[Update] The News Corp scandal

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Honesty no. For as long as papers/tv/ or any other "media" has been reporting they have used "dirty tricks".

I believe that some "dirty tricks" are justifiable; for example in actual, proper investigative journalism that is "signed-off" by someone in authority to catch someone 'on tape' who wouldn't say that sort of thing if they knew there were being recorded.

That said, I don't think that any of what this enquiry is about is covered by the above.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

I believe that some "dirty tricks" are justifiable; for example in actual, proper investigative journalism that is "signed-off" by someone in authority to catch someone 'on tape' who wouldn't say that sort of thing if they knew there were being recorded.

That said, I don't think that any of what this enquiry is about is covered by the above.

It has to start somewhere. Phone hacking is just the latest in a long line of "spying" . Do you really think that people were picked at random to be
"on tape" . I not defending it just surprised the shock & anger people express
Also do we really think its just "news corp" personally I think they were the ones caught.

[carlwaring]

My point was more that if, say, the BBC wanted to use a hidden camera or whatever (though some might call that 'dirty tricks') then that's fine.

Actual illegal phone-hacking just to get a story? No way whatsoever do I condone that.

DC at the inquiry appeared 'irked' by the question put to him about the following:-

Originally Posted by Sky News

The hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London was also shown more evidence about the close relationship between Mr Cameron and Mrs Brooks.
A text message between the pair was read to the inquiry.

Sent by Mrs Brooks on the eve of Mr Cameron's speech to the Conservative Party conference in 2009, and just days after The Sun switched its support to his party from Labour, it said: "I'm so rooting for you tomorrow not just as a proud friend but because professionally we are in this together. Speech of your life? Yes he Cam!"

"Professionally in this together" oh really ... By this do they mean that if The Murdoch empire scratches the Tories backs, that the favour is returned of a certain BSkyb take over bid approval?

DC admits, that they got too close to the media and need an Independant body to regulate this behaviour? Too bloody late for that Cameron.

It's the expenses scandal all over again, they got caught lining their own pockets with Tax payers cash and then admitted after they got caught, that it was wrong and that they needed to clean up this by having an independant audit office and clean up politics, while it appears they were saying all this at the time, they thought it was okay to share social gatherings with high level associates of News International. Now this BS and saying it only now that it is important in keeping their distance from the press, too bloody late.

Mick, I agree that all parties are too close to newspapers, and this is not appropriate, but in this case, David Cameron has been a friend of Charlie Brooks (Rebekah Brooks husband) since he was at school - is he supposed to give up his friendship because one of his closest friends marries someone who manages a newspaper?

[Itshim]

---------- Post added at 15:50 ---------- Previous post was at 15:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

DC at the inquiry appeared 'irked' by the question put to him about the following:-



"Professionally in this together" oh really ... By this do they mean that if The Murdoch empire scratches the Tories backs, that the favour is returned of a certain BSkyb take over bid approval?

DC admits, that they got too close to the media and need an Independant body to regulate this behaviour? Too bloody late for that Cameron.

It's the expenses scandal all over again, they got caught lining their own pockets with Tax payers cash and then admitted after they got caught, that it was wrong and that they needed to clean up this by having an independant audit office and clean up politics, while it appears they were saying all this at the time, they thought it was okay to share social gatherings with high level associates of News International. Now this BS and saying it only now that it is important in keeping their distance from the press, too bloody late.

Again I ask why the surprise

Originally Posted by Hugh

Mick, I agree that all parties are too close to newspapers, and this is not appropriate, but in this case, David Cameron has been a friend of Charlie Brooks (Rebekah Brooks husband) since he was at school - is he supposed to give up his friendship because one of his closest friends marries someone who manages a newspaper?

That is not my point Hugh. It wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to work out that, okay they have a good friendship, but hold on a minute, all these social meetings and gatherings, don't it look rather suspicious? Well to them it wouldn't because they can use the "We are the best of friends." card, sorry but they cannot keep using that as a smoke screen.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Mick, I agree that all parties are too close to newspapers, and this is not appropriate, but in this case, David Cameron has been a friend of Charlie Brooks (Rebekah Brooks husband) since he was at school - is he supposed to give up his friendship because one of his closest friends marries someone who manages a newspaper?

Whilst that explains the 'proud friend' bit, it doesn't explain the 'professionally in it together' bit, which is what people object to.

Agreed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18459013

Gordon Brown says records released by the Cabinet Office confirm his claim that he did not call Rupert Murdoch to declare "war" on News Corp.

But the Cabinet Office said there was no record of a call that month.

Hmm! I know who I believe..

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18459013





Hmm! I know who I believe..

Depends where and how that call was made

Originally Posted by Sirius

Depends where and how that call was made

It says: "Following Gordon Brown's evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on Monday we have received a number of questions about our records, which we provided to Mr Brown to support his preparations for the inquiry.
"We can confirm that there is a record of only one call between Mr Brown and Rupert Murdoch in the year to March 2010.
"That call took place on the 10th of November 2009.
"This was followed up by an email from Gordon Brown to Rupert Murdoch on the same day referring to the earlier conversation on Afghanistan.
"Four witness statements have been submitted to the inquiry on the content of the call by staff who worked in No 10 Downing Street and who were the four and sole personnel on the phone call."

"There is no record of a call because because no call took place. Indeed even now Mr Murdoch has been unable to name any date or a time of such a call."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18475431

Lord Justice Leveson complained to the UK's top civil servant after a cabinet minister raised concerns about his inquiry into the press, it has emerged.
Education Secretary Michael Gove said in February that the debate around the hearings could erode freedom of speech.
That prompted the judge to contact Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood.
Lord Justice Leveson is understood to have been worried that if Mr Gove was speaking for the whole cabinet it could undermine his inquiry.

Well as I find Gove objectionable I'm not surprised..

Anyway apparently the headline in the Mail today is NOT True.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ee-speech.html

[Sirius]

So every possible phone he had access to has been checked, are they saying that every single call from every single phone he has used be it work or private is recorded in case of a situation like this ?

Originally Posted by Sirius

So every possible phone he had access to has been checked, are they saying that every single call from every single phone he has used be it work or private is recorded in case of a situation like this ?

You talking about Brown?'Cos you confused me there for a while...