Phone Hacking Journalists

bails87

Apparently Rebekah Brooks is going over to the NOTW offices for a meeting with all of the staff.


Apparently they've been in the pub all afternoon and are extremely peeved.

This could end....interestingly. Guillotine or gallows?

bails87

BTW, who are people following on twitter to keep up with this?

Bloggerheads is doing a sterling job of collecting everything and retweeting it. RupertMurdochPR is making it entertaining too.

Clank

W1 wrote:

Then why bother commenting at all?
.

1) Because there's no rule saying I can't express an opinion that folk don't like (normal criteria do apply, however).
2) Because I disagree with your comments and felt it needed saying.

Last night, this wouldn't have been heard, but today I'm reckoning it'll get listened to.
The argument says that some rules can be broken if the outcome is morally acceptable to yourself. I.e. - the end justifies the means. I say it cannot.

1) Laws apply to all, otherwise laws become meaningless and we start the slow and steady spiral towards the prevalence of tyranny. I don't feel you have the right to enforce your morality on me, as much as I can't enforce mine on you.
2) At some point, your end won't have been justified by the laws broken to achieve it. Then what? You've still tried and someone been hurt. Therefore the potential for inflicting hurt on someone is always present, and it's a risk you'd be willing to accept if the outcome suits your morality. I cannot accept this. I demand protection from such things - protection from the potential harm that your 'means' could inflict upon me.

Up shot of all this? I'd rather not live in a world where 'the end justifies your means'. A world where some laws are dismissible based on who you are or what you do. It could be argued, with some justification, that this is the world in which we already live.

On the flipside - you'd probably not be wanting to live in mine either

(edited because I forgot to spillchuck - my bad!)

MonkeyMonster

bails87 wrote:

BTW, who are people following on twitter to keep up with this?

Bloggerheads is doing a sterling job of collecting everything and retweeting it. RupertMurdochPR is making it entertaining too.

None, I for one don't use twitter at all.

rick_chasey

MonkeyMonster wrote:

bails87 wrote:

BTW, who are people following on twitter to keep up with this?

Bloggerheads is doing a sterling job of collecting everything and retweeting it. RupertMurdochPR is making it entertaining too.

None, I for one don't use twitter at all.

:roll:

Don't need to use twitter to follow people.

It's the fastest way to stay up to date with all the days movements. There are enough legitimate people on there doing good work that it's usually accurate.

walkingbootweather

Rick Chasey wrote:

:roll:

Don't need to use twitter to follow people.

It's the fastest way to stay up to date with all the days movements. There are enough legitimate people on there doing good work that it's usually accurate.

Hacking people's phones is also a fairly effective method to follow people...

.... allegedly

W1

Clank wrote:

W1 wrote:

Then why bother commenting at all?
.

1) Because there's no rule saying I can't express an opinion that folk don't like (normal criteria do apply, however).
2) Because I disagree with your comments and felt it needed saying.

Last night, this wouldn't have been heard, but today I'm reckoning it'll get listened to.
The argument says that some rules can be broken if the outcome is morally acceptable to yourself. I.e. - the end justifies the means. I say it cannot.

1) Laws apply to all, otherwise laws become meaningless and we start the slow and steady spiral towards the prevalence of tyranny. I don't feel you have the right to enforce your morality on me, as much as I can't enforce mine on you.
2) At some point, your end won't have been justified by the laws broken to achieve it. Then what? You've still tried and someone been hurt. Therefore the potential for inflicting hurt on someone is always present, and it's a risk you'd be willing to accept if the outcome suits your morality. I cannot accept this. I demand protection from such things - protection from the potential harm that your 'means' could inflict upon me.

Up shot of all this? I'd rather not live in a world where 'the end justifies your means'. A world where some laws are dismissible based on who you are or what you do. It could be argued, with some justification, that this is the world in which we already live.

On the flipside - you'd probably not be wanting to live in mine either

(edited because I forgot to spillchuck - my bad!)

I never said you weren't allowed to comment - just that without any justification, such a comment iis rather meaningless. I'm grateful for your fuller explanation, much of which I agree with in theory.

The very basis of most laws is imposing a level of "common" morality. Often these are obvious (murder, rape, theft), often less so (euthanasia for example) where the boundaries are less clear. The law is therefore created with some set morals. It sounds like you are content for others' morals to modify your behaviour and those around you without question or flexibility. I'm not so sure that's always right, particularly as "common" morals are very often not common on the edges.

In practice I'm not so sure that it's black and white. The law can be an ass - and there are certainly a few laws currently on the statute books that are often broken yet rarely correctly enforced. That's because it can be hard for law (escpecially common law) to cover all eventualities.

For one example (of which I have some knowledge) - women who kill abusive partners. Often self defence will not work as a defence, as often these killings are premediated. The inflexible nature of the law of murder means that the perpetrators of these killings may face a murder change, the only mitigation of which is to claim (often dubiously) diminished responsibility in order to have a partial defence and avoid a mandatory life sentence. That is such an absurd position, forced onto these abused women by the inflexibility of the common law. In your "kingdom" these women would be sent to jail for 12 years minimum. In mine, they wouldn't.The current position is they are required to manufacture a defence to avoid what I would consider an unjustified penalty.

Whilst I wouldn't support (for example) breaching laws to illicit information by toture, I don't see it as black and white and some laws can be legitimately broken yet should not lead to punishment.

asprilla

Rick Chasey wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

bails87 wrote:

BTW, who are people following on twitter to keep up with this?

Bloggerheads is doing a sterling job of collecting everything and retweeting it. RupertMurdochPR is making it entertaining too.

None, I for one don't use twitter at all.

:roll:

Don't need to use twitter to follow people.

It's the fastest way to stay up to date with all the days movements. There are enough legitimate people on there doing good work that it's usually accurate.

I'm using my own sources.

bails87

MonkeyMonster wrote:

bails87 wrote:

BTW, who are people following on twitter to keep up with this?

Bloggerheads is doing a sterling job of collecting everything and retweeting it. RupertMurdochPR is making it entertaining too.

None, I for one don't use twitter at all.

Isn't that like someone asking for advice on good lights/tyres/pedals for commuting and then replying with "I don't ride a bike so I don't use any".......

SimonAH

Asprilla wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

bails87 wrote:

BTW, who are people following on twitter to keep up with this?

Bloggerheads is doing a sterling job of collecting everything and retweeting it. RupertMurdochPR is making it entertaining too.

None, I for one don't use twitter at all.

:roll:

Don't need to use twitter to follow people.

It's the fastest way to stay up to date with all the days movements. There are enough legitimate people on there doing good work that it's usually accurate.

I'm using my own sources.

I simply slipped a copper a tenner for all the latest information.

bails87

I heard that the police have had problems with leaks, so I offered one a Tena. Didn't seem to be appreciated though.

jimmypippa

Well this looks as if it could run and run.

The Daily Mash: Is the Guardian Harry Potter

I like the photo and caption...