Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Someone sent me this on the relationship between Andy Coulson and Andy Hayman. It *may* explain the smearing of Jean Charles de Menezes:

– The article states as fact that Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing “a bulky winter coat despite the warm weather” (i.e. something conspicuous that might have hidden a bomb belt). He wasn’t.

– The article states as fact that the police shouted a challenge to Jean Charles de Menezes “screaming for him to stop”. They hadn’t.

– The article states as fact that Jean Charles de Menezes then “made the decision that cost him his life” and “vaulted over the ticket barrier and ran down the escalator”. He didn’t.

As you can see, when police shot an innocent man and Andy Hayman’s arse was on the line, Andy Coulson acted like a true friend; rather than rely on any of the investigative journalism that News of the World is supposed to be famous for, Coulson chose instead to take a friend at his word and not bother looking at or into any of the pesky detail.

Later, in 2006, Andy Coulson was editor of News of the World, and Andy Hayman was the officer in charge of the inquiry into the News of the World phone hacking affair

http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2010/12/andy-coulson-andy-hayman/
 
The first sentence: Ofcom may not grant a licence to anyone unless they are satisfied that they are "fit and proper".

My arse thinks 'grant' would suggest a prospective buyer.
No; Licences are renewed annually, and at that point, 'fit and proper' can be reviewed. Plus, Ofcom has the power to review 'fit and proper' status at any point, if they deem events have rendered it necessary - a part of their statutory powers given them SPECIFICALLY to deal with situations like this
 
No; Licences are renewed annually, and at that point, 'fit and proper' can be reviewed. Plus, Ofcom has the power to review 'fit and proper' status at any point, if they deem events have rendered it necessary - a part of their statutory powers given them SPECIFICALLY to deal with situations like this
Specifially, OFCOM invoked this test (last week) in relation to a prospective owner of all of BSkyB. But yes, there is an on going test - but not one that has ever been tested in relation to criminal activity. Let alone, as yet, unproven criminal activity.

Had this gone ahead and then criminal activity been proven, the Murdoch's could have stepped down from the Board - but News Corp would still have BSkyB.
 
Specifially, OFCOM invoked this test (last week) in relation to a prospective owner of all of BSkyB. But yes, there is an on going test - but not one that has ever been tested in relation to criminal activity. Let alone, as yet, unproven criminal activity.

Had this gone ahead and then criminal activity been proven, the Murdoch's could have stepped down from the Board - but News Corp would still have BSkyB.
different to what you were arguing though; the fact is, OFCOM and/or DCMS have that power
 
The advertising boycotts of last week or so would be as nothing to what would happen if anyone were caught trying to tamper with the ABC...
 
Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks wrote letters to the select committee, which then seemingly moments later were read out live on BBC News.

Does that seem right? Strange though it may seem I think they might have expected their letters to have had some privacy :) funny ..

Murdoch has been leaking stuff via the BBC all week. You need to read the thread, welt. It helps with the following the story thing. ;)
 
Specifially, OFCOM invoked this test (last week) in relation to a prospective owner of all of BSkyB. But yes, there is an on going test - but not one that has ever been tested in relation to criminal activity. Let alone, as yet, unproven criminal activity.

Had this gone ahead and then criminal activity been proven, the Murdoch's could have stepped down from the Board - but News Corp would still have BSkyB.


Wrong again. The Murdochs failing the test would leadf to the exclusion of all of NI. Ofcom aren't as gullible as you seem to be
 
The advertising boycotts of last week or so would be as nothing to what would happen if anyone were caught trying to tamper with the ABC...

Sure, but looking ahead they could start trying to mask things by using bulks. Although that would only stretch so far.
 
Not usually, IIRC.

But I think they can empower themselves to do so - you want to sift through this search?

Interesting search....

So it seems the Murdochs might have been trying to take the heat off for the duration of the summer by not being present on Tuesday, unless the committee decided to sit in recess. Anyhow an irellevance as they have now been compelled to attend and will.

Still, if they can get through Tuesday, there may be a let up in pressure while Parliament is not sittiing.
 
They are an extension of the house, so the house must be sitting. 99.89% on that.

Somewhere in that search there's a New Zealand Select Committee that did empower itself.

A way could be found, I'm sure. An extended session of Parliament but with no sittings in either House, apart from daily prayers, for example.

On the other hand, some of those MPs will have booked holidays :)
 
Back
Top Bottom