Murdoch press was Andy Hayman. He was also by pure coincidence the cop who decided to drop the hacking case against the NotW, despite being in possession of the names and numbers of hundreds of other potential victims, who he didn't even see fit to inform.
And this is also the same Andy Hayman who later took up a job as a paid columnist with Murdoch's papers.
And now the police themselves are investigating it, and a PM who enjoyed the support of the Murdoch press, and who employed Coulson as a PR man is the one who gets to decide who runs the public enquiry.
One could be forgiven for thinking that the whole country from the PM down to the cops are bent, and are being corrupted by money from a wealthy press baron. But I couldn't possibly comment.
"I find it very hard to believe that an editor would not have some idea of who the sources are for the newspaper and/or their methods of obtaining their information."
Even if the editor implausibly claims to have no knowledge of these goings-on (a claim which won't last much longer before it is disproved - not everyone will be as loyal to NI as those who have so far kept schtumm to protect Wade/Brooks etc), there is the small matter of being responsible for what happens while you're in charge.
And independently of that there's also the not very small matter of large sums of money being used fund these criminal and immoral activities.
Given the amounts of money involved, what are the chances that no-one in authority at News International knew about those transactions, and what they were being used to support? Home, James.
Anybody seen Vince Cable or Nick Clegg lately?
Or Andy Hayman? There's a man with an interesting history. Now retired (on full pension?) from the Met and officially an NI employee, he was the Metropolitan Police officer in charge of the 2006 inquiry into NotW phone hacking which led to ... well, you probably know.
A few years before 2006 he was in charge of the Met's anti-corruption unit .
Just over a year ago, wearing his NI hat, Hayman wrote  "There is little worse than a bent copper who mocks the law by abusing the privileged powers bestowed on him". Who could disagree with that?
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500915/The-police-chief-text-messages-married-blonde-truth-Stockwell-shooting-fiasco.html [no that's not a made-up URL]
If Brooks is lying about knowing about this then she should be sacked for being a liar. If she isn't lying she should be sacked for being incompetent. As to the Met, it was not for nothing that the local plod during the miners' strike referred to them as "bananas".
Not sure why anyone would need more than one inquiry into the whole sorry business
Parts of the media had it in for Andy
"...The police chief, text messages to a married blonde and..."
Practically every day we suffer a deluge of tales about politicians, police, pop stars, scrubbers, etc etc. After a lifetime of reading this nonstop shite, most of us stop having any interest in it. We know a lot of what's written is bollocks. We know journalists (or what passes as journalists) will delve into rubbish bins, plant bugs, whatever to get a story, a headline, which will be forgotten before the chip fat soaks into the paper.
We'll see some token numpties from Murdoch's crowd and the Plod thrown to the wolves. Maybe he'll take a caning on the BSkyB takeover but I somehow doubt it. The rest of the media will have a field day.
Meanwhile, things will carry on as before.
I live in hope that some fearless member of the judiciary will wade in and give the guilty parties a real good kicking but somehow I don't see that happening. Still, it's nice to dream.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019