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

[DexterTCN]

Apparently you have to do a new search each time (company number is 00081701).

Oh...they changed their company name 31/05/11.

NI Group Ltd now.

What's that about?

 

[killer b]

a month's extension, apparently.

 

[London_Calling]

I think this is what James Murdoch referred to as "another organsation" in his resignation letter the other day:

Sky News has admitted that one of its senior executives authorised a journalist to conduct email hacking on two separate occasions that it said were "in the public interest" – even though intercepting emails is a prima facie breach of the Computer Misuse Act, to which there is no such defence written in law.

Right, a rogue reporter....

The law:

Intercepting emails is an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, and there is no public interest defence written in law. Theoretically, however, any email hacking charges would have to be brought at the discretion of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which could weigh up whether any intrusions could be justified. The role of the CPS in this area is untested, and Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, told the Leveson inquiry in February that he intended to issue guidance to clarify the issue.

Danvers Baillieu, a specialist internet lawyer with Pinsent Masons, said that while there was no public interest defence "it doesn't mean that a jury would convict a person, or a judge would punish them, because there is usually a discretion in such cases". However, he added that "the difficulty for news organisations is the question of where do you draw the line: would it be legitimate to break into somebody's house who is suspected of committing a crime? The issue with computer offences is that people can do it from their offices, and believe it is a lesser offence than any other type of intrusion."

WTF a lawyer is doing speculating on what any random jury may or may not do ... I have no idea. Running off at the mouth for no reason: criminal act: charge them and let the judge and jury bang the pair of 'em up.

Tubb's authorised email hacking contrasts with another example of a potentially illegal email access, conducted by Patrick Foster while he was employed by the Times. Foster accessed emails belonging to the anonymous police blogger Nightjack to out him as the serving Lancashire police officer, Richard Horton, but his actions were not authorised by any executive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/05/sky-news-hacking-emails-canoe-man

 

[savoloysam]

I cannot believe they thought it was alright because the people were suspected criminals. Well can we all start hacking into your Sky's shit then under the same pretense?

 

[Dan U]

Coincidentally the journo concerned at Sky retired today after 17 years service

 

[London_Calling]

The C4 News Home Affairs Correspondant seemed to miss the key argument; while there is, in law, no Public Interest defence, Sky are claiming some kind of legitimacy based on what they discovered. But that (bogus) legitimacy itself presupposes the police had been/would be so inept as to not look at the emails of husband and wife during the course of their investigation.

That's all Sky did - not even basic 'investigative journalism', they just bought the email account passwords for the (online) pop email addresses from a corrupt employee somewhere for a small fee.

 

[Gingerman]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/uk/murdochs-239m-for-shutting-news-of-world-7621631.html

 

[butchersapron]

Interesting - seems the Motorman files have leaked and are being released at midnight.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Interesting - seems the Motorman files have leaked and are being released at midnight.

Oh my, that should be good for a few chuckles

 

[butchersapron]

Why are all the papers being so quiet over this?

 

[London_Calling]

What do you mean by "released"? If you mean Guido Fawkes was thinking of putting out details of Steve Whittamore's jobs, he's probably had second thoughts.

Depends what you mean though...

 

[butchersapron]

He's released the blue book section that lists all the News International entries and the services requested from Whittamore.

 

[London_Calling]

Obv. every news org has that information. I presume the reason no other has "released" is so to not get in the way of the on going Leveson.

Guido Fawkes has already got in the way of Leveson (over Campbell's witness statement) and reminds me a little of, say, The Indie - trying very hard to appear relevant and significant.

So he publishes what everyone else knows already, and then expressly states "Guido is not commenting further for the moment".

Perhaps what Guido Fawkes wants is for Leveson to pull him up short: 'fuck the legal niceties/process, it's about meeee'.

/best guess

 

[butchersapron]

Everyone else already knows? You? You knew all these names and what sort of action they paid Whittamore for?

 

[London_Calling]

No time for your silly bollocks today but, no, I'm not a news org.

 

[butchersapron]

So then why are you saying everyone else already knew? Is somehow the entirely of the country constituted by news organisations? If not why even begin to go down the road that you did?

 

[London_Calling]

Look, you got excited by a two-bob blogger. It's no big deal. Move on.

 

[elbows]

I don't think people are talking about it right now because of rather large potential legal issues. Apparently Guido went to Ireland before releasing it.

 

[butchersapron]

Look, you got excited by a two-bob blogger. It's no big deal. Move on.

The more i look at the logic of your above posts the odder they appear - something is not a revelation if someone else knew it before. Ok.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't think people are talking about it right now because of rather large potential legal issues. Apparently Guido went to Ireland before releasing it.

That almost certainly is part of it - may well be other motivations as well. The ICO have't said they're def going to the police or anything mind...

 

[elbows]

One of the only stories I've seen about this so far:

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/ha...leaks-are-inevitable-guido-fawkes/s2/a548697/

 

[two sheds]

The last time people have been directly accused of something fraudulent was by that policewoman who was then accused of prejudicing any potential criminal cases.

I wonder if that is it - in which case this is a juiciness meter. If there's evidence of actual fraud, bribery, blackmail etc then Leverson can't hear it.

And if is this is right, errrm what is the point? Apart from possibly allowing him to come out at the end saying "I have heard no evidence of fraud, bribery ...." so there's no need for any criminal trials. Just what was ordered, sir .

Private Eye commented on the ex. Met lawyer (? again, sorry I'll swear they all had names but I can't remember them) who was told to go away because he was making accusations that were unfair because the police couldn't counter. The latest issue suggested that this came not from a cover-up but because Leveson is swimming in information and is finding it difficult to handle more.

 

[London_Calling]

I don't think people are talking about it right now because of rather large potential legal issues. Apparently Guido went to Ireland before releasing it.

It's actually a rather large potential legal process - for which most have, in this instance anyway, respect because (a) it is a full scale Public Inquiry and (b) it's about them - about the role of the media.

So the media are hugely keen to play by the rules - thus demonstrating (to Leveson) a new-found capacity for restraint. Which is the finding they want Leveson to make (that they can self-regulate). Unless you're a two-bob attention seeker.

At the same time Leveson is aware that if he somehow avoids an important area, he will be reminded (as the media have the means example: Motorman). But even where Leveson may currently go is partially contrained by the newly earnest, and heavily investigating, Met.

A reminder of Leveson Part 2 - which can't begin until the Met (and others) have finished their investigations:

Part 2 of the inquiry will address:
"the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other media organisations or other organisations. It will also consider the extent to which any relevant police force investigated allegations relating to News International, and whether the police received corrupt payments or were otherwise complicit in misconduct."[5]

So this is about a process, one thing before another, in the appropriate order.

 

[two sheds]

Yes that makes more sense than my version.

In which case the process presumably carries on its appropriate order until a judge remarks on the fragrance of the defendants' wives and husbands and considers that they've all suffered enough, really.

 

[agricola]

Yes that makes more sense than my version.

In which case the process presumably carries on its appropriate order until a judge remarks on the fragrance of the defendants' wives and husbands and considers that they've all suffered enough, really.

That is what most public inquiries are set up to achieve.

 

[London_Calling]

On this Motorman business, The Guardian finally crafted an artful piece of, erm, 'objective and balanced' reportage:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/10/operation-motorman-guido-fawkes

 

[butchersapron]

On this Motorman business, The Guardian finally crafted an artful piece of, erm, 'objective and balanced' reportage:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/10/operation-motorman-guido-fawkes

Finally? Yeah - you got excited by a two-bob blogger

 

[London_Calling]

No. Nothing here except Paul Staines acting the tosser.

 

[butchersapron]

No. Nothing here except Paul Staines acting the tosser.

No revelation of names and who did what? Pretty solid names.

 

[agricola]

No. Nothing here except Paul Staines acting the tosser.

Not really - he is doing his usual self-promotion thing, but as Hacked Off has said the Motorman files should be released to the public, in as full and clear a manner as possible, minus necessary redactions (but enabling victims to identify themselves and come forwards).