|
Brown Moses posted:Could this be the Milly Dowler moment? Come on mate, have you seen the source? You know that those loony lefties are just making poo poo up to make the fine Captains of Industry looks bad.
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 10:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:It would be interesting to see if there's any old news reports of public figures being mysteriously burgled, or having their phones and laptops stolen. Wasn't there a spate of burglaries against footballers while they were playing away (in Europe, not shagging someone who isn't their misses)? These were blamed on a sophisticated gang and from what I understand never solved.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 10:23
|
|
|
Ah, ok then.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2012 10:32
|
|
|
When I read 'my regular contributor' I think of Deepthroat. One day we'll fine out it some dude who works at No 10 or something
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:It's not a bad time to be reading the recent retweets on my Twitter timeline. Couple of questions: 1) ISn't that the sort of chat that can get you sued if the powers that be keep it quite? 2) Are you worried about getting bumped off?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Pretty sure Leveson is doing a speech in Australia on the 30th, so he'll be in an airplane for most of that day. So close Brown: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/22/leveson-press-standards-report
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 12:05
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:The ideal Christmas present, the Leveson Inquiry Report, only £250. Alternatively there's the Leveson Report Overview for the cheap price of £29.75. Fun for all the family. So this isn't going to be free on the website? I was hoping to load it onto my kindle and read it on the way to work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
Is it even possible to read the entire thing in 4 days? If so, as a Londoner, why the gently caress wasn't he doing his job a mayor?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 13:43
|
|
|
FightingMongoose posted:In what possible way would this be legislation by the back door? Surely legislation written and debated in Parliament is the very definition of the front door. Because this is coming from the the House of Lords which is meant to vet legislation not make it, traditionally. It's for the elected government of the day to create new laws as per the mandate they get from a general election.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Well the first conviction was pretty harsh, so I expect more of the same. All these guilty pleas aren't good for News Corp as now the journalists involved have to explain how they can be innocent while the person the paid off is guilty. It's all very bad news for News Corp. Well, you see, he gave me the story and I paid him not I paid him to give me a story, so he corrupted himself QED I'm innocent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 11:55
|
|
|
Has there been any news on the low cost libel that Leveson wanted?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
If they do decide to just ignore the new body, what happens? I'm guessing they would keep on getting fined, but there will come a point that something drastic would need to happen, like sending the bailiffs in, blocking deliveries or arresting senior members of staff. Which would be bad day for that government.
notaspy fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I think Hislop more than anyone has the right to be concerned; he's not known as the most sued man in Britain for nothing. That said, the Eye haven't actually had a libel writ against them in ages. And Private Eye actually got some praise from Leveson. It's a shame that his objections on practicality (the Eye's legal defence fund is kept up by donations) is being drowned about about the powerful media barons whining that they aren't allowed to break the law any more. If every paper was like The Eye I would oppose this law, but they are not. The Eye wins it's cases because they do proper journalism, backed by sources; so the plaintiff doesn't have a leg to stand on and usually takes The Eye to court either out of vanity or an attempt to bully them. Both are bad ideas. To my mind most of this could have been boiled down to the low cost arbitration service and then leaving the current law to do it job. That and ownership.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Retractions get posted on the front page/cover in 24-pt bolded letters in a single simple English sentences, like "We were wrong about x" or "Immigrants not baby-eating mongrels". I like the idea of the apology taking up the same space as the original story. So 5 pages of making GBS threads all over Chris Jefferies? Well that's 5 pages retracting all that poo poo. Not going to happen but I can dream....
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
So far everything is to do with Syria, have they asked you anything about your Leveson work? Or are they avoid that as you're not on 'their' side?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:It's a drat shame, because while I must ultimately admit that Syria is more important as men and women are losing their lives there every day, the blatancy and depth of the corruption at News Corp has truly been gobsmacking to watch unfold. And unfortunately, people seem all too eager to utterly ignore it. At least, stateside. Every single time I've thought every thing had been uncovered, there would be a slew new arrests, or hacking claims, or bribery, and god, it just goes on with no end. As I understand it the FBI (who lead these cases) like to lay low and keep quite while they build their case.... then BAM! They hit you straight in the nuts. With other cases still going through the courts I bet they are waiting for all the poo poo to come out before proceeding to make their case ultra rock solid and have a wider scope. Right now it's low level dudes, but the end of 2015 it might go all the way to the top.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Jut posted:Either way the fines will just be added to normal operating costs. The only way they will make a difference is if they sting. OK let take The Daily Mail as the ultimate example, which turns over £2bn a year (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-1355378/Daily-Mail-owner-reports-increase-turnover.html). Even they won't be able to ignore multiple multimillion pound judgements against them. Add onto that any additional costs caused by saying 'nope we won't pay' and very soon there is a hefty sting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I have a cultural inquiry. What is it with you Brits and having tits in your news (or "news")? No other country I know of has as much tits plastered all over such a socially acceptable and wide spread medium as a daily 'paper'. What's going on here, or am I just horribly sheltered about other countries' papers? I thought the germans had tits on the front page but below the fold? I'm not sure where it came from, I'm guessing the 60's when the sexual revolution was happening but has become a perverse version of itself. I did have a link to a cool video someone did about this but I can't find it... so no ideas why I mention it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:You mean the one where it examines how the interviews have changed from "teehee are you single tell us about yourself?" playboy type poo poo to using the women as mouthpieces to push the political views of the editorial staff? That's the one, wouldn't be surprised if you posted it. Addendum: Haha, just looked it up on wikipedia and it turns out it was old rup who brought it in during the 70's as sex sells. You couldn't make it up. notaspy fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Sep 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:Along with all the European countries listed earlier, there's Japan - and their equivalent of the Daily Sport (i.e. tits on EVERY page, and photos as close to full nude pornography as they can get without censure) is not only far more popular than the Sport, but you'll actually see people reading it on the train! Ahhh, The Sport. That takes me back, got me through my teenaged years, I once worked out it had 3 tits per page even when not including the adverts for the the porn lines at the back. Ultimately it comes down to the UK still having a problem with sex that comes from the Victorian era. Holland/The Netherlands managed to get over that protestant nonsense a long time ago, probably the drugs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
He seems to be using the argument of 'the editors had to know' not presenting evidance that they /did/ know. But it looks like Coulson is completely hosed, which is the best one due to him being hired by the PM. The others are just icing, sweet, sweet icing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Little_wh0re posted:how long is the trial expected to last? It has been give a 5-6 month window. The opening statement has been pretty damning already but I thought the same in the Oscar presaurious (sorry, can't remember how to spell his name) case, then the defence got up a pointed out all the holes in the argument. I thought that we'd have the same here except for the whole destroying evidence thing which is not going to end well for them! In the words of Dr Krieger 'I penis can only get so hard'. On a completely different aside I do like seeing justice in action, been meaning to drag myself down to the old bailey to watch a case or two.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 10:11
|
|
|
The Dark Project posted:From the very beginning I knew all of this had legs. All the people who said "Who cares? It's not going to go anywhere..." But you pull treads to cause things to become unravelled. Don't you?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:As someone just noted, there's 7 charges, and they've only just finished detailing the 1st charge. This could take a couple of weeks at this rate. We have 6 months, this isn't a memory test and a third thing. After detailing the charges what happens next?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 12:15
|
|
|
HTJ posted:The opening is a summary of the allegations and the key bits of evidence; after this they will go into the evidence in mind numbing detail. I loving love mind numbing detail. Can I just rock up to the court and get a seat (in a few weeks when all the interest boils off)?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
OK, so let's assume the all get banged up, how does this affect the standing of Rup in the US, in light of the foreign payments law they have? Plus what about the oversight that he should have been doing as the owner of NI?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Peter Jukes and Emily Bell on CNN talking about the phone hacking trials You had better never describe your rise to greatness as "pulling myself up by my bootstraps", or I will find you and glare at you is a slightly disappointed way 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:That's not blackmail, that's putting a story to the subject of it before publication. Obviously done in an aggressive way, but unless the newspaper is worried about an emergency call to the duty judge and a super-injunction being slapped on them as they are going to press that should really be best practice. A phone call, yes. Not having the editor of th no.1 selling newspaper in the land turn up on your doorstep to 'have a quiet word'. As much as I detest the majority of our leaders they do have a private life and something like this is only really relevant if he was doing some sort of family values campaign or having a go at deadbeat dads. Ok I can sorta see the argument that he being a senior government minister something like this informs his decision making process but it's still intimidation on the part of NI.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Do we know what WS on this laptop?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
So is this coulson dead in the water? And thus by extension Mrs Brooks?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Are we surprised that a drug addicted liar who has been given immunity from prosecution for ratting on the main culprit is being exposed as anything other than the charlatan that is so evidently is? (Satire)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Is the defence going to leave Evans up there for as long as possible?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Cross-examination just ended. Court QC is now going over a few matters. I think Evans' time in the box will be over soon. When all is said an done I'd love to find out if this cross examination had the desired effect
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Some papers are claiming the trial has been 'explosive', others are more muted. My own feeling is that we haven't had a smoking gun, just a hell of a lot of "it really really looks like they were hacking and knew about it guys. Seriously. It really looks that way." I pretty much agree, with the destruction of the email record there is no hard link in the cases BUT I think this might be a problem of the way the tweets have been done. They are factual but lack a context, looking at how private eye does the reporting these guys are hosed with a capital hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Frankly, my regular contributor puts the majority of journalist to shame with their research. This is all open source information, so anyone could have done this, and my regular contributor is entirely self-taught since the whole scandal began, with no background at all in this area. This is part of the reason I'm doing my new site, to encourage other people to do the same thing, and show them how to get started. Is it ok if I use My Regular Contributor as a nickname for my John Thomas? (Ironicly as I have a non excitant sex life)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Having had a night to sleep on yesterdays revelation about Mr Blair let's look at this a bit more sensibly. What is wrong with these two being friends? They move in the same circles, deal with the small people and at the same level. Advice is now Mr Blair's job and he only gives it to the rich and powerful. The Hutton report wasn't popular but from I can remember and have read last night wasn't run with bias. This is the advice he gave. Run an unbiased inquest as this then puts the burden of proof on your accuser, as in the end is about what can be proved. On top of this is the fact that they have all pleaded not guilty, when you know you're in the clear attack your enemy as the proof of their accusations is just not there. Or is this is a shot across the bow of the great and powerful?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Elliptical Dick posted:I guess that all depends on how scummy you think phone hacking and/or invading a country without a solid reason is. Advising someone (outside of strictly legally) involved in practices like phone hacking is morally dubious at best in my view and I have no problem with Blair getting some poo poo for being chummy with someone as exploitative (if guilty) or incompetent (if not guilty) as Brooks. Immoral? Maybe, a friend reaches out, you offer to help. It's yet to be proved that she knew what was going on. Most of us here are looking at this as an open and shut case due to our bias against the defendants, but in the end it's about what can legally be proven and there are plenty of gaps so far.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Believe me, it kills me too. If I report you for blueballing us, do I end up getting a ban?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Its all gone a bit quiet here but right now Clive Goodman is spilling his guts all over the court. Anyone know how bad this is for the defendants?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
I'm on leave next week and would like to go to the trail, can someone remind me which court it is being held at?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 11:14
|
|