[Closed] Have we done the NOTW/ Tommy Sheridan/unsafe conviction yet?

I dont particularly like the mad shagger these days but would be great to see Coulson behind bars for perjury.

So if the suggestion is that Coulson lied in Sherridans trial about payments to police officers, then its not going to help Coulson that he was sitting next to Rebekah Wade when she admitted to [url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/07/07/former-news-of-the-world-editor-andy-coulson-thrust-back-in-the-spotlight-over-payments-to-police-115875-23252844/ ]doing exactly that[/url].

"Payments to the police first emerged in 2003 when Mr Coulson and Rebekah Brooks (then Wade) gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into the Press and privacy.

Mrs Brooks, who previously edited the News of the World and was Sun editor at the time, admitted: “We have paid the police for information in the past.”

Mr Coulson interjected, saying they adhered to the editors’ code and the law which barred payment to the police for information.

Mr Coulson stood down as editor in 2007 after royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were jailed for hacking. He said he knew nothing about the hacking but took responsibility as he was editor."

I am disgusted at all this, can you imagine listening to phone messages and deleting them from a mother to a missing girl, paying police officers cash, hacking injured / dead soldiers famillies phones etc etc, if this is true then some folk need to do some serious time at HMG cost. Pond life the lot of them.

Murdoch et al are been outed for what they are now.

[url= http://akamat.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/billy-bragg-it-says-here-live-on-bbc-breakfast-time-1984/ ]Link to Billy Bragg performing "It Says Here" on breakfast TV in 1984.[/url]

[url= http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7075673/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml ]And Peter Oborne in the Spectator on the shame of the press to face up to this and the complicity of all politicians (right and left).[/url]

Two sides of the political divide and both saying exactly the same thing: the people who own the press own the country.

Two sides of the political divide and both saying exactly the same thing: the people who own the press own the country.

Which is why we live in no more of a democracy than China, we just believe more in the illusion of democracy. We get no more choice in an election than we get from a magicians card trick, we just end up voting for the politics the magician wants us to.

From the end of that Peter Osborne story "The truth is that very few newspapers can declare themselves entirely innocent of buying illegal information from private detectives. A 2006 report by the Information Commissioner gave a snapshot into the affairs of one such ‘detective’, caught in so-called ‘Operation Motorman’. The commissioner’s report found that 305 journalists had been identified ‘as customers driving the illegal trade in confidential personal information’. It named each newspaper group, the number of offences and the number of guilty journalists"

I'd like to see a list of those 305 names

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Research_and_reports/what_price_privacy_now_report.ashx

Page 11 gives the names of the publications.

I want to see the names of the Journalists

I am glad we have the "state owned" BBC here to actually have standards and ethics.
Think they have all been up to it to be hinest.
Why anyone thought self regulationwould work is beyond me

If they [law makers] dont stand up to them now then they never will.

Nice Billy Bragg link Our man

Why anyone thought self regulationwould work is beyond me

Less than not working - the press isn't self regulated, its just partially self regulated. Desmonds papers aren't regulated by the PPC.

Coulson and Wade should be heading for jail

Nice Billy Bragg link Our man

More amusing is the use of the words "tits" on breakfast TV in 1984..!

i still don't understand why the police are still so hands off in this, they are letting NI act as some kind of semi autonomous entity beyond the law of the land. We will investigate our selves thanks very much, oh and btw heres a few tit bits for ya Now f*** off.

i still don't understand why the police are still so hands off in this, they are letting NI act as some kind of semi autonomous entity beyond the law of the land.

Inasmuch as Brooks is investigating allegations of what went on under her watch, so the Met are investigating something in which they are directly implicated.

It's as if no-one in a position of responsibility wants anything to happen....

[img] [/img]

Klunk - there was a lucrative and useful 2 way exchange of information between the NOTW and the met. The NOTW runs real investigative journalism as well and would tip off the met to crims they uncovered by murky means, cops would tip off NOTW in exchange. All to cosy and friendly so the instinct is to go easy on your friends in the press

.....if this is true then some folk need to do some serious time at HMG cost.

No one is denying that it all happened - so that is not in doubt. The only issue is that unbelievably, Rebekah Brooks claims that she knew nothing about what was going on.

Which is of course a totally absurd claim. Everyday newspapers editors have to give serious consideration to the possibility that their newspaper might contain libellous material which might expose them to legal action, it's often a judgement call by the editor whether to publish or not. They therefore need to know the source of a story to decide how reliable it is. I don't think that a private investigator saying "just trust me it's true, you can publish it, now hand me over a large cheque" would have been enough for the editor of the NOTW.

What puzzle me is why News International is is so strongly denying that Rebekah Brooks knew anything. I would have thought that sacking her and hanging her out to dry was their best course of action. Maybe they feel certain that she covered her tracks sufficiently by going through numerous third parties, so that no direct link between her and the hacker can be proved, even though she would have required to know the source of the information.

Or maybe News International believe they are just too powerful to be touched.

For me by far the most worrying and sinister revelation in this whole hacking story is this :

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/10/mps-backed-down-rebekah-brooks ]MPs backed down from calling Rebekah Brooks to Commons[/url]

Quote :

[b][i]"Cross-party committee allegedly abandoned plans to force News International chief to testify after being warned their lives would be investigated"[/i][/b]

If News International can stop our legislators from investigating their illegal activities by threatening to destroy them as individuals, then presumably they can also blackmail police chiefs, and anyone else. Which clearly puts News International above the law.

The more I read about Rupert Murdoch's mind-boggling power, the more I think of Carver in 'Tomorrow Never Comes'.

i still don't understand why the police are still so hands off in this, they are letting NI act as some kind of semi autonomous entity beyond the law of the land.

They tend to do that when you've been paying their senior officers hundreds of thousands of pounds, and also have information on their complicity in your dodgy affairs that would see them locked up too

And Ernie is bang on. On any paper, If a journo comes in with a major story, the editors first question is 'where has this come from?', the second:'will it stand up in court?'

The very idea that Rebecca Brookes didn't know this was all happening is frankly absolutely laughable

I would have thought that sacking her and hanging her out to dry was their best course of action

They're probably not because she knows where the bodies are buried, and there's still a lot more to come out of this. I doubt we've heard the worst of it yet

[i]The very idea that Rebecca Brookes didn't know this was all happening is frankly absolutely laughable [/i]

much like her back tracking on her select committe testinomy.

[i]"As can be seen from the transcript, I was responding to a specific line of questioning on how newspapers get information," Brooks wrote. "My intention was simply to comment generally on the widely-held belief that payments had been made in the past to police officers.

"If, in doing so, I gave the impression that I had knowledge of any specific cases, I can assure you that this was not my intention."[/i]

What puzzle me is why News International is is so strongly denying that Rebekah Brooks knew anything. I would have thought that sacking her and hanging her out to dry was their best course of action.

Wades denials - too many important folk would go down with her. Coulson so Cameron badly affected for starters. She is hoping she has covered her tracks properly

here was a lucrative and useful 2 way exchange of information between the NOTW and the met. The NOTW runs real investigative journalism as well and would tip off the met to crims they uncovered by murky means, cops would tip off NOTW in exchange. All to cosy and friendly so the instinct is to go easy on your friends in the press

Personally, I reckon it went somewhat deeper than this - a tame private eye who was getting into peoples voicemail's would prove a VERY useful asset for the police, tied up as they are with things like court orders for phone taps and laws preventing them going on speculative fishing trips amongst the criminal underworld.

I'd be fairly confident that a blind eye was turned, in return for some astoundingly useful "anonymous tips" against known criminals that the police would not have got legally.

I'd be fairly confident that a blind eye was turned, in return for some astoundingly useful "anonymous tips" against known criminals that the police would not have got legally.

I'm not quite sure how useful a tip to the police would actually be if it was not legally obtained.

The police know who all the bad guys are. The difficulty is being able to arrest them on a reasonable grounds basis.

Obtaining information illegally which indicates their criminality is hardly "reasonable grounds" for popping round to their house for a search etc.

I do agree, there may have been some stuff that came out of the messages which could have helped steer the police down a particular route, but I doubt it would be as useful as people think.

Or think about it another way, if the person the police want/need some sort of tip on is any good (which they probably are if the police are looking to use illegally obtained tips), then I doubt they would be leaving incriminating or dodgy voicemails on people's phones.

Its tips about criminality the NOTW gets in other ways - upcoming drug deals, robberys, whereabouts of fugitives etc

Fascinating to see some politicians belatedly growing some balls - they only dare to speak out at all now they can see that NI is vulnerable. I hope Wade goes to prison for this, though it's not going to happen of course.

I wonder if Rebbecca will still be getting the regular dinner invites from Dave and Sam? I wonder if they'll be standing by their old mate Andy too? Dave was always adamant that he had no part in any dodgy goings on.

So... given what's now come out, Dave's not looking too bright for accepting guarantees from his 'friends' at face value

What puzzle me is why News International is is so strongly denying that Rebekah Brooks knew anything. I would have thought that sacking her and hanging her out to dry was their best course of action.

Not really - if Brooks knows absolutely nothing, then neither does Murdoch. On the other hand if Brooks does know, then it's fair bet Rupert does as well, or is at least tainted by association with a guilty party especially considering how close she is to him. Then there's Brooks' association with CallMeDave. Again, guilt by association could harm the Tories. Deflecting that by keeping Brooks "clean" puts a debt on Dave, which I'm not sure Rupert will just forget.

And let's just bear in mind that in two or three months, this will all have blown over and we'll have moved on to something else

Dave's not looking too bright

When did he? He always bore more than a passing resemblance to a shop window dummy IMHO

I just hope that this derails the Sky deal. Even some senior tories and large institutional shareholders in the city, are calling for that to be put on hold.

So despite Call-me-Dave's natural instinct to support his 'friends' at NI, there is now so much genuine revulsion at their behavior, he may have to bow to pressure

Here's hoping

Anyway - back on track - when does Shagger Sheridan v NOTW Round 3 start?
Will Coulson be called? Or Rebekah? or CallMeDave? Or Glen Wossname?

[i][b]"I wonder if Rebbecca will still be getting the regular dinner invites from Dave and Sam?"

"Again, guilt by association could harm the Tories".

"So despite Call-me-Dave's natural instinct to support his 'friends' at NI..."[/b][/i]

Why all the finger-pointing at the Tories ? Labour has done plenty of grovelling to Rupert Murdoch and New International editors.

Tony and Cherie Blair were certainly at one time very friendly with Rebekah Brooks. And Gordon Brown and his missus attended to her wedding as guests. Both Blair and Brown regularly met Rupert Murdoch to "discuss" issues, and Blair even wrote articles for the Sun to publish.

Yet again right-wing Labour politicians have proved to be no different than Tories. A lesson which still seems to escape a lot of people.

fair point ernie.....well so the guardian says 😉

Why all the finger-pointing at the Tories ?

I thought you followed politics ernie? In case you missed it, the Tories are the party in power. that means they get the kicking. Had it been pre-election, labour would be getting it and the Tories would be on the sidleines cheering.
Still, gives Clegg a break.

and

Yet again [s]right-wing Labour[/s] one bunch of self-serving politicians have proved to be no different than [s]Tories[/s] anoher bunch of self serving politician. A lesson which still [s]seems to escape[/s] is not lost on a lot of people.

Its not escaped us Ernie, its just not as relevant. If they were still in power, it would be. I know that labor MPs used to refer to Murdoch as a cabinet member. But involvement with NI was very arms-length compared to the Tories

In fact... its hardly comparable. Dave employed Andy Coulson as his press secretary, when all this stuff was already starting to unravel, and accepted his word that he had nothing to do with it. That's been blown out of the water now. I expect Rebecca Brooks protestations of innocence to be equally as short-lived. Hardly reflects well on the judgment of the man who is Prime Minister, does it?

But involvement with NI was very arms-length compared to the Tories

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahahahahahaha
oh no stop, it hurts

Fair enough. Point conceded

its hardly comparable. Dave employed Andy Coulson as his press secretary, when all this stuff was already starting to unravel, and accepted his word that he had nothing to do with it.

I am just peed off at the amount this is likely to cost the taxpayer TBH

I thought you followed politics ernie? In case you missed it, the Tories are the party in power. that means they get the kicking.

Which means that no Labour politician can be criticised ? And we can all pretend that the Tories did something which Labour never did ?

Fixed it

No need to fix anything I say - if you don't agree with it then say so. I'm fairly confident in my ability to say what I mean. HTH

I doubt very much you'd have caught Alastair Campbell/Malcolm Tucker authorising payments to bent coppers though.

Labour cosied up to NI and ran scared of them. CallmeDave brought NI right next to him by employing Coulson.

While both were at it the Tories are far closer to NI and thus more deserving of critism.

Coulson was clearly in criminal activity right up to his neck yet CallmeDave still employed him and tried to defend him.

Whilst the whole situation is pretty shambolic, there does seem to be a lot of double standards going on here, no-one was really that bothered about Prescott or others' having their phones hacked, but recent revelations have sparked a public outcry - at the end of the day they were hacking phones which they shouldn't be doing at all.

There is an irony that they were doing it to create stories to sell papers because that's what people talk about and now the public disgust about what has happened.

Lets hope Call-me-Dave sticks to what he does best over the Sky deal. A screaming, tyre-smoking U-turn followed by hanging people out to dry.

It'll be novel for the people at NI, who have done what they like with complete and utter impunity, to now have to face the same laws the rest of us have to adhere too.

Maybe we might get an added bit of needle from Call-me-Dave for making him look daft too. Whatever happens, we've now crossed a line as NI's power and influence is diminishing by the minute. People with very little political interest are now seeing them for what they are.

I wonder if there's anyone who may have been wronged in the past, who might be lining up to settle some old scores? Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Whatever happens, we've now crossed a line as NI's power and influence is diminishing by the minute.

I wish I had your confidence that Murdoch's power has been/will be diminished significantly binners.

Ernie
Surprised that you need it explained to you, but here you are anyway
Labour are not the party in power
Nobody really cares what the party not in power do or say.
When this was actually happening, Labour were the party in power and their behaviour, not just in cosying up to Murdioch but in a whole raft of other area was [s]totally reprensible[/s] really bad (keeping simple for you there). But so what? They're not the party in power, no one cares. The Tories are in power which means they're the focus of media (that's the newspapers and stuff) attention. If they point at the labour banches and say it all happened during Labour time and that makes labour no better, it'll look like cry baby tittle tattle. So Labour get away with it. Like I said in my post

Had it been pre-election, labour would be getting it and the Tories would be on the sidleines cheering.

No[/s]Thanks for seeing the need to fix anything I say - if you don't agree with it [s]then say so[/s] you're probably right. I'm fairly confident in my [b]in[/b]ability to say what I mean

Whatever happens, we've now crossed a line as NI's power and influence is diminishing by the minute.

Indeed, for another week or two.
A couple of months from now, well, lets see, shall we?
What might be interesting is that by the time the Shagger Sheridan rematch is schduled, we'll have forgotten all this and have moved on, and the rematch might just bring it back to fore. Anyone fancy some odds on an out of court settlement?

BigButSlimmerBloke - Member

Ernie
Surprised that you need it explained to you, but here you are anyway
Labour are not the party in power
Nobody really cares what the party not in power do or say.
When this was actually happening, Labour were the party in power and their behaviour, not just in cosying up to Murdioch but in a whole raft of other area was totally reprensible really bad (keeping simple for you there). But so what? They're not the party in power, no one cares. The Tories are in power which means they're the focus of media (that's the newspapers and stuff) attention. If they point at the labour banches and say it all happened during Labour time and that makes labour no better, it'll look like cry baby tittle tattle. So Labour get away with it. Like I said in my post

Had it been pre-election, labour would be getting it and the Tories would be on the sidleines cheering.

But then that was the second sentence, maybe you dodnt feel the need to read that far before pronouncing.

NoThanks for seeing the need to fix anything I say - if you don't agree with it then say so you're probably right. I'm fairly confident in my inability to say what I mean

You're welcome

Gosh BigButSlimmerBloke, I had no idea you were so childish.

Still, live and learn eh ? 😀

If we can all stop bickering...

Read the Peter Oborne article I posted up there^^ - as far as he's concerned, all partiesd are as up to their neck in NI complicity as anyone else.

Also, if you need to be convinced about the Labour apporach to NI post election (and, importantly), post Mili's election, read the leaked Tom Baldwin memo from January 2011 to Labour front benchers:

[url] http://order-order.com/2011/07/06/what-happened-to-baldwins-memo [/url]

Note that Baldwin is ex News International....

Why do folk say "Call-Me-Dave"? What's that all about then? Is it too matey?

I don't recall that grinning ****wit being pulled up as "Call-Me-Tony"

Mr Cameron like to be called Dave

In the same way as Tony was, you know, a straight-up kinda guy

So NI is closing down NOTW.

Clever politics by Murdoch, to shut it down and separate it from NI as a whole. Even though we all think/know it is indicative of the morality of NI as a whole, proving it becomes more difficult now, and gives the police and politicians to kick it into the long grass and cover their own asses.

Closing down NOTW is nothing more than a cynical re-branding exercise. Sunday Sun will be on sale from the following week...

Absolutely, but it still gives the establishment the "out" they needed from the current mess.

so does this mean sheriden will get let off and probably get a fat pile of compensation too?

and if coulson gets sent down would he dob cameron in 1st?

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/22/andy-coulson-investigated-perjury-allegations ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/22/andy-coulson-investigated-perjury-allegation[/url]s