Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail "hacked by News of the World"

[Treacle Toes]

I find the clips of him, and this one in particlar, the way he talks, fascinating...he talks like I imagine I do, he's asked a question and see him start to answer it, the his mind shoots off in different directions, he forgets much of what he should remember, reveals much of what he shouldn't, and the point he's trying to make, like a clean, sober cokehead!

All bordering on endearing if he's dropping his former employees, but I pity the poor guys who have to decifer all that when I have to explain some insurance analysis!

I can see why people are liking him for his drop-others-in-it factor...I just can't get past an overwhelming sensation that tells me; CartoonjournalistRat, couldn't trust him as far as I could throw him....judgemental I know but seriously, I am quite intrigued because I feel it so strongly with him. Never had someone provoke such a vivid caricature ever.

 

[DexterTCN]

Does McMullan only have that one suit?

 

[Pickman's model]

shock horror butchersapron memory is better than my own and I can't even remember what I said...

the beauty of a forum is you can go back through your posts and see what you've said.

 

[Pickman's model]

Does McMullan only have that one suit?

doesn't look a fit man to own a pub does he?

 

[butchersapron]

I can see why people are liking him for his drop-others-in-it factor...I just can't get past an overwhelming sensation that tells me; CartoonjournalistRat, couldn't trust him as far as I could throw him....judgemental I know but seriously, I am quite intrigued because I feel it so strongly with him. Never had someone provoke such a vivid caricature ever.

Thing is, he's one of the few people being honest here.

 

[cantsin]

Does McMullan only have that one suit?

he'd be able to afford a new suit or two after the week he's just had - suspect he'll piss it all up against the wall though.

 

[paulhackett]

Does McMullan only have that one suit?

It's his 'I'm Martin Bell. You can trust me' suit..

 

[DexterTCN]

Aye..Martin Bell...that's who he is.

 

[butchersapron]

Small point, The guardian site says:

News International papers targeted Brown

Why not?

News International papers hacked Brown?

Is there really still some holding back at this point?

 

[AKA pseudonym]

REPLY FROM LEEDS LABOUR MP (fabian Hamilton )

Dear AKA,

There is no way on earth that I would have supported the BskyB takeover even before the current revelations. No Labour MP will support this but we also need the LibDems and some Tories to oppose it as well. Sadly, there won't be a vote on the ...issue for months, but we have tabled an opposition day motion on Wednesday which will require the Government Parties to think before they vote individually – we'll see what they do. Today in the House, Ed Miliband asked for all discussions on the takeover to be halted until the police have finished their enquiries.

I think we're all completely disgusted by what the News of the World has done and how this exposes the corrupt practices of so many other newspapers as well. It's really got to stop, I agree with everything you say.

With best wishes,
Fabian

Fabian Hamilton
Labour Member of Parliament for Leeds North East

feck bitchin, get active......

 

[butchersapron]

You don't get to decide do you fabian you expenses thief.

Active? Doesn't mean asking these thiefs to act for you.

 

[teqniq]

I can see why people are liking him for his drop-others-in-it factor...I just can't get past an overwhelming sensation that tells me; CartoonjournalistRat, couldn't trust him as far as I could throw him....judgemental I know but seriously, I am quite intrigued because I feel it so strongly with him. Never had someone provoke such a vivid caricature ever.

x1

 

[ymu]

Small point, The guardian site says:

News International papers targeted Brown

Why not?

News International papers hacked Brown?

Is there really still some holding back at this point?

Possibly because it's not just about hacking any more. Mobile phone messages have been listened to and trojans passed on in emails, but they didn't hack his medical records - they got someone to photocopy them.

It is not a hacking-only scandal, and never could have been, given that this shit started under Thatcher, from when NotW went tabloid in 1984, long before PCs took hold, let alone mobile phones.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i defined it as exactly that, taking pleasure in the misfortune of celebs

If that is the case, then you're inarticulate.

 

[butchersapron]

Possibly because it's not just about hacking any more. Mobile phone messages have been listened to and trojans passed on in emails, but they didn't hack his medical records - they got someone to photocopy them.

It is not a hacking-only scandal, and never could have been, given that this shit started under Thatcher, from when NotW went tabloid in 1984, long before PCs took hold, let alone mobile phones.

In that case then, we well beyond 1984 and the NOTW.

On why it doesn't say hacking, yes, you're right - they claim that there's been 'interception'.

 

[rorymac]

James Murdoch used to follow the grateful dead around and wanted to be an archaeologist .. goes to show the nature of business and the survival of the fittest aint an exact science beyond even a single generation !!

 

[two sheds]

You might as well define it as taking pleasure in the failure of gardeners. It doesn't mean that though gav.

That would be gardenfreude

 

[butchersapron]

That would be gardenfreude

Bastard

 

[laptop]

Small point, The guardian site says:

News International papers targeted Brown

Why not?

News International papers hacked Brown?

Is there really still some holding back at this point?

I think it's that they didn't just "hack" Brown: they blagged bank/mortgage details; attempted (says the Guardian) to hack his voicemail; and obtained legal and medical records by means unspecified.

Also, "targeted" has more of a flavour of "were out to get"...

 

[ymu]

In that case then, we well beyond 1984 and the NOTW.

On why it doesn't say hacking, yes, you're right - they claim that there's been 'interception'.

It always has been about more than NotW. Murdoch is just particularly arrogant in his exercise of power and Thatcher particularly craven in her sucking up to right-wing newspaper proprietors - leaving her spineless successors to do what came naturally to them without even bothering to try and hide it.

The sheer untouchable arrogance of it all is what eventually brought it all crashing down, IMO.

 

[Tankus]

I think it's that they didn't just "hack" Brown: they blagged bank/mortgage details; attempted (says the Guardian) to hack his voicemail; and obtained legal and medical records by means unspecified.

Also, "targeted" has more of a flavour of "were out to get"...

dont we have really shit security services .....

 

[ViolentPanda]

my question

how many people go on to attain this level of critical thinking and source awareness?

Anyone who sees differences and chooses to ask "why?".

clearly for someone as brilliant as you it was inevitable.

Clearly.

is that true for everyone?

It's true for anyone who wants to do so.

i remember being taught to assess different sources as part of o-level history. lots of kids didn't do o-level history, and of those that did many never developed the ability to think critically about the perspectives they were offered.
so what to some was a springboard to greater insight, for others was a barrier never surmounted. many people still believe what they read in the paps

So you keep saying, but you provide nothing to substantiate your opinions except...your opinions. No facts, no data at all.

You talk about "critical thinking" as though it's a skill divorced from everyday life. It isn't. The man who studies the form of horses in order to back a horse more likely to place learns to think critically - to weigh evidence from different sources and attribute values to that evidence.

You set yourself up as an "enlightened" spectator and pass judgement on these "many" 9according to you) people who don't engage in critical thinking, but by your own lack of engagement in critical thinking on the subject, you show yourself to be guilty of what you abhor.

and regarding the abstract nature of impartiality, uk broadcasters seem to do a better job than print media most of the time, so i don't believe it's anything like as problematic as you suggest

Impartiality is a chimera. It doesn't exist. All mediated information is value-laden. The act of mediation sees to that, even without overt "spin". The reason that broadcast media seems more impartial is due to the way you (as a viewer) interact with the broadcast media - the relationship is more personal. What's printed in a paper is inflexible, impersonal prose. You (the consumer) relate to the forms of media differently.

This, by the way, is elementary stuff that "media studies" students learn in their first year at uni.

 

[Pickman's model]

It is not a hacking-only scandal, and never could have been, given that this shit started under Thatcher, from when NotW went tabloid in 1984, long before PCs took hold, let alone mobile phones.

so before 1984 the news of the world didn't do anything of this sort.

 

[theCIA]

not a word of this on fox's main new site, and only some drivel on the business page.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

so before 1984 the news of the world didn't do anything of this sort.

You left out the p)

 

[elevendayempire]

News International hacked the police officers investigating phone hacking:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/europe/12yard.html?_r=1&hp

 

[gavman]

Anyone who sees differences and chooses to ask "why?".



Clearly.



It's true for anyone who wants to do so.



So you keep saying, but you provide nothing to substantiate your opinions except...your opinions. No facts, no data at all.

You talk about "critical thinking" as though it's a skill divorced from everyday life. It isn't. The man who studies the form of horses in order to back a horse more likely to place learns to think critically - to weigh evidence from different sources and attribute values to that evidence.

You set yourself up as an "enlightened" spectator and pass judgement on these "many" 9according to you) people who don't engage in critical thinking, but by your own lack of engagement in critical thinking on the subject, you show yourself to be guilty of what you abhor.



Impartiality is a chimera. It doesn't exist. All mediated information is value-laden. The act of mediation sees to that, even without overt "spin". The reason that broadcast media seems more impartial is due to the way you (as a viewer) interact with the broadcast media - the relationship is more personal. What's printed in a paper is inflexible, impersonal prose. You (the consumer) relate to the forms of media differently.

This, by the way, is elementary stuff that "media studies" students learn in their first year at uni.

i find waffle extends throughout academia, far beyond the first year

 

[gavman]

That would be gardenfreude

 

[gavman]

If that is the case, then you're inarticulate.

then lets not play together anymore

 

[ymu]

i find waffle extends throughout academia, far beyond the first year

But you're assuming that people need formal education to work this out, which is nonsense. Most education encourages people to accept the establishment view without question, even as it explains how to expose the bullshit (if it ever does).

Take medical science. The stuff I teach usually challenges orthodox views, and it is invariably the research assistants, admin officers and 'consumers' (ugh) who spot the problems before the medics, because the medics are too afraid to call bullshit on a published author. My boss nearly failed her masters in neurology ~25 years ago because she reported all her failed experiments. These days, you'd fail if you didn't, but back then all the apparent master scientists were just throwing away any results that didn't suit their theories, and people were being taught to do that when it is self-evidently wrong.

To assume that people generally just accept what they're told unless they're formally educated in how to think for themselves is massively arse about face.