DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

there is absolutely nothing new here at all.

i think it's more that there is now concrete evidence that the standard tabloid bullshit has intersected with a criminal case in a way that's genuinely, clandestinely destabilising & dangerous, all while disrespecting people who are out of the circle of seemingly-inevitable-targets. i mean maybe it's a matter of degrees compared to previous behaviour - their overreaching has always been destabilising - but this is so much shit at once, and in such a sensitive area, that it's kinda mindblowing & indicts their standard behaviour. it's the same as if their mis-info leads to a mis-trial in a criminal case; immediate consequences rather than a general & gradual derogatory effect.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxp

This is the same David Cameron who, of course, in a disastrous misjudgment, made the disgraced NotW editor Andy Coulson his press officer.

yeah i am obviously mainly enjoying the fact that DC is couched between these two players & it reflects badly on him, but really, gambling on coulson's expertise & convenience & proximal value outweighing his blow-up-in-yr-face flaws was BAD MATHS

To suggest some kind of impropriety is laughable, as we all know.

DL it's kind of sick but no different than anything tabs have done for decades. they doorstep grieving families, they do all kinds of things. i don't think you'll ever be able to stop it. but i think it would suit the met and rupert murdoch very nicely if the finger of blame rested on them and went no further. in a sense it all comes back to the pap's classic complaint: we do what we do because there's a market for it. in this case, not only is there a market for it, there are people in positions of responsibility not to compromise private information who have in fact done so and i blame those people far more than some hacks just paying for information, like they always have done.

xpost no it's true that the voicemail deletion thing is truly sensational. and sensationally stupid. it's the kind of brilliantly horrible detail that you'd find in a really excellent tv show.

the daily mail going for the PCC is quite significant. dacre is chairman of the editor's code of practice committee.

presumably the sudden conversion is to forestall a wider public inquiry, which would have to look into the nearly 900 instances when over 50 daily mail journalists hired private investigators who were in 2003 arrested and convicted of charges related to misuse of private data.

they doorstep grieving families

there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

well i think there is. but Tracer's assertion that the corruptors are less culpable than the corrupted seems bogus to me too.

Doorstepping grieving families isn't the same as hacking into their phones dude. It isn't remotely the same.

it's not the same of course but imo it's also immoral

incidentally i can't work out if the new Bribery Act 2010 is in effect yet or not but it makes interesting reading for NI and Met employees.

If an individual is found guilty of a bribery offence, tried as a summary offence, they may be imprisoned for up to 12 months and fined up to £5,000. Someone found guilty on indictment, however, faces up to 10 years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. The crime of a commercial organisation failing to prevent bribery is punishable by an unlimited fine. In addition, a convicted individual or organisation may be subject to a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, while a company director who is convicted may be disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

xp There's enough blame to go around. And there's something wrong about newsroom climate which makes hacks think this is acceptable behaviour - it's not just about nailing certain individuals but causing a rethink (however limited and temporary) of practice.

i'd agree there is a point where doorstepping becomes harassing grieving families and it's reached far too often. but local papers do it all the time, in a way that's often appreciated by the families on the receiving end. it's a matter of intent imo.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14044196

Good day to announce this btw

incidentally i can't work out if the new Bribery Act 2010 is in effect yet or not

kicked in on monday I think

what i'm saying is yes of course it's illegal to set in motion this sort of privacy invasion and the people who did it should pay the price. but there will be no rethink as long as dirt and exclusive information sells papers. it should be punished but it will keep happening. that road doesn't particularly lead anywhere. the more interesting part to my mind is the number of police involved in this weird, corrupt, symbiotic relationship with journalists.

it should be punished but it will keep happening. that road doesn't particularly lead anywhere.

this is pretty odd logic to apply to illegality or even immorality. most crimes will not be stopped, but it's not hand-wringing to want the law to assert itself. police forces will always tend towards corruption, but you want to minimize it.

How much evidence is there that 'dirt and exclusive information sells papers'? A genuine question, I'm not doubting it - I've just never really thought/read about it. Does a McCann story on the front page really boost sales? How much compares to a free DVD or a bag of sugar? There seems to be two rival assumptions, firstly that the public wants this stuff, and secondly that the public will carry on buying 'their' newspaper regardless of unethical practices (OK, not really rival, but what proportion of newspaper buyers just buy the same paper every day regardless?)

Circulation figures are pretty heavily studied cos of the link to ad revenue so i think you can be sure that the tabs are giving their readers "what they want". At the same time I'm not sure what percentage of people buy a paper for the news as such.

i'm just kind of amazed that people are so amazed. what did people think tabloid hacks did, if this is such a shock? (disclosure: i once worked as a researcher for a tabloid hack whose claim to fame at that point had been selling weed to prince harry and having a photographer on hand for the occasion)

It's possible that both assumptions apply, given the contradictory nature of human beings. Statistical figures on paper-changing habits would be useful, though.

IIRC the main reason Sun readers usually give for buying the paper are the sports pages and I'm sure there have been surveys which bear this out.

I don't think anybody thinks hacks are paragons of virtue, but i don't remember so many convictions for epic bribery, interfering with umpteen murder cases etc etc in the past

one of the interesting things about Hello and OK is that they mainly make their money on the sale price of the magazine rather than advertising, and the swings in circulation each week are huge depending on what's in the cover, so there's this enormous pressure to come up with an exclusive. i don't know how much of that applies to NOTW, if any.

A former colleague who went tabloid found his path eased by sorting various offices where he worked for E's and whizz.

but there will be no rethink as long as dirt and exclusive information sells papers.

You act like tabloids print absolutely everything they get; which isn't true. I can think of a few big stories that they've held back out of nothing more than common decency (or fear of other people's common decency making them look like immoral scum) in the past few years. They know there's a line.

All that has to change is a stricter understand that this sort of hacking is over that line; plus a watchdog that's prepared to properly investigate and punish when victims claim it has happened to them.

what did people think tabloid hacks did, if this is such a shock?
I too have worked with them and know fine well what they get up to. I'm still shocked that they would delete Milly's messages and interfere w/the investigation. That's shocking behaviour! I'm surprised you seem to have a bit of a tabloid-boys-will-be-tabloid-boys attitude here. This isn't a celeb sting or dressing up like an Arab.

There's also the difference in targets - the old 'you put yourself in the public eye to make money, can't complain now' kind of argument doesn't apply to victims of tragedy. That is, people don't care if you do it to Jordan, but the parents of a murdered kid is different.

Yeah News Corp will be studying those figures very closely indeed and you can be very sure that any combination of an exclusive, dirt, and a highly-publicised child murder would sell very well indeed - hence going to this extent in the first place. Which is part of the reason this story isn't going away any time soon no matter how soft-pedalled it is.

I suspect there's a sizeable proportion of Sun readers who don't actually make the mental link with the News of the World at all.

I'm sure you're right on that score.

Then again - wouldn't you think that they'd think why there's almost nothing about this in the Sun when it's heavily blazered across nearly all its competitors?

Are they actually thick or do they just not care?

Perhaps things will change when people stop being robots and start thinking about the world they're living in but that's a bit much to ask in 2011.

i'm just kind of amazed that people are so amazed.

Srsly I'm kind of amazed (and a bit depressed) that you're amazed that people are amazed. We all know exactly what kind of crap they pull, but this is definitely a new level of scumbaggery.

So, taking this to its natural conclusion:

RWade will resign, but late on Saturday. And will give a full interview and pics to a leading Sunday newspaper. which happens to be called....

I suspect there's a sizeable proportion of Sun readers who don't actually make the mental link with the News of the World at all.

Meanwhile Mumsnet have cancelled a campaign on Sky because whoever uses Mumsnet (Mums, I suppose) have made a direct link to a certain Australo-American arsehole - leading to an amusing interview with a peeved Adam Boulton + Mumsnet woman, he should learn to control his emotions a bit more, that guy IMO

Sky's coverage of this whole business is highly amusing in general

I haven't been watching Sky, but the boss of Mumsnet is the wife of the Guardian's Ian Katz.

has anyone actually read the times coverage? (lol paywall)

top story on the NYT right now btw

Guardian now reporting Brooks was on holiday when the Dowler hacking happened. NICE TRY.

When the Murdoch media empire collapses, Mumsnet will run Britain, mark my words.

Meanwhile, in the Emergency Commons Debate, govt. sent out fearsome heavy-hitter Dominic Grieve to set out their case... ooh, mummy I'm scared

Rupert Murdoch: Allegations of News of the World phone hacking and payments to police 'deplorable and unacceptable'

Rupert Murdoch: "Recent allegations of phone hacking and making payments to police with respect to the News of the World are deplorable and unacceptable. I have made clear that our company must fully and proactively cooperate with the police in all investigations and that is exactly what News International has been doing and will continue to do under Rebekah Brooks' leadership. We are committed to addressing these issues fully and have taken a number of important steps to prevent them from happening again."

I first read that as that the making of the allegations themselves was "deplorable and unacceptable", which is no doubt what the Dirty Digger is really thinking.

That's how I read it too... And I'm still not sure if he didn't mean it like that

Also at the time her name was Rebeckah Wade, who technically no longer exists. Cast iron alibi right there.

lol at him having the exact same problems with syntax as R Brooks xp

What can Brooks possibly have on Murdoch? All this story needs is a sexual blackmail element and it's got everything.

Couldn't possibly have been Brooks' fault as she was out horse riding with David Cameron for an entire fortnight in March 2002.

LOLz from Chris Bryant

This feels like a tipping point similar to the one immediately after the bank bailout, where there's this golden window of opportunity to actually change the status quo and make things better, except you can just see it edging past and slowly closing shut to the point where things go the opposite way and get worse. Like the episode of Peep Show where Mark goes back to university and stalks the cute girl - "I am missing my chance, I am just this minute missing my chance".

That's not so far-fetched a comparison, really. I do rather wish that Murdoch would go away, preferably to another galaxy.

xpost

As editor of the News of the World Rebekah Brooks was confronted with evidence that her paper's resources had been used on behalf of two murder suspects to spy on the senior detective who was investigating their alleged crime.

Brooks was summoned to a meeting at Scotland Yard where she was told that one of her most senior journalists, Alex Marunchak, had apparently agreed to use photographers and vans leased to the paper to run surveillance on behalf of Jonathan Rees and Sid Fillery, two private investigators who were suspected of murdering their former partner, Daniel Morgan. The Yard saw this as a possible attempt to pervert the course of justice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-rebekah-brooks

she promoted marunchak, naturally. he now works freelance, mostly for the daily mail.

bonus detail, from a piece by davies in march:

A year later, in August 2003, Sid Fillery, who was still running the agency and working for Fleet Street, also got himself arrested and charged with 15 counts of making indecent images of children and one count of possessing indecent images. This was reported in national media. He was later convicted.

the newspaper that brought you sarah's law, employing a paedophile and suspected murder.

The paper that bought you SUPPORT OUR LADS and HELP FOR HEROES...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8621797/Phone-hacking-families-of-war-dead-targeted-by-News-of-the-World.html

SUPER SOARAWAY SUN SEVEN DAYS A WEEK - COMING SOON