Aside from the fact that its not "hacking".
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24746550
This is going to be interesting, at least to me.
Whether they knew about it or not, proving it will be very hard. I have no doubt that they approved and paid financial rewards, and knew that they were approving them; Although that doesn't really prove much insofar as accessing someone else's voicemail is concerned.
And unauthorized phone access? I doubt that they actually knew, although perhaps they suspected. And I would be shocked if they "officially" knew.
For example, sometimes I work on sensitive stuff. Sometimes I know stuff about the situation that I share with those paying me. I pretty much never share how I know, and as far as I can recall I've never been asked. (In my case this is to avoid demystifying my perceived value rather than concealing anything illegal). Although perhaps its obvious that what I know came roundabout.
Particularly in this case I am unclear as to why the person who pays the bribe is somehow more morally reprehensible than the person who received the bribe. I would have rather thought it should be the other way around.
What equally confounds me is how the newspaper buying public is quite happy to read such private and lurid stories, especially those featuring the phrase "sources close to...." but somehow leap on an outraged soapbox when the "friend" turns out to be voicemail.
|
you are the sub editor. One of your reporters says to you " Milly Dowlers messages on her phone have not been picked up"
You honestly telling me, you would have no idea how that information was obtained?
And as for hacking. Your voicemail is yours, protected by a password. It does not fall into the public domain by accident, someone has to make a physical attempt to access it, and bypass a password to get there.
Sounds like hacking to me.
And as for bribery, its an offence. You can't make it ok to pay, but illegal to accept.
|
But the reporter wouldn't say that, being aware of the situation.
In a similar way I am sure that at some point in your career you have delivered a status report or personnel report to your boss which he suspects is factually incorrect but he lets slide trusting you to deal with the situation?
I don't really see that using someone else's default or paid for password is the same as hacking, but if it is, then it is. Seems more like an emotive media term to me.
I made no comment about the legality of bribing, merely that I don;t see the moral difference between paying and receiving.
>>you would have no idea how that information was obtained?
Maybe I would, or maybe I would not. But I wouldn't ask, you wouldn't tell me, and nobody could every prove that I "knew".
|
>> But the reporter wouldn't say that, being aware of the situation.
>>
>> In a similar way I am sure that at some point in your career you
>> have delivered a status report or personnel report to your boss which he suspects is
>> factually incorrect but he lets slide trusting you to deal with the situation?
As the boss, if it all goes TU I know I would carry the can if I accepted something, that can easily be verified to be false. You need to verify the veracity of the source. Every editor was a reporter at some time, so they know how informants obtain information.
The real issue at work here, is that the press, including proprietors and editorial staff consider it fair game to obtain information, regardless of how illegal it is to obtain it and the law never really made an effort to prove otherwise. The police are also at fault here, the Surrey* police knew fairly early on that her phone had been hacked, (lets call it that for clarity) and did nothing about it, even at one point arranging a meeting to discuss it. Bosses would have been aware at that point for sure.
The question is, is the offence (criminal or moral) authorising it before it happened, allowing it to continue, or failing to prevent it happening in the future. I bet I could prove they knew it happened in the past, knew it was likely to happen in the future and failed to stop it before this case came up.
* Easily the most useless force anywhere in the UK.
|
>>Easily the most useless force anywhere in the UK.
>>
Unfair shout Zero. Give D&CC a chance!!
|
|
There is no chance of finding the killers of that family in France, the French and Surrey forces are involved.
|
>>The real issue at work here...
By and large I agree. I do struggle with the general public reaction considering that they were the ones who so willingly pay for private details. Presumably they were happy with bribing friends (sources close to...) and officials, but somehow are totally revolted by listening to someone else's voicemail.
>> if I accepted something, that can easily be verified to be false
But the issue is not proving that it was false, but proving that they *knew* it to be false.
In this case the issue will be, I suspect, proving that they knew. (Proving sufficiently for a court of law).
Frankly I hope that it is proved, and that if they did know that they are suitably punished. The hypocrisy of the reading public still winds me up though.
|
>>
>> By and large I agree. I do struggle with the general public reaction considering that
>> they were the ones who so willingly pay for private details. Presumably they were happy
>> with bribing friends (sources close to...) and officials, but somehow are totally revolted by listening to someone else's voicemail.
>>
>>
>>
The public were and still are quite happy to see the press hacking phones or indeed do anything else to get gossip on the great and good, the people of this country being extremely resentful of any form of success. It was only the hacking of Millie Dowler's phone that tipped the mood into one of some rather suspect moral outrage.
|
>> And as for hacking. Your voicemail is yours, protected by a password. It does not
>> fall into the public domain by accident, someone has to make a physical attempt to
>> access it, and bypass a password to get there.
Can't speak for other networks, but O2 used to use a default PIN for everyone. It was up to the individual to change it from the network default one, which IIRC was something like 8705. I believe because of the phone hacking incidents this has all changed now and if you try and access your own O2 voicemail (or someone else's) from another phone other than your own without first setting a PIN, it will inform you that you first need set a PIN by dialing your voicemail from your phone before being able to access your voicemail from another phone.
|
>> I am unclear as to why the person who pays the bribe is somehow more morally reprehensible than the person who received the bribe. I would have rather thought it should be the other way around.
It must depend on the overall circumstances FMR. Think about it... a rich clever person paying a huge bribe to some poor illiterate so-and-so to do something (say) illegal whose implications may not be all that clear to the bribed person. Or the other way round, a doctor or paramedic demanding a bribe from a road accident victim before starting treatment... I've known that to happen, it was briefly a scandal in Nigeria in my Africa days.
|
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/30/phone-hacking-trial-news-of-world-staff
Andrew Edis QC said that those pleading guilty were former News of the World news editors Neville Thurlbeck, Greg Miskiw and James Weatherup. The court also heard that the private investigator contracted by the newspaper to undertake the alleged hacking, Glenn Mulcaire, had pleaded guilty.
Neville lives a few doors away from me and when I see him walking his dog IMO he has had a tag on his ankle for months covered by a sock. Not sure of his current situation.
|
In some places bribery is a way of life. I was generally hopeless at it, going all British and uptight, giving too much or too little, often at the wrong moment... a total simpleton. You have to be born there to know the ropes.
I was in a taxi once that got pulled at a roadblock. The policeman who came to the car said with a grin, not to the driver but to me: 'What are you going to give me?' Nothing if I can help it, I thought to myself.
Many years ago a Cairo taxi driver told me that the British are stingy, not like the Americans. The next day I went to see the pyramids with a British film director who, on our return to the hotel (an early Sunday morning in 1973), behaved in such a mean and despicable fashion to the taxi driver that I have been much gratified by his lack of success ever since.
|
In the case of Brooks, Colson, the private detectives and the fuzz, I would say that Brooks and Colson were just working, the fuzz were taking bribes which is more morally reprehensible.
It could be argued that no decent person would work as a tabloid hack. That may be so, but one isn't morally obligd to be a decent person. Work is work and it often demands indecent behaviour.
However all parties were committing criminal offences, and the law functions, sort of, in this country. Elsewhere another bribe will often get a criminal off the hook. You gotta have the braed though.
|
|
Corruption has its moments, unless you can't afford to pay. Then its rubbish.
|
I would suggest media-encouraged phone message interception is on a par with opening, reading, and acting upon someone else's snail mail.
There is little doubt it is both morally and legally wrong.
Perhaps there are 'smoking gun' emails incriminating the defendants?
I guess we'll need to let the process do its thing and find out.
|
>> media-encouraged phone message interception is on a par with opening, reading, and acting upon someone else's snail mail.
Media-'encouraged' Lygonos? They don't 'encourage' it at all. They just do it. Their job is to find stuff out and use it. When you're a hack you don't hesitate to read stuff not meant for your eyes, private, official-secret, intimate even.
Of course if you have any decency or sense of honour you use such material with care and restraint. But then not everyone is equally tabloid.
No hack can resist inside information, however obtained. But hacks think they have a right to it, unlike the hoi-polloi who wouldn't know how to use it.
|
I predict they'll be found not guilty and those that have already entered a guilty plea will be kicking themselves.
The jury have been told to expect the trial to last until Easter. I've been on a jury and believe the attention span of the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' isn't sufficient, let alone their intelligence.
|
>> I predict they'll be found not guilty and those that have already entered a guilty
>> plea will be kicking themselves.
>>
>> The jury have been told to expect the trial to last until Easter. I've been
>> on a jury and believe the attention span of the 'man on the Clapham omnibus'
>> isn't sufficient, let alone their intelligence.
>>
I'd take the opposite view. Those who've pleaded guilty may well have spilled the beans on what went on and implicated some or all of the others. I doubt they'd be willing to take the rap on their own.
|
>> No hack can resist inside information, however obtained.
And incidentally, what's all this screaming and yelling about the NSA and other governmental information-hoovering agencies tapping politicians' phones and emails? Their crap is a lot more interesting, crucial and potentially important than ours.
What astonishes me is that they complain about it when they all do it as a matter of course. Any fule know the electronic communications system is routinely filleted by the authorities and is effectively a public place. And top politicians' messages are the cream of the crop.
What a load of hypocritical twaddle. And from Mutti too, not just hysterics like our lot and the Frogs and Wops. I'm disappointed. She seems such a sensible woman.
|
Right from the early days of operator-connected phones, people assumed that phone conversations were not private, so were cautious about what they said.
I am constantly amazed at the naive blind trust that celebs and politicians place in the security of their conversations. Why don't they just assume that anything they say on a phone will be noted down and used in evidence, and act accordingly?
I know it's aillegal and all that, but honestly it's their own fault.
Similarly this business of people hacking into the US military etc. If you have something so secret that it would compromise national security if it became public, then why put it on a computer and plug it into the public internet? Why not just assume that the moment they plug the cable into the back of the computer, everything on that computer will be public property?
|
>> Similarly this business of people hacking into the US military etc. If you have something
>> so secret that it would compromise national security if it became public, then why put
>> it on a computer and plug it into the public internet?
Secrets are absolutely useless unless you can disseminate them within people on your own side who need to know. Often speed is of essence.
Plus of course, if you know you are being bugged, its often nice to spread a bit of disinformation.
|
>>
>>
>> Plus of course, if you know you are being bugged, its often nice to spread
>> a bit of disinformation.
Quite often correct information, tipping your hand every now and again is quite useful.
|
>>
>> Secrets are absolutely useless unless you can disseminate them within people on your own side
>> who need to know. Often speed is of essence.
>>
I can see they need a network between themselves, but why a public one? It's like sending confidential information on a postcard, and then when a corrupt postman reads it, wailing that you thought it was urgent.
|
>>
>
>> What astonishes me is that they complain about it when they all do it as
>> a matter of course. Any fule know the electronic communications system is routinely filleted by
>> the authorities and is effectively a public place. And top politicians' messages are the cream
>> of the crop.
>>
>> What a load of hypocritical twaddle. And from Mutti too, not just hysterics like our
>> lot and the Frogs and Wops. I'm disappointed. She seems such a sensible woman.
>>
The wailing is primarly for public consumption, of course they know it goes in both direction even amoungst allies.
|
I loved the photo in this weeks Private Eye of Angela Merkel on the phone talking to Obama.....saying ......
' Who do you think you are ? - Rupert Murdoch'......
|
|
The jury has been out a long time, hasn't it?
|
|
Its only been three or four days, hasn't it?
|
Wednesday June 11th, according to:-
tinyurl.com/m5ekaml
|
So far as I can tell form press etc jury retired latish in day on Wednesday 11th. That means effectively they've had four days including today.
It's a multi defendant/multi charge trial and the court heard eight months of evidence. The documentation is so complex that the jury have some sort of 'electronic paperclip' device allowing them to retrieve/view stuff.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/phone-hacking-trial-and-finally-jury-sent-out-after-eight-months-of-evidence-9530561.html
I'd expect them to be out for several more days and probably weeks. The judge has made clear both that they're under no time pressure and that the task facing them is large and demanding.
|
Am I the only one thinking Andy Coulson has become the lone fall guy?
Don't get me wrong, he was up to his neck in it ...but so was everyone else, IMO.
|
Coulson is only one to be found guilty by a jury. Several others including big names Thurlbeck and Miskiw as well a original 'rogue pair' Goodman and Mulcaire have pleaded guilty and await sentence. AFAIK the jury are still deliberating on Misconduct in Public Office charges (essentially bribing police for info) against Coulson and Goodman.
The defence attempted to get the jury discharged following publicity, including the PM's apology, which followed Coulson hacking verdict. The judge sought an explanation from No10 (hurrah for accountability) and refused application but was pretty critical of Cameron:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ruling-application-discharge-jury-in-coulson-goodman-others.pdf
|
What a load of humbug has exploded out of all this.
No journalist would dream of turning down inside information, however obtained. Of course decent hacks try to make decent (i.e. for background rather than shock horror effect) use of such info. The problem in this case arose out of savage competition between tabloids for a declining market, and there was some shameless excess, now being laid at the door of politicians.
Nor would a politician hesitate to employ a semi-villain like Andy Coulson in his private office. Takes one to spot one innit? Just commonsense.
But now the media are hypocritically trying to put it all on the Prime Minister. What a load of cobblers. And incidentally, do we want our PM to be distracted from serious matters by having to look over his shoulder at those yapping at his heels?
|
|
And incidentally, yesterday's comic had a very good main political cartoon of David Cameron as that little boy who got covered in slime up to his armpits paddling in Weston-Super-Mare (I hope all the comics had the photo which appeared the day before and was delightful), being scolded by Mutti in the role of the little boy's mother... charming, tee hee!
|
>> And incidentally, yesterday's comic had a very good main political cartoon of David Cameron as
>> that little boy who got covered in slime up to his armpits paddling in Weston-Super-Mare
>> being scolded by Mutti in the role of the little boy's mother... charming, tee
>> hee!
>>
Yes, I saw that, very good.
|
>> But now the media are hypocritically trying to put it all on the Prime Minister.
Not that he and other politicos are especially pure or innocent. I don't want to come across as pro-government. And Cameron is far from personable when he huffs and puffs and tries to shift the blame. Indignation doesn't suit him at all.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 27 Jun 14 at 18:09
|
Coulson and others to be re tried on misconduct in public office charges arising form purchase of 'royal phone directory'.
Meantime, sentencing hearing is takinhg place:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/30/andy-coulson-news-world-phone-hacking-trial
|
>> www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/26/Hacking-Investigation-And-Trial-Cost-100m
Much of that £100m has been spent by Murdoch group. Much of the public cost is down to same group fighting at every turn.
It's not about 'listening to celeb tittle tattle' but corruption of national life and politics.
|
People think the nonce Harris got a lenient sentence. I was a bit surprised by the lenience of Andy Coulson's... I thought three years seemed likely.
But my real surprise tonight was seeing Rebekah Brooks playing baritone sax in some boring band at Glasters which came on with the box just before I zapped elsewhere. Anyway if it wasn't her the girl could get work as a lookalike. Same hair, very similar face... and the baritone is a big instrument that only a tall strong woman can play.
God how I love television. Makes life magical.
|
>> People think the nonce Harris got a lenient sentence.
>>
>> God how I love television. Makes life magical.
>>
A UK TV reporter was commenting immediately after the Harris result was announced and how would he be treated in jail.
...as a nonce ... immediately he added .." nonce means not once .
Oh dear, I bet that clip was not played again. Have the red tops reported it?
Live TV can make me smile.
|
>> Oh dear, I bet that clip was not played again. Have the red tops reported
>> it?
>>
>> Live TV can make me smile.
>>
And live radio...
Yesterday, Chris Evans interviewed Bob Geldof.. *
'Good morning Bod, how are you?'
'Not bad, Thank you...'
'And the family?'
Long pause.... (broken voice) 'Bearing up..'
*Words may not be totally accurately quoted, gist is....
|
The questions around Tom Watson reminded me of (a) his role n exposing hacking and (b) the fact that the saga may not be over..
There are still at least two unexploded grenades.
The first is that there is a second phase of Leveson still to come looking at the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International and other media organisations. In particular it will look at relationships with police and any corrupt practices.
If all the criminal cases against journos/informants have now finished the road is clear for Leveson 2.
The second is that the preliminary skirmish over press intrusion was Operation Motorman. A raid on private investigator Steve Whattamore carried out by the Information Commissioner which turned up evidence of widespread intrusion across pretty much he whole of the UK media. The names of the journalists who'd instructed Whattamore were never revealed.
Freedom of Information requests seeking those names were refused but appeals have been upheld in both the First-tier and Upper Tribunals. The latter stayed disclosure pending the matter going to the Court of Appeal which, sine no names have been published, has presumably happened.
|
Phone hacking... - Zero
