Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
very tangential, but i did find his flat earth news book slightly hyperbolic, which is especially funny given his quest for the truth.
Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail "hacked by News of the World"
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
newbie
undisambiguated
surprised you see no difference between a politician selling a war, a bit of daily journalism and making conclusions based on partial evidence emerging months later during a major investigation.
Personally I'm prepared to wait until all the public inquiry/prosecutions etc have established a reasonably definitive narrative before concluding that Davies should be charged with crimes against humanity.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Surprised that you imagine that similarity of defences implies equivalence of severity of charges.
Not your best contribution to the thread newbie.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Err..have you missed all the last month?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It's what he said to the cmtte - he looked at letter but didn't read the words.
Seemed to be headline news on the Guardian today.
newbie
undisambiguated
nor yours, the comparison with Blair is unworthy.
I'm all in favour of holding people to the highest standards, but there needs to be context. Why would anyone be surprised that daily journalism is riddled with mistakes? Of course it is, goes with the territory.
Subsequent forensic examination, especially an examination with the resources of this one, will highlight errors. Much to the delight of the other papers. Fair enough, but are we really to expect that journalists shouldn't publish until they have evidence to a public inquiry standard. That just isn't realistic.
In the crowing piece I read today, even the Times was gracious enough to accept that the Guardian had been the first to publish that Davies got it wrong. That alone makes the comparison with Blair unreasonable.
newbie
undisambiguated
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/13/milly-dowler-phone-hacking-story appears to be the Guardian defence of its reporting. Self-serving, natch. It'll be interesting to see what holes are picked in it.
As to who did delete the messages, and how and why, that goes back to my point about reaching conclusions based on partial evidence. We, the public, don't know. Leveson doesn't know (at least not officially). Maybe it's known within Weeting and they're waiting for the right moment to reveal what they know. Maybe they don't know.
The allegation that it was the NoTW appears, at this juncture, to be erroneous but there are a lot of strands of evidence that haven't yet been tied together. And it's worth bearing in mind that what we believe we know- like all the on-oath testimony that JM never knew about the 'for Nev' email- appears to have been wrong ('lies' might be more accurate), he did know he just didn't read it.
As to who did delete the messages, and how and why, that goes back to my point about reaching conclusions based on partial evidence. We, the public, don't know. Leveson doesn't know (at least not officially). Maybe it's known within Weeting and they're waiting for the right moment to reveal what they know. Maybe they don't know.
The allegation that it was the NoTW appears, at this juncture, to be erroneous but there are a lot of strands of evidence that haven't yet been tied together. And it's worth bearing in mind that what we believe we know- like all the on-oath testimony that JM never knew about the 'for Nev' email- appears to have been wrong ('lies' might be more accurate), he did know he just didn't read it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The comparison was with a method of of self-defence not the crimes and totally apt. Is Davies a mate of your or something?
Do you really think that there was no other way of writing that original story than making straight up claims that the NOTW had deleted specific messages? I can think of other ways - it seems that either of the authors or someone else did as well as if you examine it you'll find outright claims rubbing shoulders with more circumspect suggestions that this is what may have happened. If that latter course had been followed all the way through then they wouldn't be left looking like such amateur plonkers right now. (See also Davies getting stitched up again over the Brown story).
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I suspect Surry plod were very happy that it was the NOTW hat became the focus of the story, not their own inaction or speculation as to why they 'in-acted'...
Dunno - were they inactive, or just inresultatative?
Whatever, yes, between the lines of the above Leigh piece I'm seeing "but police told us the NotW had deleted messages" - and that did indeed get police off the hook of demands for resultitude, realistic or not, not least from the tabloids.
Whatever, yes, between the lines of the above Leigh piece I'm seeing "but police told us the NotW had deleted messages" - and that did indeed get police off the hook of demands for resultitude, realistic or not, not least from the tabloids.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
It could be that the Weeting crowd thought that they had possibly done it, it was leaked to the Guardian who said (which was backed up by them speaking to the Dowlers and Lewis) that they had, and now Weeting think that they cant prove who did delete them. In any case its a bit of a moot point, as everyone admits that the NOTW did listen to the voice messages anyway.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It's a point. It's not the only point - certainly not the one under discussion in this strand of the thread - which is the guardian claiming definitively that they had deleted specific messages which they didn't. The guardian is standing by its claims on this false basis btw - that its claims only concerned hacking or targeting. You only need read the original article to spot this as the lie that it is though.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Its a daft defence, but it is likely to succeed - after all, noone at NI is going to want to argue the toss over it. Meanwhile, Myler looks to be gripping the rail a bit at the inquiry.
* steals *
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Myler's torture will resume at 10 am tomorrow.
edit: and the Mail's lawyer confirms their reporter did speak to Lewis, but they didnt intend to attack the Dowlers, just to find out what they were going to do.
edit2: however the Mail have also claimed that Lewis has - by releasing his account of what their reporter said - subjected the Dowlers to further torment, and questioned his motives for doing so.
edit: and the Mail's lawyer confirms their reporter did speak to Lewis, but they didnt intend to attack the Dowlers, just to find out what they were going to do.
edit2: however the Mail have also claimed that Lewis has - by releasing his account of what their reporter said - subjected the Dowlers to further torment, and questioned his motives for doing so.
One does rather have to assume that he's acting on his clients' instructions. At least that he's asked "and do you want me to raise this question?" Any suggestion otherwise would be defamatory of a solicitor in particular, as I'm sure Mark Lewis has spotted already 
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
the hypocrisy is gut-churning, but fortunately the chances of such sanctimonious cant by a tabloid being taken at such value are now greatly diminished, mainly thanks to phone-hacking
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
Grauniad strikes back. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/james-murdoch-phone-hacking-cover-up
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
On the issue/s of the day (the Dowler deletions, Guardian reporting) there was a lively exchange between Nick Davies and an ex-NotW Editor on Newsnight last night. First item in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b018b9kf/Newsnight_14_12_2011/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b018b9kf/Newsnight_14_12_2011/
like this post if you dont believe in the holocaust.
Similar threads
