This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
but placing tracking devices on "celebrities" cars...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-13734330
So, Serena Miller (and lots of other people) had her phone and voice mail listened in on, so that the newspapers could print salacious stories about her personal relationships, and John Terry has had a tracking device placed on his car so he could more easily be followed and tracked, presumably by paparazzi...
It's Big Brother, but run by the press so they can fill their papers and web-sites with scandal mongering tripe...
||-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-13734330
So, Serena Miller (and lots of other people) had her phone and voice mail listened in on, so that the newspapers could print salacious stories about her personal relationships, and John Terry has had a tracking device placed on his car so he could more easily be followed and tracked, presumably by paparazzi...
It's Big Brother, but run by the press so they can fill their papers and web-sites with scandal mongering tripe...
||-)
In reply to Dominion:
For which the general public display a depressingly voracious appetite. Not to mention the appalling hypocrisy which surrounds the whole affair.
> It's Big Brother, but run by the press so they can fill their papers and web-sites with scandal mongering tripe...
For which the general public display a depressingly voracious appetite. Not to mention the appalling hypocrisy which surrounds the whole affair.
In reply to Dominion: Obviously the phone taps don't include spell checks, or you might be better able to identify Sienna Miller (unless Serena Williams also had her phone tapped by a British tabloid).
"Media phone-taps" really is the Guardian equivalent of the Daily Express obsession with Princess Diana's death - an irrational fixation with a minor news item that everybody else has long since forgotten and moved on from, but the delusional true-believers continue to insist is the revelation of some profound, world-shaking truth. Even the Guardian's broadcasting arm, the Blatantly Biased Crap have lost interest in it and tired of flogging this particular dead horse.
Who ever doubted that the News of the Screws used some "robust" tactics to find their tacky details about C list celebs? Journalists all knew it, the celebs knew it and most of their readers knew it, even if not in so much detail. Minor celebs owe their position to tabloid adoration, so they can't really complain that riding the tiger is not safe when they got on its back voluntarily. Supping with the devil and not using a long enough spoon and all that.
"Media phone-taps" really is the Guardian equivalent of the Daily Express obsession with Princess Diana's death - an irrational fixation with a minor news item that everybody else has long since forgotten and moved on from, but the delusional true-believers continue to insist is the revelation of some profound, world-shaking truth. Even the Guardian's broadcasting arm, the Blatantly Biased Crap have lost interest in it and tired of flogging this particular dead horse.
Who ever doubted that the News of the Screws used some "robust" tactics to find their tacky details about C list celebs? Journalists all knew it, the celebs knew it and most of their readers knew it, even if not in so much detail. Minor celebs owe their position to tabloid adoration, so they can't really complain that riding the tiger is not safe when they got on its back voluntarily. Supping with the devil and not using a long enough spoon and all that.
In reply to Simon4: this is the kind of post I want to read while sat in bed having a brew.
In reply to Simon4:
interesting definition of c list celebs.
I mean i am not a fan of the royals but wouldnt really put them in that category likewise, while publicity whores in their own way, i wouldnt normally class politicians as such. or senior bank officials, cops (when not directly paying them) and so on.
It also is not just phone taps but various other intrusions (although of course there is nothing to say it was media who planted it on Terry).
They have broken the law left right and centre and need to be held to account, its an old fashioned concept i know but it does come in useful from time to time.
There also really needs to be a investigation into why the cops failed so badly and if it was a conflict of interest for the senior investigator, to put it politely.
> Who ever doubted that the News of the Screws used some "robust" tactics to find their tacky details about C list celebs?
interesting definition of c list celebs.
I mean i am not a fan of the royals but wouldnt really put them in that category likewise, while publicity whores in their own way, i wouldnt normally class politicians as such. or senior bank officials, cops (when not directly paying them) and so on.
It also is not just phone taps but various other intrusions (although of course there is nothing to say it was media who planted it on Terry).
They have broken the law left right and centre and need to be held to account, its an old fashioned concept i know but it does come in useful from time to time.
There also really needs to be a investigation into why the cops failed so badly and if it was a conflict of interest for the senior investigator, to put it politely.
In reply to Simon4:
Yes, OK Sienna Miller, sorry, I knew who I meant...
Presumably the collusion between the Met and the journalists is fine, all so that Rupert Murdoch (et al) can get scandal stories about "celebs" and also engage in feeding frenzies about politicians whose phones have also been hacked and thus set the country's political agenda, and influence policy...
The press, police and David Cameron want it to disappear because of what it says about them. Cameron, obviously, because of his links with Andy Coulson and, more latterly, with Rupert Murdoch's News Group...
I think that the bugging of John Terry's car so that he can be tracked by paparazzi is just another indication of how little respect the press have for people's privacy as long as they can make money by harassing people. Stuff all that bollocks they spout about Freedom of Speech when they rant about these Super Injunctions about "celebs".
Two faced, lying hypocrites...
Also, if you recall, the press tend to shout "big brother" at the state, every time someone gets photographed by a speed camera, but in reality they engage in covert surveillance of a particularly malicious kind, with making money by publishing scandal as the motivation.
||-)
Yes, OK Sienna Miller, sorry, I knew who I meant...
Presumably the collusion between the Met and the journalists is fine, all so that Rupert Murdoch (et al) can get scandal stories about "celebs" and also engage in feeding frenzies about politicians whose phones have also been hacked and thus set the country's political agenda, and influence policy...
The press, police and David Cameron want it to disappear because of what it says about them. Cameron, obviously, because of his links with Andy Coulson and, more latterly, with Rupert Murdoch's News Group...
I think that the bugging of John Terry's car so that he can be tracked by paparazzi is just another indication of how little respect the press have for people's privacy as long as they can make money by harassing people. Stuff all that bollocks they spout about Freedom of Speech when they rant about these Super Injunctions about "celebs".
Two faced, lying hypocrites...
Also, if you recall, the press tend to shout "big brother" at the state, every time someone gets photographed by a speed camera, but in reality they engage in covert surveillance of a particularly malicious kind, with making money by publishing scandal as the motivation.
||-)
In reply to Dominion: Well I think it's a good thing. First they found honest work for all those peadophiles looking types in that nice acappella band, and now they've got careers sorted for all the stalker cases!
It's nice to see people integrated into society.
It's nice to see people integrated into society.
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Simon4)
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> It also is not just phone taps but various other intrusions (although of course there is nothing to say it was media who planted it on Terry).
>
My money's on a private eye employed by his missus to keep tabs on his latest exploits. >
> [...]
>
>
>
> It also is not just phone taps but various other intrusions (although of course there is nothing to say it was media who planted it on Terry).
>
In reply to MHutch:
She has the tabloid press to do that for her, though...
> My money's on a private eye employed by his missus to keep tabs on his latest exploits.
She has the tabloid press to do that for her, though...
In reply to Simon4:
While reading your post a long forgotten conversation popped into my head.
It was an exchange of unpleasantries between our purchasing manager and a formidable lady from phone sales. The exchange ended when Betty observed that if Tam took out his false teeth his face would make a fine arse.
I expect that if, for example, the transcript of a phone conversation in which William Hague professed his undying love for a male parliamentary researcher ended up on the front page of a tabloid your tune would change somewhat.
While reading your post a long forgotten conversation popped into my head.
It was an exchange of unpleasantries between our purchasing manager and a formidable lady from phone sales. The exchange ended when Betty observed that if Tam took out his false teeth his face would make a fine arse.
I expect that if, for example, the transcript of a phone conversation in which William Hague professed his undying love for a male parliamentary researcher ended up on the front page of a tabloid your tune would change somewhat.
In reply to Removed User:
I wonder if Simon4's viewpoint is skewed at all by knowledge of the Conervatives' links to the Murdoch family and people formerly from News International?
The phone hacking is a disgrace.
Cheers
Tim
I wonder if Simon4's viewpoint is skewed at all by knowledge of the Conervatives' links to the Murdoch family and people formerly from News International?
The phone hacking is a disgrace.
Cheers
Tim
In reply to Timmd: I don't know - 'Con' and 'enervating' - you could be on to something.
In reply to Timmd:
Phone hacking isn't phone tapping, I would guess I could 'hack' most phones if you know the number.
All that happens is that the hack accesses the remote voicemail function on a celebrity phone and keys in the default pass code (normally 0000) thereby gaining access to the voicemails. Nearly all phone numbers with voicemail has this ability, and was highlighted as a new function when it first came out. If the celebrity or whoever hasn't bothered to change the pass code from the default setting, they probably should not use their phone for private or confidential talk lest a message be left.
> The phone hacking is a disgrace.
Phone hacking isn't phone tapping, I would guess I could 'hack' most phones if you know the number.
All that happens is that the hack accesses the remote voicemail function on a celebrity phone and keys in the default pass code (normally 0000) thereby gaining access to the voicemails. Nearly all phone numbers with voicemail has this ability, and was highlighted as a new function when it first came out. If the celebrity or whoever hasn't bothered to change the pass code from the default setting, they probably should not use their phone for private or confidential talk lest a message be left.
In reply to Timmd: have you ever said or done anything controversial in your life?
In reply to Dominion:
Anyone who wants to know exactly how appalled the Great British Public is by the antics of the Sunday tabloids might usefully take a stroll down to their local newsagents any Sunday morning and watch how many copies of the 'disgraced' News of the Screws are being sold compared to, say, The Observer.
Anyone who wants to know exactly how appalled the Great British Public is by the antics of the Sunday tabloids might usefully take a stroll down to their local newsagents any Sunday morning and watch how many copies of the 'disgraced' News of the Screws are being sold compared to, say, The Observer.
In reply to MHutch:
Or even employed by his team mates to make sure he's not round entertaining their missus
> (In reply to dissonance)
> [...]
> My money's on a private eye employed by his missus to keep tabs on his latest exploits.
> [...]
> My money's on a private eye employed by his missus to keep tabs on his latest exploits.
Or even employed by his team mates to make sure he's not round entertaining their missus
In reply to Fawksey: He's ying to your yang...
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
That makes it all right then?
Particularly when phone hacking has potentially been used to set the country's political agenda, and thus influence how people vote in General Elections, and how the owner of the News of the World has the ear of our Prime Minister, and the ability to make or break politicians...
> and watch how many copies of the 'disgraced' News of the Screws are being sold compared to, say, The Observer.
That makes it all right then?
Particularly when phone hacking has potentially been used to set the country's political agenda, and thus influence how people vote in General Elections, and how the owner of the News of the World has the ear of our Prime Minister, and the ability to make or break politicians...
In reply to Dominion:
As for Murdoch's influence, press owners have always (ab)used their position to sway political thinking. That's life. Get over it.
As for hacking being used to set the agenda, it is worth noting that papers are often accused to making things up. At least the hacking only reveals the truth. If that exposes politicians' lies I'm actually quite relaxed about it in much the same way that I'm relaxed about whistleblowers stealing documents and putting them in the public domain.
> (In reply to Wiley Coyote)
>
> [...]
>
> That makes it all right then?
>
>No it does not. It is a crime and people have gone to jail for it. I'm merely making the point that many (perhaps most?) perople don't care very much so I personally would prefer to see the police investigating burglaries rather than a bit of eavesdropping on 'celebs' who have chosen to be in the public eye.>
> [...]
>
> That makes it all right then?
>
As for Murdoch's influence, press owners have always (ab)used their position to sway political thinking. That's life. Get over it.
As for hacking being used to set the agenda, it is worth noting that papers are often accused to making things up. At least the hacking only reveals the truth. If that exposes politicians' lies I'm actually quite relaxed about it in much the same way that I'm relaxed about whistleblowers stealing documents and putting them in the public domain.
In reply to BIgYeti86:
hmm, so its the victims fault? You have also excused a hell of a lot of computer hacking there since a common starting point is to try the default admin/password combos for a particular piece of kit.
thats leaving aside that the spying went far beyond phone hacking and also that isnt it necessarily correct that the default PINs had been kept, some of the reports indicate at least some users had non default PINs (eg a number of the names had specific PINs assigned while most records apparently did not).
> If the celebrity or whoever hasn't bothered to change the pass code from the default setting, they probably should not use their phone for private or confidential talk lest a message be left.
hmm, so its the victims fault? You have also excused a hell of a lot of computer hacking there since a common starting point is to try the default admin/password combos for a particular piece of kit.
thats leaving aside that the spying went far beyond phone hacking and also that isnt it necessarily correct that the default PINs had been kept, some of the reports indicate at least some users had non default PINs (eg a number of the names had specific PINs assigned while most records apparently did not).
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
All very well, but the papers pick whom they are going to "go after" and also are very much in control of the timing of the release, so it can be used for the paper's best benefit (and to suit their political agenda)
Also, it's not all "lies" - sometimes just confidential information - and the timing of the release gives it the spin the paper's political agenda wants...
> As for hacking being used to set the agenda, it is worth noting that papers are often accused to making things up. At least the hacking only reveals the truth. If that exposes politicians' lies I'm actually quite relaxed about it in much the same way that I'm relaxed about whistleblowers stealing documents and putting them in the public domain.
All very well, but the papers pick whom they are going to "go after" and also are very much in control of the timing of the release, so it can be used for the paper's best benefit (and to suit their political agenda)
Also, it's not all "lies" - sometimes just confidential information - and the timing of the release gives it the spin the paper's political agenda wants...
In reply to Dominion:
That's true. But if the politicos control the timing they can spin to suit their agenda so if snooping stops politicians covering things up or disrupts their manipulation of events and agendas I'm pretty relaxed about that too. It's part of the useful checks and balances that stop anyone getting too much of an upper hand.
> (In reply to Wiley Coyote)
>
and the timing of the release gives it the spin the paper's political agenda wants...>
That's true. But if the politicos control the timing they can spin to suit their agenda so if snooping stops politicians covering things up or disrupts their manipulation of events and agendas I'm pretty relaxed about that too. It's part of the useful checks and balances that stop anyone getting too much of an upper hand.
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
I suppose the danger is that you can have a media group with certain political leanings carrying out leaks on or snooping on one party or group of parties more than another. With Murdoch being behiend quite a few papers in this country, there could be (Or is?) a one sided political view presented to the public.
If you read Private Eye, they're quite often pointing out how the Times slants it's content to fit in with Murdoch's businiess interests, or to not embarress friends of his family who have political connections.
If you take the tabloids and the Times and the Telegraph and the Daily Express and the Daily Mail as being right wing or right of centre, that just leaves the Oserver and Gaurdian and The Independent to balance it out, and the Financial Times I guess.
Whoever you vote for, I think it's in the interests of society to have a well balanced representation of what is happening in politics, as far as is possible, with a range of views being expressed.
Cheers
Tim
I suppose the danger is that you can have a media group with certain political leanings carrying out leaks on or snooping on one party or group of parties more than another. With Murdoch being behiend quite a few papers in this country, there could be (Or is?) a one sided political view presented to the public.
If you read Private Eye, they're quite often pointing out how the Times slants it's content to fit in with Murdoch's businiess interests, or to not embarress friends of his family who have political connections.
If you take the tabloids and the Times and the Telegraph and the Daily Express and the Daily Mail as being right wing or right of centre, that just leaves the Oserver and Gaurdian and The Independent to balance it out, and the Financial Times I guess.
Whoever you vote for, I think it's in the interests of society to have a well balanced representation of what is happening in politics, as far as is possible, with a range of views being expressed.
Cheers
Tim
In reply to Timmd:
As an aside, in Italy, where Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi owns more than half the national tv sector, and a few newspapers as well, he has the audacity to pass laws specifically to protect his own business interests, and also to give himself immunity from prosecution for various frauds he is alleged to have been involved with...
As for Cameron and Murdoch, well, the recent furore about Super Injunctions has seen Cameron expressing doubts about them. And stopping the "scandal" super injunctions is pretty much just putting money directly into Murdoch's pockets, because selling scandal is pretty much how his papers make a lot of their money...
Oh, and look at how fast Vince Cable was jumped upon when he made some remarks about Murdoch's News Corporation's proposed acquisition of BSkyB? That's the power of the press demonstrating how to get a politician out of the way, and look at just how fast Cameron kicked Cable out of that job...
||-)
> I suppose the danger is that you can have a media group with certain political leanings carrying out leaks on or snooping on one party or group of parties more than another. With Murdoch being behiend quite a few papers in this country, there could be (Or is?) a one sided political view presented to the public.
>
> If you read Private Eye, they're quite often pointing out how the Times slants it's content to fit in with Murdoch's businiess interests, or to not embarress friends of his family who have political connections.
>
> If you read Private Eye, they're quite often pointing out how the Times slants it's content to fit in with Murdoch's businiess interests, or to not embarress friends of his family who have political connections.
As an aside, in Italy, where Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi owns more than half the national tv sector, and a few newspapers as well, he has the audacity to pass laws specifically to protect his own business interests, and also to give himself immunity from prosecution for various frauds he is alleged to have been involved with...
As for Cameron and Murdoch, well, the recent furore about Super Injunctions has seen Cameron expressing doubts about them. And stopping the "scandal" super injunctions is pretty much just putting money directly into Murdoch's pockets, because selling scandal is pretty much how his papers make a lot of their money...
Oh, and look at how fast Vince Cable was jumped upon when he made some remarks about Murdoch's News Corporation's proposed acquisition of BSkyB? That's the power of the press demonstrating how to get a politician out of the way, and look at just how fast Cameron kicked Cable out of that job...
||-)
In reply to Dominion:
1) Cable was stitched up by the (anti-Murdoch) Telegraph who sent two pretty lasses in to get a vain old man to blab too much to try to impress them.
2)Cable was lucky to hang onto his job at all after making such a stupid biased statement. He was due to rule on the Murdoch bid in a quasi-judicial function and said he "had gone to war on Murdoch". After that his position was untenable. A bit like a judge saying before a trial "He's guilty and I'm going to give him ten years. Call your witnesses, if you must". If Cable had been left in place Murdoch's lawyers would have had a field day.
3)Murdoch doesn't really care who he backs politically as long as they win. Remember when "It was the Sun what won it" for Thatcher? Then ten years of backing Blair before he saw which way the wind was blowing and switched to the Tories. It's a two way relationship. Politicians want the press to back them but Murdoch always wants to be on the side of the govt, whoever they may be and will always back the one he thnks will be in power.
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
>
> look at how fast Vince Cable was jumped upon when he made some remarks about Murdoch's News Corporation's proposed acquisition of BSkyB? That's the power of the press demonstrating how to get a politician out of the way, and look at just how fast Cameron kicked Cable out of that job...
>
That's a whole different conspiracy theory and one that doesn't really hold water.>
>
> look at how fast Vince Cable was jumped upon when he made some remarks about Murdoch's News Corporation's proposed acquisition of BSkyB? That's the power of the press demonstrating how to get a politician out of the way, and look at just how fast Cameron kicked Cable out of that job...
>
1) Cable was stitched up by the (anti-Murdoch) Telegraph who sent two pretty lasses in to get a vain old man to blab too much to try to impress them.
2)Cable was lucky to hang onto his job at all after making such a stupid biased statement. He was due to rule on the Murdoch bid in a quasi-judicial function and said he "had gone to war on Murdoch". After that his position was untenable. A bit like a judge saying before a trial "He's guilty and I'm going to give him ten years. Call your witnesses, if you must". If Cable had been left in place Murdoch's lawyers would have had a field day.
3)Murdoch doesn't really care who he backs politically as long as they win. Remember when "It was the Sun what won it" for Thatcher? Then ten years of backing Blair before he saw which way the wind was blowing and switched to the Tories. It's a two way relationship. Politicians want the press to back them but Murdoch always wants to be on the side of the govt, whoever they may be and will always back the one he thnks will be in power.
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Well, OK, I know it was the Telegraph, but there is a connection between the phone hacking and the takeover of BSkyB by Murdoch, in that John Prescott - who allegedly had his voicemail "hacked" on 44 occasions - has called for the takeover of BSkyB to be put on hold until after the police had concluded their phone-hacking inquiry.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12982977
News Corp's proposed takeover of BSkyB should be delayed until the police conclude their phone-hacking inquiry, Lord Prescott has said.
He told the House of Lords it would be "totally unacceptable" for a company "actively involved at all levels in criminal acts" to be given control.
The peer says he and others were victims of phone-hacking by the News of the World, which is owned by News Corp.
News Corp declined to comment on Lord Prescott's remarks.
I've got to say that I agree with this "totally unacceptable" for a company "actively involved at all levels in criminal acts" to be given control. wholeheartedly.
||-)
> That's a whole different conspiracy theory and one that doesn't really hold water.
> 1) Cable was stitched up by the (anti-Murdoch) Telegraph who sent two pretty lasses in to get a vain old man to blab too much to try to impress them.
> 1) Cable was stitched up by the (anti-Murdoch) Telegraph who sent two pretty lasses in to get a vain old man to blab too much to try to impress them.
Well, OK, I know it was the Telegraph, but there is a connection between the phone hacking and the takeover of BSkyB by Murdoch, in that John Prescott - who allegedly had his voicemail "hacked" on 44 occasions - has called for the takeover of BSkyB to be put on hold until after the police had concluded their phone-hacking inquiry.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12982977
News Corp's proposed takeover of BSkyB should be delayed until the police conclude their phone-hacking inquiry, Lord Prescott has said.
He told the House of Lords it would be "totally unacceptable" for a company "actively involved at all levels in criminal acts" to be given control.
The peer says he and others were victims of phone-hacking by the News of the World, which is owned by News Corp.
News Corp declined to comment on Lord Prescott's remarks.
I've got to say that I agree with this "totally unacceptable" for a company "actively involved at all levels in criminal acts" to be given control. wholeheartedly.
||-)
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Oh, and as an aside, Murdoch may not care who is in power, but the politicians know damn well whom to court / suck up to in order not to get the poison aimed at them.
Which suggests to me, that Murdoch's companies might well be allowed a lot more leeway than they should be, because the incumbents are not going to want to step on Murdoch's toes, in case he has decides to court the other side...
||-)
> 3)Murdoch doesn't really care who he backs politically as long as they win. Remember when "It was the Sun what won it" for Thatcher? Then ten years of backing Blair before he saw which way the wind was blowing and switched to the Tories. It's a two way relationship. Politicians want the press to back them but Murdoch always wants to be on the side of the govt, whoever they may be and will always back the one he thnks will be in power.
Oh, and as an aside, Murdoch may not care who is in power, but the politicians know damn well whom to court / suck up to in order not to get the poison aimed at them.
Which suggests to me, that Murdoch's companies might well be allowed a lot more leeway than they should be, because the incumbents are not going to want to step on Murdoch's toes, in case he has decides to court the other side...
||-)
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...