Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Oh this is interesting ...

(my emphasis)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tor-linked-to-news-international-2333257.html

I've wondered if the corrupt collusion between the cops, the political right and the Murdoch press also extended to the security services ...

It certainly seems to have been the case with the far-right, the gutter press and the secret police in Italy for example, so I think it's worth keeping an eye on this aspect.
yeh, the security service and the secret intelligence service - not to mention special branch and gchq - have been the fucking elephants in the room
 
what about when it exposes wrongdoing - especially of the criminal type - by wealthy powerful individuals, public servants or our elected representatives?
You cannot claim a 'public interest' defence for it, like you could with, say hiring a private investigator to break the data protection laws. IN a hacking case, a amgistrate would rule it inadmissable, and you'd lose, so you'd choose a jury trial, wher the judge would still say there is no such defence, but it would be up to the jury to actually decide - as, essentially, happened with Clive Ponting.
 
You cannot claim a 'public interest' defence for it, like you could with, say hiring a private investigator to break the data protection laws. IN a hacking case, a amgistrate would rule it inadmissable, and you'd lose, so you'd choose a jury trial, wher the judge would still say there is no such defence, but it would be up to the jury to actually decide - as, essentially, happened with Clive Ponting.
ah right, with you know, ta for putting me right, bellers
 
christ, that vision of edmondson, Miskiw, Coulson, Wallis, thurlbeck, Wetherup AND Brooks - all in the dock....oh sweet jesus let it happen
 
blimey! Now dick Fedorcio, the Met's press chief, has been sent on 'extended leave'!
jesus, it's the gift that just keeps on giving
 
I think we're all getting a bit hopeful here. Even if they come to trial and their phenomenally clever and highly paid barristers don't get them off, I think any judge is going to say that these poor people have suffered enough because they have lost their reputations, and that really hurts the rich and powerful.
 
I think we're all getting a bit hopeful here. Even if they come to trial and their phenomenally clever and highly paid barristers don't get them off, I think any judge is going to say that these poor people have suffered enough because they have lost their reputations, and that really hurts the rich and powerful.
yeah, but I can dream
 
I don't think they'll get as long a sentence as if they'd nicked a flat-screen TV on Monday.

But I think judges are as aware of public outrage with the hacking case as with the looting - those convicted have to go down for a bit.
 
I don't think they'll get as long a sentence as if they'd nicked a flat-screen TV on Monday.

But I think judges are as aware of public outrage with the hacking case as with the looting - those convicted have to go down for a bit.

One or two token convictions only though, I'd have thought. Like the MPs' expenses - plenty of them defrauded the taxpayers (guilty of 'false accounting' my word there's a euphemism up there with 'pension mis-selling') but only a couple went down, and they got much much shorter sentences than people overclaiming benefits.
 
up already - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/16/phone-hacking-now-reporter-letter

"In the letter, which was written four years ago but published only on Tuesday, Goodman claims that phone hacking was "widely discussed" at editorial meetings at the paper until Coulson himself banned further references to it; that Coulson offered to let him keep his job if he agreed not to implicate the paper in hacking when he came to court; and that his own hacking was carried out with "the full knowledge and support" of other senior journalists, whom he named.

<snip>

And they confront Rupert and James Murdoch with the humiliating prospect of being recalled to parliament to justify the evidence which they gave last month on the aftermath of Goodman's allegations. In a separate letter, one of the Murdochs' own law firms claim that parts of that evidence were variously "hard to credit", "self-serving" and "inaccurate and misleading
 

But is that the whole of this tranche:

Mr Whittingdale said the committee was publishing evidence later on Tuesday which appeared to contradict some of what they were told.
Tom Watson MP, another member of the committee, said it would also publishing documents at 13.00 BST which he predicted would raise fresh questions for News International.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14541848

:drums fingers on desk:
 
In the letter, which was written four years ago but published only on Tuesday, Goodman claims that phone hacking was "widely discussed" at editorial meetings at the paper until Coulson himself banned further references to it; that Coulson offered to let him keep his job if he agreed not to implicate the paper in hacking when he came to court; and that his own hacking was carried out with "the full knowledge and support" of other senior journalists, whom he named.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/16/phone-hacking-now-reporter-letter
 
And from the Guardian piece:

"... MP Tom Watson, said Goodman's letter was "absolutely devastating". He said: "Clive Goodman's letter is the most significant piece of evidence that has been revealed so far. It completely removes News International's defence. This is one of the largest cover-ups I have seen in my lifetime."

Ooooh, tut.
 
Back
Top Bottom