NOTW as Victim

#1
I've noticed over the past couple of days that the papers, especially the Red Tops are starting to paint the News of The World as the victim rather than the tawdry miscreant.

A non-exhaustive list follows:

1. Steve Coogan was lambasted in one paper for daring to speak up about how glad he is the NOTW has been closed down.

2. Several letters in another conveyed sadness at the passing of an 'institution' and seemed rather orchestrated to me.

3. Wailing about the blameless employees losing their jobs.

Discuss.
 
#2
NOTW is a victim, a victim of its own making. Although it was 168 years old, It broke the law, mainly in a minor way, though some more serious accusations have been made.

Most celebrities hated them, and thats not an issue, what is an issue is when they hack into grieving war widows phones, which is morally wrong, though, they are journalists, and thats what they do to get a story.
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#3
I've noticed over the past couple of days that the papers, especially the Red Tops are starting to paint the News of The World as the victim rather than the tawdry miscreant.

A non-exhaustive list follows:

1. Steve Coogan was lambasted in one paper for daring to speak up about how glad he is the NOTW has been closed down.

2. Several letters in another conveyed sadness at the passing of an 'institution' and seemed rather orchestrated to me.

3. Wailing about the blameless employees losing their jobs.

Discuss.
Steve Coogan was a big fan of coke and banging anything that would stay still long enough (source - his ex, Courtney Love). Hugh Grant was caught getting blown by a tart. Max Mosley enacting some weird bondage scenario where people dressed as prisoners / guards. They are entitled to go "Na na na na nah" all they want. But putting themselves up as some sort of guardian of our morals and ethics is too funny for words. Your phones got hacked chaps. Cry me a fucking river.
 
#4
Fuck them all the bastards. How many of the actual writing staff had no idea or suspicions that phone hacking was going on? I'd imagine a pretty slim minority if one at all. We were only obeying orders, didn't work for the Nazis and it doesn't work for them either. And before anyone has a hissyfit I'm not comparing the hacking to the Holocaust just using it as an example to point out the pathetic nature of these people who are trying to pretend they're victims of Brook's and Coulson's evil schemes too when they were quite happily cashing their cheques until the shit hit the fan.
 
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
#5
Actually what is an issue is when they break the law and act in a criminal manner - i.e. hacking into phones of celebs - small naughty, hacking into phones of dead children - fuck them, paying off the police - go to fucking jail.
 
#6
The problem with the Screws is that so much of the cunty stuff has been done by 'freelancers', including, I have to say, some naughty coppers and ex-service chappies, CPTs etc. The info burglars are not actually in the employ of Rupe, so the Screws always has wriggle-room if it turns out tits up.

The paper has / had two halves. On the one side you got the celebs who were constantly on the phone begging for coverage of their latest crimp in their career. On the other you have the PIs hacking their phones.

And the poor subs had to actually write the stories that were 'collected', Screws journos unable to string a sentence together after they retired to the pub to Blackberry their current account details to each other.
 
#7
So it's less morally reprehensible to hack the phones of a celebrity than it is to hack the phone of a war widow or Millie Dowler's parents?

I disagree also that they broke the law in a minor way. I think that as it had been going on for so long and so many victims were involved it is elevated from a misdemenour due to the fact that it seemed to have become standard practice. I am wondering just how many of the 'innocent employees' actually knew about it.

How serious does the crime have to be and how many people need to be involved before it is considered organised crime?

Also I cannot fathom how the hideous Ms Brookes is managing to keep herself out of the dock as well!
 
#8
I've noticed over the past couple of days that the papers, especially the Red Tops are starting to paint the News of The World as the victim rather than the tawdry miscreant.

A non-exhaustive list follows:

1. Steve Coogan was lambasted in one paper for daring to speak up about how glad he is the NOTW has been closed down.

2. Several letters in another conveyed sadness at the passing of an 'institution' and seemed rather orchestrated to me.

3. Wailing about the blameless employees losing their jobs.

Discuss.

Surprised..........Not!

like I said elsewhere:

Is she still in the job???

The government have woken up at last and are throwing their teddies at Wapping in general, traditionally the press will start to twitch about "press freedoms" shortly. They will eventually close ranks and start slinging mud back at Westminster.

Phone tapping is a matter for the director of public prosecutions and not a matter for oily maggots in suits dragged out of the bars of Westminster for a prime time interview.

It seems this gobment can't plan anything long term, cut the military and find some new wars, Libya, Argies bargieing lets sell off those ships. Popularity waning, lets attack the press.

They certainly don't seem to be planning for another term in office.
 
#9
When I was young 40s/50s the worse thing that could happen to your reputation,and the thing that ordinary folk feared was getting your name in the Sunday Papers,,So I suppose that just on that alone the NOTW helped a few folk stay on the straight and narrow,,and they (NOTW) must have spawned hundreds of Bishop/Vicar actress jokes,,It was not the newspaper it was the owner/exec's/journo's who are to blame for it's demise,,,However if this deal with BskyB falls through who is going to fund Sky news?,,Then of course we all suspect that other newspapers will be implicated so what will happen to the UK reporting system in the next few years?
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#10
So it's less morally reprehensible to hack the phones of a celebrity than it is to hack the phone of a war widow or Millie Dowler's parents?
Yes, I think it is. Celebs have PA's, PR's, managers and security people to protect their property and themselves. And none of these Muppets thought to say "Might be an idea to change the PIN on your mobby from the factory default"? This means they are either stupid, complacent or were aware of the hacking and using it to their advantage. Either way I couldn't give much of a fuck.

Dowler's parents had none of this and so were victims. Besides, deleting her messages gave her family hope that she was still alive and fucked with a murder investigation. Quite what the reptiles hoped to gain from messages left for family & friends of dead service personnel I cannot begin to imagine, but that is a quantum leap from listening in to a B list celeb obsessing about her underwear drawer.
 
#11
Also I cannot fathom how the hideous Ms Brookes is managing to keep herself out of the dock as well!
She's not daft. She knows something.
 
#12
I think other newspapers might well be worried that the focus of attention might turn to them. The NotW mistake was that they got caught first, others will follow.

Good to see the hypocrites on ARRSE thinking its okay for journalists to break the law when its a story about a "Celeb" then act all outraged when they do it to other people.
 
#14
If you wish for fame then you must sacrifice privacy, but did the Dowlers or the families of the fallen ask to be pushed into the lime light
 
#15
Quite what the reptiles hoped to gain from messages left for family & friends of dead service personnel I cannot begin to imagine, but that is a quantum leap from listening in to a B list celeb obsessing about her underwear drawer.
I agree to an extent and my own sense of outrage and disgust equals your own when it comes to the hacking of family anf friends of dead service personnel and also to the families of murder victims. But to say that celebrities do not have the same rights to privacy as 'ordinary people' smacks of a two tier system. One is bad the other is acceptable. Sorry, but I can't countenance that. Either privacy for everybody or what's the point of privacy laws at all?
 
#16
14.45 The Metropolitan Police has issued the following statement in response to the Evening Standard's splash:

Quote It is our belief that information that has appeared in the media today is part of a deliberate campaign to undermine the investigation into the alleged payments by corrupt journalists to corrupt police officers and divert attention from elsewhere.

At various meetings over the last few weeks information was shared with us by News International and their legal representatives and it was agreed by all parties that this information would be kept confidential so that we could pursue various lines of inquiry, identify those responsible without alerting them and secure best evidence.

However we are extremely concerned and disappointed that the continuous release of selected information - that is only known by a small number of people - could have a significant impact on the corruption investigation.
 
#17
The problem with the Screws is that so much of the cunty stuff has been done by 'freelancers', including, I have to say, some naughty coppers and ex-service chappies, CPTs etc. The info burglars are not actually in the employ of Rupe, so the Screws always has wriggle-room if it turns out tits up.
(snipped)
True, but unfortunately for them, 'receiving stolen goods' is almost as bad a crime as the actual theft. ;-)
 
#18
As I've said on other threads the NotW, has got what it deserved, the other papers are now getting worried that the sources of their leaks may be dragged into the limelight & prosecutions might result!
The biggest problem is that Murdoch & his management were probably all aware of this hacking, they actually PAID for it, are you trying to tell me that hundreds of thousands of £'s were paid to Police & PI's WITHOUT some checks on WHY? I DONT THINK SO, this makes them ALL equally responsible!
IMHO this makes Murdochs whole organisation unfit to have any media outlet, never mind getting his slimy paws on BskyB!
This is made even more evil when you see the way he has subverted, first Blairs bunch of incompetants & now the weak insipid Cameron & his ineffectual clowns!
The sooner some legislation is brought out to prevent such influence the better! But as I have said earlier DONT HOLD YOUR BREATH! :-(
 
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
#19
So it's less morally reprehensible to hack the phones of a celebrity than it is to hack the phone of a war widow or Millie Dowler's parents?

I disagree also that they broke the law in a minor way. I think that as it had been going on for so long and so many victims were involved it is elevated from a misdemenour due to the fact that it seemed to have become standard practice. I am wondering just how many of the 'innocent employees' actually knew about it.

How serious does the crime have to be and how many people need to be involved before it is considered organised crime?

Also I cannot fathom how the hideous Ms Brookes is managing to keep herself out of the dock as well!
In terms of legality hacking is hacking - however one of them pisses off Mumsnet and the next thing you know all your advertisers shit themselves and run for cover.

To be "organised crime" then I would suggest that it is a management decision to hack phones and pay off the police using company funds to do so - in authorising the use of those funds they are acting as a criminal enterprise - the manager in question who authorised the payment to victims to avoid prosecution would also be in the poo for perverting justice which if you are a director of an international company registered in both the UK and USA is very stupid to do because you'll end up with both the USA prosecutors and the Uk justice system wanting to take large chunks out of your bum.

That is why Brooks is still in play - she is a cut out between Murdoch jnr ( who has actually admitted some of this stuff) and the courts - if Brooks goes then Murdoch jnr is in the shit.
 
#20
There is no grey area in terms of phone hacking, it is a criminal offence and probably marches all across the Misuse of Telecommunications act. However, to remain firmly on the fence, I did note that a portion of the profits from the final edition went to a service charity and we should not forget the Toys for the Boys campaign that saw sacks of presents being given to every child of Service men and women deployed to Afghanistan during Christmas. £25 per bag should not be sniffed at. As with most red tops, they were a tawdry rag, but at least they did do something for the forces.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top