Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

One of the US papers suggested that he could junk all the UK papers and still turn a healthy profit from the state of the art printing presses he's now got.

Any ideas how many 'state of the art printing presses' he actually owns?

Because two he uses for printing the NI titles are owned & operated by Johnson Press, one is the 'The News' press in Portsmouth and the other up north somewhere.
 
Someone reported NI senior insider estimates of 80,000 people hacked. If it was Peston, we can consider that true. :hmm:

The amusing thing about that figure is that its probably guessed at by counting everyone who has been either reported on, or they tried to report on, or was connected to someone that they were reporting on, since this started.
 
The amusing thing about that figure is that its probably guessed at by counting everyone who has been either reported on, or they tried to report on, or was connected to someone that they were reporting on, since this started.

This is from a very senior source on the anti-Murdoch half of the NewsCorp board. Probably one of those dropped in it recently. I think the estimate is likely to be more accurate than that, but it's hard to tell because a couple of them seem to be out to get Murdoch, so they'll say whatever damages him most right now.

Which is nice. :)
 
Thing is aswell, if you were a NI journo, he'd be such an easy target to cosy up to too.

The mind just boggles what he must have doen to rise to such a rank. Is the pool of senior police persons that shit?
 
So as far as I can work out, the original investigation ended up in the hands of anti-terrorist police solely because of the involvement of royals. Given all the shit that was going on with terrorism in the country at the time and this was patently not terrorism this seems the wrong department to deal with it.

Clarke thought it a waste of time so set very tight parameters which they kept to and concluded. He made a half-hearted attempt to investigate further but hit a brick wall because of the News of the World's lawyers, he didnt fancy the fight with people with deep pockets and he was getting no support from above (Hayman) so he shut the investigation down at the earliest opportunity with some vague idea that others would inform those who had been hacked.

I can see why Clark would make these decisions, he had limited resources and no one's life was in immediate danger, although it now turns about to be bad decision. The questions for me are why wasnt the investigation passed to a more appropriate department of the met and what the fuck is it with Hayman? He appears to have been far to close to News International, and he makes for a decidely shifty and dodgy witness.
 
Just wait lad.

Looks like News Int has three sites -

Newsprinters is the manufacturing division of News International with three purpose-built plants in Scotland, the North and South of England. The very latest state-of-the-art printing equipment ensures that we remain at the forefront of the newspaper printing industry.

http://www.newsprinters.co.uk/

- in addition to the two Johnson Press sites and I assume another contract printer in Ireland.

ETA: They print the Telegraph & FT too.
 
Hayman's whole career needs be looked at right now. That's someone who is going down.

More to the point who put him there ..?...knowing his limitations or potential ...there now appears to be a librarian in charge of the investigation ....I suppose there's a lot of bin liners
 
So as far as I can work out, the original investigation ended up in the hands of anti-terrorist police solely because of the involvement of royals. Given all the shit that was going on with terrorism in the country at the time and this was patently not terrorism this seems the wrong department to deal with it.

Clarke thought it a waste of time so set very tight parameters which they kept to and concluded. He made a half-hearted attempt to investigate further but hit a brick wall because of the News of the World's lawyers, he didnt fancy the fight with people with deep pockets and he was getting no support from above (Hayman) so he shut the investigation down at the earliest opportunity with some vague idea that others would inform those who had been hacked.

I can see why Clark would make these decisions, he had limited resources and no one's life was in immediate danger, although it now turns about to be bad decision. The questions for me are why wasnt the investigation passed to a more appropriate department of the met and what the fuck is it with Hayman? He appears to have been far to close to News International, and he makes for a decidely shifty and dodgy witness.

The first part seems somewhat reasonable - though I would point out that the "lack of support from the top" goes much higher than Hayman. After all, by this point in time it seems there had been at least one select committee investigation and report into this, as well as Operations Motorman and Reproof, and the Government themselves (as we now find out) were well aware of what was going on to the extent of being repeat victims of it themselves(but were utterly (in public at least) unconcerned about it). In short, noone at the top of Government did anything, so its a bit rich to pin this on Hayman.

As for "appropriate department of the Met" - there probably wasnt one then, just as there isnt one now. They would have had to set up a team to look at this (as they have done now) and basically steal officers, police staff and office space from other departments and squads, all of whom would have their own thing to focus on and their own management teams complaining about it.
 
15.44 BBC news now leading with this:

'News International tried to "thwart" the original inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World, senior Met police officers have told MPs.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14116786

Also reports that Ms Brooks has been asked to come before the Committee, but no response has yet been made. I say frogmarch her in and make the decision for her.
 
So as far as I can work out, the original investigation ended up in the hands of anti-terrorist police solely because of the involvement of royals. Given all the shit that was going on with terrorism in the country at the time and this was patently not terrorism this seems the wrong department to deal with it.

Clarke thought it a waste of time so set very tight parameters which they kept to and concluded. He made a half-hearted attempt to investigate further but hit a brick wall because of the News of the World's lawyers, he didnt fancy the fight with people with deep pockets and he was getting no support from above (Hayman) so he shut the investigation down at the earliest opportunity with some vague idea that others would inform those who had been hacked.

I can see why Clark would make these decisions, he had limited resources and no one's life was in immediate danger, although it now turns about to be bad decision. The questions for me are why wasnt the investigation passed to a more appropriate department of the met and what the fuck is it with Hayman? He appears to have been far to close to News International, and he makes for a decidely shifty and dodgy witness.

I don't know if Akers knew what Yates, Clarke and Hayman were going to say about not having the manpower to do it properly, but I did enjoy her remark at the end as to whether she had enough resource for the new investigation and was it sustainable.

"45 officers will not be missed out of a force of 50,000."

Sweet. :)
 
More to the point who put him there ..?...knowing his limitations or potential ...there now appears to be a librarian in charge of the investigation ....I suppose there's a lot of bin liners
Librarian? What librarian?
 
The first part seems somewhat reasonable - though I would point out that the "lack of support from the top" goes much higher than Hayman. After all, by this point in time it seems there had been at least one select committee investigation and report into this, as well as Operations Motorman and Reproof, and the Government themselves (as we now find out) were well aware of what was going on to the extent of being repeat victims of it themselves(but were utterly (in public at least) unconcerned about it). In short, noone at the top of Government did anything, so its a bit rich to pin this on Hayman.

As for "appropriate department of the Met" - there probably wasnt one then, just as there isnt one now. They would have had to set up a team to look at this (as they have done now) and basically steal officers, police staff and office space from other departments and squads, all of whom would have their own thing to focus on and their own management teams complaining about it.

Are the government supposed to interfere with police operations then? :confused:

There's a lot of dirty hands here agricola. Pointing the finger emphatically in one of the many correct directions doesn't make the Met look any better.

Although it is bloody excellent for making them turn on each other and say shit they never would have otherwise. So you carry on. :D
 
Why was rusbridger warning cameron? What did he know? How?

That Coulson had links to someone who was about to go on trial. The press all knew but there was a reporting restriction. Cameron was warned about Coulson, he chose to ignore it, Cameron is up to his eyeballs in it, as was Blair.
 
That Coulson had links to someone who was about to go on trial. The press all knew but there was a reporting restriction. Cameron was warned about Coulson, he chose to ignore it, Cameron is up to his eyeballs in it, as was Blair.

I know what. I want to know why. What was the case? What trial what restriction? Rusbridger just says he could not print it, not that there was a trail. So, what is he doing saving people rather than burying them?
 
Back
Top Bottom