apart from the milly dowler news it's mostly been a steady accumulation rather than bombshells. what a weird summer.
― cloud computing, robotics, 3G wireless connectivity, Skype, (history mayne), Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:35 (twelve years ago) link
heard a little something about how the 'bombshell' relates to JM, and how his alibi doesn't hold up, because he's a vampire, and b/c vampires can't be out doing business during business hours
― sweatpants life trajectory (schlump), Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:38 (twelve years ago) link
Oooh, I'm like a little child contemplating his first Christmas
― Duncan Disorderly (Tom D.), Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:38 (twelve years ago) link
I think the Sara Payne & 7/7 families and war dead families all count as bombshells - it's just that by then they were all seen as shockwaves from the main event.
McCanns as well iirc?
xxxp
― the other onimo that runs the laboured dn (onimo), Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:39 (twelve years ago) link
I think I'm going to be consistently disappointed until the point at which something of substance incrimiates Cameron, if that ever happens. Murdoch Jr will do for now though.
Don't think any concrete McCann revelations have come out yet?
― Matt DC, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:41 (twelve years ago) link
won't today's thing be just a specific regarding myles showing the evidence to JM? like not that it's not a bombshell! but that it's something that we can presumably predict? like i got the impression that this is re: the committee appearances rather than the larger scandal
― sweatpants life trajectory (schlump), Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:41 (twelve years ago) link
Disgraced NoW correspondent said hacking was done with 'the full knowledge and support' of senior journalists
― max, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:45 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/16/phone-hacking-now-reporter-letter
there it is
― caek, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:45 (twelve years ago) link
Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and their former editor Andy Coulson all face embarrassing new allegations of dishonesty and cover-up after the publication of an explosive letter written by the News of the World's disgraced royal correspondent, Clive Goodman.In the letter, which was written four years ago but published only on Tuesday, Goodman claims that phone hacking was "widely discussed" at editorial meetings at the paper until Coulson himself banned further references to it; that Coulson offered to let him keep his job if he agreed not to implicate the paper in hacking when he came to court; and that his own hacking was carried out with "the full knowledge and support" of other senior journalists, whom he named.The claims are acutely troubling for the prime minister, David Cameron, who hired Coulson as his media adviser on the basis that he knew nothing about phone hacking. And they confront Rupert and James Murdoch with the humiliating prospect of being recalled to parliament to justify the evidence which they gave last month on the aftermath of Goodman's allegations. In a separate letter, one of the Murdochs' own law firms claim that parts of that evidence were variously "hard to credit", "self-serving" and "inaccurate and misleading".
In the letter, which was written four years ago but published only on Tuesday, Goodman claims that phone hacking was "widely discussed" at editorial meetings at the paper until Coulson himself banned further references to it; that Coulson offered to let him keep his job if he agreed not to implicate the paper in hacking when he came to court; and that his own hacking was carried out with "the full knowledge and support" of other senior journalists, whom he named.
The claims are acutely troubling for the prime minister, David Cameron, who hired Coulson as his media adviser on the basis that he knew nothing about phone hacking. And they confront Rupert and James Murdoch with the humiliating prospect of being recalled to parliament to justify the evidence which they gave last month on the aftermath of Goodman's allegations. In a separate letter, one of the Murdochs' own law firms claim that parts of that evidence were variously "hard to credit", "self-serving" and "inaccurate and misleading".
― max, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:46 (twelve years ago) link
Two versions of Goodman's letter were provided to the committee. One which was supplied by Harbottle and Lewis has been redacted to remove the names of journalists, at the request of police. The other, which was supplied by News International, has been redacted to remove not only the names but also all references to hacking being discussed in Coulson's editorial meetings and to Coulson's offer to keep Goodman on staff if he agreed not to implicate the paper.
nice try
― joe, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:46 (twelve years ago) link
loool
― caek, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:47 (twelve years ago) link
murdoch jr's strategy of dumping on the lawyers in his select committee appearance is starting to look like a big mistake.
― joe, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:49 (twelve years ago) link
shafted by their own law firm :-)
― Neil S, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:50 (twelve years ago) link
not bad bombshellwise, in my opinion: it doesn't go further outwards, of course, it exactly re-targets the flimsily stabilised line the defendants were hoping to stage their defence at
well done especially on this letter being four years old
and haha "hard to credit"
― mark s, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:52 (twelve years ago) link
Someone really needs to do an animated gif of that clip of Kilroy-Silk from "Shafted"
― Duncan Disorderly (Tom D.), Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:52 (twelve years ago) link
Les Hinton, who was sent a copy of the letter but failed to pass it to police and who then led a cast of senior Murdoch personnel in telling parliament that they believed Andy Coulson knew nothing about the interception of the voicemail of public figures and that Goodman was the only journalist involved.
― sweatpants life trajectory (schlump), Tuesday, 16 August 2011 11:56 (twelve years ago) link
redacting documents seems such a weird practice. you feel like in a hundred years time it could be looked back on as a hilarious hallmark of old-style corruption, that survived by virtue of its impressive name & by being done w/the imprimatur of huge companies or agencies. it so often seems to be just agenda-furthering scribbling.
― sweatpants life trajectory (schlump), Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:00 (twelve years ago) link
sheer criminality
― lex pretend, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:22 (twelve years ago) link
think we can all agree on rubber bullets for these guys
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:31 (twelve years ago) link
send them to a desert island with the records they pretended to like
― mark s, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:33 (twelve years ago) link
Take away their tax benefits.
― James Mitchell, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:34 (twelve years ago) link
kick wendi deng out of her council house
― mark s, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:36 (twelve years ago) link
mindless, just mindless. Send in the army, it's the only language these people understand.
― Neil S, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:36 (twelve years ago) link
― lex pretend, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 14:22 (16 minutes ago) Bookmark
I lol'd
― I for one am (Le Bateau Ivre), Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:41 (twelve years ago) link
They ought to be conscripted into National Fat Cat Service.
― Here he is with the classic "Poème Électronique." Good track (Marcello Carlin), Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:48 (twelve years ago) link
Fat Cats get enough Service as it is!
― Mark G, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:50 (twelve years ago) link
national lol cat disservice more like
― mark s, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:53 (twelve years ago) link
and with that "bombshell" i must return to writing this review!
― mark s, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:54 (twelve years ago) link
i can has incriminating documents redacted?
― Once Were Moderators (DG), Tuesday, 16 August 2011 12:55 (twelve years ago) link
is this the general uk politics thread now? this has probably been linked on ten different threads today but it's worth posting here in case some of you missed it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
― jed_, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 13:07 (twelve years ago) link
DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era
― Matt DC, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 13:10 (twelve years ago) link
cheers, Matt.
― jed_, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 13:12 (twelve years ago) link
i got confused with the UK season finale having so many false endings.
― jed_, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 13:13 (twelve years ago) link
My farmer colleague (imagine a Doctor Who obsessive who resembles John Peel) LOVES the whole 'UK end of season finale' as a concept.
― robin hoodie (suzy), Tuesday, 16 August 2011 13:28 (twelve years ago) link
doesnt surprise me, farmers love tv
― max, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 13:47 (twelve years ago) link
loooool
― caek, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 15:13 (twelve years ago) link
IPCC clears Sir Paul Stephenson and three other senior Met officers of misconduct relating to hacking
― James Mitchell, Wednesday, 17 August 2011 11:05 (twelve years ago) link
The IPCC is very "efficient" when it needs to be, isn't it? Amazing.
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 17 August 2011 11:46 (twelve years ago) link
They've moved from "innocent even if you are filmed lumping a bystander and booting him to the ground" to "only if you are filmed lumping a bystander and booting him to the ground" in recent years.
― Mark G, Wednesday, 17 August 2011 11:47 (twelve years ago) link
missed a 'guilty' out but you know.
― Mark G, Wednesday, 17 August 2011 11:48 (twelve years ago) link
― joe, Tuesday, August 16, 2011 12:46 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
haha this was one of the redactions.
The decision is inconsistent. because [ redacted ] and other members of staff were carrying out the same illegal procedures…. This practice was widely discussed in the daily editorial conference, until explicit reference to it was banned by the Editor. As far as I am aware, no other member of staff has faced disciplinary action, much less dismissal.
― caek, Wednesday, 17 August 2011 15:36 (twelve years ago) link
Phone hacking: Reports of James Desborough arrest
― Duncan Disorderly (Tom D.), Thursday, 18 August 2011 11:45 (twelve years ago) link
51yo detective arrested on suspicion of leaking to the guardian.
weird. i mean it was obvious they had police sources, but i don't see how that's an arrestable offence unless they were bribed, which the guardian can't afford even if it wanted to. this seems to make being a journalistic source an offence. #chillingeffect
― joe, Friday, 19 August 2011 15:30 (twelve years ago) link
possibly a contempt of court issue
― caek, Friday, 19 August 2011 15:33 (twelve years ago) link
i'd be surprised, it seems to be about the names of hacking arrestees, which would come out before any court case anyway - they can't prejudice the trial. maybe the cop didn't have direct knowledge of the arrests and improperly accessed the police database? idk, but it goes to show why this stuff was never touched by papers in the first place, the line between a reporter's "ratlike cunning" and "criminal conspiracy" is a bit fine in some instances.
― joe, Friday, 19 August 2011 15:42 (twelve years ago) link
what's the charge?
― caek, Friday, 19 August 2011 15:46 (twelve years ago) link
duh, ignore me. arrested, not charged.
― caek, Friday, 19 August 2011 15:47 (twelve years ago) link
just checked, press gazette explains it's for "misconduct in a public office". sounds like doing it for a leaking prosecution is somewhat overzealous. CPS guidelines say:
The culpability '... must be of such a degree that the misconduct impugned is calculated to injure the public interest so as to call for condemnation and punishment' (R v Dytham 1979 QB 722).The fact that a public officer has acted in a way that is in breach of his or her duties, or which might expose him/her to disciplinary proceedings, is not in itself enough to constitute the offence.Examples of behaviour that have in the past fallen within the offence include: wilful excesses of official authority; 'malicious' exercises of official authority; wilful neglect of a public duty; intentional infliction of bodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury upon a person; frauds and deceits.
The fact that a public officer has acted in a way that is in breach of his or her duties, or which might expose him/her to disciplinary proceedings, is not in itself enough to constitute the offence.
Examples of behaviour that have in the past fallen within the offence include:
wilful excesses of official authority; 'malicious' exercises of official authority; wilful neglect of a public duty; intentional infliction of bodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury upon a person; frauds and deceits.
― joe, Friday, 19 August 2011 15:48 (twelve years ago) link
i reckon that either sue akers has gone a bit bonkers in her aim to be whiter-than-white or there's a bit of pressure from somewhere to advance the narrative that "they're all at it" and diffuse the blame and outrage.
― joe, Friday, 19 August 2011 15:50 (twelve years ago) link