Murdoch: Ouf! Is this meltdown?

[amateur51]

Two reports from the BBC website a) about the fact that News International has settled a large number of court cases arising from the News of the World's phone-hacking; and b) some statements from some of the phone-hacking victims giving detail of the extraordinary lengths that NoW's employees and agents went to:

a) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16629036

b) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16634365

[amateur51]

Met police search News International's headquarters in Wapping as four current and former Sun employees are arrested

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/28/news-international-four-men-arrested

[Mr Pee]

Two posts, almost ten days apart, both from Amateur 51. :yawn::yawn::yawn::yawn:

What a lively debate.

[Ferretfancy]

Two posts, almost ten days apart, both from Amateur 51. :yawn::yawn::yawn::yawn:

What a lively debate.

Not a lot to debate, they're in it up to their necks, with more to come --end of story!

[eighthobstruction]

Teeters on a knife edge....

....ready to go at any moment....

Dam Busters have been already....just a bit of tidying up to be done

>>Two posts, almost ten days apart<<....the penalty being taken slowly....Keith Vas shoots....and scores....

[kernelbogey]

Intriguing new developments:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/29/data-pool-3-sun-arrests-murdoch

Nick Davies has worded this very carefully.

[amateur51]

Intriguing new developments:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/29/data-pool-3-sun-arrests-murdoch

Nick Davies has worded this very carefully.

Nice one, kernel & Nick Davies! :ok:

I don't know about Mr Pee (well I do, but ...:laugh:)but I think this is all fascinating stuff! :smiley:

[Ferretfancy]

There's nothing about the arrests in the Saturday Times, and a front page left column extending to page 3 with a small headline in the Sunday Times, which does not mention the words Murdoch or News International anywhere. I wonder why ?

[Mr Pee]

There's nothing about the arrests in the Saturday Times, and a front page left column extending to page 3 with a small headline in the Sunday Times, which does not mention the words Murdoch or News International anywhere. I wonder why ?

Good point. I have no idea why the Sunday Times thought this was worthy of a space on the front page, when there are much more important things going on in the world, unlike this, which is of interest only to a steadily dwindling number of obsessives. The Nick Davies article linked to above seems to consist mainly of speculation and vague predictions. :yawn:

[amateur51]

Good point. I have no idea why the Sunday Times thought this was worthy of a space on the front page, when there are much more important things going on in the world, unlike this, which is of interest only to a steadily dwindling number of obsessives. The Nick Davies article linked to above seems to consist mainly of speculation and vague predictions. :yawn:

It's one of the most important stories around but you're choosing to cast doubt on it for your own reasons, Mr Pee.

You've allowed your antipathy to the BBC to cloud your 'thought' processes :smiley:

[Mr Pee]

It's one of the most important stories around but you're choosing to cast doubt on it for your own reasons, Mr Pee.

You've allowed your antipathy to the BBC to cloud your 'thought' processes :smiley:

I don't have any antipathy toward the BBC. I don't know what gave you that idea. I do have antipathy toward stories such as the one above by Nick Davies, which is 99% speculation disguised as news. If you take out the number of sentences that include the words "may be", "possibly", "may yet" "could be/ could have been", then it would have been a very short article indeed.

Still, such guff keeps Guardian hacks off the streets I suppose. :erm:

[ahinton]

Good point. I have no idea why the Sunday Times thought this was worthy of a space on the front page, when there are much more important things going on in the world, unlike this, which is of interest only to a steadily dwindling number of obsessives. The Nick Davies article linked to above seems to consist mainly of speculation and vague predictions. :yawn:

There is indeed a number of other "important things going on in the world" right now, but it remains difficult to equate your alleged "dwindling number of obsessives" with the hundreds of millions of emails referred to by the journalist here (unless you think that he's making that up). Mr Davies' article does indeed amount to no more than speculation as far as it goes - indeed, he is laudably clear in emphasising that he is claiming it to be no more than that for the time being - but it is speculation based upon actual and forthcoming police activity which, as it is funded by taxpayers, is of interest to us all as we have a shareholding in it and its outcome; given the sheer scale of what faces the police, the courts, the Leveson enquiry and the rest, coming on top of what we do actually know and what has already been done, this looks set to be an operation that could cost tens - possibly even hundreds - of millions of pounds and drag on for years. If you, as a taxpaying British citizen, are nevertheless not remotely interested in that fact and prefer to try to hide behind the notion that this is all being done for and around a bunch of cranks rather in conscientious endeavours to uncover what might be the largest quantity of criminal activity ever encountered in a single case in British legal history, then more fool you.

[Ferretfancy]

There is indeed a number of other "important things going on in the world" right now, but it remains difficult to equate your alleged "dwindling number of obsessives" with the hundreds of millions of emails referred to by the journalist here (unless you think that he's making that up). Mr Davies' article does indeed amount to no more than speculation as far as it goes - indeed, he is laudably clear in emphasising that he is claiming it to be no more than that for the time being - but it is speculation based upon actual and forthcoming police activity which, as it is funded by taxpayers, is of interest to us all as we have a shareholding in it and its outcome; given the sheer scale of what faces the police, the courts, the Leveson enquiry and the rest, coming on top of what we do actually know and what has already been done, this looks set to be an operation that could cost tens - possibly even hundreds - of millions of pounds and drag on for years. If you, as a taxpaying British citizen, are nevertheless not remotely interested in that fact and prefer to try to hide behind the notion that this is all being done for and around a bunch of cranks rather in conscientious endeavours to uncover what might be the largest quantity of criminal activity ever encountered in a single case in British legal history, then more fool you.

Well said, ahinton, I was a bit peeved at Mr Pee's typically perverse twist on my message 503, but didn't think it worth a reply.

[amateur51]

There is indeed a number of other "important things going on in the world" right now, but it remains difficult to equate your alleged "dwindling number of obsessives" with the hundreds of millions of emails referred to by the journalist here (unless you think that he's making that up). Mr Davies' article does indeed amount to no more than speculation as far as it goes - indeed, he is laudably clear in emphasising that he is claiming it to be no more than that for the time being - but it is speculation based upon actual and forthcoming police activity which, as it is funded by taxpayers, is of interest to us all as we have a shareholding in it and its outcome; given the sheer scale of what faces the police, the courts, the Leveson enquiry and the rest, coming on top of what we do actually know and what has already been done, this looks set to be an operation that could cost tens - possibly even hundreds - of millions of pounds and drag on for years. If you, as a taxpaying British citizen, are nevertheless not remotely interested in that fact and prefer to try to hide behind the notion that this is all being done for and around a bunch of cranks rather in conscientious endeavours to uncover what might be the largest quantity of criminal activity ever encountered in a single case in British legal history, then more fool you.

Hear! hear! :ok:

[Flosshilde]

Good point. I have no idea why the Sunday Times thought this was worthy of a space on the front page, when there are much more important things going on in the world, unlike this, which is of interest only to a steadily dwindling number of obsessives. The Nick Davies article linked to above seems to consist mainly of speculation and vague predictions. :yawn:

Mr Pee is Rebekah Brooks & I claim my £5 :laugh:

(& speaking of Rebekah, I see that she is on 'maternity leave'. I thought you only got maternity leave if you had something to be on leave from, like a job?)