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

[Termite Man]

They didn't put the price on it - New Corps did. And at the same time the Dowlers are fighting against the proposed legal reforms that would have let them off the hook, or at least allowed them to behave as they like towards towards poorer families. It's not them any fingers should be pointing at here.

So they are fighting for legal aid to stay (which is good) but if they were to go through the courts for their settlement they would be setting a precedent which would make it easier for other victims to pursue at least phone hacking claims through the courts.

I'm not a fan of the idea that financial compensation can in make up for anything (unless it helps with medical costs from accidents etc.) By accepting the money without going to court I think the Dowlers have let Newscorp off the hook slightly and as such have put a price on how much they value the pain they went through (and newscorp have found out how much the Dowlers can be bought off for)

 

[butchersapron]

And i think you're the one putting a price on their suffering by demanding they do what you want and suggesting that they settle for less than they should have got. I think you insult them - and pointlessly - by saying that they've been 'bought off'.

 

[Termite Man]

And i think you're the one putting a price on their suffering by demanding they do what you want and suggesting that they settle for less than they should have got. I think you insult them - and pointlessly - by saying that they've been 'bought off'.

I'm torn, they deserve something but I don't know what that is, if it was me I'd want to see newscorp suffer and not just settle out of court but I guess they don't want to re live anything so an out of court settlement is good for them.

The way I see it , and this is just how i feel, is that if your going to take someone to court it's for the reason of getting them into that court and being judged, not in order to get financial gain, which as harsh as it sounds is what taking an out of court settlement comes across as to me. I'd like to know how you would describe an out of court settlement if it's not newscorp paying the Dowlers to avoid going to court then i'd like to know what it is and I don't see how you can describe that as anything other than newscorp buying the best possible outcome for them that they can.

 

[claphamboy]

I'm torn, they deserve something but I don't know what that is, if it was me I'd want to see newscorp suffer and not just settle out of court but I guess they don't want to re live anything so an out of court settlement is good for them.

The way I see it , and this is just how i feel, is that if your going to take someone to court it's for the reason of getting them into that court and being judged, not in order to get financial gain, which as harsh as it sounds is what taking an out of court settlement comes across as to me. I'd like to know how you would describe an out of court settlement if it's not newscorp paying the Dowlers to avoid going to court then i'd like to know what it is and I don't see how you can describe that as anything other than newscorp buying the best possible outcome for them that they can.

I can see where you are coming from, but in this case News Corp has already been judged, by the general public, resulting in the actual closure of the rag in question, so I see no advantage in this particular case going to court.

That said, I hope to see News Corp and various individuals in court facing criminal charges.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm torn, they deserve something but I don't know what that is, if it was me I'd want to see newscorp suffer and not just settle out of court but I guess they don't want to re live anything so an out of court settlement is good for them.

The way I see it , and this is just how i feel, is that if your going to take someone to court it's for the reason of getting them into that court and being judged, not in order to get financial gain, which as harsh as it sounds is what taking an out of court settlement comes across as to me. I'd like to know how you would describe an out of court settlement if it's not newscorp paying the Dowlers to avoid going to court then i'd like to know what it is and I don't see how you can describe that as anything other than newscorp buying the best possible outcome for them that they can.

But that's irrelevant even if true. What you're essentially saying by that line of argument is that the Dowlers should act according to your motivations to achieve an outcome acceptable to or desired by you. You're imposing what you think is an a acceptable price for their pain on them (newscorp being found guilty in court) - and that your price should take precedence, all other outcomes amounting to being 'bought off'.

 

[Termite Man]

But that's irrelevant even if true. What you're essentially saying by that line of argument is that the Dowlers should act according to your motivations to achieve an outcome acceptable to or desired by you. You're imposing what you think is an a acceptable price for their pain on them (newscorp being found guilty in court) - and that your price should take precedence, all other outcomes amounting to being 'bought off'.

I'm not saying what I think should take precedence. The Dowlers can do whatever they feel best is for them, I'm just offering my opinion and expressing how I feel, to be honest I think that because the Dowlers are such a high profile case the expectation for them to go through court would probably be too much so maybe taking the cash was the best option for them.

The problem with accepting the pay off is it makes me question their motivation for bringing this case, I find the idea that they have could have thought 'we can make some cash out of this phone hacking thing' just as sickening as the phone hacking was in the first place, I guess it depends on what they do with the money that will give some insight into their motivation and I'm really hoping it's not going to be just about the money.

 

[butchersapron]

Well part of the announced settlement was a million quid given to charity. But again, it's none of your business what their motivation was - simple cash or otherwise. You really are aggressively stamping your desired outcome on these people and thereby putting your price on their pain - no matter how many times that you say that you're nor. I'm finding this quite astonishing to be totally frank.

 

[claphamboy]

Plus, as a civil court case, it would have only resulted in a cash settlement anyway.

Bring on the criminal cases!

 

[Termite Man]

Well part of the announced settlement was a million quid given to charity. But again, it's none of your business what their motivation was - simple cash or otherwise. You really are aggressively stamping your desired outcome on other people and thereby putting your price on their pain - no matter how many times that you say that you're nor. I'm finding this quite astonishing to be totally frank.

No you're twisting what I'm saying, I'm not saying they should have done this or that, I'm saying that what they have done has formed my opinion of their actions and now i'm expressing those opinions.

 

[butchersapron]

But you are explicitly saying what they should have done and why - you have clearly said that you find the idea that they may have been motivated by cash to be 'sickening' (as sickening as the hacking of their murdered daughters phone even!) and that they should have got a verdict in court rather then acccept an out-of-court settlement. That's you saying both what they should not have done and what they should have. It's baffling that you now deny your own posts earlier in the thread.

 

[Badgers]

They have crossed the line now. Jade Goody

 

[Pickman's model]

They have crossed the line now. Jade Goody

 

[Pickman's model]

No you're twisting what I'm saying, I'm not saying they should have done this or that, I'm saying that what they have done has formed my opinion of their actions and now i'm expressing those opinions.

and in english pls?

 

[Termite Man]

But you are explicitly saying what they should have done and why - you have clearly said that you find the idea that they may have been motivated by cash to be 'sickening' (as sickening as the hacking of their murdered daughters phone even!) and that they should have got a verdict in court rather then acccept an out-of-court settlement. That's you saying both what they should not have done and what they should have. It's baffling that you now deny your own posts earlier in the thread.

Maybe you could point out where I have explicitly said the Dowlers should do anything because at the moment I'm unsure whether I am just not putting my opinions very well or you're just up for an argument on a saturday morning.

 

[Termite Man]

and in english pls?

please

 

[butchersapron]

Maybe you could point out where I have explicitly said the Dowlers should do anything because at the moment I'm unsure whether I am just not putting my opinions very well or you're just up for an argument on a saturday morning.

Well, from your very first post for example:

I like the fact that the Dowlers have been able to put a price on the upset they have suffered.

Contained in this sneer is the idea that the Dowlers should not have agreed an out of court settlement, and the logical corollary that they should have held out for a court judgment. And no, i'm not after a Saturday morning argument. I find what you have written to be bizarrely insulting to the dowlers and the way you've argued it to be bizzare - making a point then almost immediately denying that you've said any such thing. Of all the people to come onto a thread and point the finger at it's the dowlers?

 

[Termite Man]

Well, from your very first post for example:

Contained in this sneer is the idea that the Dowlers should not have agreed an out of court settlement, and the logical corollary that they should have held out for a court judgment. And no, i'm not after a Saturday morning argument. I find what you have written to be bizarrely insulting to the dowlers and the way you've argued it to be bizzare - making a point then almost immediately denying that you've said any such thing. Of all the people to come onto a thread and point the finger at it's the dowlers?

Yeah, like I said I don't like the idea that financial gain was the motivation for the court action, but the Dowlers can do what they want, if they want the financial gain then I reserve the right to judge them and 'sneer' at them, the thing is I hope they didn't just want the financial gain from this as it devalues the sympathy I have for them and that's something I don't want to happen because they have suffered and deserve sympathy. I'm fully aware that this is completely illogical and to be honest it's why I waited so long before posting what I did but I can't help how it makes me feel.

As for me saying explicitly that the Dowlers should have done what i think maybe you can come up with a better example since 'contained in this sneer is the idea' suggest I didn't explicitly say anything.

 

[butchersapron]

The rest of your posts went on to develop the idea expressed in the first post. That's pretty clear - even if you don't think that you think that you explicitly did (i think that you did here) the chains of the argument are clear. The dowlers took the money - they shouldn't have. They didn't wait for a court judgment - they should have. Otherwise what was the point of your original post? What was the point of the following posts if not to argue this?

 

[Termite Man]

The rest of your posts went on to develop the idea expressed in the first post. That's pretty clear - even if you don't think that you think that you explicitly did (i think that you did here) the chains of the argument are clear. The dowlers took the money - they shouldn't have. They didn't wait for a court judgment - they should have. Otherwise what was the point of your original post? What was the point of the following posts if not to argue this?

What you're doing is getting my explanation for how I feel mixed up with me saying the Dowlers should have done things differently. I am incredibly uncomfortable with the idea that the Dowlers were motivated just to get some cash and unfortunately thats what taking the out of court settlement made me feel, but like I said in my previous post, it's an illogical feeling.

I have said that going to court may have been too much for the Dowlers and taking the settlement was the best thing for them to do but I still have that illogical feeling about their motivation because of the out of court settlement.

I'm torn, they deserve something but I don't know what that is, if it was me I'd want to see newscorp suffer and not just settle out of court but I guess they don't want to re live anything so an out of court settlement is good for them.

 

[pesh]

after the shit they had to go through in court to get the conviction of their daughters killer i'm not surprised they don't want to rush back there to be turned over by N.I.'s lawyers this time

i'm sure they won't lose any sleep over your illogical feeling, you don't feature in any of this.

 

[Termite Man]

after the shit they had to go through in court to get the conviction of their daughters killer i'm not surprised they don't want to rush back there to be turned over by N.I.'s lawyers this time

i'm sure they won't lose any sleep over your illogical feeling, you don't feature in any of this.

I do know that. Am I not allowed to express my opinions on this thread then.

 

[Pickman's model]

please

i didn't think you'd be able to reduce your gibberish to a single word.

 

[Termite Man]

i didn't think you'd be able to reduce your gibberish to a single word.

fuck off pickmans

 

[Pickman's model]

fuck off pickmans

the vacuity of your 'argument' is exposed for all the gawp at.

 

[Termite Man]

the vacuity of your 'argument' is exposed for all the gawp at.

well it suits the vacuity of your argument then doesn't it.

 

[Pickman's model]

well it suits the vacuity of your argument then doesn't it.

my 'argument' as you put it was simply a question asking what you meant.

 

[Termite Man]

my 'argument' as you put it was simply a question asking what you meant.

yeah right, you're argument was to be a snide little fuck.

 

[Badgers]

So when is J Murdoch back to answer more questions?

 

[London_Calling]

It must be difficult for Tom Watson now; part of a Parliamentary committee (and Chair) way out of their legal (and otherwise) depth - and which has also been rendered an irrelevant side show by the terms of the Public Inquiry, and yet in no small part being responsible for getting things this far.

Still, it's all attractive theatre - just a little unfortunate it gives the Murdoch's some real practice before the lawyers get into them properly.

 

[Pickman's model]

yeah right, you're argument was to be a snide little fuck.

i see you've not been able to explain what your post meant. i'm surprised that YOU can't make head or tail of it - you, after all, should be able to understand what you've submitted.