|
It's pretty funny, but it might be a take on the Oasis song.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2014 12:17 |
|
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 07:29 |
|
Party Plane Jones posted:It's pretty funny, but it might be a take on the Oasis song. Well, that's pretty unlikely. The phrase 'What's the story morning glory' has been around since at least the 60s. Noel got it from talking to an American on the phone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sPU3ymk2ms&t=55s
|
# ? Feb 5, 2014 12:24 |
|
Party Plane Jones posted:It's pretty funny, but it might be a take on the Oasis song. Ole Rupes was 65 when the song was released, somehow I don't see him weighing in passionately on the Oasis vs Blur controversy.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2014 12:45 |
|
It's no wonder these people keep quoting TV series as reasons for their decisions when a brief peak into their lives and private behaviour reveals a cheesefest soap opera with little bearing on reality.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2014 12:53 |
|
Prosecution case over.quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 16m
|
# ? Feb 5, 2014 17:40 |
|
I don't have time to look at this myself, but is this suggesting that Brooks was a victim of hacking in addition to/instead of its supervisor? How does that affect the charges being brought against her and her husband?
|
# ? Feb 5, 2014 20:23 |
|
Grundulum posted:I don't have time to look at this myself, but is this suggesting that Brooks was a victim of hacking in addition to/instead of its supervisor? How does that affect the charges being brought against her and her husband? I don't think it would at all.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2014 20:31 |
|
It might demonstrate at least that she wasn't privy to the simple mechanics of the hack (default/blank PIN) even to protect her own privacy, but then again having a non-default password when almost everyone else did might have been a triple bluff in case any of this ever came to light oh god
|
# ? Feb 5, 2014 21:22 |
|
Banano posted:It might demonstrate at least that she wasn't privy to the simple mechanics of the hack (default/blank PIN) even to protect her own privacy, but then again having a non-default password when almost everyone else did might have been a triple bluff in case any of this ever came to light oh god One can destroy evidence and obstruct an investigation without knowing how to hack into voicemail
|
# ? Feb 5, 2014 23:27 |
|
It's also a good plan to keep tabs on a person paying you to perform illegal activities.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2014 00:41 |
|
The latest from my regular Hackgate contributor, this time looking at an appalling example of arse-covering by a very familiar name in the Met, Under Police Protection? - Maxine Carr, Derek Webb, and John Yates.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2014 14:30 |
|
Brown Moses posted:The latest from my regular Hackgate contributor, this time looking at an appalling example of arse-covering by a very familiar name in the Met, Under Police Protection? - Maxine Carr, Derek Webb, and John Yates.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2014 14:41 |
|
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.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2014 14:51 |
|
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 |
|
It's what I use!
|
# ? Feb 13, 2014 15:30 |
|
Brown Moses posted:It's what I use! Brown__Moses, is that you?
|
# ? Feb 13, 2014 15:36 |
|
quote:Piers Morgan questioned 'under caution' by Scotland Yard's hacking squad
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 13:38 |
|
He's been interviewed recently or are we just finding out about the interviews done back then?
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 13:57 |
|
It says he got interviewed on 6 December 2013, so i got a free christmas present without ever knowing.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 14:40 |
|
Brown Moses posted:Best news I've heard since I check the Bitcoin price this morning.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2014 20:02 |
|
Brooks is giving evidence today, so to catch up here's a piece by Peter Jukes on the trial so far, Half-time at the News Corp phone hacking trial.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2014 08:48 |
|
Tony Blair is back in the hackgate news againquote:Tony Blair advised Rebekah Brooks on phone-hacking scandal, court hears
|
# ? Feb 19, 2014 15:05 |
|
Hutton confirmed as being a polite euphemism for "whitewash."
|
# ? Feb 19, 2014 15:09 |
|
Brown Moses posted:Best news I've heard since I check the Bitcoin price this morning.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2014 15:19 |
|
Anything said will be recorded and if you contradict yourself now or later, or they find something/someone to contradict what you say, it will be used in court to bum you. As an aside, despite what TV tells you, everyone formally questions should stay silent until legal representation arrives. It's easy for even innocent people to drop themselves in it for a number of reasons.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2014 15:40 |
|
Zephro posted:What does it mean exactly to be interviewed under caution? Caution of what? "I must caution you that anything you say may be used against you in court, and that you may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you later rely on in court" You've surely seen enough crime dramas to have heard that before?
|
# ? Feb 19, 2014 15:44 |
|
Mr. Squishy posted:Hutton confirmed as being a polite euphemism for "whitewash." In a just world, this'd snowball into some sort of review of the Hutton inquiry. I can dream...
|
# ? Feb 19, 2014 16:26 |
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:"I must caution you that anything you say may be used against you in court, and that you may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you later rely on in court" It's a uniquely British/Commonwealth? phrasing, and there are plenty of people across the pond who are following this story as well.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2014 16:36 |
|
Mr. Squishy posted:Hutton confirmed as being a polite euphemism for "whitewash." All the nicer for it being out of Tony Blair's mouth.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2014 16:53 |
|
I'd guessed it was something adverse, but yeah, "under caution" doesn't come across as a specific legal condition on this side of the pond. We have the Miranda warning script, which is basically an American English translation of that paragraph, but I don't think there's really a term for the same situation over here since, if I recall, it's really only read when they are being placed under arrest. The (fifth amendment in the US) rights apply at all times, but you know our CJ system . If there's a loophole (like not advising PoI's of their rights prior to arrest) they will exploit the hell out of it, and use any "I'd rather not speak to you without advice of counsel" type of talk as grounds to bring out the cuffs.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2014 16:58 |
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:"I must caution you that anything you say may be used against you in court, and that you may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you later rely on in court" edit: is it basically a way of syaing "we think you're a suspect?"
|
# ? Feb 19, 2014 17:05 |
|
Zephro posted:Yes, but is that a meaningful distinction? Like are you ever formally interviewed under any other circumstances? It's not really a case of saying 'you're a suspect', more a way of ensuring that anything said during the interview can be used in evidence. It's a bit of a disgrace that the wording of the caution changed from the one still in use in the USA, but that's a whole different subject.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2014 17:30 |
Yup, failing to follow procedures can jeopardise the admissibility of an interview, and advising a suspect of their rights and the potential consequences of speaking or staying silent (cautioning them) is one of the more important steps. Rapey Joe Stalin posted:As an aside, despite what TV tells you, everyone formally questions should stay silent until legal representation arrives. It's easy for even innocent people to drop themselves in it for a number of reasons. But, at a police station, demand legal representation and refuse to be interviewed until they arrive. The police can only begin the interview without your solicitor in exceptional circumstances (e.g. You refuse to be represented by anyone other than a solicitor who cannot attend within several hours or there is someone suffocating in a box somewhere.) OppyDoppyDopp fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
# ? Feb 19, 2014 17:41 |
|
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 |
|
Zephro posted:Yes, but is that a meaningful distinction? Like are you ever formally interviewed under any other circumstances? Not really, no. They'll interview you under caution even if you're just a witness, if they believe there's even the tiniest chance you may have done something wrong, and in a case like this where nobody really has clean hands you make sure you interview everyone under caution.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2014 09:19 |
|
notaspy posted:Having had a night to sleep on yesterdays revelation about Mr Blair let's look at this a bit more sensibly. 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.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2014 10:04 |
|
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 |
|
quote:BREAKING Rebekah Brooks has been formally acquitted of one charge of misconduct in a public office. She faces four further counts. quote:Breaking: #Phonehacking judge instructs jury to find Rebekah Brooks NOT GUILTY on count relating to Prince William in bikini pic
|
# ? Feb 20, 2014 11:13 |
|
Interesting. Wonder what happened.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2014 11:14 |
|
|
# ? Apr 19, 2024 07:29 |
|
thehustler posted:Interesting. Wonder what happened. Apparently the source was unclear. The defence lawyer for Brooks seems to be pushing that the case is incredibly confusing and no-one can make sense of it, so how can it be clear Brooks is guilty.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2014 11:23 |