News Of The World - How delightful!

Thats absolutely outrageous if it is true :(
 
Absolutely disgusting and should invoke severe penalties if found to be true.
 
I would like people to boycott this newspaper. It's bad enough hacking phones of "celebrities", but to do it to a dead girl during a murder investigation is low. They're even deleting comments of the NOTW facebook page. How ironic they're not allowing free speech.
 
Didn't think I could detest that mob more than I currently do....well that has struck new lows.
 
jpwild said:
I would like people to boycott this newspaper. It's bad enough hacking phones of "celebrities", but to do it to a dead girl during a murder investigation is low. They're even deleting comments of the NOTW facebook page. How ironic they're not allowing free speech.
Click to expand...


I total agree in with you, but one tiny point, they did not know she was dead and it wasn't a murder investigation at the time.
 
I'd like to make some kind of a liberal statement here - the trouble is I believe they would pull this kind of stunt.

If this is proven true the government need to get involved - if that means restricting free speech within the press so be it.

These scum need to be stopped
 
jpwild said:
I would like people to boycott this newspaper. It's bad enough hacking phones of "celebrities", but to do it to a dead girl during a murder investigation is low. They're even deleting comments of the NOTW facebook page. How ironic they're not allowing free speech.
Click to expand...

whiteflyer said:
I total agree in with you, but one tiny point, they did not know she was dead and it wasn't a murder investigation at the time.
Click to expand...

cyclamens said:
That makes it ok then.
Click to expand...
 
cyclamens said:
If this is proven true the government need to get involved - if that means restricting free speech within the press so be it.
Click to expand...

Engage brain before pressing "Submit"

Quite honestly I've read some idiotic stuff on this forum recently but that takes the biscuit!

If proven true, send the guilty parties to jail - end of problem. The right of free speech within the press and elsewhere is the only thing keeping our politicians honest and I really do not think you'd enjoy living in the UK without it.
 
Steep said:
Engage brain before pressing "Submit"

Quite honestly I've read some idiotic stuff on this forum recently but that takes the biscuit!

If proven true, send the guilty parties to jail - end of problem. The right of free speech within the press and elsewhere is the only thing keeping our politicians honest and I really do not think you'd enjoy living in the UK without it.
Click to expand...


Well said Sir :clap::clap:

I don't think it's the end of the problem though, not until the mobile phone company's tighten up security and encryption at their end. As I understand it, the hacking is relatively easy to do with no special equipment or skills needed.

Another thing the punishment will just not be tough enough were the paper is involved, I remember the time when papers had to pay out compensation for errors/lies/slander of a few grand when giving a £1m away in bingo.

What a judge should do is a £20 million fine to a charity AND ban them from publishing for a month both in print and on-line
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's already illegal, no more laws required thank you.
 
Probably the last thing her family needs to hear right now........ The whole case has shown just how bad this country can be at times....... disgusting behaviour.
 
Steep said:
Engage brain before pressing "Submit"

Quite honestly I've read some idiotic stuff on this forum recently but that takes the biscuit!

If proven true, send the guilty parties to jail - end of problem. The right of free speech within the press and elsewhere is the only thing keeping our politicians honest and I really do not think you'd enjoy living in the UK without it.
Click to expand...

This.

I'm reminded of another quote. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Something like that, possiby Ben Franklin

Prosecute these gits (not the first word that comes to mind) to the full extent of the law and then some. Jail time for those that sanctioned this (if true), and a publishing restriction for a period of time for the organisation as a whole.
 
Last edited:
It would be nice to think that maybe the biggest punishment of all would come to bear if this was proved to be true - the entire 'readership' would stop buying the paper. Sadly I doubt that will happen, it is a truism that we generally get the press we deserve :(
 
Steep said:
Engage brain before pressing "Submit"

Quite honestly I've read some idiotic stuff on this forum recently but that takes the biscuit!

If proven true, send the guilty parties to jail - end of problem. The right of free speech within the press and elsewhere is the only thing keeping our politicians honest and I really do not think you'd enjoy living in the UK without it.
Click to expand...

If you had the ability to read the post in conext and in full you may just be able to understand the point.

The liberal attitude of some people on here and in the UK in general take exception to claiming guilt before proof - I am not necessarily one of them.

So suggest you take a lesson in comprehension ofcontextual speech befor attempting to answer in this vein.:bang:
 
The problem as I see it is that editors and the like are able to distance themselves from responsibility by contracting illegal (and morally wrong) activities out to contractors such as enquiry agents. If they used their own staff they wouldn't be able to do that.

Insurance Companies do much the same when investigating suspected fraudulent claims - they instruct solicitors who in turn instruct enquiry agents, making the insurance Company 2 steps away from whatever actually happens.

They don't know exactly what the enquiry agent will do and they don't want to know. They almost certainly have standard terms in their contract which requires their contractor to act within the law at all times, so can always claim that they acted innocently, within the law and in good faith and that it was the enquiry agent who crossed the line.

I suppose that there's a fine line sometiems between 'public interest' and criminal activity, but if this allegation is true then IMO everyone directly involved should be punished.
 
I'd be happy to see the back of the paper tbh. Have done for a long long time.
Along with many of the other scum 'news' outlets.

I also think they should be much much more tightly regulated with regards to what theyre allowed to print. Especially when it comes to rumour, conjecture and the way they reword it all to make it sound as though it's true.
 
cyclamens said:
If you had the ability to read the post in conext and in full you may just be able to understand the point.

The liberal attitude of some people on here and in the UK in general take exception to claiming guilt before proof - I am not necessarily one of them.

So suggest you take a lesson in comprehension ofcontextual speech befor attempting to answer in this vein.:bang:
Click to expand...

I read the full post.

I still can't where there is any justification in restricting free speech on the press. It's a dangerous precedent and one we should never suggest nor welcome.
 
Marcel said:
I'd be happy to see the back of the paper tbh. Have done for a long long time.
Along with many of the other scum 'news' outlets.

I also think they should be much much more tightly regulated with regards to what theyre allowed to print. Especially when it comes to rumour, conjecture and the way they reword it all to make it sound as though it's true.
Click to expand...

This sums up my thoughts perfectly.

Let them print what they like, but make them legally accountable for ensuring they print the truth.

The media in this country have a lot to answer for when it comes to some issues with society. The should stick to reporting news not making stories.
 
RichardtheSane said:
I read the full post.

I still can't where there is any justification in restricting free speech on the press. It's a dangerous precedent and one we should never suggest nor welcome.
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting the restriction of speech by newspapers or any other medium.................. what I am suggesting is that illegal, (?), invasion of privacy to 'get the story', whether directly or via a third party needs to be stopped.

I do not want the government to be able to control the media - after all how would we have found out about the recent 'expenses scandal'.

Anyone thinking themselves above the law should not be tollerated - I personally think the guilty party in this case should be strung up by the b***s, but that's another story.

This is an extremely emotive thread, not least due to the seriousness of the crime to Millie and her family. I do not think we should let it slide into a mud slinging/name calling debacle.

We are all allowed our opinions - and I am certainly not an idiot for having mine:thumbs:
 
Well I see the editor at the time (now a big wig in News International) has said along the lines of "nothing to do with me". Quel surprise!!!
 
The News of the World is foul - and equally foul is the fact that the other tabloids are trying to lose the Dowler story thos morning, running it far beneath important news items about a Nigerian woman working illegally as an Avon lady or how Paris Hilton saw someone arrested near her Malibu beach home.

But accepting that they're foul and dumb and evil, there is no way to regulate the freedom of the press without allowing the creation of a political monster that would be worse.

Our foul press is the less bad option, but thankfully, this scandal will cost News International readership and advertising revenue.

I doubt if the press will learn much from it though, as Ben Hecht said in the 1930s " ... newspapermen. The hand of God reaching down into the mire couldn't elevate one of them to the depths of degradation!"
 
There are a good couple of points that have been brought up .

As Gary makes the point, it was not us gov (says NOTW) it was a private investigator who was working for us, we did not know he was hacking phones, honest gov.

Richard says Let them print what they like, but make them legally accountable for ensuring they print the truth.

Well that's the case at the moment, the problem is if they put in big headline on the front page "Richard is a crap photographer" they will put the apology and retraction at the bottom of page 20 in small print, but your reputation has gone.

Just bring a law in saying all retractions have to be on the same page in the same font and covering the same amount of print inches, as the original article..


Now Yvonne sums it up really 'it is a truism that we generally get the press we deserve" Just stop buying the papers, personally I won't buy any red top paper and I don't watch sky news either.

BBC 24 News and RT are the ones for me .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A retraction isn't enough IMO.
They should be penalised properly.
 
Marcel said:
A retraction isn't enough IMO.
They should be penalised properly.
Click to expand...


Oh I agree

But as Gary implied, who should be punished. the PI who did the actual hacking and thus broke the law, his employer, who I suspect will turn out to be an individual journalist on the paper, the News Of The World, or the overall group of News International.

In the one case that has ended up in legal action so far, it was the royal editor and private detective that went to jail. The paper said they were working alone.

As a matter of law and who is punishable it's a bit more complicated than the NOTW did it.
 
I tend not to read the papers, buy 3 daily papers such as the sun, the star and the mirror, they each cover the same story, but each paper tells something different about the incident. In fact if i do ever read a newspaper (while waiting for my indian to be cooked) i usually check over at http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/ to see how accurate the stories really are, usually helps that I don't read the papers because it does my head in when people keep on saying the overused comment "you need to stop reading the daily mail."
 
whiteflyer said:
Oh I agree

But as Gary implied, who should be punished. the PI who did the actual hacking and thus broke the law, his employer, who I suspect will turn out to be an individual journalist on the paper, the News Of The World, or the overall group of News International.

In the one case that has ended up in legal action so far, it was the royal editor and private detective that went to jail. The paper said they were working alone.

As a matter of law and who is punishable it's a bit more complicated than the NOTW did it.
Click to expand...

Sorry I was referring to what they print rather than this hacking scandal. However in this situation, all three should be held accountable.

The pi for what he did, the journo for employing a pi on such a story, and the paper for perpetuating this sort of ethos where crap sells
 
whiteflyer said:
Oh I agree

But as Gary implied, who should be punished. the PI who did the actual hacking and thus broke the law, his employer, who I suspect will turn out to be an individual journalist on the paper, the News Of The World, or the overall group of News International.

In the one case that has ended up in legal action so far, it was the royal editor and private detective that went to jail. The paper said they were working alone.

As a matter of law and who is punishable it's a bit more complicated than the NOTW did it.
Click to expand...
In other areas, H&S for example, an employer is responsible for the actions of an employee if those actions were carried out in the course of his employment, and the excuse that the employer knew nothing about it doesn't wash - the employer failed to exercise any or proper supervision so failed in his duty.

My point is, that everyone involved in an illegal activity should be held to account and that nobody should be able to slide off the hook simply by saying that if an offence was committed, we didn't know about it. Let a jury decide who is or is not guilty.

Well that's the case at the moment, the problem is if they put in big headline on the front page "Richard is a crap photographer" they will put the apology and retraction at the bottom of page 20 in small print, but your reputation has gone.

Just bring a law in saying all retractions have to be on the same page in the same font and covering the same amount of print inches, as the original article..
Click to expand...
As I see it, the real problem is the cost of bringing a libel action against anyone, let alone a newspaper. Perhaps legal aid should be available for libel actions. Without it, only the very rich can afford to protect their reputation.
 
cyclamens said:
We are all allowed our opinions - and I am certainly not an idiot for having mine:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thankyou for explaining what you meant, certainly clarified it for me and for what it is worth I totally agree with you.
 
I think we are all singing of the same hymn sheet really.

We probably more or less would all go along with "Sting Them Up"
 
whiteflyer said:
Richard says Let them print what they like, but make them legally accountable for ensuring they print the truth.

Well that's the case at the moment, the problem is if they put in big headline on the front page "Richard is a crap photographer" they will put the apology and retraction at the bottom of page 20 in small print, but your reputation has gone.

.
Click to expand...

Sorry, should have been clearer.

By legally accountable I mean more than a retraction. I mean some sort of apparatus whereby the paper could face criminal charges for printing incorrect information.

Of course this has no bearing on the NOTW behavour around the case we are discussing - they have already broken the law there. But the paper should be just as accountable as the people it employed to carry out these acts. Sadly the paper will keep selling and this will pass over - this is the sort of thing that is wrong and needs to change.
 
On Today this morning, one reporter mentioned that the paper passed some info from Milly's phone to the police, as well as mentioning it in an article at the time. If this is true, that puts a whole new twist on the claims of innocence from the paper.
 
Oh I think there is a big issue over all the phone hacking scandal about what and when the police knew.

Now we say the paper will keep on selling, I'm not too sure about that. This maybe the straw the breaks the camels back as far as the public is concerned. As other news outlets start to ramp up the disgust on the issue, it was not headline news this morning in all papers, but I think they will not be able to avoid it tomorrow, it's a story that could grow and grow and kill off NOTW.

If you saw the program on brand cocks last night, it can be a tiny thing that makes it all go belly up, the big case in point being Ratners.

The way NOTW handles this is going to be crucial to their business, and closing down any mention of it on their facebook discussion site is really going to alienate their loyal customers.
 
Can anyone remember the boycott of the Sun by loads of Scousers when they published slurs about their fans following Hillsbrough? Could happen again with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top