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

[equationgirl]

What I don't get is when these company directors and other moneybags get the chop but are given a golden handshake of millions, they go off and get another job! Wtf? Why don't they just retire?

Because they can't live without the power, probably.

 

[Streathamite]

The former is exactly what's happened every time in the last hundred years that any attempt has been made to curb the press. I think we've got adequate proof that they're not interested in complying with non-statutory codes, but the politicians are never going to risk having the media set against them by passing Leveson.

tragically, you are probably right. having said that, if i were Milliband - and about a million times bolder than he is - I'd be thinking 'f-it, shit or bust', on the grounds they'll probably end up crucifying him anyway

 

[DaveCinzano]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ver-links-with-news-of-the-world-8168128.html

Just for inf, not for comment.

Sounds like they are going after her using the official secrets act too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20181049

Convicted today:

A senior counter-terrorism detective was today found guilty of trying to sell information to the News of the World.

Detective Chief Inspector April Casburn committed a 'gross breach' of the public’s trust by calling the now-closed tabloid and offering details of the phone-hacking investigation in return for payment.

The 53-year-old was found guilty of one count of misconduct in public office by jurors at Southwark Crown Court and is now facing jail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ell-phone-hacking-information-News-World.html

 

[agricola]

Convicted today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ell-phone-hacking-information-News-World.html

Bit of a troubling decision, at least based on the reported facts of the case. Hopefully fuller reporting of what went on will soon be seen.

 

[two sheds]

I'll swear that the story I saw on it yesterday centred on her complaint being that the police who had been appointed to the investigation were treating it as a jolly, and were competing with each other as to who could interview the nicest actress.

 

[laptop]

I'll swear that the story I saw on it yesterday centred on her complaint being that the police who had been appointed to the investigation were treating it as a jolly, and were competing with each other as to who could interview the nicest actress.

I remember that being her complaint, too.

Lots about being a woman in a blokey office, too.

Two men working under her got their own offices, but she had to share...

 

[DexterTCN]

What I heard was there was an email from one notw to another saying she'd phoned offering to sell info. She said she'd only phoned to complain about resources, sexism etc....then apparently she broke down and cried in court....that's when I knew she was guilty.

 

[laptop]

So the jury decided they trusted NotW hacks over plod

 

[DexterTCN]

So the jury decided they trusted NotW hacks over plod

Only because it was the plod on trial, hopefully.

It's all relative.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Bit of a troubling decision, at least based on the reported facts of the case. Hopefully fuller reporting of what went on will soon be seen.

Why is it troubling?. A DCI phones up a suspect and offers inside details of an investigation ffs.

 

[DexterTCN]

Why is it troubling?. A DCI phones up a suspect and offers inside details of an investigation ffs.

No...no..no! That's a terrible lie.

The reason she phoned them the morning after finding out about one of her staff being pulled to help a notw investigation and ask for money to tell them about it...no...wait...she didn't ask for money!........she wanted to talk about sexism in the workplace.....to the notw.

I will now do a short sketch on why sexism is more important than terrorism to notw and the reasons why this makes sense.

'blank'

/new low, plod makes less sense than notw

 

[agricola]

Why is it troubling?. A DCI phones up a suspect and offers inside details of an investigation ffs.

The troubling bit being that it apparently wasnt inside details of the investigation that were offered (indeed reading the Guardian reporting of the trial, the only names that were ever mentioned were those that had been already reported as being under investigation in the press), nor apparently could it have been because she wasnt a part of the investigation anyway.

 

[DexterTCN]

The troubling bit being that it apparently wasnt inside details of the investigation that were offered...

Doesn't need to be...still tipping off a suspect under investigation, surely.

A heinous crime.

 

[agricola]

Doesn't need to be...still tipping off a suspect under investigation, surely.

A heinous crime.

So it would seem, though the Guardian report of what the main plank of evidence was should be born in mind when considering what constitutes "tipping off".

 

[DexterTCN]

So it would seem, though the Guardian report of what the main plank of evidence was should be born in mind when considering what constitutes "tipping off".

The reporter on the News of the World who took the call, Tim Wood, wrote an email to more senior colleagues, detailing what he claimed had been said. It was the crown's main evidence against Casburn.
It read: "PHONE TAPPING. A senior policewoman ... who claims to be working on the phone-tapping investigation wants to sell inside info on the police inquiry. She says the investigation was launched yesterday (Fri) by Yates and he is using 'counter-terrorist assets', which is highly unusual. An intelligence development team is being used and they are looking at six people. Coulson, Hoare and a woman she cannot remember the name of.

That would be our flame-haired, horse-riding friend.

Almost as much black-mail as tipping off.

But Patrick Gibbs QC, her counsel, asked the judge to take into account the fact that Casburn was in the process of adopting a child. Sources close to her said she was reeling after being told she could face a five-year jail term because the judge wanted to make an example of her.

Well...if she started this process after she knew about the investigation should should get an extra two years.

 

[sleaterkinney]

The troubling bit being that it apparently wasnt inside details of the investigation that were offered (indeed reading the Guardian reporting of the trial, the only names that were ever mentioned were those that had been already reported as being under investigation in the press), nor apparently could it have been because she wasnt a part of the investigation anyway.

Surely the troubling(to me anyway) bit is why she was phoning a suspect up?

 

[pesh]

the troubling bit for me is, ummm. no. none of this is troubling me. fuck her.

 

[agricola]

DCI Cashburn got fifteen months. Brooks et al will have trouble sleeping tonight, if that sentence is the starting point (no money exchanged hands, very little private information was actually transferred, no story was based on what was leaked).

 

[two sheds]

Is that representative, though? She was passing on information that made the police look bad, which clearly needs extra punishment.

 

[ymu]

And repeatedly soliciting that information, corrupting public servants, is less serious? Her crime couldn't happen without theirs.

 

[gosub]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...defeat-as-Lords-votes-for-new-press-laws.html

 

[DexterTCN]

Slipped in quietly.

 

[two sheds]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-staff-in-dirty-tricks-campaign-8482326.html

News International is accused of having engaged in systematic political dirty tricks against the former Labour government by hacking the phones of party workers inside key offices.

The publisher has recently settled a hacking claim with Amanda Ramsay, who was targeted at a time she worked in the office of Labour whip Graham Stringer MP. The agreement follows other settlements with other Labour party workers Hilary Perrin, the former regional organiser for London, and Joan Hammell, who was targeted while working as a special adviser to John Prescott.

Ms Ramsay said she believes she was targeted by the News of the World because her job meant that she frequently had discussions with and socialised with Labour ministers. Her private data, including the address and phone number of her parents, was found by police in notebooks listing the personal information of hacking victims of the Sunday tabloid, which was closed by Rupert Murdoch in 2011.

Ms Ramsay, who is hoping to stand as a Labour MP for Bristol South in the next general election, would not discuss details of her settlement, but The Independent understands from separate sources outside of her legal team that the company paid her in excess of £20,000 in compensation.

With all these people reaching private settlements presumably this means that, because they aren't coming to court, the information doesn't become public.

If one person took it to court surely they could drag all the information on NI hacking into the public domain. The danger to that person being presumably if they were awarded less than NI offered they would be liable for NI's legal costs.

I think.

 

[equationgirl]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-staff-in-dirty-tricks-campaign-8482326.html



With all these people reaching private settlements presumably this means that, because they aren't coming to court, the information doesn't become public.

If one person took it to court surely they could drag all the information on NI hacking into the public domain. The danger to that person being presumably if they were awarded less than NI offered they would be liable for NI's legal costs.

I think.

I believe you're only liable for the other party's costs if you lose your case.

 

[two sheds]

Don't think so

Offers to settle were introduced in the civil procedure with the purpose of encouraging early settlements and reducing legal costs. In money claims offers to settle are considered formal economic bids; they are made frequently by one party after a legal action has started with the purpose of reaching an agreement between litigants, resulting in the case being dropped. These offers have an additional consequence, if the offeree refuses to accept the offer to settle, and the case continues all the way to a judgment which ends up being less favourable than the previous offer, then the offeree will have to pay the legal costs of the offeror from the moment the offer was made.

http://www.ejcl.org/133/art133-1.pdf

 

[ymu]

Bloody hell. That is blatantly there to allow the rich to buy silence.

Thanks for digging that up two sheds. Can't bring myself to like it.

 

[two sheds]

Would like confirmation from someone legal but that's what I understand.

Part 36 offers can form an important part of the negotiation process. "Part 36" refers to a section of the Civil Procedure Rules, which govern the way court cases are conducted in England and Wales, dealing with offers to settle.

Either party can make a Part 36 offer. If the defendant makes a Part 36 offer and the claimant does not accept it, the claimant will have to pay a proportion of the defendant's costs if the amount of compensation ultimately awarded by the court is less than what the defendant offered. The same is true, in reverse, if the defendant refuses to accept a Part 36 offer from the claimant. Therefore, the Part 36 offer can be a useful tool, and the possibility of cost sanctions means that a party receiving a Part 36 offer generally will have to give it serious consideration.

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/accidents_and_injuries/personal_injury/500061.html

That page is for personal injury cases but I think it's for civil cases generally. And yes it does tend to mean that you'd only take someone rich on if you've not got any money and don't mind going bankrupt.

Eta: mind a mate fought a case against the scientologists and won but the judge awarded part of the costs against him (he fought it on his own and reckons he cost them about a million in total the man's a fucking hero) , which bankrupted him. They then appealed the case and .... he couldn't fight it because he was bankrupt. Which was another nice law for the rich.

 

[Chook]

Timeline of Gordon Taylors case shows multiple uses of Part 36 offers.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcumeds/903/90306.htm

May 2008 Farrer & Co offered £150,000 plus costs and undertakings. The offer was made under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Gordon Taylor rejected the offer and Mark Lewis, who was acting on behalf of him for George Davies LLP, stated that he was not interested in negotiation and wanted to take the case to trial.

 

[two sheds]

Good men, and good luck to them. I wonder how far they can go in demanding documents from NI.

 

[Chook]

Half way to India at least, you would hope.