Phone Hacking Journalists

Wallace1492

Completely disgusting. Hacking celebrities is bad enough, the new allegations really just show how low these scum can go.

hfidgen

Burn them!

bails87

You know when we had the discussion about superinjunctions, and people were talking about how important a free press was........this is the kind of scum they're standing up for.

Utterly disgusting. Well done to the Guardian for uncovering it. Shame on the PM's 'bezzie mates' for (as I'm sure their thorough investigation will show :roll: ) not being aware this was happening.

If anyone keeps buying the NOTW and Sun after this, they've got a serious problem with basic human decency. I can't imagine what it must have been like for the parents to have found out the only reason they thought their daughter was still alive was because some hack was deleting voicemail messages so he had new stuff to listen to.

:evil:

W1

bails87 wrote:

You know when we had the discussion about superinjunctions, and people were talking about how important a free press was........this is the kind of scum they're standing up for.

Indeed. Another example of why "responsible" and "press" will never go together.

rjsterry

+1 EDIT: for clarity, the +1 applies to the last two paragraphs in bails87's post. I'm not getting into the free press argument, which is clearly a separate issue. Nobody is suggesting that a free press somehow legitimises the criminal behaviour of phone hacking.

I had thought that I'd seen it all with this case, but I have to say I was shocked by this latest revelation. A new nadir in British 'journalism'.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

+1

I had thought that I'd seen it all with this case, but I have to say I was shocked by this latest revelation. A new nadir in British 'journalism'.

I'd love to hear Sewinman justify this.

Apparently anything goes in the name of liberalism, even hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.

PBo

bails87 wrote:

You know when we had the discussion about superinjunctions, and people were talking about how important a free press was........this is the kind of scum they're standing up for.

Utterly disgusting. Well done to the Guardian for uncovering it. Shame on the PM's 'bezzie mates' for (as I'm sure their thorough investigation will show :roll: ) not being aware this was happening.

If anyone keeps buying the NOTW and Sun after this, they've got a serious problem with basic human decency. I can't imagine what it must have been like for the parents to have found out the only reason they thought their daughter was still alive was because some hack was deleting voicemail messages so he had new stuff to listen to.

:evil:

A free press IS important......this voice hacking affair has nothing to do with it however.

What they did was utterly sickening and disgusting, presumably criminal?, but has no bearing on issues of a free press.......

Sewinman

Terrible behaviour by the NOTW and its agents. It really has nothing to do with superinjunctions or a 'free press', this is just simple criminality. Rather predictably it suits some people's agenda to link the two.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

+1

I had thought that I'd seen it all with this case, but I have to say I was shocked by this latest revelation. A new nadir in British 'journalism'.

I'd love to hear Sewinman justify this.

Apparently anything goes in the name of liberalism, even hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.

You are reaching new lows now. How dare you insinuate that I would approve of such actions.

You owe me an apology.

Kieran_Burns

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

+1

I had thought that I'd seen it all with this case, but I have to say I was shocked by this latest revelation. A new nadir in British 'journalism'.

I'd love to hear Sewinman justify this.

Apparently anything goes in the name of liberalism, even hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.

To be fair: liberalism is personal freedom with personal responsibility

You are free to do whatever you wish as long as it does not negatively impact on others and you take responsibility for your acts.

This disgusting act (and I really am seething over this) does not fit in with that model. What these people have done beggars belief and I sincerely hope that they are exposed and brought to justice.

I can't express my utter loathing in words here, I feel dirty just thinking about it.

Wrong, just deeply wrong.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

+1

I had thought that I'd seen it all with this case, but I have to say I was shocked by this latest revelation. A new nadir in British 'journalism'.

I'd love to hear Sewinman justify this.

Apparently anything goes in the name of liberalism, even hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.

And furthermore it is quite sickening that you are latching on to this tragic little story to justify your f'ing idiotic views. :evil:

sketchley

While a don't think this is right at all. Some blame must be levelled at the network operators and phone user themselves. To call this hacking is a bit of an exaggeration. while this doesn't happen any more a few years ago the voice mail on a mobile phone had a default pin number for external access normally "1234" or "1111" or "0000", all you had to do was phone the phone, get voice mail, press # and enter the default pin and you could listen to any saved or new messages. You can still do this except now when you set up voice mail you have to provide a pin to allow external access so there is no longer a simple default. Those of you who have had their phone a while and not changed provider might want to check they don't have default pin set.

As I said calling this hacking implies some computer boffin running secret hacking software, the reality is all the mobile phone providers went to market with a very insecure system. If a bank had done that, they would of been fined a lot of money by the FSA for breach of data protection act.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

+1

I had thought that I'd seen it all with this case, but I have to say I was shocked by this latest revelation. A new nadir in British 'journalism'.

I'd love to hear Sewinman justify this.

Apparently anything goes in the name of liberalism, even hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.

And furthermore it is quite sickening that you are latching on to this tragic little story to justify your f'ing idiotic views. :evil:

What idiotic views? That the press need to be controlled? That's not idiotic. What's idiotic is your view that they are responsible enough to decide what to print.

In your view, anything they had gleaned from this information they should have been free to print, even though the remedy for such an intrusion is completely toothless.

That's the "free" press you are happy to support.

Sewinman wrote:

Ohhh you have got me on the ropes now eh! You can all come up with awful stories and ask me should they be published, blah blah - shock horror, how awful. As I wrote earlier I do not think freedom of expression should curtailed for any reason, other than perhaps national security and inciting hatred. If that means a few bad stories get published - well oh dear, how sad, never mind. Society should deal with that problem in ways that do not involve censorship.

Sewinman wrote:

Personally, I don't really see any pressing need to control what the press write. They are already held to account if they get it wrong. Perhaps strengthening the Press Complaints Commission? I am not sure of the best method, or if new measures are required. I just hate the idea of gagging freedom of speech. The benefits of a free press outweigh their occasional misdemeanours IMO.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

+1

I had thought that I'd seen it all with this case, but I have to say I was shocked by this latest revelation. A new nadir in British 'journalism'.

I'd love to hear Sewinman justify this.

Apparently anything goes in the name of liberalism, even hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.

And furthermore it is quite sickening that you are latching on to this tragic little story to justify your f'ing idiotic views. :evil:

What idiotic views? That the press need to be controlled? That's not idiotic. What's idiotic is your view that they are responsible enough to decide what to print.

In your view, anything they had gleaned from this information they should have been free to print, even though the remedy for such an intrusion is completely toothless.

That's the "free" press you are happy to support.

Absolute f'ing bollox - hacking into someones phone is clearly illegal, thus publishing anything gleaned from it would not be acceptable. Don't try and pin this on me, it is a complete misrepresentation of my views.

The fact that you are trying to insinuate that I would approve of hacking a murdered school girl's phone, just to score a pathetic little political point on the internet simply 100% confirms my opinion that you are a complete c*nt.

I await your apology.

bails87

The Daily Mash are on form not once, but twice.

As for a free press, my issue is that we should have a fre press, but unfortunately the need to make money takes over from any kind of journalistic integrity, and we get stuff like this happening.

Edit: In fact I'd argue that the way most newspapers/channels are owned means we don't have a free press. We have a press that pushes the owner's views based on the current political situation.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

+1

I had thought that I'd seen it all with this case, but I have to say I was shocked by this latest revelation. A new nadir in British 'journalism'.

I'd love to hear Sewinman justify this.

Apparently anything goes in the name of liberalism, even hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.

And furthermore it is quite sickening that you are latching on to this tragic little story to justify your f'ing idiotic views. :evil:

What idiotic views? That the press need to be controlled? That's not idiotic. What's idiotic is your view that they are responsible enough to decide what to print.

In your view, anything they had gleaned from this information they should have been free to print, even though the remedy for such an intrusion is completely toothless.

That's the "free" press you are happy to support.

Absolute f'ing bollox - hacking into someones phone is clearly illegal, thus publishing anything gleaned from it would not be acceptable. Don't try and pin this on me, it is a complete misrepresentation of my views.

The fact that you are trying to insinuate that I would approve of hacking a murdered school girl's phone, just to score a pathetic little political point on the internet simply 100% confirms my opinion that you are a complete c*nt.

I await your apology.

I've added some of your previous comments to my post - you'll be waiting a long time.

As you said, your view is that "I do not think freedom of expression should curtailed for any reason, other than perhaps national security and inciting hatred"....

rick_chasey

I find it odd people are OK with hacking politicians and actors, but not with this.

Surely (as I said on cakestop) the privacy issue must be upheld at all times to avoid this kind of thing happening.

You can't pick and choose, and use the level of outrage (pumped up by other journalists!) as a barometer to see how OK or not you've been retrospectively.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

+1

I had thought that I'd seen it all with this case, but I have to say I was shocked by this latest revelation. A new nadir in British 'journalism'.

I'd love to hear Sewinman justify this.

Apparently anything goes in the name of liberalism, even hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.

And furthermore it is quite sickening that you are latching on to this tragic little story to justify your f'ing idiotic views. :evil:

What idiotic views? That the press need to be controlled? That's not idiotic. What's idiotic is your view that they are responsible enough to decide what to print.

In your view, anything they had gleaned from this information they should have been free to print, even though the remedy for such an intrusion is completely toothless.

That's the "free" press you are happy to support.

Absolute f'ing bollox - hacking into someones phone is clearly illegal, thus publishing anything gleaned from it would not be acceptable. Don't try and pin this on me, it is a complete misrepresentation of my views.

The fact that you are trying to insinuate that I would approve of hacking a murdered school girl's phone, just to score a pathetic little political point on the internet simply 100% confirms my opinion that you are a complete c*nt.

I await your apology.

I've added some of your previous comments to my post - you'll be waiting a long time.

And were any of those quotes advocating illegally hacking phones to get info? No, so fuck off. This story is not even about what is published, it is about the illegal methods used to source information. I have never said that all forms of information gathering, including the illegal, are acceptable.

I didn't think you would stoop this low to be honest. You really are a low-grade nasty piece of work.

secretsam

I believe totally in a free press, the Guardian's exposure of this truly foul action by the NOTW (if it is true) is a good example of this.

However, I also believe that those who stray over the line in the free press should be punished. Claiming "I didn't know" as Editor ain't gonna wash.

In the same way as in any other commercial organisation, the buck stops at the top, then I think this will finally see Rebekah Brooks take a tumble. I suspect that those who were defending her will now hang her out to dry, as public opinion - already fairly vitriolic about the treatment of the Dowler family in court - will be almost unanimous on this one.

That those responsible may have raised false hope in the poor girl's family and interfered in the Police investigation is unforgivable.

rjsterry

Right, seeing as my name keeps appearing at the top of the list of quotes, I will join in. The argument over superinjunctions came about primarily through one party in an affair wanting to go to the press, and the other using legal means to stop them. That is a completely separate issue to the NOTW phone hacking, and in particular the hacking of Milly Dowler's voicemail. The only connection is that they involve the press. Ironically, it's actually investigative journalism (the thing which superinjunctions can curtail) which revealed the phone hacking.

Wallace1492

It's sad that this has seemed to turn into a slagging match between W1 and Sewinman.

I think that people care less about celebrities being hacked as they tend to use the press for their purposes as required, and can generally defend themselves more. It does not make the hacking of these phones right, just that people care less.

But in this case it brings it home more exactly what is going on, and people will quite rightly be far more outraged.

Also lets please not have this linked with freedom of the press as it has nothing at all to do with that. This is illegal, immoral and I want someone to be accountable for this.

Sewinman

rjsterry wrote:

Right, seeing as my name keeps appearing at the top of the list of quotes, I will join in. The argument over superinjunctions came about primarily through one party in an affair wanting to go to the press, and the other using legal means to stop them. That is a completely separate issue to the NOTW phone hacking, and in particular the hacking of Milly Dowler's voicemail. The only connection is that they involve the press. Ironically, it's actually investigative journalism (the thing which superinjunctions can curtail) which revealed the phone hacking.

+1

Apologies to the others on this thread for the slanging match, I was outraged that W1 would use this unrelated, but highly emotive story to attack my opinions on freedom of speech. Emotions got the better of me, although my opinion of said poster stands.

dilemna

There is an earlier thread (mine) in cake stop that hasn't turned into a personal slanging match.

sketchley

I'm assuming this "hacking" took place when Milly was on the missing list and not after her body was found. In which case say voice mail had revealed she was running away with a fiends and ultimately led to her being found, would this of been a good thing? While the "hacking" is wrong, it is the context of knowing what happened to Milly that makes this so appalling and there is no indication the NOTW knew that context at the time of the "hacking".

bails87

SecretSam wrote:

In the same way as in any other commercial organisation, the buck stops at the top, then I think this will finally see Rebekah Brooks take a tumble. I suspect that those who were defending her will now hang her out to dry, as public opinion - already fairly vitriolic about the treatment of the Dowler family in court - will be almost unanimous on this one.

The tabloids have done a good job of not bigging up the story though. Half of page 8 of the Mail, The Sun have put aside a whole space this big: [ ] for it on the side of page 2. The Express seem to be quiet on it. You have to scroll past 24 other stories on the homepage before you reach it. Seemingly less important than a story about Dale Jennings (?) moving to Bayern Munich. And the Mail put it after a story about Prince William taking part in a boat race and some guff about Polish immigrants in Holland.

Suprisingly the Times put it on the front page, admittedly on the sidebar rather than the main story, but at least they've acknowledged that their inbred cousin has done something naughty.

An interesting point is that Rebekah Wade/Brooks was editor of the Sun during their hounding of Sharon Shoesmith, when they took the line that even if she wasn't personally involved with the Baby P case, she should still be held responsible because she was in charge. And yet Wade/Brooks seems to be able to keep saying "I didn't know about that" over and over again, despite the fact that she was in charge, and get away with it. If she couldn't find it in any of the previous investigations, or notice it when it was happening, how is she going to uncover anything now?!

bails87

Sketchley wrote:

I'm assuming this "hacking" took place when Milly was on the missing list and not after her body was found. In which case say voice mail had revealed she was running away with a fiends and ultimately led to her being found, would this of been a good thing? While the "hacking" is wrong, it is the context of knowing what happened to Milly that makes this so appalling and there is no indication the NOTW knew that context at the time of the "hacking".

I don't think the NOTW were foing it for the family's benefit. They got into her voicemail, which the police could have asked the phone company to do if they thought it would be useful, and deleted messages from her friends and family, asking her to contact them/come home, so they'd have more to write about it. Don't think for a millisecond that the scum at the NOTW were on some humanitarian resuce mission.

EKE_38BPM

Sketchley wrote:

I'm assuming this "hacking" took place when Milly was on the missing list and not after her body was found. In which case say voice mail had revealed she was running away with a fiends and ultimately led to her being found, would this of been a good thing? While the "hacking" is wrong, it is the context of knowing what happened to Milly that makes this so appalling and there is no indication the NOTW knew that context at the time of the "hacking".

In the situation you describe, would the NOTW have told the police and Milly's familly that she had run away or would they have kept their mouths shut? No way of definitively answering that I guess, but I would guess they would keep quiet so as not to reveal the source of the information.

WisePranker

bails87 wrote:

If anyone keeps buying the NOTW and Sun after this, they've got a serious problem with basic human decency.

:evil:

The same should be said for advertisers too.

Any company who is still spending their advertising money with the NOTW and associating with them should be thought of int he same light.

sketchley

bails87 and EKE_38BPM I'm not trying to defend NOTW and do not think they were doing this for any other reason than to sell papers. However, forget the reason why they did it for a second. My point is one of context, this is being portrayed as they "hacked in to the phone of murder school girl". At the time they did it they didn't (I hope) know she had been murdered. Had she been found safe and well would this story be getting the same prominence and reaction it's getting now? It's all a matter of context.

bails87

While we're on the subject ....The Sun and Mirror are in court today for the contempt of court hearing after what was written about an innocent man during the Joanna Yeates investigation.

WisePranker: Good point about advertisers. I think there's a campaign along those lines starting up already.

sketchley

Parent company is News International, which in turn is News Corp which have big holding in and is planning to buy BSkyB. So if you feel outraged enough cancel those Sky subscriptions. Also take a look at http://www.newscorp.com/operations/publishing.html should probably boycott those as well.