Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

profitofdoom

Murdoch,wade,coulson &mulcair

Recommended Posts

So it turns out that they were all in it up to their necks from the beginning. Now it's obvious which one will carry the can out of the proprietor.the two editors and the shady pox doctor's clerk.The first two will get off scot free,Coulson will lose what reputation he had left and Mulcair will eat some more porridge. Cynical moi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it turns out that they were all in it up to their necks from the beginning. Now it's obvious which one will carry the can out of the proprietor.the two editors and the shady pox doctor's clerk.The first two will get off scot free,Coulson will lose what reputation he had left and Mulcair will eat some more porridge. Cynical moi?

You forgot Andy Hayman. As does the bbc whenever they cover the story. I even heard an interviewer once trying to close down an interviewee who mentioned him. Anyone any idea why someone so central stays in the background?

The revelations increase the prospect of the government ordering a new inquiry into the affair. While Scotland Yard's public position remains that it did all that its resources and the law permitted, some police sources admit privately that they failed to fully investigate the case, that decisions may have been distorted by a fear of upsetting Rupert Murdoch's newspapers, and that it was "unfortunate" that the officer in charge of the inquiry, assistant commissioner Andy Hayman, subsequently left the police to work for News International as a columnist.

Guardian link April 2010

Has there ever been a worse use of the word `unfortunate'?

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now it seems as though Coulson authorised payments to the Police "for information." This is supposedly illegal.

My thoughts watching Peston's piece tonight was that this is corporatism run riot. Lack of basic morality, and the incestuous relationships between corporates and government, and even the Police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to know how much 'hacking' could be done to a 2001 mobile phone.

Or do they just mean dialling the landline voicemail retreival number, and entering the default PIN?

Hardly "l33t skillz."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it turns out that they were all in it up to their necks from the beginning. Now it's obvious which one will carry the can out of the proprietor.the two editors and the shady pox doctor's clerk.The first two will get off scot free,Coulson will lose what reputation he had left and Mulcair will eat some more porridge. Cynical moi?

was it ever in doubt?

Wellcome to the free west :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now it seems as though Coulson authorised payments to the Police "for information." This is supposedly illegal.

My thoughts watching Peston's piece tonight was that this is corporatism run riot. Lack of basic morality, and the incestuous relationships between corporates and government, and even the Police.

If true no wonder the police haven't been very through investigating it.

This has all the hallmarks of a major political scandal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If true no wonder the police haven't been very through investigating it.

This has all the hallmarks of a major political scandal.

Did you see that clip on last nights news where it showed Blair as PM visiting the Sun's offices. He spots Rebekah Brooks, gives a little girly wave and then proceeds to embrace her, with a minion telling the press to cease filming immediately. We see what we are mean't to see, and its agreed by a cosy conspiracy between the press and the government.

And I think Brooks had Christmas dinner with the Camerons. Its all far too cosy.

But even worse is that the police corruption angle of receiving money in exchange for information. Its treated almost as a matter of no importance.

We live in a corporate fascist state, and what we see is a carefully orchestrated mirage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now it seems as though Coulson authorised payments to the Police "for information." This is supposedly illegal.

My thoughts watching Peston's piece tonight was that this is corporatism run riot. Lack of basic morality, and the incestuous relationships between corporates and government, and even the Police.

But therein lies the problem. Or am I missing something?

Peston is merely reporting stuff handed to him by NOW. Are we so naive as to think this is not a distraction / PR move by NOW? Yet Peston reports it anyway. It's what all the MSM "journalists" do. For them investigation means phoning up a guilty party and asking them what they have to say. Most don't even bother: they just wait for the call. So how can we ever expect the truth from these PR stooges? Who will tell us the truth?

Wanna know the answer? Just listen to what all the vultures are saying today : "we need a full public enquiry!"

So there you have it: if you want real news, get a judge involved with every story. Cat rescued by fireman up tree? Best get a judge in to be sure. Why? Cos you simply can't have people gaining information by underhanded techniques that access people at their most unguarded. Oh, and that extends to Hugh Grant. Did he tell his interviewee that he was recording them? A breach of trust surely? Imagine if he'd been interviewing a 7/7 victim.

And in that regard, during my personal injury case I was tailed, phone tapped and watched around the clcok by private investigators hired by ... lawyers! Yep, it is quite legal to invade the privacy of victims apparently. So what's all the fuss about the 7/7 victims?

Confused? You bet I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What depresses me most about this story is that journalists may end up with restrictions that put an end to true, important investigative reporting. From MP expense scandals to those scum who were beating up care home residents, investigative journalism does serve an important role and it would be dreadful to see it stopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with poacher turned gamekeeper so to speak;

Not sure what you mean. Grant would have been the poached, not the poacher, so can't see the relevance.

Anyhow, my point still stands. Grant was secretly taping the guy. Clearly Grant knew this guy would not say what he said had he understood he was being taped. Grant was exploiting a situation where his target had lowered his guard to access information that would otherwise have remain hidden. Explain to me how the ethics differ from outright hacking.

"After arranging an interview, Hugh met with Paul and “bugged the bugger.” Grant wore a covert body wire to catch every last detail."

in the case of him interviewing a 7/7 victim, he wasnt so why you even bought it up I dont know.

And if he were how would that change the ethical pov?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those journalists have got lazy they put an end to investigative journalism years ago, it just doesnt happen.

I'm interested in what you consider "investigative journalism". I'm no expert here, but I look at a statement like:

"Relying heavily upon anonymous sources, Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered information suggesting that knowledge of the break-in, and attempts to cover it up, led deep into the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and even the White House. " - Watergate - wiki

... and I'm understanding that at some level, the source is propagating real information (as opposed to rumour) beyond the channels that information was made for, without the approval of that information's originator. That's hacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The allegations here are very serious as they go to the core of our democracy.

If the allegations of Police being paid money by the NOTW turn out to be true then the only answer can be serious jail time for all those involved - those who allegedly authorised the payments and those who received it.

It would have to be on a per count basis which could result, if anyone is trialled and found guilty, in serious jail time for those people.

I have only just read Peston's blog and the stufff in Vanity - shocking, worrying and downright danerous if true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The allegations here are very serious as they go to the core of our democracy.

If the allegations of Police being paid money by the NOTW turn out to be true then the only answer can be serious jail time for all those involved - those who allegedly authorised the payments and those who received it.

It would have to be on a per count basis which could result, if anyone is trialled and found guilty, in serious jail time for those people.

I have only just read Peston's blog and the stufff in Vanity - shocking, worrying and downright danerous if true.

Two issues here.I understood that we were talking about the police force being paid,not individual officers.If the later is indeed the case then surely it is a matter of police bribery and this does take a much more serious turn.I feel that this is possibly the biggest news story of 2011,we have only seen the tip of the iceberg yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two issues here.I understood that we were talking about the police force being paid,not individual officers.If the later is indeed the case then surely it is a matter of police bribery and this does take a much more serious turn.I feel that this is possibly the biggest news story of 2011,we have only seen the tip of the iceberg yet.

All the articles on the BBC site and on Vanity Fair are treading the thin line simply referring to the Police or to Scotland Yard as opposed to saying that individual Police officers were paid.

When did the Police go into the business of offering private details to anyone with a big enough bag of cash? If this a service they advertised? Is this a service only available to certain individuals and corporations? Can anyone pay the Police to give them personal information about anyone else?

Do mobile phone companies offer this service? Not as far as I am aware - why is this so? I think we all know the answer.

IMPO the Police, as a body, should NEVER accept a single penny in this regard. IMPO it is a betrayal of everything that most of us believe the Police should stand for. If it turns out that individual officers have been illegally been accepting illegal payments for this information then they, and the people who paid them, should IMPO stand trial - and let it all be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My definition is looking into rumours to see if they are unfounded or not and then breaking the story.

The media can be the modern stocks to name and shame.

It looks like NI are preparing to throw some middle ranking exec to the wolves to save Coulson and Wade.It seems strange that a couple of days ago they knew nothing but now they have someone in the frame.This has legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside possible alleged criminality, what kind of numpty allegedly working in a senior role in the Media authorises payments to Police officers not realising that such alleged bribery is illegal punishable by serious jail time?

Oh, and does it, allegedly, via email?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read about it in the The New Statemen or the countless online blogs about the history leading up to why HG did this and how he turned the tables, ie become the hunter instead of the hunted.

well, I'm not really interested in the why. Presumably you are suggesting this justified his actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, and to suggest otherwise is akin to the politics of the last atrocity.

My point still stands. Grant accessed information covertly. That's hacking in its purest form. What do people think hamost hacking involves? Some kind of amazing algorithm? Look up the term social engineering. It's exactly what he did and stock in trade of any real hacker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My definition is looking into rumours to see if they are unfounded or not and then breaking the story.

The media can be the modern stocks to name and shame.

What's all this "looking into" business. What do you mean by that? I think we can agree it does not involve asking the rumour monger to reiterate the rumour. That's just standard tabloid guff. I believe we can also agree it means corroboration. But to what extent? Do we honestly believe it means getting the rumour monger's mate to back up the rumour monger? Or do we believe it means getting somebody to divulge information those at the centre of the rumours both own and would not like divulged. Cos if we mean the latter, we mean hacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, I'm not really interested in the why. Presumably you are suggesting this justified his actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, and to suggest otherwise is akin to the politics of the last atrocity.

My point still stands. Grant accessed information covertly. That's hacking in its purest form. What do people think hamost hacking involves? Some kind of amazing algorithm? Look up the term social engineering. It's exactly what he did and stock in trade of any real hacker.

Surely there is an ethical difference between recording freely given information and gaining access to private information via subterfuge? Those hacked said nothing and gave nothing to the hacker. Grants "victim" volunteered information which he didn't believe would be made public. It is ethically different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only person who is not remotely surprised or shocked by this whole affair ? It is pretty obvious this stuff always goes on and just because it now comes out doesn't make it any more shocking IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am interested in the why. Not really interested in anything else you have to say becuase its old news to me. :D

It's interesting as much as anything because it demonstrates the sheer nepotism at the heart of NI.The Dirty Digger says he regards Rebekah Wade as family so as such he is prepared to go to any lengths to save her.Whether Coulson will have the same favour is a matter for conjecture.In many ways he would be the ideal fall guy,big enough to draw the fire but temote enough from NI to avoid real harm to them.Where that would leave Dave is another matter,Wallace needs to show some bottle and go for the jugular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.