Hacking thing has been ludicrously overblown

[silverfox]

"...this whole hacking thing has been ludicrously overblown..." Matthew Parris

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/matthewparris/article3088836.ece

Hear hear - a voice of reason at last amidst the Facebook/Twitter lynch mob generation

[Earl Aelfheah]

NOTW interfered with a murder enquiry, deleting phone messages and potentially destroying evidence. There is now a suggestion that they may have been bribing police and they certainly intimidated politicians. News International are hugely powerful, to the point that they have, for a long time, been above the law.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Here's a good article, explaining why this matters:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7075673/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml

[silverfox]

"..NOTW interfered with a murder enquiry, deleting phone messages and potentially destroying evidence..."

It is alleged the private investigator did this, not the NoW.

If you're one of the many on the anti-Murdoch gravy train please check facts.

[paphio]

Why do phone companies ( hardware and software) make it so easy to hack into our conversations/messages? Should it not all be encrypted. And decrypted solely when given some form of warrant by a judge ?

[taper]

No: this is serious stuff. Murdoch has closed the NoTW, the PM has called for the PCC to be shut down, and his one time right hand man has been arrested. Them is the facts

[StraferJack]

and we could all read that paid-by-Murdoch Matthew Paris piece if it wasn't a pay-Mr-Murdoch firewall - any chance you can screengrab it for us?

[Earl Aelfheah]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "..NOTW interfered with a murder enquiry, deleting

> phone messages and potentially destroying

> evidence..."

>

> It is alleged the private investigator did this,

> not the NoW.

Yes, a private investigator paid by the NoW

[????]

lol at the hypocracy of calling the people attacking NOTW a lynch mob....there's a paper that's never encouraged lynch mobs.

2/10 Silverfox.

The whole ugly thing is undefendable....and I like contrary positions.

Where I think there's a lot of hypocracy is that the public didn't give a shite when it was celebrities......which, legally and in all honesty morally was wrong, as, to be fair to him, that old poster SeanMac pointed out on several occasions and was right to do so.

[silverfox]

In 2006, the information commissioner reported newspapers had used Stephen Whittamore, a private detective, to obtain information in breach of data protection law. Whittamore was used by many papers, not just News of the World. Listed here are the number of ?transactions positively identified? by the commissioner and (in brackets) the number of journalists at each title involved:

Daily Mail 952 (58)

Sunday People 802 (50)

Daily Mirror 681 (45)

Mail on Sunday 266 (33)

News of World 228 (23)

Sunday Mirror 143 (25)

Evening Standard 130 (1)

The Observer 103 (4)

Daily Express 36 (7)

The Sun 24 (4)

The Sunday Times 4 (1)

The Times 2 (1)

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/focus/article667055.ece#next

[DJKillaQueen]

Live by the sword, die by the sword I'm afraid Silverfox. Any paper has a duty to ensure the people they employ are lawful and legal in the way they go about things. NOTW got caught.

[Loz]

Did you see that idiot ex-journo on newsnight the other night, when Steve Coogan laid into him? He actually tried to defend hacking into people's phones.

[????]

..he actually said Everyone Does it I think! Still we heard that quoted widely during the Expenses debacle.

[silverfox]

But that's not what this whole thing is about is it?

Hacking is naughty, of course, and people will go to prison over this. It's old scores being settled, the Guardian fighting for it's very survival as it ceases printing newspapers and moves online (and presumably starts charging to view). Why do you think the BBC has given this 24-hour wall to wall coverage? Because of the threat a unified BSkyB poses to it of course.

I'm not denying this raises some fundamental questions of the abuse of power, relations with the establishment and the police, the role of a free press in society etc.

My point is the outraged masses calling for boycotts of the Murdoch press are unwitting pawns in the political games being played out by more sinister forces.

[Otta]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Where I think there's a lot of hypocracy is that

> the public didn't give a shite when it was

> celebrities......which, legally and in all honesty

> morally was wrong, as, to be fair to him, that old

> poster SeanMac pointed out on several occasions

> and was right to do so.

I agree with this point, but whilst it is still very wrong, I don't think it's in the same league morally as the Dowler thing.

What annoyed me a bit was the bbc ranting about the 7/7 victims' families having their privacy invaded. Not long after 7/7, they made a programme where they took the fiance of one of the victims to the home of the father of one of the bombers (unannounced) and filmed him confronting the poor man on his doorstep.

Now that was an invasion of privacy, and one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen on telly.

[taper]

'some fundamental questions of the abuse of power, relations with the establishment and the police, the role of a free press in society etc. '

Yeah so frig all really. Bloody BBC.

[StraferJack]

What mcmullan said on newsnight was "what better way to find out what people really think than by hacking into their phones"

If anyone wants to defend anything he says then go ahead but you can probably make any point better than him

Silverfox is tilting at windmills. Some vague idea that the guardian has even a teeny fraction of the power of the Murdoch press. But this shouldn't be a guardian v Murdoch thing ultimately. Even if they are the players, the revelations should be enough to freeze you to your core. If you want to use a comfort blanket of anti-guardian sentiment silverfox that's up to you. Do other papers do it too? Yep and let's have it all out on the table

And don't worry about murdoch. Unless his empire is killed off they will come back and (underhandedly and disgustingly) CRUCIFY the guardian. And miliband

[James Barber]

This is incredibly important. One man Murdoch controls 40% of the UK's national print newspapers and desire's to replicat this oon Broadcast media.

Blair flew across the world when summoned by Murdoch. The first day of Cameron being Prime Minister Murdoch is seen leaving no.10 by the back door.

It is not safe for a democracy to have so much media controlled by one person who has been very clear in wanting to be the 'kingmaker' of British politics. With having such a huge share of the print media and with plans to do the same with broadcast media the old adage - power corrupts, etc - and clearly NoTW had been corrupt in ethical terms for many years.

We need to move on from a simplistic competition regulations in commercial terms of media which has allowed such aggregation of media power into regulations designed to limit political influence. I suspect limiting media ownership to 10-15% of print media with no cross ownership with broadcasting and requirement for UK citizenship ownership is required UNLESS they remain politically neutral and are regulated to remain so. The BBC is clearly influential but its charter is about keeping neutral.

[Otta]

Agreed James, but can you see Cameron going for that? It would seem to be against his entire ideology.

[Loz]

Cameron seems to be curiously floundering on this one. He's usually up front leading on stuff like this, especially when public opinion is so united. But he seems to be dodging the limelight at every opportunity. Labour and the Lib Dems seem to be taking the reins here.

It'll be interesting if Labour word their BSkyB motion in a way that the Lib Dems and some Tories can support it.

[ianr]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Did you see that idiot ex-journo on newsnight the other night, when Steve Coogan laid into him? He

> actually tried to defend hacking into people's phones.

Do read Hugh Grant's NS article about him (as mentioned in my 26 April post on this page) if you've not already done so.

[citizenED]

I see that Rupert and James Murdoch and Rebecca Brooks have all been asked to face the Parliamentary Committee on the 19th July. I imagine that the chairman of that committee will have relished the phonecall he made to Murdoch senior; no doubt he said "See you next Tuesday."

[willypickles]

Good news coming out Reuters.

also

"Blair flew across the world when summoned by Murdoch. The first day of Cameron being Prime Minister Murdoch is seen leaving no.10 by the back door. "

James you forgot the near "deafening silence" from your own party when Vince got jumped by 2 NewsCorp sponsored Telegraph Journo's.

But hey in the end Vince went to war and it looks like war won.

[Loz]

Sometimes you have to laugh... Back in March, the Sun laid into a few members of the judiciary, berating them for being too soft. The campaign was called 'The Sun Says No To Soft Justice'. One of the judges targeted was... a Lord Justice Brian Leveson.

Let's hope he can show the Sun how hard he can come down on criminals, mainly by chucking a few of them in jail.

[featheroffreedom]

So i think we can lock this thread now, obviously the answer in the real world is No it was not ! Well done everybody of who involved. And well done to Ed Milliband for showing some leadership finally and Nick C & David C.

Remember any kind of censorship , however small has its roots in something rather unsavoury.