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

[invisibleplanet]

aren't the two elder daughters both blondes, anyway?

no one cares!!!!!!

 

[Random]

FFS.
Positive vetting for "mid-level clearance" used to mean them doing a thorough job on you, up to and including such as trawling your political history, your bank account(s), your criminal record, and even contacting your school and college peers and your teachers and tutors.

Not some penny-ante credit and google check.

Was just going to say, 140 quid probably only got them something slightly better than a google check. But of course CR and the like are attributed with magic powers oohhhhhh

 

[Dan U]

FFS.
Positive vetting for "mid-level clearance" used to mean them doing a thorough job on you, up to and including such as trawling your political history, your bank account(s), your criminal record, and even contacting your school and college peers and your teachers and tutors.

Not some penny-ante credit and google check.

bit on the Guardian feed about what 'developed' vetting actually is, and its not £140.. much more as you describe

A reader who says he has gone through developed vetting, and asked not to be named, sends this concise summary of the process, which I have confirmed with another person who has gone through it:

It's an intimidating and very personal experience; every element of your life is examined in detail such as relationship with parents; your partner; your relationship status; sexual identity, activity and pornography consumption; internet use; financial status and debts; drug and alcohol use; and criminal activity, even if not known to the police.

The idea is to bring anything that may be used to blackmail you in future out in the open to prevent such blackmail.

John McTernan, the former political secretary to Tony Blair, has described his own experience of the developed vetting process.

There's full disclosure of financial records – my five different bank accounts and wildly fluctuating balances were a source of concern until I patiently explained that I was a freelance journalist and consultant. And there's your travels. My visits to the Soviet Union (to meet emerging social democratic parties in 1990) and to Nicaragua (to see a friend who ran a health centre) were still, in 2004, suspicious. But I refrained from saying "surely Islamism is the enemy, not communism". No one's a liar or a smart-arse to these guys. They are the real thing, tracking back and asking the same questions in different ways – a real interrogation. Friendly, but steely and determined.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Seconded. The News of the World has gone down. I want to see the Mail and the Standard go under next.

I want to see Paul Dacre impaled Vlad Tepes-style on a blunt spike, screaming as the stake slowly rips through his viscera.

That'd give him something to shout "cunt!" about!

 

[ViolentPanda]

People study for years, then they practice for decades, before developing the ability to crack witnesses, let alone witnesses as intelligent and well prepared as the NI crowd. Really, decades.

You don't half come out with some guff.

It diminishes the skills of people on all sides to assume it's a job for laypeople, you may as well ask them to diagnose illness, design an office block and replumb your house while they're at it.

You're attributing a timescale that isn't anywhere near accurate. A good detective, according to both the US feds and ourr own police services, takes about 5 years to train up to "trained interrogator" standard, a couple of years longer for lawyers and psychologists because they're not generalists like detectives.

Of course the job isn't likely to be very well done by laypersons, but Parliament, and especially the Commons, isn't exactly composed of laypersons, it has a disproportionate number of Barristers and QCs sitting there.

 

[agricola]

FFS.
Positive vetting for "mid-level clearance" used to mean them doing a thorough job on you, up to and including such delights as trawling your political history, your bank account(s), your criminal record, and even contacting your school and college peers and your teachers and tutors.

Not some penny-ante credit and google check.

It seems there were separate vetting processes. The first one - the one that Control Risks are alleged to have done (though FWIW I still think it was someone associated with NI, given his almost exclusive history working for them) - was for his appointment into CCHQ, which would probably not have required any Cabinet Office vetting. After they got into office, Coulson (along with the new SPADs) would have gone through Cabinet Office vetting, albeit not to the DV level.

I should also point out that if (and its a big if) the Tories are telling the truth that Coulson didnt have access to material restricted to DV and above people, and wasnt able to order about civil servants who did, then they should really be congratulated for that. Access to (and abuse of) that kind of material by the likes of Campbell under the last Labour government was something that desperately needed to be stamped out.

 

[pk]

Has this been mentioned yet?

http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/...police-mobile-tracking?cat=media&type=article

Arguably worse than hacking - phone tracking...

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think it did, dylans. Up until then he was on the rack, and very much the villain of the piece. post-pie, it was all 'frail old man gets assaulted and rescued by his wife, the Chinese Wonderwoman' - it changed the focus.

Frail old man gets rescued by the minder Chinese intelligence honey-trapped him with, more likely!!!

 

[agricola]

Has this been mentioned yet?

http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/...police-mobile-tracking?cat=media&type=article

Arguably worse than hacking - phone tracking...

If that is true (at least in terms of corrupt police officers making fake requests), it would probably be quite easy to trace - there is a lot of paperwork that has to be completed, liaison with senior officers (who have to approve it, and record the reasons for doing so) and mobile phone companies, it requires a clear reason to request the check (IME its been people who have threatened to kill themselves and cannot be immediately located) and it would (as the article says) generate a paper trail.

 

[krink]

Sorry it's a bit of a digression but I've been working from home last few weeks, are 'normal' people still talking about this (i.e. people without a big interest in politics/media)?

 

[Ted Striker]

One thing I don't quite understand, is how shit is the PNC if no footprint is created on every search? Surely if you have a list of 4,000 names you can reasonably easily (though not quickly I appreciate) look all them up and see what searches have been done for those names, and then the individuals involved and torture then for information on who's asking for it and how frequently?

 

[gosub]

Lulzsec on Twitter: "We're currently working with certain media outlets who have been granted exclusive access to some of the News of the World emails we have."

so in the middle of hubub about the media illegally sourcing material, a media company is writing a story using illegally sourced material about who knew about illegally sourced material. This could lead to another public enquiry.

 

[agricola]

One thing I don't quite understand, is how shit is the PNC if no footprint is created on every search? Surely if you have a list of 4,000 names you can reasonably easily (though not quickly I appreciate) look all them up and see what searches have been done for those names, and then the individuals involved and torture then for information on who's asking for it and how frequently?

You are mistaken - the PNC records when a search was done, whose account did the search, what terminal the search was done at, the reason for the check and (though the operator has to add this manually) who asked for the check and where they were at the time. The slightly newer PNC interface on the onboard computers in the Met's vehicles also records where (in terms of GPS coordinates) the vehicle was when the search was performed.

 

[London_Calling]

You don't half come out with some guff.

I'd rather stick to the issues in hand but you're obv. keen to be another keyboard hero, so if you want to make it personal and be abusive, we can do that you over-blown, self-important, ignorant cunt.

Of course the job isn't likely to be very well done by laypersons, but Parliament, and especially the Commons, isn't exactly composed of laypersons, it has a disproportionate number of Barristers and QCs sitting there.

Unless you're suggesting they should have stood in the middle of the Chamber and ‘the Commons’ take turns at them, they were questioned by a sitting Select Committee comprising (it would appear from the quality of questioning) zero legally qualified MPs.

Remind me, what was your ever-so-worthwhile point? Something about 'the Commons' questioning them because of so many silks? Love to hear more about that.

 

[Ted Striker]

You are mistaken - the PNC records when a search was done, whose account did the search, what terminal the search was done at, the reason for the check and (though the operator has to add this manually) who asked for the check and where they were at the time. The slightly newer PNC interface on the onboard computers in the Met's vehicles also records where (in terms of GPS coordinates) the vehicle was when the search was performed.

Then fishing out the crooked cops/user should be a piece of piss? Contact the handful of people who accessed, say, Jude Law's records in a 5 year period and bob's your uncle?

 

[agricola]

Then fishing out the crooked cops/user should be a piece of piss? Contact the handful of people who accessed, say, Jude Law's records in a 5 year period and bob's your uncle?

Well yes, but this isnt about misuse of the PNC (though Motorman was). Trawling through 4000+ peoples mobile phone records, when (it appears) they dont know whose is what, who requested the checks and why will (and is) take ages.

 

[belboid]

I'd rather stick to the issues in hand but you're obv. keen to be another keyboard hero, so if you want to make it personal and be abusive, we can do that you over-blown, self-important, ignorant cunt.

Unless you're suggesting they should have stood in the middle of the Chamber and ‘the Commons’ take turns at them, they were questioned by a sitting Select Committee comprising (it would appear from the quality of questioning) zero legally qualified MPs.

Remind me, what was your ever-so-worthwhile point? Something about 'the Commons' questioning them because of so many silks? Love to hear more about that.

Silks aren't the only ones capable of asking a question. And it is, amazingly enough, possible for a silk to advise one of the colleagues on how best to question someone! Crazy stuff, I know.

 

[Streathamite]

Frail old man gets rescued by the minder Chinese intelligence honey-trapped him with, more likely!!!

what an intriguing explanation of the origin of their marriage....
(I always thought it was simply dirty old man-golddigger, tho')

 

[Streathamite]

The Commons also houses a disproportionate number of QCs. One doesn't generally take silk unless one is capable of formulating probing and/or tricksy questions.

Plus journalists and other meejah types, same goes for them, and most successful businessmen didn't get there without that ability

 

[London_Calling]

How can you read and watch as much politics as you do and fail to understand it is not about (as Tom Watson did, for example) asking a list of questions?

With or without help from 'the silks' in 'the Commons', a fucking 8-year old could have done that.

Is it any wonder both Murdoch's became more and more confident the longer it went on.

 

[Streathamite]

bit on the Guardian feed about what 'developed' vetting actually is, and its not £140.. much more as you describe

DV is nothing to do with the £140 Control Risks process

 

[Ted Striker]

Well yes, but this isnt about misuse of the PNC (though Motorman was). Trawling through 4000+ peoples mobile phone records, when (it appears) they dont know whose is what, who requested the checks and why will (and is) take ages.

If they didn't make at least an effort to find and oust the insiders, then they give little deterrant for the practise to continue.

 

[two sheds]

How can you read and watch as much politics as you do and fail to understand it is not about (as Tom Watson did, for example) asking a list of questions?

With or without help from 'the silks' in 'the Commons', a fucking 8-year old could have done that.

Is it any wonder both Murdoch's became more and more confident the longer it went on.

That's true, you can also say one word louder than another: 'To *be* or not to be,' or 'To be *or* not to *be*,' or 'To be or not to *be*' you see? And so on.

And of course inflection.

 

[Streathamite]

Which one of those has form for killing off politically inconvienient investigations? Which one was closely allied to News Corp and the senior figures involved in this scandal? Which one still has the influence to ensure that potentially damning evidence that leads to his door doesnt recieve wider attention?

I think they'd be VERY lucky to pin any of this on Teflon Tony. Not saying you're wrong, just don't think Cox has proved his case yet

 

[London_Calling]

two sheds - You mean emphasis? Whoa, steady on. You'll be coaching Tom Watson before you know it.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I think that the weakness of the committee was that it did not have any big hitters on it. This may be because the remit of the comittee is Culture, Media. and Sport. The politicians who come from those backgrounds or have an interest in those areas, and are therefore on that committee are not the heavyweights of politics. That is why some of their questions were so weak as to appear almost witless.

 

[agricola]

If they didn't make at least an effort to find and oust the insiders, then they give little deterrant for the practise to continue.

Er - they fairly regularly get people for misuse of the PNC. This issue is something else entirely.

 

[belboid]

How can you read and watch as much politics as you do and fail to understand it is not about (as Tom Watson did, for example) asking a list of questions?

With or without help from 'the silks' in 'the Commons', a fucking 8-year old could have done that.

Is it any wonder both Murdoch's became more and more confident the longer it went on.

lol, what does this have to do with anything? Fuck all, really. Your notion that only 'silks' are capable of such questioning is drivel, and one you dont even attempt to justify! Hey ho

 

[DrRingDing]

Cameron's own checks are irrelevant. MI5 would have briefed him on his close aides.

 

[butchersapron]

Cameron's own checks are irrelevant. MI5 would have briefed him on his close aides.

That's why he tried so hard and so repeatedly to cover it up. His knowledge of dodginess is precisely what he's trying to hide.