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

[ferrelhadley]

In short, no - at least according to this Nick Davies piece, the hacking of Taylor's phone was carried out by Mulcaire prior to his sacking, and in any case James Murdoch claimed that the Taylor settlement was on the (entirely sensible, given what we now know) legal advice given to him to settle the claim, even at an apparently vastly inflated cost.

My point was not about who performed the deed, but who commissioned it.
Their defense is that it was not until late 2010 that there was evidence that anyone other than Goodman commissioned Mulcaire to hack. I was intrigued if there was evidence that this defense had flaws. And if so had they effectively paid to hide such evidence. This is relevant to Hinton and Murdoch, J.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Because even taking it away from the slander/libel confusion and the parliamentary privilege, the fact is that if I am a notorious murderer and I write, "The third murder wot I done was when I caved in Jimmy the Sparra's head wiv a wrench" and then you subsequently write elsewhere that "kabbes the notorious murderer stabbed Jimmy the Sparra with a shiv" then you will not have committed libel.

To the best of my knowledge, someone's already gone on record that Moron knew that the 'Sven's shagging Ulrika Scoop of the Fucking Year 2002' was initially gleaned from yes, you've guessed it - phone-hacking!

 

[Badgers]

With hindsight (and it is a lovely thing) do people think the committee (pie aside) was a good/bad thing?

For some reason it feels in some part like closure when it really is not that at all? Like some sort of victory that they were going to be publicly questioned?

 

[miniGMgoit]

So what are we expecting from parliament today?

Just heard on the news that there has not been a call for him to resign yet. Could today be the day? Does Miliband have the balls?

 

[Streathamite]

With hindsight (and it is a lovely thing) do people think the committee (pie aside) was a good/bad thing?

For some reason it feels in some part like closure when it really is not that at all? Like some sort of victory that they were going to be publicly questioned?

It's a VERY good thing; because it has established that NI do not rule the country,that they are accountable - and the murdochs are 100% under the microscope now

 

[ViolentPanda]

I wonder whats in it for Piers and the merkins? Discrediting Louise Mensch could just be another way to pave the way for dismissing the whole attack against Murdoch and his empire stateside?

Perhaps Morgan is being philanthropic, and discrediting Mensch in the hope (probably vain) that she loses all self-confidence and never writes another novel.

 

[butchersapron]

Khan and Grant have been granted access to police records on hacking (might be my turn to me miles behind today, so apols if posted already)

 

[killer b]

For some reason it feels in some part like closure

people were saying that last week after the news of the world closed.

 

[Santino]

With hindsight (and it is a lovely thing) do people think the committee (pie aside) was a good/bad thing?

For some reason it feels in some part like closure when it really is not that at all? Like some sort of victory that they were going to be publicly questioned?

It also got them on record as knowing and not knowing about certain things at certain times, which could well come back to haunt them if fresh evidence turns up.

 

[agricola]

My point was not about who performed the deed, but who commissioned it.
Their defense is that it was not until late 2010 that there was evidence that anyone other than Goodman commissioned Mulcaire to hack. I was intrigued if there was evidence that this defense had flaws. And if so had they effectively paid to hide such evidence. This is relevant to Hinton and Murdoch, J.

Their defence is (IIRC) a bit more nuanced than that.

In short, it appears to be that they (the Murdochs) had no evidence that this extended beyond Goodman and Mulcaire, and indeed this may be in the legal sense of the word true - James Murdoch wasnt there when this went on, and seems to have deliberately not looked too hard, accepting the assurances of various disposeable persons (who of course were complicit in this themselves, giving them reason to cover it up), and it was beneath Ruperts attention. All the documentation that they might concievably have used to find out about it was more widespread was - by a convienient set of circumstances - not available to them, being either seized by the Met, or sequestered at Harbottle & Lewis (and had been since mid-2007)*.

Therefore, the argument will go, they couldnt possibly have known.

* plus the hacks concerned almost certainly had their own copies, for insurance purposes

 

[Kizmet]

For some reason it feels in some part like closure when it really is not that at all? Like some sort of victory that they were going to be publicly questioned?

The nasty nick effect and the normalization of corruption. standard.

 

[Streathamite]

probably the only person giving evidence to the committee who 1. isn't lying through his teeth to save his neck 2. hasn't got something to hide.

Even the cps are up to their ankles in shit.

I would say Mark Lewis and Nick davies (and the 2 MPs) are going to come out of this with massively enhanced reputations. All 4 are prolly loving every moment

 

[Fedayn]

Perhaps Morgan is being philanthropic, and discrediting Mensch in the hope (probably vain) that she loses all self-confidence and never writes another novel.

On this basis alone we should stand 100% in support of Moron.

 

[invisibleplanet]

I think the pie was misguided and showed a lack of awareness of the spin that the media can put on solo-stuntist actions. (Think Blair & Purple Powder furore from Fathers4Justice).

But it was an act you'd expect from a habitual narcisstic rebel, who thrives on self-publicity provided by his own 'comedic' situationist stunts.

It wasn't anything to do with UKUncut as a group, and nor do I take any insinuations that it was seriously.
He just screwed himself as an activist against the cuts by that act and by implication he's damaged UKUncut at a time when cuts are biting deep, which might well be spun to demean other groups' communal actions.

At the very least, he deserves the 'Chris Knight award for failure to acknowledge that lamposts aren't load-bearing'. At most, he'll go down for assault.

 

[gavman]

it's 100% clear. It is absolute. It is beyond any reasonable doubt.

Thats why Mensch refused to repeat it. Despite being stupid, it appears she isnt as stupid as you must be.

It. Was. Libel.

it. was. slander.

 

[gavman]

good god, just watched the Mrogan/Mensch vid.

What a cretin that woman is! Caught bang to rights and then tries to pretnd he's threatening her! How on earth did such a fucking moron ever get elected?


(how such a moron as Moron ever got to edit a natinal newspaper is a dfferent question)

our political representatives really don't come out well from today's non-events. more like a bunch of lightweights

 

[Pickman's model]

it. was. slander.

slander not a crime in england.

 

[Pickman's model]

our political representatives really don't come out well from today's non-events. more like a bunch of lightweights

you get the politicians you deserve.

 

[Voley]

it. was. slander.

I was wondering about that, too.

 

[Ted Striker]

our political representatives really don't come out well from today's non-events. more like a bunch of lightweights

Exactly. Could have done with a Galloway-esque member on there. Would have loved it even to let Bryant on the committee. Most of them didn;t really seem keen on digging too hard.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think the pie was misguided and showed a lack of awareness of the spin that the media can put on solo-stuntist actions. (Think Blair & Purple Powder furore from Fathers4Justice).

But it was an act you'd expect from a habitual narcisstic rebel, who thrives on self-publicity provided by his own 'comedic' situationist stunts.

It wasn't anything to do with UKUncut as a group, and nor do I take any insinuations that it was seriously.
He just screwed himself as a serious activist with that act and by implication, damaged UKUncut at a time when cuts are biting deep, which might well be spun to demean other groups' communal actions,

twat

 

[two sheds]

All the documentation that they might concievably have used to find out about it was more widespread was - by a convienient set of circumstances - not available to them, being either seized by the Met, or sequestered at Harbottle & Lewis (and had been since mid-2007)*.

Interesting - are you using the legal definition of sequester here?

a. To take temporary possession of (property) as security against legal claims.
b. To requisition and confiscate (enemy property).

(Reluctantly) taking the first definition, one would have expected an executive who wanted to ensure that his company was not acting illegally to ask for sight of any such documents. That would one presumes be the only way he could tell whether the company was continuing to break the law. Would he not have been allowed sight of them?

Otherwise that would seem to be collusion, since ignorance is not an excuse?

 

[Streathamite]

I was intrigued by the role of Ed Llewellyn as Cameron's firewall. He allegedly made efforts to prevent Cameron hearing about NoTW misdeeds. Now either that's after-the-fact porkies designed to allow Cameron to claim ignorance as the Murdochs were doing yesterday, or it indicates that prophylactic PR measures were already in place.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...in-trouble-for-not-communicating-2317215.html

There's more; it was LLewellyn who Hilton went to with the news of Coulson's connection to Jonathan Rees that Alan Rusbridger had told him, but Llewellyn decided that this was simply part of hilton's emnity towards coulson (they hated each other) and decided not to inform Cameron.
I'd say either Cameron or Llewellyn goes, as an endgame to all this

 

[belboid]

It wasnt a libel. For a start, she was covered by absolute privilege, and hasnt repeated it outside of that privilege. Secondly, the bit she did get wrong - that Moron had admitted in his book that he had partaken in phone hacking - is not exactly something that would make the average person think worse of Piers Morgan (he is after all Piers Morgan, with all that entails), given how close it is to what he did say (that he knew how it was done) and it has a good chance of being true anyway - look how the story came out, and the other activities of Moron and the Mirror journalists at the time.

It was a libelous statement, albeit one made in a place where you cant be sued. So technically it isnt libel, but, we all know it would have been had it been made outside of parliament, so thats just pedantry. As to the idea that it cant really be, because its that well known twat Piers Morgan, well, that miht mean he got rather less damages, but he'd still win.

 

[butchersapron]

.

 

[invisibleplanet]

twat

That's a compliment, coming from you

 

[gavman]

slander not a crime in england.

nor is libel. your point?

 

[Pickman's model]

It was a libelous statement, albeit one made in a place where you cant be sued. So technically it isnt libel, but, we all know it would have been had it been made outside of parliament, so thats just pedantry. As to the idea that it cant really be, because its that well known twat Piers Morgan, well, that miht mean he got rather less damages, but he'd still win.

fyi: libel has to be written, not spoken, tho' i imagine a tv or radio programme might be libellous.

 

[invisibleplanet]

.

Crikey, look closer in a squinty kinda way and the man has grown two horns!

 

[Pickman's model]

nor is libel. your point?

you ignorant fuck. what makes you think libel's not a crime in england? but slander is most certainly not a crime.