Murdoch hacking scandal latest

[MrGongGong]

'dicating policy' ...

That's an unkind remark, They are the victims in this after all.

probably not a good choice of words
but
I agree that "they ought to have someone doing their bidding for them,"

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

... i thought that was their lawyer Michael Lewis .... the other side of this coin is Brown's rant in the Commons, hypocritical or what ....

it is to be noted that what animated the plod in the first instance was the Royals, and now the scandal ..... those who argued that there was a major problem and that the plod had not addressed it were ignored ... evidence and reason fails to persuade but a tabloid shock unlocks the whole case eh ....

it couldn't be that the politicos and their spads and spinners are hiring the self same 'underworld figures' to hack each other, no that wouldn't happen in Her majesty's Realm now would it .... eh?

and the plod are not trading favours with the media? never, they are Her Maj's Constabulary .....

this story is but one incision into the rotting cadaver of the British State giving us a view of the decay inside .... there are other views ..... defence, energy, food, pharma .... and the CITY BANKERS ....

[PatrickOD]

There's a kind of crump all over the world CDJ. It's the sound of marching feet of clay.

[Lateralthinking1]

If the humble individual seeks to change things even in a very minor way, he or she can get the most terrible headaches. None of us are perfect - far from it - but the throbbing comes from finding moderate attempts at logic and/or decency constantly crashing against a brick wall.

That wall can entail ignoring the points we raise, sending the matter back and forth, denying obvious truths and happenings, delaying, hiding behind others, lying, playing the "we've got the money" game and just getting things plain wrong. This is the way of the system and unless we are exceedingly fortunate it has impacts on ours.

My question is this one. Is it better just to ignore it all whatever the adverse impacts personally and more broadly of not challenging whatever it is that is taking place?

[mercia]

I've just been looking at what hospitality the PM has received over the past year

http://www.number10.gov.uk/transparency/who-ministers-are-meeting/

but it seems to be a lot of blank pages - not very illuminating

[scottycelt]

I note that Fox is now apparently aware of the pickle the parent company is currently in, and is reporting it as 'Breaking Noos'.

A case of following The Dear Leader now that he has confirmed he has a mouth with which to speak, at least to his own newspaper (Wall St Journal) and pre-UK Parliament Enquiry?

[aeolium]

I do think that celebrity and political status does mean an inevitable loss of the right to privacy. I don't think it should be the same for these folk as for crime victims and their families. Those who rely on it to either get elected or sell their latest film or CD can't really complain that the publicity they courted continues into areas that they maybe aren't so happy about. Celebs and politicians do have a choice and its part of the gig really.

I think that's a fundamentally flawed argument - celebrity and political status should not mean an inevitable loss of the right to privacy, though that right should be qualified, as it should be for everyone, by the availability of a public interest defence for those intruding on it. The right to privacy is a core human right which is enshrined in the Human Rights Convention, and we should not be picking and choosing which of those rights we wish to protect. I cannot see any reason why in their private relationships and activities 'celebrities', aka people from the world of sports, TV, film, pop music etc, or politicians should not be protected from intrusive and prurient reporting except where such intrusion would satisfy the public interest defence. Celebrity X or politician Y having an affair would not be of itself something which would satisfy a public interest defence, unless e.g. for the politician that affair conflicted with something in his/her public pronouncements or policy support. Why should we require standards of private morality in celebrities or politicians which we don't require for the rest of the population - don't we want people to go into politics, or make films, or play football?

The other aspect of it is that that prurient interest - which is quite different from real investigative journalism - fuels the wretched celebrity culture which dominates so much of today's journalism and TV. As Hugh Grant said a few Newsnights ago, "who the hell cares who Ryan Giggs is sleeping with"? (for Ryan Giggs substitute the name of any celebrity or politician)

[MrGongGong]

I wasn't suggesting that it was a good thing
but the "picking and choosing" that you quite rightly mention is exactly what many politicians and (so called) "celebrities" do to generate publicity and votes
personally speaking I know Ryan Giggs's name but wouldn't recognise him if I bumped into him at a Xenakis concert !
it matters little who sleeps with who and how unless , of course, they are using their 'perfect" family life to project an image. Which is what (almost) all politicians seem to do.
One person who seems to have grasped this is Ozzy Ozbournes other daughter, you know, the one who has never appeared on TV and is completely anonymous unlike the rest of the family.

It's hardly a new phenomenon, my sympathy is with the innocent not really with the Mps etc

trouble is that we are asking journalists to have higher moral standards than the rest of us , including the plod ! No one would complain about an illegal investigation that uncovered serious corruption

though I am curious about what's in Boulez's bin , does he wrap all his rubbish up in neat little square parcels ?

[aeolium]

So no MPs are innocent?

We're not asking journalists to have higher moral standards than the rest of us, just to obey the law - and I think that there will come from these inquiries and investigations calls for a clarification of the privacy law. The recent absurd nonsense with superinjunctions shows how much that is needed as for instance the superinjunction that Giggs took out resulted in his identity being kept secret (for a brief time) but the identity of the girl he had the affair with was published!

I thought Max Mosley had a justifiable case for invasion of privacy as whatever one thinks of him and his private activities (not a lot, in my case) there was no legitimate public interest in the story. Had there been any truth in the allegations about Nazi role-playing then that might well have been different, given his public position and his family history.

[MrGongGong]

for MPs I think its part of the gig , which is not to say that it wouldn't be better if this wasn't the case but they do know when the sign up for it !

the insistence on journalists obeying the law (which in theory they should ) would mean that journalists would be prosecuted for uncovering illegal arms sales, drug deals and dodgy goings on in the police.........

as long as people want to read prurient nonsense about "celebrities" then there will be people wanting to publish the stuff

[aeolium]

the insistence on journalists obeying the law (which in theory they should ) would mean that journalists would be prosecuted for uncovering illegal arms sales, drug deals and dodgy goings on in the police.........

as long as people want to read prurient nonsense about "celebrities" then there will be people wanting to publish the stuff

Why would journalists be prosecuted for uncovering illegal arms sales, drug deals and dodgy goings on in the police. All of that has already been revealed - and much more, for instance extensive tax avoidance among corporations and individuals - without journalists being prosecuted and apparently without the law having been broken. Have any laws been broken by the Guardian who have uncovered all that wrongdoing in the NotW and the police?

The public interest defence would provide some protection for journalists doing investigative research and publishing the results. Even if illegal techniques were used in research where there was a real public benefit, that could be got round with minimal or nominal penalties, or the CPS might decide it is not in the public interest to prosecute journalists in that case - how easy would it be to get a jury to convict?

There may be 'people wanting to read prurient nonsense' but if the privacy law were properly defined then they would not be able to do it, except with the consent of those involved.

[Mandryka]

Brooks has gone.

Presumably, her departure was triggered by the major shareholder who weighed in this morning.

As I said earlier, the outcome will be decided by the investors, not parliament or the public.

[Stillhomewardbound]

That the Guardian has called it wrong on the source of the Sun's Brown story troubles me scarcely as much as the belief on the part of Rebbekah Brooks and her colleagues that the Brown's distressing and intimate family news was somehow public property.

I'd have to wonder also at the actions of the person who took this story to the Sun. He claims to have been acting in a good cause but surely being in the same position he could not have failed to be aware of the sensitivity of the information he held; and is there no ethical code for the press which applies in cases of patient confidentiality.

The Brown family's doctors would have been bound by the Hippocratic oath. Not the Sun or their eavesdropper it would seem.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

..er how about Dominic Strauss Kahn .... French media have laid off him for decades and whatever emerges in NYC about him it is clear that he is a very nasty bit of work in the lift eh ... and the personality yielding such behaviour is not for for high office in my view ... and recall that several women were deterred from raising their acute grievances against him in public ...

i am also completely unconvinced that the Brown's son's medical condition had anything to do with the 'public interest' and that, however obtained, the timing of and actual publication was part of an attack on Brown ... i do hope ms brooks get well and truly done over by her 'colleagues' - a double spoonful of the medicine she has been dishing out ...

meanwhile the USA faces financial and economic meltdown folks ...

[scottycelt]

Brooks has gone.

Presumably, her departure was triggered by the major shareholder who weighed in this morning.

As I said earlier, the outcome will be decided by the investors, not parliament or the public.

Hmmm, one could equally argue the major shareholder would never have weighed in had it not been for the current furore in Parliament and public outrage. There is nothing like losing money to concentrate the mind.

My own feeling is that the Murdochs and Rebekah thought this would just be another of their little local scandals that would soon blow over, and completely failed to see the 'Dowler' effect. Their initial laughing demeanours indicated exactly that.

Unsurprisingly, their own monetary minds now appear to be in deep concentration ...