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

[TruXta]

This is fact bella!

But the why of it is not. END OF

 

[Balbi]

PMQ's followed by a Dave Smug special tomorrow. That'll stymie Milliband somewhat, as any targeted questions can be dismissed as 'you should wait for my prime ministerial statement dear'.

 

[butchersapron]

But the why of it is not. END OF

I was told, by you and others, not to ask why.

 

[TruXta]

I was told, by you and others, not to ask why.

Since we're playing the quote game, can I have one please? AFAIK I only pulled you up on the presentation of speculation as fact. If you interpreted that as me saying you shouldn't go there fair enough, but that was never my intention.

See what I did there?

 

[butchersapron]

Since we're playing the quote game, can I have one please? AFAIK I only pulled you up on the presentation of speculation as fact. If you interpreted that as me saying you shouldn't go there fair enough, but that was never my intention.

See what I did there?

I'm happy to say that you didn't. See what i did there?

 

[little_legs]

never mind

 

[weltweit]

Which allegations are without proof?

It seems to me that all allegations are not facts otherwise they would be facts and not allegations.

The phone hacking allegations will imho only become facts if and when the mobile phone companies confirm that hacking actually took place. Yes assuming the numbers and pins were in Mulcaire's notebook it does seem more than likely that he hacked them but that is not yet proof.

And there is a long way to go with that, the police have apparently contacted about 170 people and there are 4,000 names and details in the notebooks. It could at this rate take them years to contact them all and investigate their phone records.

 

[butchersapron]

It seems to me that all allegations are not facts otherwise they would be facts and not allegations.

The phone hacking allegations will imho only become facts if and when the mobile phone companies confirm that hacking actually took place. Yes assuming the numbers and pins were in Mulcaire's notebook it does seem more than likely that he hacked them but that is not yet proof.

And there is a long way to go with that, the police have apparently contacted about 170 people and there are 4,000 names and details in the notebooks. It could at this rate take them years to contact them all and investigate their phone records.

What about when people say that they've done it?

 

[TruXta]

I'm happy to say that you didn't. See what i did there?

A nice show of contrition. Thank you good sir.

 

[weltweit]

What about when people say that they've done it?

Well that would indeed change things.

Has Mulcaire said that he hacked all those 4,000 individuals?

 

[butchersapron]

Well that would indeed change things.

Has Mulcaire said that he hacked all those 4,000 individuals?

Yes he has Mr yates.

 

[weltweit]

Yes he has Mr yates.

Oh...

Can he be charged and jailed again, for more of the same offence?

 

[frogwoman]

Fwiw I find it fucking odd he warned him too. I would have been willing Coulson in to the job if I was rubbisher

Exactly!

 

[butchersapron]

Different offences yes. Same offence no.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Andy Hayman. Pedigree by Heinz.

i've just seen the footage of him in committee, like a fucking pantomime dame when asked about possibly having taking payments, pathetic stuff.

 

[frogwoman]

I've been made very aware that the Johann Hari affair is by far the most heinous, because he represented "the left"

the person who said that was me, and i in no way said that it was the most henious did i??

 

[frogwoman]

Or should I say he claimed to represent the left, as someone else claimed.

wtf? ive got nothing against you so why are you twisting my words in this manner??

 

[frogwoman]

I think it's a good idea, i'm bored of murdoch now, showing how the guardian editor acts against his pretend politics to chum up to tories could prove to be far more significant politically in the long term

yep, what the hell was the guardian doing warning him - and then bragging about it, it's none of their fucking business surely, especially since the guardian claims to be all anti tory and shit

 

[butchersapron]

wtf? ive got nothing against you so why are you twisting my words in this manner??

Not worth it FW. It's gone down the line now anyway. Just remember.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

yep, what the hell was the guardian doing warning him - and then bragging about it, it's none of their fucking business surely, especially since the guardian claims to be all anti tory and shit

the guardian doesn't claim to be anti-tory froggie, no way now how. prolly more right wing than they've ever been.

 

[frogwoman]

So, if you heard someone you disliked/opposed politically was gonna do summat you thought would rebound on them badly would you tell them or keep schtum hoping it does go tits up??

Conversely, if a mate/politico you liked and supported was doing something you thought would come back to haunt him would you tell him/try to warn him off doing it?

Well exactly it don't make sense, if you hated cameron so much why would you warn him about something that was gonna damage him?

 

[xenon]

Dave Smug special tomorrow = press briefing, right?

He'll say it's all very serious, express contrition at making bad hiring decision, wider implications for the media must be treated with utmost gravity, anounce the terms of public enquiry, reiterate Police are investigating again blah, blah. Hence Can we therefore please shut up now and let those take their courses. He wants to be seen to ascert some kind of control over events.

 

[butchersapron]

the guardian doesn't claim to be anti-tory froggie, no way now how. prolly more right wing than they've ever been.

Still claim to be a paper based on thorough investigative journalism though. Looks like Nick Davies went rogue!

 

[xenon]

yep, what the hell was the guardian doing warning him - and then bragging about it, it's none of their fucking business surely, especially since the guardian claims to be all anti tory and shit

Theories run thus.

1. A clever move, knowing Cameron wouldn't take any notice or it would be too late to do so, yet the warning would be on record.
2. Russbrigner just wanted to do the decent thing by holding up the position of Prime Minister. Not to see that office denigrated by a foolish mistake.
3. Establishment figures looking out for each other. Shared class interest.
4. Just being one of those types of peple who can't see someone make a foolish blunder and has to unburden themselves of useful knowledge.

I don't know enough about Russbringer to state a definite position IMO. I suggested 1, along with a couple of other posters. I suspect 3 and 4 maybe closer to the truth.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Still claim to be a paper based on thorough investigative journalism though. Looks like Nick Davies went rogue!

you suspect his gordie broon piece yesterday to be suspect for some reason or am i missing a point? assuming that's what you're driving at.

 

[butchersapron]

5?

 

[Santino]

Perhaps a bit of arse-covering too.

'Mr Rusbridger, is it true that you knew about Coulson's criminal connections and failed to inform the Prime Minister that he was bringing a known criminal into the heart of government?'

 

[frogwoman]

the guardian doesn't claim to be anti-tory froggie, no way now how. prolly more right wing than they've ever been.

but they're always printing left wing stuff and being all pretend left wing, i know they're not, i know it's bollocks, but it's this type of bullshit "radicalism" in the guardian and they always claim to support everything left wing, they have that repuation, they trade on that reputation, but nonetheless its the only paper some people i know trust to report anything remotely halfly objectively (and yes I know that they're a lib-dem paper etc) and i thought a lot of people read it thinking that they are, they're opposed to cuts, being all anti tory etc, and i do wonder if they're trading on the reputation of being opposed to cameron what they are doing warning him about a shit storm being about to hit his door ...

unless they are all navie, and think that cameron is a great guy with just some "wrong ideas" and wrong people like coulson, which being the proprietor of a national newspaper and probably having to have been as dirty as Murdoch on occasion I doubt rusbridger is ...

so yes I do think that attacking the guardian is relevant, their's some massive questions to be asked over their conduct as well (particularly with that report I posted the other day which mentioned the high level of observer journalists trying to sell/pay for private information on individuals)

 

[equationgirl]

there's no 5 - confused.

 

[little_legs]

He'll say it's all very serious, express contrition at making bad hiring decision, wider implications for the media must be treated with utmost gravity, anounce the terms of public enquiry, reiterate Police are investigating again blah, blah. Hence Can we therefore please shut up now and let those take their courses. He wants to be seen to ascert some kind of control over events.

Ok, got you. So basically as, I think, Balbi suggested Cameron is making sure that he can talk unchallenged.

I finally caught up with the last pages of the thread. I love this country, man. If it were Russia, the government would nationalise the UK subsidiary of the News Intl. and that would be the end of it, if it were the US, by now the offices of News Intl. would be taken over by the FBI agents and the building would be sealed. What an amazing experience just to be able to sit and observe all this.