i say the punishment for phone hacking should be the removal of all the fingers from both hands.
the amount of damage to the dowlers they did is unforgiveable and no amount of compensation can be enough.
if these jonos were found dead i wouldnt lose any sleep.
scum the lot of them.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
new press laws not needed
Sex God
........... and now, yet another part of the Murdoch empire' has admitted a crimial offence, this time Sky News, who've admitted illegally hacking emails belonging to members of the public on two separate occasions.
Though the broadcaster released a statement which said: "Sky News is committed to the highest editorial standards", obviously not all the time though.
Sky News is part of BSkyB, which is 39% owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, and as some one said, "It's extremely sensitive, because Sky News is a subsidiary of BSkyB, which is currently under investigation by Ofcom to see whether it is fit and proper to continue holding a broadcasting licence"
Though the broadcaster released a statement which said: "Sky News is committed to the highest editorial standards", obviously not all the time though.
Sky News is part of BSkyB, which is 39% owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, and as some one said, "It's extremely sensitive, because Sky News is a subsidiary of BSkyB, which is currently under investigation by Ofcom to see whether it is fit and proper to continue holding a broadcasting licence"
Double Standards for the Rich ? Rupert Murdoch cannot be held responsible for what his staff did because he probably did not know, is it not his job to know ? if you find a member of staff abusive in Asda do you not report the incident to the duty manager, or do you think well it isn't Asda's fault, of course owners have to be held responsible for what thier employees do, that is thier job, to know what is going on within thier businesses, I don't care how big thier empire is, they have enough employees watching employees and something going on which could lose you your business or tear down your empire is kinda important without evening considering the morals of what your employees are up to.
The days of "shit rolls down hill" and the buck stopping with the lowliest member of the organisation ended long ago, owners, shareholders, CEOs and all the rest should realise that they cannot hide from responsibility.
Even in the states and I am sure in British corridors, not telling the President/boss what is going on is percieved to give them a good "deniability clause" but they should then be charged/impeached for incompetence.
If you were to find an abusive member of staff in Asda and contacted head office thier first question would be "why did the manager not know what was going on in his store" and that should rise up through the heirachy, as in why did the area manager not know that his Manager did not know what was going on in his shop and what about the regional manager not knowing his area manager was not on the ball.
The days of "shit rolls down hill" and the buck stopping with the lowliest member of the organisation ended long ago, owners, shareholders, CEOs and all the rest should realise that they cannot hide from responsibility.
Even in the states and I am sure in British corridors, not telling the President/boss what is going on is percieved to give them a good "deniability clause" but they should then be charged/impeached for incompetence.
If you were to find an abusive member of staff in Asda and contacted head office thier first question would be "why did the manager not know what was going on in his store" and that should rise up through the heirachy, as in why did the area manager not know that his Manager did not know what was going on in his shop and what about the regional manager not knowing his area manager was not on the ball.
Sex God
Quote by HnS
........... and now, yet another part of the Murdoch empire' has admitted a crimial offence, this time Sky News, who've admitted illegally hacking emails belonging to members of the public on two separate occasions.
Though the broadcaster released a statement which said: "Sky News is committed to the highest editorial standards", obviously not all the time though.
Sky News is part of BSkyB, which is 39% owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, and as some one said, "It's extremely sensitive, because Sky News is a subsidiary of BSkyB, which is currently under investigation by Ofcom to see whether it is fit and proper to continue holding a broadcasting licence"
Interesting that this news was revealed 2 days after .....James Murdoch resigned from his role as Chairman of UK broadcaster BSkyB
Wonder if the 2 points are related ?
and isnt it interesting that sky news did not broadcast the story that one of its chiefs ws involved with phone hacking at its hq.
they clearly did not consider it news worthy yet panned anyone else involved with phone hacking.
you had to hear it from other news agencies as sky tried to brush it under the carpet.
and no doubt once it became publish and james murdoch was director at bskyb he would have been made to answer more questions if he had not resigned first.
its a complete rotten defend them at all.
they clearly did not consider it news worthy yet panned anyone else involved with phone hacking.
you had to hear it from other news agencies as sky tried to brush it under the carpet.
and no doubt once it became publish and james murdoch was director at bskyb he would have been made to answer more questions if he had not resigned first.
its a complete rotten defend them at all.
Sex God
Progress at last, well the next stage anyway...........
Four files relating to alleged offences committed by journalists have been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider if charges can be brought.
The cases concern allegations of misconduct in a public office, perverting the course of justice, witness intimidation and harassment. Interception of communications, thought to be phone hacking, is also included.
Though the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has not give a timescale for making a decision on charges.
The four files relate to four of the five police operations currently under way:
:arrow: Operation Weeting which looking at alleged phone hacking;
:arrow: Operation Elveden looking at alleged illegal payments made to police;
:arrow: Operation Sacha into allegations concerning former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks, her husband and a laptop; and
:arrow: Operation Kilo looking at leaks from within the Operation Weeting police team.
The fifth investigation is known as Operation Tuleta and is looking into a number of allegations regarding breach of privacy which fall outside the remit of Operation Weeting, including computer hacking.
Four files relating to alleged offences committed by journalists have been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider if charges can be brought.
The cases concern allegations of misconduct in a public office, perverting the course of justice, witness intimidation and harassment. Interception of communications, thought to be phone hacking, is also included.
Though the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has not give a timescale for making a decision on charges.
The four files relate to four of the five police operations currently under way:
:arrow: Operation Weeting which looking at alleged phone hacking;
:arrow: Operation Elveden looking at alleged illegal payments made to police;
:arrow: Operation Sacha into allegations concerning former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks, her husband and a laptop; and
:arrow: Operation Kilo looking at leaks from within the Operation Weeting police team.
The fifth investigation is known as Operation Tuleta and is looking into a number of allegations regarding breach of privacy which fall outside the remit of Operation Weeting, including computer hacking.
Quote by HnS
Progress at last, well the next stage anyway...........
Four files relating to alleged offences committed by journalists have been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider if charges can be brought.
The cases concern allegations of misconduct in a public office, perverting the course of justice, witness intimidation and harassment. Interception of communications, thought to be phone hacking, is also included.
Though the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has not give a timescale for making a decision on charges.
The four files relate to four of the five police operations currently under way:
:arrow: Operation Weeting which looking at alleged phone hacking;
:arrow: Operation Elveden looking at alleged illegal payments made to police;
:arrow: Operation Sacha into allegations concerning former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks, her husband and a laptop; and
:arrow: Operation Kilo looking at leaks from within the Operation Weeting police team.
The fifth investigation is known as Operation Tuleta and is looking into a number of allegations regarding breach of privacy which fall outside the remit of Operation Weeting, including computer hacking.
just so we are clear HNS, these are all allegations are they not?
i am at a loss as to your point in this matter. some journalists allegedly done some things and the DPP cannot or will not make a decision on any charges.
there are many high powered peeple out there who despise the press, and murdoch even more. if i was to be bold i would possibly suggest making comments about this when and if any charges are brought. that way we at leest know there is evidence enough to lay charges. as yet those charges if any, have not even got any timescale.
tell me HNS, what are your thoughts on the media and murdoch in particular?
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
just so we are clear HNS, these are all allegations are they not?
Always said these were arrests and interviews
Quote by starlightcouple
i am at a loss as to your point in this matter. some journalists allegedly done some things and the DPP cannot or will not make a decision on any charges.
or more accurately the DPP have not, yet, made any decision as they are the judicial 'side' on the system and the Police are the evidential gathering 'side'. The fact that the Police have had several months, in some cases years, investigating and the DPP only got the materials today means they need time to review and assess, so your comment, "DPP cannot or will not make a decision on any charges." is premature at best or speculation on your part, though fair comment.
Quote by starlightcouple
there are many high powered peeple out there who despise the press, and murdoch even more. if i was to be bold i would possibly suggest making comments about this when and if any charges are brought. that way we at leest know there is evidence enough to lay charges. as yet those charges if any, have not even got any timescale.
tell me HNS, what are your thoughts on the media and murdoch in particular?
All public interest, something some parts of the media have used as their excuse/reason for shining their spotlight on people, though this time seems the public, Commons Committee, Levenson, etc. are now doing, long over due.
As for "on the media" in general, they do a good role in reporting and informing.
Whilst you mention "murdoch in particular", which one ?
- Keith Rupert ? (aka the 'old man')
- Prudence ? (Times Newspapers)
- Elisabeth ? (Shine and now sold to Newscorp)
- Lachlan ? (Newscorp)
- James ? (Sky and Newscorp)
- Wendi ? (Star TV)
Quote by HnS
All public interest, something some parts of the media have used as their excuse/reason for shining their spotlight on people, though this time seems the public, Commons Committee, Levenson, etc. are now doing, long over due.
thanks for that HNS. i think i am now fully aware of your reesons for your original comments.
thanks :thumbup:
but once again as an aside, they are allegations and NO charges. of course it is possible that some peeple look for things to satisfy ones own dislike of something. just a thought. :notes:
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
All public interest, something some parts of the media have used as their excuse/reason for shining their spotlight on people, though this time seems the public, Commons Committee, Levenson, etc. are now doing, long over due.
thanks for that HNS. i think i am now fully aware of your reesons for your original comments.
thanks :thumbup:
but once again as an aside, they are allegations and NO charges. of course it is possible that some peeple look for things to satisfy ones own dislike of something. just a thought. :notes:
Like some sections of the print media have been doing for a long time so as to support their owner's personal interests......................surely not
Sex God
At the High Court, Mr Justice Vos is deciding issues concerned with a second wave of litigation over phone hacking claims against News Group Newspapers.
Hugh Tomlinson QC said there were 4,791 potential victims in total, of whom the police had contacted 1,892 people.
Seems that Operation Weeting, which looking at alleged phone hacking, still has some way to go
Hugh Tomlinson QC said there were 4,791 potential victims in total, of whom the police had contacted 1,892 people.
Seems that Operation Weeting, which looking at alleged phone hacking, still has some way to go
Sex God
Rupert Murdoch has told the Leveson Inquiry there was a "cover-up" at the News of the World (NoW) but that he and senior executives were "shielded" from the extent of phone-hacking at the tabloid, which he was forced to close.
On claims that "one rogue reporter" was responsible for phone-hacking, Mr Murdoch said senior executives were all misinformed about its extent. "I do blame one or two people for that... someone took charge of a cover up we were victim to and I regret that."
Lets hope he's right, but just to make sure lets hope the Leveson comes up with suggestions that should stop this happening again.
On claims that "one rogue reporter" was responsible for phone-hacking, Mr Murdoch said senior executives were all misinformed about its extent. "I do blame one or two people for that... someone took charge of a cover up we were victim to and I regret that."
Lets hope he's right, but just to make sure lets hope the Leveson comes up with suggestions that should stop this happening again.
So then, the Media Committee of the House of Commons has ruled that Murdoch is not fit to run a major international company.
Just who the fuck do they think they are?
John Whittingdale, the Chairman of the committee is weak. To have allowed Tom Watson free reign to include such a statement n their findings demeans the whole credibility and standing of the committee. To watch that Pratt grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst their 'verdict' was being delivered just shows what an idiot he is.
Will Mr Murdoch senior care a flying fuck? I doubt it. News Media International shares up today which is all that matters, not the comment of a half brained self serving also-ran no mark like Watson.
Grrrrrrrr
Just who the fuck do they think they are?
John Whittingdale, the Chairman of the committee is weak. To have allowed Tom Watson free reign to include such a statement n their findings demeans the whole credibility and standing of the committee. To watch that Pratt grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst their 'verdict' was being delivered just shows what an idiot he is.
Will Mr Murdoch senior care a flying fuck? I doubt it. News Media International shares up today which is all that matters, not the comment of a half brained self serving also-ran no mark like Watson.
Grrrrrrrr
Quote by GnV
So then, the Media Committee of the House of Commons has ruled that Murdoch is not fit to run a major international company.
Just who the fuck do they think they are?
John Whittingdale, the Chairman of the committee is weak. To have allowed Tom Watson free reign to include such a statement n their findings demeans the whole credibility and standing of the committee. To watch that Pratt grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst their 'verdict' was being delivered just shows what an idiot he is.
Will Mr Murdoch senior care a flying fuck? I doubt it. News Media International shares up today which is all that matters, not the comment of a half brained self serving also-ran no mark like Watson.
Grrrrrrrr
so who gives a flying fuck then
whilst OFFCOM are in their own words monitoring the situation.....Rupert Murdoch should give a flying fuck. Also where his real problem may yet lie is in the States....due to the situation the FBI are now looking into News Corp there !!! It is rumoured James is going to step down from News Corp, to try and stem the problems. Tom Watson through all this has been in my view the real honest rock. He has asked the difficult questions...he has probed where, the Police failed to. If it wasn't for honest people like Tom Watson, this would of been swept under the carpet. If only the House of Commons were filled with all Tom Watson type people, it would be a far better place !!
Quote by deancannock
whilst OFFCOM are in their own words monitoring the situation.....Rupert Murdoch should give a flying fuck. Also where his real problem may yet lie is in the States....due to the situation the FBI are now looking into News Corp there !!! It is rumoured James is going to step down from News Corp, to try and stem the problems. Tom Watson through all this has been in my view the real honest rock. He has asked the difficult questions...he has probed where, the Police failed to. If it wasn't for honest people like Tom Watson, this would of been swept under the carpet. If only the House of Commons were filled with all Tom Watson type people, it would be a far better place !!
It's already done. The whole House is filled with supercilious idiots like Tom Watson and its still a den of thieves!
Sex God
Quote by GnV
So then, the Media Committee of the House of Commons has ruled that Murdoch is not fit to run a major international company.
Just who the fuck do they think they are?
John Whittingdale, the Chairman of the committee is weak. To have allowed Tom Watson free reign to include such a statement n their findings demeans the whole credibility and standing of the committee. To watch that Pratt grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst their 'verdict' was being delivered just shows what an idiot he is.
Will Mr Murdoch senior care a flying fuck? I doubt it. News Media International shares up today which is all that matters, not the comment of a half brained self serving also-ran no mark like Watson.
Grrrrrrrr
Quote by GnV
!
It's already done. The whole House is filled with supercilious idiots like Tom Watson and its still a den of thieves!
So there you are watching this fight between Dennis Neilson and Peter Sutcliffe and you're saying 'oooh that poor Ripper, he doesn't deserve that'
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
just so we are clear HNS, these are all allegations are they not?........
Star,
and it came to pass ..........................
Rebekah Brooks is charged with conspiring with her 49-year-old husband, Charlie, personal assistant Cheryl Carter, chauffeur Paul Edwards, security man Daryl Jorsling, and News International head of security Mr Hanna to "conceal material" from police between 6 and 19 July.
In a second charge Mrs Brooks and Ms Carter are accused of conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive between 6 and 9 July.
In a third charge, Mr and Mrs Brooks, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling are accused of conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers between 15 and 19 July.
They will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 13 June.
Sex God
Quote by HnS
just so we are clear HNS, these are all allegations are they not?........
Star,
and it came to pass ..........................
Rebekah Brooks is charged with conspiring with her 49-year-old husband, Charlie, personal assistant Cheryl Carter, chauffeur Paul Edwards, security man Daryl Jorsling, and News International head of security Mr Hanna to "conceal material" from police between 6 and 19 July.
In a second charge Mrs Brooks and Ms Carter are accused of conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive between 6 and 9 July.
In a third charge, Mr and Mrs Brooks, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling are accused of conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers between 15 and 19 July.
They will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 13 June.
a court case there will be !!!
a worth while conviction maybe another thing? i feel she has enough ammunition on the current and the past governments make sure of this
Quote by Lizaleanrob
a court case there will be !!!
a worth while conviction maybe another thing? i feel she has enough ammunition on the current and the past governments make sure of this
I fecking hope so. I am looking forward to the greatest firework display the UK has seen............and it ain't Guy Fawlkes Night or the opening of the Olympics
Dave_Notts
Quote by HnS
just so we are clear HNS, these are all allegations are they not?........
Star,
and it came to pass ..........................
Rebekah Brooks is charged with conspiring with her 49-year-old husband, Charlie, personal assistant Cheryl Carter, chauffeur Paul Edwards, security man Daryl Jorsling, and News International head of security Mr Hanna to "conceal material" from police between 6 and 19 July.
In a second charge Mrs Brooks and Ms Carter are accused of conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive between 6 and 9 July.
In a third charge, Mr and Mrs Brooks, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling are accused of conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers between 15 and 19 July.
They will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 13 June.
and your point is HNS?
so are you possibly saying that every time someone is charged by the police that they are convicted? the police cock up every single day of the week, and usually huge cases where public opinion rules the day, have a nasty habit of ending up making the police look even more corrupt and inept than they actually are.
firstly as i am sure you are aware the cps will have to see if there is enough evidence and then to see if it is in the public interest. even if they agree with the police and send her to court or even a trial, do you think that Rebekah Brooks has told the whole truth? i wonder how many politicians and even past PM's are shitting themselves this evening. i am sure this lady has mixed with the highest peeple in the land and knows many a secret.
will they dare send her to trial i wonder.
so HNS the wheels of the great british justice have started to turn, and who knows where it will end. but i would not be to smug at this moment in time, peeple in very high places will not want that to happen. i think she has done nothing that every other editor has done and would do again to get " that " story. this is not over by a very long way, and i wonder how many other peeple should could bring down, IF she was to be found guilty?
it would not be the first time politicians and even governments have come crashing down, because of involvements of one thing or another.
Sex God
Quote by Dave__Notts
a court case there will be !!!
a worth while conviction maybe another thing? i feel she has enough ammunition on the current and the past governments make sure of this
I fecking hope so. I am looking forward to the greatest firework display the UK has seen............and it ain't Guy Fawlkes Night or the opening of the Olympics
Dave_Notts
i would say with what she knows Dave there will be little fireworks and more five guilty plea's with five equally weak slapped wrists :sad:
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
just so we are clear HNS, these are all allegations are they not?........
Star,
and it came to pass ..........................
Rebekah Brooks is charged with conspiring with her 49-year-old husband, Charlie, personal assistant Cheryl Carter, chauffeur Paul Edwards, security man Daryl Jorsling, and News International head of security Mr Hanna to "conceal material" from police between 6 and 19 July.
In a second charge Mrs Brooks and Ms Carter are accused of conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive between 6 and 9 July.
In a third charge, Mr and Mrs Brooks, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling are accused of conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers between 15 and 19 July.
They will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 13 June.
and your point is HNS?
so are you possibly saying that every time someone is charged by the police that they are convicted? the police cock up every single day of the week, and usually huge cases where public opinion rules the day, have a nasty habit of ending up making the police look even more corrupt and inept than they actually are.
firstly as i am sure you are aware the cps will have to see if there is enough evidence and then to see if it is in the public interest. even if they agree with the police and send her to court or even a trial, do you think that Rebekah Brooks has told the whole truth? i wonder how many politicians and even past PM's are shitting themselves this evening. i am sure this lady has mixed with the highest peeple in the land and knows many a secret.
will they dare send her to trial i wonder.
so HNS the wheels of the great british justice have started to turn, and who knows where it will end. but i would not be to smug at this moment in time, peeple in very high places will not want that to happen. i think she has done nothing that every other editor has done and would do again to get " that " story. this is not over by a very long way, and i wonder how many other peeple should could bring down, IF she was to be found guilty?
it would not be the first time politicians and even governments have come crashing down, because of involvements of one thing or another.
Star,
nasty habit of ending up making the police look even more corrupt and inept than they actually are well if thats your opinion of the Met, bow to your greater knowledge of your local force.
will they dare send her to trial, looks like the CPS have started the next step of the process which is the Magistrate Court however as the charges are perverting the course of justice, then this will be an initial hearing as the actual case will have to be held in a High Court.
peeple in very high places will not want that to happen then surely it would have been quashed at CPS level without any public scrutiny befoire charges were made.
i think she has done nothing that every other editor has done and would do again to get " that " story, are you confusing the 'story' and what's been published with something else, as these charges relate to :
:arrow: "conceal material" from police
:arrow: conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive
:arrow: conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment
which is a whole different thing
something completely different to publishing a story
this is not over by a very long way, and i wonder how many other peeple should could bring down, IF she was to be found guilty? Guilty of these charges, and possibly the other investigations that she's involved with and/or from her evidence & statements to Leveson ?
I'd suggest that these are two separate things and in respect of Leveson the political 'fall out' has been happening for several weeks and will almost certainly continue to do so.
Quote by HnS
Star,
well if thats your opinion of the Met, bow to your greater knowledge of your local force.
i think history would tell us all HNS that every major police force has at some time or another been corrupt and inept. would you not agree with that then? also in the met " institutionalised racism " as well. :notes:
Quote by HnS
looks like the CPS have started the next step of the process which is the Magistrate Court however as the charges are perverting the course of justice, then this will be an initial hearing as the actual case will have to be held in a High Court.
initial hearings, high court, judge and jury etc. as i have said already HNS, the wheels have started to turn but as yet NO guilty verdict and is it also true that this case could be dropped at any time?
Quote by HnS
then surely it would have been quashed at CPS level without any public scrutiny befoire charges were made.
why? every single case that has gone before a court has to go through the same procedures. the CPS can never be sure of any conviction only on the chances of finding someone guilty. of course the CPS can bring charges against someone, but in a million cases a jury has decided not to beleeve the evidence put before the courts by the CPS, and then find that person not guilty. because the CPS bring charges is that automatically guilty in your book then HNS?
Quote by HnS
are you confusing the 'story' and what's been published with something else, as these charges relate to :
:arrow: "conceal material" from police
:arrow: conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive
:arrow: conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment
which is a whole different thing
something completely different to publishing a story
all relating to hacking as far as i am aware, and these allegations stem from news international stories and how they obtain those stories.
Quote by HnS
Guilty of these charges, and possibly the other investigations that she's involved with and/or from her evidence & statements to Leveson ?
I'd suggest that these are two separate things and in respect of Leveson the political 'fall out' has been happening for several weeks and will almost certainly continue to do so.
yes the political fall out will be huge i am sure. i beleeve that the evidence is flimsy at best from what i have read, but then i am not a lawyer. but from her lawyers stance yesterday and if anyone bothers to listen to it, the police will have a job on there hands.
but on here especially a persons guilt it seems is guilty before a court even has heard any evidence. some peeple on here are clouded by anything the NOTW or the Sun or as some put it " the daily wail ", are concerned. judgements can certainly be clouded when ones dislike for something gets in the way of being rational.
rational: "having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense" :eeek:
Sex God
Oh for Gods sake 
:banghead::banghead::banghead:
We all know she's guilty we all know Darth Murdoch and Luke are guilty any reasonable rational person looking at the evidence thus far knows that they're all morally bankrupt,we all know that they'll get away with a slap on the wrist and a short period of closer scrutiny ... but we are a nation in thrall to wealth and the power it bestows and probably don't deserve any better
:banghead::banghead::banghead:We all know she's guilty we all know Darth Murdoch and Luke are guilty any reasonable rational person looking at the evidence thus far knows that they're all morally bankrupt,we all know that they'll get away with a slap on the wrist and a short period of closer scrutiny ... but we are a nation in thrall to wealth and the power it bestows and probably don't deserve any better
Sex God
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Oh for Gods sake
We all know she's guilty we all know Darth Murdoch and Luke are guilty any reasonable rational person looking at the evidence thus far knows that they're all morally bankrupt,we all know that they'll get away with a slap on the wrist and a short period of closer scrutiny ... but we are a nation in thrall to wealth and the power it bestows and probably don't deserve any better
Like every one else in this country they are of coarse Innocent, until proven guilty. I would have thought you above all would not condone this kind of trial by media malarkey.
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Oh for Gods sake
We all know she's guilty we all know Darth Murdoch and Luke are guilty any reasonable rational person looking at the evidence thus far knows that they're all morally bankrupt,
coming from the person who openly at every opportunity berates the NOTW and especially the sun etc.
thank god that you will not be sitting on there jury. your loathing of murdoch and anyone associated with him or his papers, is tiresome at the very least.
not aimed at you in particular but was it not the upstanding and truthful guardian newspaper that stated the NOTW had hacked into milly dowlers messages? now it seems they did not at all. good journalism that one.
" The police said last year that a Guardian report might have mistakenly blamed the News of the World". mistakenly? what they dont know? what no evidence to support the Guardians original claims? sounds like the same kind of journalism they berate there competitors for all the time.
:doh::doh::doh: silly billys.
staggers,,,,your sounding a bit like that old 45 record that i have.:doh:
Sex God
The news of the world did hack Milly Dowlers phone messages .... the error was in the accusation that they deleted them
