NoTW (News of The World and privacy)

[RosieH]

Applause.

[david_carnell]

And on cue, the sun appears from behind the clouds in central London. Blair before the Chilcott inquiry, Balls preparing to savage Osborne across the dispatch box and Coulson resigns.

Happy days.

[ruffers]

Sky crew outside his house on Wood Vale, will that East Dulwich fellah who's always in the background be popping round?

[louisiana]

"Everyone knew. The office cat knew." I'm more inclined to believe a NoW reporter on this than Andy Pandy covering his precious ass.

[silverfox]

A lot of the Red Tops will be worried that this story is finally coming to life. It won't stop at the NoW.

[LadyTaTa]

I still think The Guardian is bloody hypocritical to publicise the wiki diplomatic tittle-tattle (I'm talking about the guff and not the 'cut off the head of the snake' stories), and then moralise about hacking Sienna Miller's phone.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Not sure what the parantheses refer to but a newspaper actually bugging peoples phones for a potential if flimsy story versus a newspaper being presented, by a completely different third party, with documented evidence of governments lying to people seems like two fairly distinct things to me

[LadyTaTa]

The parenthesis refer to the two types of wikileaks stories - one type being evidence of governments acting in a way they purported not to, or concealing information that is in the public interest; the second type being essentially a form of heat magazine for diplomats. In both cases, they were obtained by a means that is technically considered illegal.

I don't read red-tops and I don't care for their standards, but I don't see how leaking an illegally obtained flimsy story is OK, whether it's from a diplomat or a celebrity.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I hear what you are saying, but for me the difference comes down to initiating the subterfuge, as opposed to just reporting on it. If it was the NotW reporting wikileaks for example I wouldn't be so bothered

But using your own reporters and methods to do this is a step further

[louisiana]

LTT, Wikileaks did not break the law to obtain any story. That is is the difference.

In the case of the NoTW, and no doubt other red tops, the newspaper's own staff broke the law on the off-chance of maybe finding out something about somebody's private life. In the case of Wikileaks, they didn't break the law, and it wasn't about anybody's private life, it was a diplomatic communication that someone is being paid a salary to produce, and others are being paid a salary to read/analyse/etc. It's a workplace communication.

[LadyTaTa]

Wikileaks publicised illegally-gained information - depending on the complexities of law (and your point of view) depends on whether you define that illegal or not.

I would consider the NoTW behaviour indefensible, but then I'm not sure that leaking 'news' that, say, the Duke of York acting like an offensive drunk is a) a suprise and b) morally superior. Anyway, I don't want to start a wikileaks debate given this is a NoTW thread. I just think The Guardian is really up itself sometimes, without any good reason.

[LadyTaTa]

OK I've just re-read that and it makes it sound as if I think NoTW is somehow superior than The Guardian... which I don't... god I should just keep my opinions to myself!

[david_carnell]

NOTW sack Ian Edmundson.

Another police force open investigations.

Meanwhile Murdoch presses the govt for further control over the news agenda in Britain. It'll be a disgrace of the highest order if that goes ahead.