Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Andy Coulson, the Met Police and Murdoch

What makes you assume that the broadsheets have clean hands?
I dont. Just saying they are less likely to have gone fishing for celeb stories. If they do get caught with the hand in the cookie jar to fucking bad.

I'd agree with that; Coulson is a symptom currently dress as villian because it suits a number of vested and fringe interests.
No Coulson was arrogant enough to run a story on the royal house hold that could only have come from a voice mail, a story about a bloody princes tendon for gods sakes, then after being given a free pass with a soft soap inquirey aimed for the highest profile media job in the country a job that would attract any number of enemies. The plank swaggered around as the new Alistair Cambell when this whole IED was waiting to explode.

He is being portayed as a villian because he is a villian. Two of his staff went to prison and he stayed schtum, they got £80 000 unfair dismissal payouts after being convicted*!

*(edited yep 6 months after conviction)

Fuckers toast.
 
I dont. Just saying they are less likely to have gone fishing for celeb stories. If they do get caught with the hand in the cookie jar to fucking bad.


No Coulson was arrogant enough to run a story on the royal house hold that could only have come from a voice mail, a story about a bloody princes tendon for gods sakes, then after being given a free pass with a soft soap inquirey aimed for the highest profile media job in the country a job that would attract any number of enemies. The plank swaggered around as the new Alistair Cambell when this whole IED was waiting to explode.

He is being portayed as a villian because he is a villian. Two of his staff went to prison and he stayed schtum, they got £80 000 unfair dismissal payouts after being convicted*!

*(edited yep 6 months after conviction)

Fuckers toast.

Yup.
 
What makes you assume that the broadsheets have clean hands? I doubt that when, say, David Brown went from the People to the Times or when Luke Harding went from the Mail to the Guardian they suddenly forgot all the shortcuts for beating the opposition to a story.

The broadsheets certainly don't restrict themselves to "general type of stories" as anyone who picks up a paper every morning will tell you.

Exactly. I have mentioned it before but I really urge anyone who has not already done so to read Flat Earth News for the best background to this topic you will ever recieve.
 
In related news, Labour MP Chris Bryant has just called Sky News' Kay Burley 'dim' on live TV during an interview about the phone tapping :D

 
To repeat; where's the witness statement? Without that, this is just so much Internet guff again.

I think your probably seriously underestimating this story its not a red herring like the crap about william hague.
If the govts director of communications was behind phone tapping surely?
 
... although the latter remains ambiguous; the trial judge in the Goodman case made it fairly clear in his ruling that the nature of the "investigation" was extremely relevant. The info commissioner sought an amendment to RIPA so that a journalist would get a jail sentence if they breached the act without a public interest defence. The fact that News Corp, Associated, MGN etc protested and it was not activated (it still could be by a minister) could be used by the defence.
Please link to your source for all of this. It makes no sense at all to me as you are describing it.
 
Oh another cheap attempt to dismiss things just because they involve people talking on the internet. lol.
I'm sure you're right. Today I feel overwhelmed by substance.
I think your probably seriously underestimating this story its not a red herring like the crap about william hague.
If the govts director of communications was behind phone tapping surely?
I don't think Hague was "a red herring", just schooboy excitement.

I do think this is entirely a substantive issue. But I don't think Coulson is the villian - this went on before he was Editor and (at the very leasst) he turned a Nelson's eye. This is more about Murdoch's social and political agenda and philosophy.

It's also about the comfortable relationship between Murdoch's papers and Scotland Yard - some of whom find employment as columnists with Murdoch when they retire from the force. People are under-estimating the Murdoch > Scotland yard linkage.
 
MPs must be loving this - a chance to get some against the meeja, after being kicked around by the meeja for years -
 
Yep. Real momentum building up here. Hughes was banging on about this in his speech yesterday - that others hadn't testified in 2006 because of threats from News International. Now that this is public knowledge, the threat is largely useless. Should give the weasels the courage to see this through. :cool:
 
If this is true (and there seems little reason to doubt it) it is of massive concern and is evidence that the media in this country are totally out of control.

The media are a potential force for great good or great evil within a society. Ironically this story illustrates both simultaneously, with the work of the New York Times an excellent example of the good that can be done in exposing wrongdoing and News International a dire example of the evil that can be done when the media begin to focus on shite that is of "interest to the public" instead of on matters of genuine "public interest" and believe themselves to be above the law.

I am personally aware of a number of people who have declined to become involved in public life, despite being well-qualified to do great good, because they know that if they even incur the wrath of the powerful forces who run the media they are likely to be targetted by the scandal-hounds and that (a) they simply do not want their friends and family subjected to that and / or (b) they know that there is something, often very trivial and a long time ago, that is there to be found and which whilst of no genuine concern to anyone else would sell a few more copies of the News of the Screws and hence would be plastered all over the front pages for a day or two, causing massive personal stress and difficulties in their private lives (things that, incidentally, are there to be found in the backgrounds of the very journalists, editors and proprietors hypocritically "exposing" them).

This means that we, the public, are deprived of the talents of incresaing numbers of people who could make our society better, leaving the way clear for less talented, but boring and bland, individuals to take the roles instead. I find this sad.

Now we hear similar allegations made to prevent elected MPs from doing their jobs ... :mad:

The powerful interests who own the media need to be reined in. The excesses of the media need to be curbed. No longer should they be allowed to simply scream "Freedom of the Press" whenever anyone suggests any sort of genuine oversight, accountability or control. There is a massive responsibility inherent in the role of the media. The media have shown themselves entirely incapable of recognising this responsibility, let alone discharging it.

They should be absolutely hammered over this.
 
They should be absolutely hammered over this.

They should, but they wont - if anyone does go it will just be Coulson, and possibly one or two other sacrifical lambs at the NOTW, and then everyone will go back to conducting far worse examples of the black arts (actively corrupting cops, other public employees and workers at BT and credit card firms for instance) for stories that would struggle to amount to fuck all, whilst simultaneously attacking the BBC for its many sins (being a success being the worst, of course) and being sucked up to by the political classes.

There is no major political party, and only a tiny handful of MPs (almost all of whom are entirely without influence), who would dare to take them on to the extent that would be required to sort them out.
 
Brain Paddick and Steve Coogian instigate a judicial review.

Paddick claims they had information that could only have come from the phone answer machine as it was held by himself and his partner. My guess is this is not going after the Met so much as they may not have had the details of this specific hack taken in the raid. If not it could show that alot of hacking has not yet been uncovered. Could be wrong and that is just me speculating.

And another of the firebreathing Scottish lefties gets in on the act.
Court files show Mulcaire now faces orders to disclose the names of all News of the World employees involved with the hacking of former MP George Galloway and football agent Sky Andrew.

Both men are suing Mulcaire and the News of the World's parent company, News Group, for breach of privacy.
Joining Sheridan who has called Coulson as a witness on an ongoing court case.

Another day in the news then. Good work.
 
Another day in the news then. Good work.

Its actually Paddick and Chris Bryant who have instigated this action, with Coogan (and others) taking separate action against the NOTW - as is clear from the article. The presence of Bryant (who as I said above is one of the most odious of the New Labour creatures - as his voting record and cheerleading for the immensely wasteful Defence Training PFI scheme demonstrates) is questionable, especially as his claim is much weaker than Paddick's.
 
I think people started of thinking notw right wing rag bugging a few lefties .But this could blow up in their face because people like paddick, coogan etc are involved this could get interesting
 
McMullan was willing to give information to Scotland Yard, which has agreed to look at new evidence in the phone-hacking affair. However, when a senior detective approached him this week, he was told he would be interviewed "under caution", on the basis that anything he said could be used to prosecute him.

The same threat was made to Sean Hoare, the former News of the World reporter who told the New York Times that Coulson "actively encouraged" him to intercept voicemail messages. On Tuesday, Hoare was interviewed under caution and is understood to have told police that the use of the caution meant he was unable to help them.

McMullan, who has taken legal advice, is refusing to comply....

Pigs trying to cover it up and threatening potential witnesses. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/16/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-witness
 
It's nothing of the sort. It's the "pigs" applying the law which is there to protect the rights of suspects. If there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person may have committed a criminal offence they are obliged to interview them under caution. Failure to do so is a breach of the law. (PACE Code of Practice C, paragraph 10.1) (http://tna.europarchive.org/2010041.../2008_PACE_Code_C_(final)2835.pdf?view=Binary). There are clear grounds to suspect that the various reporters now "blowing the whistle" (or "settling old scores" as some would have it ...) are themselves suspected of criminal activity.

You should be have been (genuinely) getting annoyed if they had not because (a) it would have failed to respect the rights of the suspect / witness; (b) it would have ensured that any "evidence" provided could not have been used in evidence (against anyone, probably) and (c) it would have been totally valid grounds to suggest that the police were "out of control" ... :rolleyes:

(ETA: It also shows that the caution is doing exactly what it was designed for - putting people on notice that they were suspected of offences, that they had no obligation to incriminate themselves and that anything they did say could be used against them ... in this case causing those concerned to decide that they did not want to risk that).
 
Fuck off dibble..they're (the police in cahoots with murdoch's lot) trying to keep people quiet. Halfwit.

I can tell when you're talking rubbish by the way...your posts look like a fucking appendice.
 
Fuck off dibble..they're (the police in cahoots with murdoch's lot) trying to keep people quiet. Halfwit.

I can tell when you're talking rubbish by the way...your posts look like a fucking appendice.

DB is not wrong though. From last week's Guardian article:

Paul McMullan, a former features executive and then member of the newspaper's investigations team, says that he personally commissioned private investigators to commit several hundred acts which could be regarded as unlawful, that use of illegal techniques was no secret at the paper, and that senior editors, including Coulson, were aware this was going on.

In the light of that information McMullan has to be interviewed under caution (which will probably entail him being cautioned, and reminded prior to the interview starting that he has the right to legal advice, that he does not have to stay with the officer (ie: he isnt being detained and the interview can end at any time he chooses) and he is not under arrest). It would be an abuse of McMullan's rights if he were not interviewed under the circumstances, and it is not emphatically not something that the OB can waive when they know, or have good reason to believe beforehand, that someone is likely to admit committing possibly criminal acts - which they do in this case because McMullan has apparently admitted to it in an article for a national newspaper.

For the Guardian to call this "a threat" is nonsensical.
 
McMullen is a old hack, a former tabloid journalist, he seems to be demanding the police arrest him. He wants his bit of theater, his moment when he says how he has helped the police before as other cases where he has acted illegally and they have not treated him like this.

The more press coverage this story gets, the less it can be buried so I guess fair play to him.
 
Fuck off dibble..they're (the police in cahoots with murdoch's lot) trying to keep people quiet. Halfwit.

I can tell when you're talking rubbish by the way...your posts look like a fucking appendice.
Please stop attempting to derail this thread, no doubt intending to then blame me if you succeed.
 
Back
Top Bottom