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

[weltweit]

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

I thought similar.

The committee did not land many punches and seemed to stay away from bribing police officers altogether. But then, they are MPs not trained barristers which might have made the situation rather more forceful.

However there is the advice which they apparently had which was that various questions could not be asked because of the police investigation, and that when and if the Murdocks (or Brooks) declined to answer (because of the police investigation) they were not pemitted to push it. I wonder what those omitted questions were?

 

[belboid]

Slander, not libel.

Actually, it gets even more confusing. All words in parliament are considered written cos they are recorded in Hansard. So, were it not for parliamentary privilege, it would be libel.

 

[gavman]

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

as you don't appear to know the difference between civil and criminal law....oh what's the point

 

[two sheds]

you ignorant fuck.

Now THAT could be libel

 

[ViolentPanda]

Pretty sure he has. He's got a scheduled meeting with 1922 Committee today. That should go well. 'So tell me, boys, how can fuck up the poors even more to prove that it's not worth it making any moves against me?'

Which presupposes that the majority of the 1922 wouldn't happily shiv Cameron with a sharpened spoon. Most of them would. A few of them would probably orgasm while doing it.

 

[Pickman's model]

as you don't appear to know the difference between civil and criminal law....oh what's the point

fair point poorly made. but slander, despite your wankery, is not against the law, whereas libel is. twat.

 

[agricola]

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

(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?

No, I meant sequester in terms of removed and hidden away, rather than either of those definitions. As for collusion, I would guess that their position will be that he had no reason to look (having as I said above recieved assurances), up until the point that he started to look, then the Harbottle and Lewis file magically reappears.

 

[Pickman's model]

Now THAT could be libel

i think you'll find it's fair comment.

 

[Streathamite]

How on earth did such a fucking moron ever get elected?

Now c'mon, a man of your worldly wisdom knows just how easy it is for a complete - and photogenic - idiot to get elected to a safe tory seat!
e2a; OK, corby isn't historically that safe, but there ARE still a lot of idiotic safe-seat backbenchers (in ALL main parties)

 

[belboid]

Since the information has been in the public domain for at least 8 days, published now by two sources (Guido Fawkes, Daily Express), could you please inform that lover of the term 'cretin' belboid, that I'm well aware of what constitutes libel.

you clearly aren't, you cretin. Which is why you've been wriggling around here changing your story more often than Murdoch!

 

[gavman]

fair point poorly made. but slander, despite your wankery, is not against the law, whereas libel is. twat.

don't worry. we'll still pretend to listen to you, despite what everyone else says. it's not fair the way everyone laughs at you

 

[agricola]

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.

Perhaps, though its worth pointing out that Moron doesnt appear to have sued / tried to sue Guido, the Express, or the Telegraph - all of whom have made the same statement as Mensch, or reported that someone else has made the statement.

 

[Streathamite]

fair point poorly made. but slander, despite your wankery, is not against the law, whereas libel is. twat.

are you SURE slander isn't against the law, as a form of defamation?

 

[Kizmet]

you get the politicians you deserve.

Nope. We've got the politicians YOU deserve.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Jesus. just seen that piers morgan video. how the fuck did that smirking idiot get elected let alone anywhere near a select committee?

She was on Cameron's list of sleb-types and "rising stars" who were shoe-horned into seats between 2005-2010. There's a whole slew of equally vapid cunts who look good on camera and have degrees from the "right" universities.

 

[gavman]

 

[ericjarvis]

It's to do with the FACT - one that neither you nor the idiot Mensch can admit - that her claim was simply WRONG. And, therefore, libellous.

"Libel" is the wrong word. In fact it would be bloody difficult to libel Piers Morgan as his reputation is as an opportunistic arrogant shit who has moral standards that would shame a rabid polecat with a crack habit and kleptomania. It's actually "bullshit". Which, as we all know, is defined as something that might be said by a Tory MP.

 

[belboid]

Perhaps, though its worth pointing out that Moron doesnt appear to have sued / tried to sue Guido, the Express, or the Telegraph - all of whom have made the same statement as Mensch, or reported that someone else has made the statement.

All of those managed to phrase there reports rather more delicately than Mensch did, tho. Guido doesn't even explicitly state that Moron was aware of anything (tho that would be a 'reasonable' interpretation of it, arguably the only reasonable interpretation). The others report that there is a case to look into. It could be argued that Moron wasn't libeled at all, James Scott was.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

Having once, in a fit of boredom, read the first chapter of one of Bagshawe's novels, I can only concur, comrade.

 

[butchersapron]

All of those managed to phrase there reports rather more delicately than Mensch did, tho. Guido doesn't even explicitly state that Moron was aware of anything (tho that would be a 'reasonable' interpretation of it, arguably the only reasonable interpretation). The others report that there is a case to look into. It could be argued that Moron wasn't libeled at all, James Scott was.

Staines twitter feed most def said that morgan had been caught red-handed at it.

 

[frogwoman]

i might be a bit late, but the police have been ordered to hand over the documents relating to the phone-hacking of grant and other celebs ...

 

[agricola]

All of those managed to phrase there reports rather more delicately than Mensch did, tho. Guido doesn't even explicitly state that Moron was aware of anything (tho that would be a 'reasonable' interpretation of it, arguably the only reasonable interpretation). The others report that there is a case to look into. It could be argued that Moron wasn't libeled at all, James Scott was.

er - Guido's article explicitly states Moron knew.

 

[butchersapron]

All of those managed to phrase there reports rather more delicately than Mensch did, tho. Guido doesn't even explicitly state that Moron was aware of anything (tho that would be a 'reasonable' interpretation of it, arguably the only reasonable interpretation). The others report that there is a case to look into. It could be argued that Moron wasn't libeled at all, James Scott was.

Staines twitter feed most def said that morgan had been caught red-handed at it. I remember being surprised at how far he was going on such spinnable evidence.

 

[belboid]

er - Guido's article explicitly states Moron knew.

doh! Fair do's. I only read the article and ignored the headline

 

[invisibleplanet]

doh! Fair do's. I only read the article and ignored the headline

who's the cretin now

 

[Streathamite]

I'm presuming the Express piece was resculpted by their Lawyers to stay just on the right side of the libel laws, but as morgan hasn't sued Paul Staines for the piece on Agricola's link, that says it all

 

[belboid]

who's the cretin now

You. Because you are unable to admit to making a mistake. How cretinously childish is that?

 

[invisibleplanet]

You. Because you are unable to admit to making a mistake. How cretinously childish is that?

And what mistake is that?

 

[Shreddy]

I love this shit Please make it go on

Best thread ever

 

[ericjarvis]

Seems reasonable to me, politicians shouldn't be briefed in any detail about ongoing police investigations, to do so opens the floodgates to potential political interference.

The police should be left to get on with investigating, and politicians should only get involved if it appears they are not doing their job properly.

It's worth listening to Yates precise words when describing this. It's all very nudge nudge wink wink stuff from Llewellyn. Along the lines of "I can brief Cameron about the other thing at the same time, nudge wink." "If it's the other thing I'm thinking of then it's probably best not to tell him about it, nudge wink." It comes across as two people making sure that they both understand clearly that part of a briefing of a third person is to remain completely secret. It doesn't prove Cameron knew anything he has claimed he didn't know, but it stretches his credibility very thin indeed.