Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Party Plane Jones
Jul 1, 2007

by Reene
Fun Shoe

It's pretty funny, but it might be a take on the Oasis song.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Plavski
Feb 1, 2006

I could be a revolutionary

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

Daduzi
Nov 22, 2005

You can't hide from the Grim Reaper. Especially when he's got a gun.

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.

Verizian
Dec 18, 2004
The spiky one.
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.

Plavski
Feb 1, 2006

I could be a revolutionary
Prosecution case over.

quote:

Peter Jukes ‏@peterjukes 16m
Late BREAKING news; final numbers show Rebekah Brooks was hacked 44 times by Glenn Mulcaire and Andy Coulson 21

Grundulum
Feb 28, 2006
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?

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

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.

Banano
Jan 10, 2005
Soiled Meat
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 :tinfoil:

FAUXTON
Jun 2, 2005

spero che tu stia bene

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 :tinfoil:

One can destroy evidence and obstruct an investigation without knowing how to hack into voicemail :v:

Wiggly Wayne DDS
Sep 11, 2010



It's also a good plan to keep tabs on a person paying you to perform illegal activities.

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

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.

Wiggly Wayne DDS
Sep 11, 2010



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.
Very nice on the details.

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

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.

notaspy
Mar 22, 2009

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)

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

It's what I use!

Plavski
Feb 1, 2006

I could be a revolutionary

Brown Moses posted:

It's what I use!

Brown__Moses, is that you?

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

quote:

Piers Morgan questioned 'under caution' by Scotland Yard's hacking squad
Piers Morgan, the CNN presenter who used to edit the Daily Mirror, has been interviewed under caution by Scotland Yard detectives investigating phone-hacking.

In a statement to The Guardian through his spokesperson, Morgan said: "In early November I was asked to attend an interview by officers from Operation Weeting when I was next in the UK.

"This was further to a full witness statement I had already freely provided. I attended that interview as requested on 6 December 2013."

Scotland Yard have confirmed that a 48-year-old journalist was interviewed on that date at a south London police station by officers from Operation Golding. That is the strand of Operation Weeting that is investigating allegations of phone interception at Mirror Group Newspapers.

Morgan was editor of the Mirror from 1995 until he was fired in 2004 over the publication of hoax pictures that were claimed to show Iraqi prisoners being abused by British soldiers.

In 2006, Morgan wrote an article in the Daily Mail in which he claimed to have been played the tape of a message that Paul McCartney had left for his wife, Heather Mills, on her mobile phone.

While giving evidence to the Leveson inquiry, he reiterated that he had heard the tape but refused to say who had played it to him. He told the inquiry that he did not believe that phone hacking had occurred at the Mirror.

But he downplayed an interview he had given to Press Gazette in 2007 in which he said that phone hacking was an "investigative practice that everyone knows was going on at almost every paper in Fleet Street for years".

Another witness to the inquiry, the BBC2 Newsnight presenter, Jeremy Paxman recalled a lunch at the Mirror headquarters in 2002 at which he said Morgan described to him how to hack into a mobile phone.

In the Leveson report, it stated that "Morgan's attempt to push back from his own bullish statement to the Press Gazette was utterly unpersuasive." It went on to say that the evidence did not establish that he authorised the hacking of voicemails nor that journalists working for the Mirror did so.

But Leveson said: "What it does, however, clearly prove is that he was aware that it was taking place in the press as a whole and that he was sufficiently unembarrassed by what was criminal behaviour that he was prepared to joke about it."

Morgan, 48, was editor of the News of the World for more than a year prior to becoming Daily Mirror editor. After his sacking, he moved into television, presenting an interview series for ITV and acting as judge on talent shows.

He joined CNN in 2011 as the host of Piers Morgan Live, the successor show to the long-running Larry King Live.
Best news I've heard since I check the Bitcoin price this morning.

willie_dee
Jun 21, 2010
I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries
He's been interviewed recently or are we just finding out about the interviews done back then?

Just Another Lurker
May 1, 2009

It says he got interviewed on 6 December 2013, so i got a free christmas present without ever knowing. :dance:

Wiggly Wayne DDS
Sep 11, 2010



Brown Moses posted:

Best news I've heard since I check the Bitcoin price this morning.
So when do we get to open the champagne?

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

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.

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

Tony Blair is back in the hackgate news again

quote:

Tony Blair advised Rebekah Brooks on phone-hacking scandal, court hears

Tony Blair advised Rebekah Brooks to launch a "Hutton style" inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World at the height of the scandal over the issue, according to an email that has emerged at the Old Bailey trial.

The revelation emerged in an email that was read to the jury in the hacking trial on Wednesday, and followed what Brooks said was an hour-long phone call.

According to the email, sent the day after the News of the World's final issue and six days before Brooks was arrested, Blair also told her he was "available" to her and Rupert and James Murdoch as an "unofficial adviser" on a "between us" basis.

The advice was said to have been given on 11 July 2011 and contained in an email she sent at 4.20pm to James Murdoch, the then executive chairman of News International.

According to Brooks's note, Blair advised her to set up an "independent" inquiry, suggesting it could have "outside counsel, Ken Macdonald [the former director of public prosecutions], a great and good type".

He said the inquiry would be "Hutton style" – a reference to Lord Hutton's inquiry into the death of David Kelly – and would "clear" her, but warned that "shortcomings" would have to be accepted as a result of the report.

According to the email the advice was given in an hour-long phone conversation. Blair advised her to "tough up" and not to make any "rash short-term solutions as they only give you long-term headaches." He also told her to "keep strong" and advised her to take "sleeping pills".

Prosecutor Andrew Edis read out the entire email exchange between Brooks and James Murdoch to the jury as part of the formal conclusion of the Crown's case.

After finishing in the email he turned to the jury to simply say "Well, that's that" before moving on to the next piece of evidence.

Brooks told James Murdoch in the email: "I had an hour on the phone to Tony Blair" and then proceeded to outline the points he had allegedly made in the conversation.

"1. Form an independent unit that has an outside junior counsel, Ken Macdonald, a great and good type, a serious forensic criminal barrister, internal counsel, proper fact checkers etc in it. Get them to investigate me and others and publish a Hutton style report," she said.

"2. Publish part one of the report at same time as the police closes its inquiry and clear you and accept short comings and new solutions and process and part two when any trials are over.

"3. Keep strong and definitely sleeping pills. Need to have clear heads and remember no rash short term solutions as they only give you long term headaches.

"4. It will pass. Tough up.

"5. He is available for you, KRM [Rupert Murdoch] and me as an unofficial adviser but needs to be between us," she wrote.

Mr. Squishy
Mar 22, 2010

A country where you can always get richer.
Hutton confirmed as being a polite euphemism for "whitewash."

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Brown Moses posted:

Best news I've heard since I check the Bitcoin price this morning.
What does it mean exactly to be interviewed under caution? Caution of what?

Lovely Joe Stalin
Jun 12, 2007

Our Lovely Wang
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.

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you
Fun Shoe

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?

Chocolate Teapot
May 8, 2009

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...

VanSandman
Feb 16, 2011
SWAP.AVI EXCHANGER

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"

You've surely seen enough crime dramas to have heard that before?

It's a uniquely British/Commonwealth? phrasing, and there are plenty of people across the pond who are following this story as well.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004


Mr. Squishy posted:

Hutton confirmed as being a polite euphemism for "whitewash."

All the nicer for it being out of Tony Blair's mouth.

FAUXTON
Jun 2, 2005

spero che tu stia bene

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 :suicide:. 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.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

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"

You've surely seen enough crime dramas to have heard that before?
Yes, but is that a meaningful distinction? Like are you ever formally interviewed under any other circumstances?

edit: is it basically a way of syaing "we think you're a suspect?"

stickyfngrdboy
Oct 21, 2010

Zephro posted:

Yes, but is that a meaningful distinction? Like are you ever formally interviewed under any other circumstances?

edit: is it basically a way of syaing "we think you're a suspect?"

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.

OppyDoppyDopp
Feb 17, 2012
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.
This depends on the circumstances. If you are arrested and immediately asked why you are covered in blood and holding a knife, and warned about the adverse inference that can be drawn from remaining silent, you had better offer an innocent explanation if you have one.

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

notaspy
Mar 22, 2009

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?

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you
Fun Shoe

Zephro posted:

Yes, but is that a meaningful distinction? Like are you ever formally interviewed under any other circumstances?

edit: is it basically a way of syaing "we think you're a suspect?"

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.

Elliptical Dick
Oct 11, 2008

I made the bald man cry
into the turtle stew

notaspy posted:

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?

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.

notaspy
Mar 22, 2009

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.

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

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

thehustler
Apr 17, 2004

I am very curious about this little crescendo
Interesting. Wonder what happened.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Brown Moses
Feb 22, 2002

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.

  • Locked thread