Ernie – I thought the Murdoch press supported Blair in 97?

Have you noticed this story has totally disappeared from the BBC website?

Hooray for the Great British apathy

And would you stop going to the cinema in case it’s a 20th Century Fox production?

Thought not.

The British are world leaders in complaining about stuff but when it comes down to it never actually bothering to do anything about it!

“yeh, boo, the phone hacking is terrible! etc etc, boycott the Murdoch empire!… oh wait, that would mean missing my favourite tv series… and there’s a great documentary I’ve sky+’d that I’ve not watched yet… and then there’s the hassle of changing providers… um, oh, I can’t be bothered…”

Ernie – I thought the Murdoch press supported Blair in 97?

Well the Sun certainly did (not sure about the Times which unlike the Sun, Murdoch has a much more hands off approach) hence my comment : “every time Labour has won a general election it has done so despite overwhelming opposition from the Tory press”, I didn’t mention “complete opposition”.

Although many have argued that Murdoch only allowed the Sun to support Labour in ’97 because a Labour victory was a certainty and the Sun doesn’t like backing losers, plus it would have served no useful purpose not to. And of course it left Blair somewhat “indebted” to Murdoch.

Which gets back to my point that Murdoch’s ability to manipulate public opinion is “grossly overstated imo”. It’s undoubtedly real, but overstated.

maccruiskeen – your missing the point. I’m aware their are infinite ways of finding out information readily about anyone. I’m suggesting that given the security (all put down to terrorism etc) that if a number of cabinet ministers were having their phones hacked, the perpetrator wouldn’t be doing so with impunity, without the collusion of someone on the inside.

Hence my suggestion that some officers in the Met are probably bricking it about what’s going to come out in the wash. And why they were so reluctant to investigate in the first place

I’m going out on a limb here, but could they possibly have been getting them from sources within the met?

**** me here we go again with yet another conspiracy theory which will turn out to have absolutely no foundation. I notice that all the people knocking the met over the G20 case have overlooked to admit they were entirely wrong in respect of all the accusations of cover up. No doubt the same will be true here.

The Milly Dowler situation has only now come to light becuase prior to the Levi Bellfield trial it could have jeapordised the case. Its that simple.

Regarding obtaining numbers, anyone missed the potential and vastly more realsitic source of information that is O2/Orange/Vodafone/ etc etc where £20 will buy you a lote more than it might once have done at Scotland Yard?

FFS get a grip

I notice that all the people knocking the met over the G20 case have overlooked to admit they were entirely wrong in respect of all the accusations of cover up

Eh ? 😕 The Met lied. The only reason the truth came out was because someone produced a very damning footage of film which completely undermined what the Met had said.

Spot on ernie.

Have you noticed this story has totally disappeared from the BBC website?

It’s the top headline on the BBC news site at the moment

So what you’re saying BB is that any old fecker can slip someone at Orange twenty quid and get the number of the deputy PM and then tap straight into their phone. Without anyone in the security services being aware of that? For Year after year?

Yeah, right. Its hardly a conspiracy theory to suggest that that isn’t a very believable scenario.

I’m sorry, but the attitude of the met to this investigation from the off speaks volumes. They were dragged kicking and screaming into doing anything at all about this

I’m ex-BT and we used to have to do training courses about dealing with approaches for info from outside organisations.

£20 is probably understating it, but I imagine there are people whose heads would be turned by a 4 or 5 figure sum who have access to sensitive data.

Well if that’s the case, then that in itself raises another set of questions altogether. That a quick back-hander can potentially get you access to the phones of the people running the country. And that they’ll be blissfully unaware that they’re being listened in on. Probably not a healthy state of affairs

This was only to the voicemail messages – not to the actualy phone conversations.

Wikipedia appears to be a part of the battlefield;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebekah_Brooks

Rebekah Brooks (née Wade, born 27 May 1968) is an evil whore, vile scumbag and sycophantic employee of the corrupt Rupert Murdoch

This was only to the voicemail messages – not to the actualy phone conversations.

Oh that’s OK then

I thought the voicemail hacking simply required you to get the mobile number and use the remote access system with the assumption that the passcode was left on default or with a simple code (0000 or 1234 etc) because most people dont use the remote access feature.

Miliband has just called for a public enquiry. Brave Ed 🙄 (about **** time Ed)

berm bandit, you do know that wade admitted that her paper regularly paid met officers for information……..
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1AJjnl2y8U[/video]
is this a healthy relationship to have with the gutter press?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/23/news-of-the-world-met-dinners

but im sure that they will be cleared of all wrongdoing

im also sure brooks will get off just fine murdochs even supporting her still, but then she is a family friend of the camerons

Oh Goody. We can look forward to him repeating it all day in

The Ed Milliband Loop

It sounds like an interview with a satnav stuck on a roundabout. Or a novelty talking keyring with its most boring button held down. Or a character in a computer game with only one dialogue option. Or an Ed Miliband-shaped phone with an Ed Miliband-themed ringtone.

I thought the voicemail hacking simply required you to get the mobile number and use the remote access system with the assumption that the passcode was left on default or with a simple code (0000 or 1234 etc) because most people dont use the remote access feature.

Indeed. Even the BBC needs a kick up the backside about repeatedly using the tabloid-headline-esque references to “phone hacking”.

In terms of politicians etc, I can’t help thinking that we should be as (if not more) worried about the possibility that they were conducting the affairs of government / the country via a series of voicemail messages – particularly if they hadn’t even bothered to change the default PIN. Presumably in most cases they weren’t, but that’s not going to stop them getting all indignant about their number(s) appearing on the NOTW list 😉

“Hi John. I know you’re probably busy boffing your secretary. Or punching Welsh blokes. Or turning motorways into bus stops. Or whatever it is you do. And I know I don’t bother consulting you about any of this shit anyway. But just to let you know I’ve decided to invade Iraq. You’ll be able to read about it in the papers in the mornng anyway”

“Hi John. I know you’re probably busy boffing your secretary. Or punching Welsh blokes. Or turning motorways into bus stops. Or whatever it is you do. And I know I don’t bother consulting you about any of this shit anyway. But just to let you know I’ve decided to invade Iraq. You’ll be able to read about it in the papers in the mornng anyway”

😀

Well if that’s the case, then that in itself raises another set of questions altogether.

I’ll take that as acceptance of my point then.

berm bandit, you do know that wade admitted that her paper regularly paid met officers for information……..

I don’t doubt it for a moment, but then I don’t expect public servants to have higher moral standards than anyone else. However that is not the point. What binners is doing is suggesting that there is a conspiracy on the part of the Met here. I am merely suggesting that that is utter ballcocks, if for no other reason because they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery let alone a decent conspiracy.

The only reason the truth came out was because someone produced a very damning footage of film which completely undermined what the Met had said.

I think you will find that the reason it came out was actually the full and thorough investigation by the IPCC, and the discarding of the evidence given by Freddie Patel intially, which left no case to answer, except via internal dicipline (which incidentally was suspended while formal investigations were being carried out). Once the legal process was completed they then lamped the guy and quite rightly so too. But you believe whatever you care to make up to feed your own predjudices.

I belkeive there was clear collusion between the Met and the NOTW

Simply a case of “go easy on our friends” a lot of two way traffic between them and professional friendships. Its very obvious the original investigation was not as rigorous as it should have been and the Met told lies about this

BB – the very fact that Freddy Patel was given the PM to do is a part of the attempted cover up.

Well if that’s the case, then that in itself raises another set of questions altogether.

I’ll take that as acceptance of my point then.

That’s very presumptuous of you. Not to say, inaccurate.

I’m not suggesting any kind of conspiracy. I’m suggesting something much simpler than that. Basically: “how about I give you this envelope which contains a big wedge of used non-consecutive notes, and you turn a blind eye to the dodgy stuff wot I’m about to do guv”

That isn’t a conspiracy. There’s another word for that. Corruption

I think you will find that the reason it came out was actually the full and thorough investigation by the IPCC

Nope.

But you believe whatever you care to make up to feed your own predjudices.

Quite

I think BB’s on to a loser here. The suggestion that the newspapers have contacts in the met who will supply info for £££ isn’t exactly on the same levels as faked moon landing conspiracy theories. The hacks will have lots of sources of info, plod included.

I notice that all the people knocking the met over the G20 case have overlooked to admit they were entirely wrong in respect of all the accusations of cover up.

Eh?

So how far do you think these practices went:
1. Just NOTW
2. NOTW & Sun
3. All News International
4. All tabloids
5. All less scrupulous journos were at it
6. It was routine in the industry and it happened everywhere

I’m tending to guess between 5 and 6

Rebekah Brooks;

“I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew – or worse – sanctioned these appalling allegations.”

*hollow laughter*

berm bandit, you do know that wade admitted that her paper regularly paid met officers for information

“I don’t expect public servants to have higher moral standards than anyone else”

What ???? You don’t expect police officers to have higher moral standards than anyone else ?

Well I, and I hazard to guess the overwhelming majority of the population, expect higher than average moral standards from police officers. I am perfectly happy to work alongside a plumber with a criminal conviction for theft, but I would be seriously pissed off if I was nicked by a copper with a simular criminal conviction for theft.

And their employers agree with me – a copper done for drink driving will be kicked out of the police force.

“how about I give you this envelope which contains a big wedge of used non-consecutive notes we publish wot you want, and you turn a blind eye to the dodgy stuff wot I’m about to do guv”

seems a tad more realistic, no?

So what you’re saying BB is that any old fecker can slip someone at Orange twenty quid and get the number of the deputy PM and then tap straight into their phone. Without anyone in the security services being aware of that? For Year after year?

No, you just get yourself a job at vodafone or hmrc or anywhere. You don’t need to bribe anyone, you can pry, pass secrets on at will and get paid for it

Thats about it IMO BigButSlimmerBloke.

I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive fella. I’d say both.

One question that springs immediately to mind is where did the NOTW get hold of Millie Dowler (and now it seems, her parents) phone numbers? Where did they happen upon John Prescotts number (who happened to be deputy PM at the time?

The Guardian article indicated the mobile numbers (and any unlisted ones) were obtained from a BT employee.

The article also made it clear that the police were at least aware of the NOTW’s behaviour in the Dowler case.

And their employers agree with me – a copper done for drink driving will be kicked out of the police force.

In much the same way that any other professional driver will lose their job if disqualified through D & D, so whats your point ernie? If anything that confirms my point rather than contradicts it. i.e. I don’t expect the Police in general to have higher moral standards than the general population, so shockingly I do expect that there are corrupt coppers, and those who drink too much and those who are kiddy fiddlers and in all liklihood they will be in pretty much the exact same proportions as they are in the population at large. To suggest anything else is naieve beyond belief, but also suggests that like the general population the majority are law abiding citizens just like you and me.

The article also made it clear that the police were at least aware of the NOTW’s behaviour in the Dowler case.

Does it also point out the similarly blindingly obvious fact that they were keeping it schtum until the trial was over?

Just reading the article now.

here

The newspaper also made no effort to conceal its activity from Surrey police. After it had hacked the message from the recruitment agency on Milly’s phone, the paper informed police about it.

It was Surrey detectives who established that the call was not intended for Milly Dowler. At the time, Surrey police suspected that phones belonging to detectives and to Milly’s parents also were being targeted.

One of those who was involved in the original inquiry said: “We’d arrange landline calls. We didn’t trust our mobiles.”

However, they took no action against the News of the World, partly because their main focus was to find the missing schoolgirl and partly because this was only one example of tabloid misbehaviour. As one source close to the inquiry put it: “There was a hell of a lot of dirty stuff going on.” Two earlier Yard inquiries had failed to investigate the relevant notes in Mulcaire’s logs.

Seems the relationship was very cosy indeed. Surely any investigation would look intoo this stuff if they were aware it was going on. It is, after all, illegal