I've probably got the wrong end of the stick here, feel free to re-educate me...
I feel somewhat let down by the number of celebrities and their assistants queuing up for out of court settlements from Murdoch inc., rather than pursuing through the courts.
Does this mean that they value money above putting the companies concerned through the mill?
After all the handwringing and anguish earlier on, the majority of the high profile names involved seem to have elastic morals, akin to those who employ ambulance chasers.
I've not been too interested in following this closely, so as said above, I'm open to having my opinion changed.
I think you've hit it on the head, the majority of the "celeberities" are after the cash so couldn't give a monkeys about justice being done.
Just goes to show if you throw enough cash at something it will eventually disappear. the majority people are over their initial outrage and ready to carry on with their lives, the papers are happy enough to let them forget about it and so are paying out to keep it further away from the public eye.
or something.
Does this mean that they value money above putting the companies concerned through the mill?
Well, yes, but it's not as bad as you think...the court cases are civil. Simply put, civil cases are all about seeking compensation for loss (or stopping further losses) that's been caused to you. If the person who did wrong to you offers to compensate you, it doesn't make sense to throw away thousands of pounds to litigate over things when all it's going to do is give more material to gossipmongers, clog up the courts and make lawyers richer.
I get your point but don't really see what going through the courts would achieve as it's not exactly a low profile case that would benefit from further publicity. Everyone that cares knows what happened by now.
Also for those involved a lot of the phone hacking was to find out details that they would rather have remained private so I doubt they would really relish the idea of dragging up old stories again.
I tell you what bothers me. The expression 'phone hacking'. Yep, it's amoral but all it is, is phoning the number for people's public voicemail and putting the default PIN in. It's hardly hacking.
It should be called 'dumb people identifying' instead, maybe that would make them less keen to stand up and be counted.
Well, yes, but it's not as bad as you think...the court cases are civil. Simply put, civil cases are all about seeking compensation for loss (or stopping further losses) that's been caused to you.
Ok, I think I see- settlement won't affect the (presumably criminal) prosecution of those involved- is that correct?
Looking at it another way though.... One benefit of costly settlements, if there enough of them and they are costly enough, is you would hope that papers would begin to be regulated by their shareholders in a way that they've so far failed to have been regulated by government or the courts.
vinnyeh - Member
Does this mean that they value money above putting the companies concerned through the mill?
Pursuing a claim like that incurs risk, a lot of stress, and public airing of your laundry. Not doing so has no bearing on a criminal claim.
If you can get some £££ out of someone who feel has wronged you (even if it's less than you might get in a claim) without the risk/hassle/effort/stress of a claim, most will do so - best to move on.
settlement won't affect the (presumably criminal) prosecution of those involved- is that correct?
No, it won't. You can pay people to stop them suing you in civil matters (which is fair enough - can you imagine if every single possible lawsuit was actually brought to court?) but you can't pay witnesses so that the Crown doesn't prosecute you for criminal matters.
