Wasn't that the name of the NOTW's supplement though, since changed to "Fabulous"?
As the hacking scandal at the News of the World continued to unravel this week, an individual mysteriously registered the domain name sunonsunday.co.uk on 5 July. Two days later, News International said it would shut down the NotW. This Sunday's issue will be the final one, after 168 years of the weekly tabloid. The …
If it's claimed that The Sun also uses shameful and/or illegal methods of investigation, there is one word there that I definitely don't associate with that particular superannuated chips-wrapper.
(Does anyone serve hot food packaged in newspaper any more, they don't around here, I assume it isn't allowed - or else the newspaper is recycled instead of re-used - a material quality thing)
There were concerns over ink poisoning (especially when some printers used lead type ink in newspaper production).
Its a shame since those papers soaked up grease better than the current white, thick papers - plus newspaper wrapped fish 'n' chips used to give off a lovely smell.
Hmm.... hungry now...
Not going to happen. The wretched rag contains nothing but tits and footy, and people are falling over themselves to get those in papers.
Investigation goes with Journalism goes with News stories. All wholly alien to the Sun.
1. Excuse to get rid of lots of employees which would not have been possible without the scandal = nice reduction in operating costs
2. Get rid of the part of the organisation that is perceived to be bad (although not realsing we are not stupid enough to believe that getting rid of the workers is the same as jailing the leaders who broke the law) hoping to divert attention from the lawbreakers
3. Carry on with another newspaper on Sunday = same turnover (they hope) for less cost and fewer employees to pay.
4. The law breakers get away with it.
Except they won't. Their belief in our stupidity is breathtaking if not accurate.
A quote from Ms Brooks from over a week ago : "Where there is common ground we will find ways of implementing efficiencies to editorial systems and processes and, where appropriate, we will find ways of introducing seven day working."
Face it - they were doing it anyway. The NOTW and Sun would have shared a full staff soon enough anyway. This is simply expediting the process, and requiring a new name for the paper.
So well done everyone. A massive victory over this corporate monolith.. They're having to do what they were doing anyway slightly quicker than anticipated. Big Fuppin Woops.
"our" stupidity knows no bounds. I can't recall the film (Snatch?) but the phrase "never underestimate the predictablity of stupidity" is a classic.
Anyone a Dire Straits fan ?
"They'll give you warm beer, rule brittania and page three"
They *will* get away with it. FFS this is a country that sleepwalked into an illegal war.
Ah the same Ms Brooks, so full of ethics apparently, who outsourced the N.I. IT infrastrutcure to India.
The same Ms Brooks who waged a fanatical war on peados while allowing young girls to be exploited by getting their norks out for the readership of paper's she was in charge of
She's a special lady, in the same way you can describe Myra Hindly as being a special lady!
It's bloody obvious that the NOTW will be replaced by something. NI are not going to give up that many sales, this is just a sop probably mostly to save a career or two. And probably also to divert investigative attention away from its other titles.
The NOTW has long been the Sunday edition of the Sun, but even so I can't see them going for something as obvious as that as a title. Betting they wait a "decent" interval and then launch a new title (without a red top), which will probably start out sober and sensible but quickly descend into the usual red top nonsense within weeks.
I do think that any enquiry needs to cover not only the NOTW, not only NI, and not only newpapers, it needs to cover the practices of whole of the news media. If this behaviour can be shown to be limited to the NOTW, then fair enough punish those responsible. Even if it is limited to NI then punish them, but the rest of the industry can continue as usual. If, however, such practices are more widespread then we have all the evidence that we need that the news media cannot be trusted to police themselves and that we need new legislation. One thing that certainly needs enacting is legislation that the news media must retain copies of all documentation and communication for a couple of years at least so that they can be held accountable.
The news media as a whole are very keen that everybody but themselves is accountable for their actions. Their self righteous indignation and eagerness to find a scapegoat (yes BBC, I'm talking about you) is sickening in an industry that thinks itself above such considerations. How often have the news media "named and shamed" the wrong person or body and fallen back on that old chestnut of a "free press" to try to escape censure? How often do they use extremely dodgy means to get a story (back to the NI again) and then criticize the police for not doing the same when they are well aware that the police could not use those methods? Free press my arse. With freedom comes responsibility and they certainly don't seem to want any of that.
You appear to be confusing a Royal Comiission, a British construct, with the First Amendment, a US construct. You are aware that the UK and US are not the same nation, yes?
There is no 'freedom of speech' enshrined in British law AFAIK. I have long believed that the press should be accountable for everything they print. Records should be kept of sources, but not made available without court order (i.e. no fishing expeditions from the police to find whistle blowers). Where falsehoods or innacuracies are printed, retractions should be printed with the same level of prominence. For example, if a headline of 'X did Y' is printed in the Sunday edition, and it turns out to be false, then a retraction of 'X did not do Y, we lied' should be printed as the headline on a Sunday edition, and the publication should be fined.
Where libel has occurred, the reporter and editor responsible for the libel should be prosecuted. There is an interesting point here that English libel laws are still way too loose, and should probably be amended to reduce frivolous and malicious prosecutions.
More importantly, there should never be a 'freedom of the press' justification for committing a crime. Of course, the matter of exposing things in the public interest is a tricky subject, but this has been so abused for so long that any leeway here should be for special cases, possibly explicitly legislated for.
There is also the question here, that I believe has already been raised by others in recent days, about whether groups or individuals should be allowed to own a significant portion of the media. When newspapaers, and to a greater extent, television, have such a large influence on people's thinking, it just doesn't feel right for such a large part of the media to be in so few hands.
"There is no 'freedom of speech' enshrined in British law AFAIK."
Human Rights Act 1998 (based on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights).
I agree with your statements, though.
The way papers (tabloids) behave right now is "print first, ask later". If it sounds juicy, get it out there and deal with the consequences later.
Sadly, the freedom of speech part of the Human Rights Act conflicts to some degree with the right to privacy also enshrined in that act. So what typically happens is that our superannuated judges rule in favour of the privacy of the rich and powerful at the expense of the freedom of speech of the rest of us.
without ruining legitimate journalism:
Charge them with whatever crimes they committed. If they listen to your voicemails, that's unauthorised access to a computer system. Libel should be treated as libel. Journalists are just normal people like you and I, they deserve no special 'get out of jail free' card just on the basis of being journalists.
If what they have done is in the public interest- as determined in a court of law, trial by jury, etc just like a normal person. If what they have done is in the public interest, they'll get let off. Otherwise they- and any employers who pushed them to do it- will be punished in accordance with the regular law-of-the-land.
If there's something along the lines of an undercover journalist, there should of course be scope for making it a "private" trial to prevent the defendant's identity being revealed. Same with sources; they should be kept very very secret and should only be revealed when it's absolutely necessary.
"If what they have done is in the public interest- as determined in a court of law, trial by jury, etc just like a normal person. If what they have done is in the public interest, they'll get let off. Otherwise they- and any employers who pushed them to do it- will be punished in accordance with the regular law-of-the-land."
The problem with this "public interest" angle is that it is quite often exactly the opposite. Take those "sting" operations the NOTW were keen on. So lets say they pose as somebody wanting to buy arms illegally and entrap some bloke from a weapons company and print the story. Firstly that "evidence" would probably not be admissiable in a court of law. More significantly however running the story may make endanger any future case since running the story would probably prejudice a fair trial. Were the story investigation in the public interest in the terms you suggest then the paper shouldn't run with the story, but instead hand over the evidence to the relevant authorities. The only possible exception to this being the situation where it's the authorities they are trying to expose.
The interesting thing about the NOTW scandal is of course that it will be virtually impossible to find a jury who are not well aware of the media coverage and as such it may be very difficult to get a fair trial.
Consider how much of our media is owned by interests outside the UK, especially the US. Consider the amount of noise made by so-called multi-nationals about profits, copyright infringement, IP and other stuff. Consider just how much Murdoch owns.
We might as well become state 51...
Freedom of speech? Here? No chance, You can have freedom of speech as long as you don't............ list of politically correct things you can't mention as long as your arm.........and of course you can't say anything that disagrees with the government and expect anyone to publish it.
There is a bigger picture here.
This isn't about the closure of the NotW and its replacement by a Seventh Day Advertisist, which (as noted above) was already on the cards weeks or months ago.
This is about long term criminal behaviour by NotW staff at various levels, probably including very very senior.
Just as importantly, perhaps more, it is about long term criminal behaviour at various levels of the Metroploditan Police.
How close to Cameron does it have to get before he goes (or is forced to go)?
He's clearly very pally with Rebekah and he offered an important job to Coulson. Blair/Campbell/Wade was bad enough, but Cameron/Coulson/Wade takes the biscuit.
So, the boycott of the advertisers must continue. Nothing has changed, except a couple of hundred of the not-very-guilty have lost their jobs earlier than they would otherwise have done.
Too right. So tabloid newspaper staff are scum. And bears shit in the woods. BFD.
The real news is that the Met chose not to carry out any kind of proper investigation into criminal activities, in spite of having no shortage of evidence and places to dig. And that Met coppers who were responsibile for this investigation have then been hired by the organisation carrying out criminal activities. And that the two major political parties have then hired people who were responsibility for day-to-day operations in the organisation carrying out criminal activities.
Focussing all this self-righteous indignation at the newspaper staff is all very well, but you're only getting the spear-carriers - you're not getting the people who actually gave the orders, or the people responsible for the subsequent cover-up.
Coulsen said in his interview yesterday that the decision for a 7-day Sun would be "one for the coming weeks". Expect no longer than that.
The new football season starts on 13th August. The "Sunday" will be out on the 14th, if not before. A few weeks of buttering up their Sun-tastic readership will be all that is required.
Most people may see it as an obvious sham, but I don't have that faith in their readership - after all, why boycott a sunday edition of the same rag they read on the other 6 days?
Why would a 7-day operation need a separate brand and website? If they bring out The Sun on Sunday, they can simply use the same domain - thesun.co.uk - all week long and build up the traffic to one site. What is the point of clicking a different bookmark on one day of the week? The NOTW closure is part of rationalisation plans - using one domain is the most rational move.
(I know that the Times and Sunday Times run separate websites but they're established brands.)
Who told the press that a Mr A Coulson was to be arrested on the following day ?
Is this going to be standard procedure ?
Will Scotland Yard send us all emails : We'll be round tomorrow, early 'cos we know you deal in drugs. Better leave the front door open, otherwise we use a hammer. Pip pip
"Who told the press that a Mr A Coulson was to be arrested on the following day ?
Is this going to be standard procedure ?"
It already is. His arrest wasn't a case of a van pulling up outside and them breaking his door down.
Coulson made himself available at a station, by appointment, to be formally arrested, so he could be questioned under caution.
Nothing unusual about that, it happens all the time.
... it's been an established local Sunday newspaper in the North-East for a very long time (http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/).
A popular Sunday order for papers in this part of the world would be "The People, The Sun and The News of the World" as the Sunday Sun seems to target a similar readership.
The trademark is ultimately controlled by Trinity Mirror.
Im not sure if I am right or wrong - but I suspect that Murdock et al arent in this to make a profit. If they kill the entity that is NoTW, it will kill all the lawsuits and charges against it since it is no longer a extant entity. Which means all the people suing NoTW (and for good reason, mind you) will be suing nothing but a shell which I suspect will have no legal requirement to pay out since it doesnt exist...
If that is the case, and I am no lawyer, that will mean the families concerned will have to sue the individuals, which will cost them worlds more in money - which will probably mean the cases will fall flat on their faces... not due to the cases themselves being faulty, but due to the people pursuing the cases against Murdock et all not having the resources to pull back from suing NoTW and retrench into suing the actual individual people concerned...
All this of course is above and beyond all the people that will get merger-itis and will be looking for a job (ie any journalist who works there with any sense of ethics).
So its Win-Win for the Bastards of The World *sigh*. Quelle Surprise.
...all the forensic computer evidence is lost when the laptops and email servers are wiped so they can be sold off.
No chance of a Microsoft style 'smoking gun' email turning up later to incriminate those at the top.
Flames as that is what is happening to the paper work at NotW at the moment.
AKA "We're kicking this difficult issue into the long grass, and hoping like hell the plebs are as thick as we think they are..."
Seriously, do we really think there needs to be all this government sponsored brouhaha about this?
The behaviour of these people was morally reprehensible from the start, and even that has been compounded by the denials and chronic case of 'not me guv' that has happened since. There appears to be pretty good evidence that the government are involved at some level - not to mention employing this nerk as 'Baldie's' spokesminion.
We dont need anything more than the relevant police investigations, the persons even remotely connected with this jailed and the key thrown away... and if the government has *any* power to break up or force the total closure of Murdockopolis the sooner the better.
The only requirement for involvement by anything with a 'royal' handle on it, is if there is an attempt again to sweep this under the carpet - then the individuals concerned should get off their £32.1million a year behinds, dissolve the government, and make the first order of the legislature to sort out the privacy laws, or else. I venture to suggest that if the Royals do get involved in this and it all goes Blair shaped, then they'll be fighting for their lives.. so all in all a win-win
Theres the other, cheaper, option of course... take all involved out into sherwood forest... GPS tag them... and give Millies sister a light calibre chain gun and a GPS tracker because if they did to my family what they've done to hers... my 'berserk button' would have been pressed so hard it fell out of the dashboard.
Royal Commissions are in fact the method that frequently leads to legislation, as it's better-considered, more authoritative, usually non-partisan etc; although legislation restricting the freedom of the press is kind of a special case, consider for instance the Royal Commission into Criminal Procedure of 1981 leading to PACE, the Royal Commission into Criminal Justice of 1991 leading to the Criminal Cases Review Commission; hardly toothless delaying tactics
Or is Dave looking a bit pale?
Having been pushed into an inquiry and then pushed into starting it before hell freezes over and now saying that BskyB decision will be delayed I think he might be getting a bit worried at how much further Rupe will allow this to run before venting his displeasure in some way.
Big Brother - now outsourced to people who get their kicks rummaging through your underwear
Is that the first dodgy investigation happened when which party was in charge?? Labour spent 13 years with their collective heads stucked to the rear end of murdoch and now they are acting as if nothing happend lol.
I wonder who in Number 10 told the Met to go easy on them in the first investigation ?
Some time ago Murdoch gave an interview just prior to a UK general election.
He stated the Times would support whoever they wanted.
He stated he was going to have a meeting with the Sun Political Editor on who *they* would support.
Anyone think it odd the Sun *has* a Political Editor? I don't think the Sunday Sport ever did.
Murdoch has proved highly adept at having his cake, eating it and getting a free 2nd one. He wants all the £1Bn BSkyB revenue *and* something like the £600k an issue of the NoTW advertising revenue.
The answer to the question. Probably.
It's for News International's behavior and in fact the whole of the British press.
Did anyone vote for Rupert Murdoch to have the right to have a *very* substantial say in which UK political leader gets to be Prime Minister through his unjustified cross media control (which they let him have)?
News Corp has a long standing tradition of blackmailing politicians to get "their" decisions.
Last I checked, blackmail is a criminal offence.
Declare News Corp an Criminal Cartel.
This has the added bonus, that all of News Corp's property can be confiscated (which would help the ailing economy). Problem solved.
If this is true then Murdoch should be shot. I know this article is in The Mirror, but this really made me sick
Here is the link to the article
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019