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 $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Locked thread
Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Brown Moses posted:

In that regard it's probably a REALLY good time to read up on the murder of Daniel Morgan, former partner at Southern Investigations who was about to reveal details of massive police corruption to a journalist but ended up with an axe in his face in a car park. The alleged journalist in question? Alex Marunchak, who went on to have a close working relationship with Southern Investigations.

What I found interesting in the Evening Standard article was Jonathan Rees claiming that the reason why Derek Haslam infiltrated them is because the Met was concerned about the investigations into Police corruption and into CIB3 in particular:

Evening Standard posted:

Rees — who admits he was once “very close” to Haslam — described his allegations as “nonsense”. He claims Scotland Yard asked Haslam to infiltrate SI to invent “blatant lies” and smear them at a time when the firm was uncovering police corruption on behalf of the press.

He said: “Haslam was tasked by senior officers to ... come in there and mix with us again and ... to find out ... what we were doing against CIB3 ... they knew we were investigating CIB3 ... it was a force within a force, they were given total autonomy to do whatever they liked, their own accounts, their own finances. History tells us that when you allow policemen to do that it goes wrong ... if you let these squads run themselves it leads into trouble.”

Rees claims to have seen Met applications for audio probes inside SI’s offices and said the Yard justified the intrusive surveillance because the firm might “undermine the structure and the moral wellbeing of the Metropolitan Police ... or even bring it down”.

He added: “We’ve got this poxy little firm of private investigators, half a dozen men, suddenly they are alleging that we were going to bring down the Met police. Good arguments to get your surveillance.

“They were abusing and using the process to see what we’re doing against them. So a battle started ... things got very dirty indeed.”

Of course that the stuff people claim Morgan was killed for. With the additional claim that Rees was also in on it as mentioned above...

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



As an aside, there apparently isn't a single article on the BBC website about this. Not a peep. The last story about Southern Investigations is from May this year when the Daniel Morgan murder trial collapsed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18144543
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18154695

No peep of it in the Newspaper Review either:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19632499


Rather striking considering part of it was front page on the Evening Standard last night and was front page of the Independent today and also had some coverage in the Telegraph etc. Makes you curious why the seem to have killed all coverage of it. Libel concerns?

Munin fucked around with this message at Sep 18, 2012 around 11:36

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Zephro posted:

I would bet heavily on an unconsciously self-serving assumption that people are bored of the whole thing and it's not a story.

Perhaps but even if it news of less interest they generally have a small note or mention, especially if it has a niche audience which would like to know. If anyone has mates at the BBC I'd be curious about the reasoning.

This is all aside from the fact that these are big allegations.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Well, that was a long time coming. Any idea what they are going to try and stick them with yet?

Munin
Nov 14, 2004




"We Will All Go Together When We Go"

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



The evidence is being shared though, right?

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Brown Moses posted:

I guess I'll have to spell it out, supposedly two emails were discovered in datapool 3 by News Corps Management Standards Commitee from a News Int editor to Murdoch telling him about the Saddam pants photos, to which Murdoch replied it was "money well spent", which shows Murdoch knows they were bought from someone, and apparently News Corp is making GBS threads their collective pants over it. That £500 figure is also supposedly missing a couple of zeros.

The Daily Beast article carefully doesn't seem to mention any of this. If what you just said is borne out then that could indeed blow up nicely. Well, blow up into a cloud of "It was a long time ago" and "I can't recall" at first but hopefully they can screw out enough corroborating material out of NewsCorp.

This is the only mention of e-mails in the piece:

quote:

Last year, New Corp. set up a Management and Standards Committee, tasked with assisting British police with uncovering evidence of corrupt payments. The MSC holds a vast database of internal News International emails and communications, and answers to former U.S. assistant attorney general and News Corp. board member Viet Dinh. It is not known whether any requests for information have been made to the MSC regarding The Sun’s activities in May 2005, when the Hussein pictures were published.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Well, so it seems that Leveson kept his criticism of politicians and associated hangers-on within bounds to keep the Tories on side. Hunt really should have been skewered, not to mention the entire Coulson debacle.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Pasco posted:

Leveson has bowled a slow full toss at Cameron, and he and the Tories have contrived to trip over their own bat and knock the bails off.

Leveson's report is very much at the easy going end of what he could have suggested, yet Cameron is floundering and basically refusing to implement it. Ridiculous and maddening.

You mean par for the course for that lot surely.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Brown Moses posted:

A sinking ship?

Not really. As was mentioned earlier he thought he had the top job in the newspaper division in the bag. The resignation is probably primarily due to being passed over for promotion rather than anything else.

That said it should make it easier for him to spill the beans should he want to.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



I wonder if all the cases will be uses as precedent to prosecute Police whistleblowers in the future.

As an aside, I also find the Eye's stance on the entire affair rather interesting and orthogonal to the opinion in this thread. They bewailed the back door addition of the Leveson recommendations which got a big shout out in the thread. With the number of Politicians they embarrass they are rather worried about statutory regulations.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



My bet is that the newspapers noted how Cameron and the conservatives got forced into the Royal Charter business and are thinking that they'll give them cover whenthey make this move until it becomes facts on the ground.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Well, the wheels of justice move slowly but they do move.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Not knowing what the Gawker article in question is, what particular flavour of legal trouble could it get you into?

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Grundulum posted:

Is it common for people to alert the subjects of articles to the upcoming publication of said articles? The letter from the lawyer made it seem like it was a personal failing of the author not to have asked for the go-ahead from all parties mentioned in that piece.

Yeah, it's standard journalistic practice to allow the person the article is about to respond. That's why most articles alleging a company or individual did something more or less always have a "X was asked to comment but did not provide a response at the time of going to print." or "X refused to comment on the matter.".

In the US it's an excellent CYA move and generally to be recommended. In the UK some publications have become a bit leery of it due to the number of pre-publication injunctions flying around these days.

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.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Brown Moses posted:

From Peter Jukes


Going to be hard to claim ignorance that it was going on now.

Well, they'd have to attack his recollections or credibility.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



OppyDoppyDopp posted:

They won't. There has to be some sort of nexus between the harm caused and the sentence imposed. In this instance, the harm is non-existent, regardless of how much hate the Sun deserves.

That only is a solid consideration if the target is likeable or powerful though. Drugs and copyright stuff for example is not tightly tied to harm. Note also that the people prosecuted can be demonised easily enough and generally don't have the means to cause trouble to anyone involved in the process. Conversely, celebrities don't end up for life in jail for their repeated drug "peccadilloes".

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



ukle posted:

Its a LOT worse than that if whats been alleged for over 2 decades is true. Hell there is one former male Tory Prime Minister (now deceased) who has been implicated in it, and its possibly his 'tastes' that caused the whole cover up of them all to happen.

It all stinks yet they have good form for hiding it in plain sight, take Lord McAlpine, who was before his death the largest collector of pedophile artist Graham Ovenden. People can now happily say this as hes dead so you cant be sued for slander, even though the fact he had the largest collection of Ovenden's work is on public record and therefore not slanderous.

I'm not going to Google the guy for obvious reasons but is that an artist who is a pedophile but who's work is not explicit or an artist who created sexually explicit works with underage subjects? If so why weren't they both done for possessing child porn in any case?

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Hong XiuQuan posted:

Indeed. You couldn't walk without stumbling over another TORY SLEAZE headline.

And of course the interesting thing, it might turn out, is that all the Tory sleaze stuff that was being reported on was only the salacious rather than the criminal stuff.

Any word of any reporters being leaned on by proprietors or otherwise to keep certain things on the hush hush? Or does it look as if the UK's libel laws were enough to keep any criminal allegations out of the papers?

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



goddamnedtwisto posted:

Exactly, so they're already manning the barricades at the new line of "Different time, bad things happened in a lot of places, need to draw a line, blah blah blah", plus of course simple statistics says that a quarter of a million NHS employees and 50k BBC employees will have a lot more nonces in their midst than 600-odd MPS and a thousand or so Lords, so any revelations will be nicely sandwiched between horrors from two institutions that the Mail hates.

I've already been hearing stuff on the BBC about Elizabeth Butler-Sloss coming from that generation and hence perhaps having a feel about how things where done and thought about in those days as opposed to the modern benighted generations.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Trin Tragula posted:

Some food for thought. The first heterosexual age of consent was set in 1275, at 12 years old. It stayed there for as near as dammit exactly 600 years; then was raised to 13 in 1875, and subsequently to 16 in 1885; so in 1970, a preteen age of consent was only just on the verge of passing out of living memory.

Side note, quite a bit of that was to do with the feudal practice of marriage alliances and there were strong interests to ensure that canon law wouldn't stand in the way of a key political arrangement. That the age of consent rose just as this started not to be a concern in Western Europe is not a coincidence in my mind. Most of them were not consummated at that age (with a good number of notable exceptions though, the mother of Henry VII for one).

Side note, age of consent for women was 12 whilst it was 14 for boys.

Also, I should try and dig up that research I read about recently indicating that the average age of first child birth for commoners in those days was higher than many people thought.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Brown Moses posted:

Yeah, someone gave £5k, although I'm so paranoid about Twitter nutters loving with me I half suspect it's a trick. The name of the guy who donated it is an obscure millionaire COO, so it could be real.

You generally get another big influx of funding at the tail end of a campaign. You should hopefully have a good buffer by Friday.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Brown Moses posted:

Kickstarter has also asked me to write an article for them which they'll publish today, and are going to promote it really hard for the rest of the week. Seems they really liked the Kickstarter, and they said this was the best Kickstarter update they've ever read.

Nice! Congrats on that.

Give us a shout when it goes up.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



I think the right level of caveat should always be present. I haven't had a look at the beta platform yet but how clearly is the level of verification of various bits of data marked?

Actually, I now want to have a dive into it a bit. Well, should be able to soon.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Brown Moses posted:

It's just been posted here.

Thanks.

Brown Moses posted:

Not yet, although they've only officially started doing journalism projects recently.

Why did they turn it down again?

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



What are they?

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Blooody hell. They might "give consent" but the bloody point of many of these laws is that a minor can't meaningfully give consent anyway. They themselves don't know what the hell.

Even if certain men perceive them to be "naughty" that should not make any loving difference.

gently caress

I mean. Really. WTF

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



ufarn posted:

The bunga-bunga parties had minors, but it was okay, because they were prostitutes. :/

I thought the problem was that they were prostitutes. Namely they were above the age of consent but were being paid for their services (in theory just company and stripping...) which is illegal for minors.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



OwlFancier posted:

That also, though I was sort of granting that assertion for the sake of argument.

Unless you can demonstrate a reason why adults absolutely need to have sex with children, or why having a dick shoved up your rear end is vital to your wellbeing as a child, I think that may be something that we can all somehow manage to forgo.

It pisses me off when people people make a big hoo ha over the possibility that a large proportion of men (or women for that matter) might be attracted to people under the age of consent. Whether they are or not is a total loving red herring as you point out. How widespread the attraction to prepubescents, postpubescents but under the age of consent, and everything in between is of academic (and obviously vulgar) interest but any attempt to make it part of the debate about the age of consent should be vigorously argued against and fought.

It frames the debate as an issue over the motivations and drives of the adult (which, as I said, should be considered irrelevant) rather than the needs and vulnerabilities of the child.

EnderWiggin, to your question I'd say it should be a legitimate topic for research and discussion. It should be publicly discussed if only to reinforce the fact that it is irrelevant to the question whether sex with people under the age of consent is justified.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



But of course the press narrative is "no criminal convictions no problem" and "look at all the bribery cases against our reporters being dismissed, it was a witch hunt".

I also do wonder how easy reporters at the Sun, the Times etc have it to get confidential sources to talk given how News UK sold all the last lot of sources out. Any insider dirt on what impact that had?

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



The important question for me about the Coulson thing is why the prosecution went ahead if they weren't going to offer any evidence? I mean they weren't expecting the judge to read their mind. Can anyone more familiar with how these things generally go comment on how (un)usual that is?

Murderion posted:

Laws which protect people from being forced to incriminate themselves are good, even (especially) when applied to people you don't like.

Especially when considering that for many people "people you don't like" means them blacks, them faggots or them funny towel head people.

MrNemo posted:

Yeah I'm somewhat torn on this because such a position could equally be used to, say, discourage whistleblowers from coming forward if they're aware that potentially a good deal of their private lives would be up for questioning on the witness stand and they would either have to hope the defence can't come up with some tenuous reason why its relevant as a line of questioning or be prepared to be very careful about what they actually say to avoid 1) not getting some very fishy allegations attached to their name or 2) get tried for perjury for lying about that time they had an affair.

Any whistleblower is going to get their life dragged through the mud in any case. If there is one thing that's consistent about the treatment of whistleblowers then it is the smear campaign from the organisation or people the whistle is being blown on. Every single NHS whistleblower I've heard of has had their career wrecked whilst more often than not the people in charge when the (subsequently proven) scandals were occurring end up getting promoted a few years down the line.

The legalities don't matter if you can make someone's life a living hell or make them unemployable in the industry they have worked for most of their lives.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Going on a slight tangent, the Clarkson thing really pisses me off. The fact that he assaulted a colleague is not under any dispute yet you still have shedloads of people willing to go out and bat for him because he was really funny on the TV. It just shows that even after the consequences condoning or ignoring misdeeds by entertainers has been made starkly clear the first response from a large slice of the public is unchanged.

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



What were they actually convicted of in the end?

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Apologies to ask again but could someone link to an article about the sentences or confirm what they were actually convicted of so I can figure out how pissed off I should be about it? My Google skills are failing.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Munin
Nov 14, 2004



Accretionist posted:

Either way, the self-censorship is legit freaky. Britain, you have some lovely laws.

Well, it's not as if publishing and saying certain things in the US won't get you into deep poo poo.

Also libel laws do exist in the US. The main difference between the UK and the US is that the US has far stricter limitations on prior restraint and that the UK libel courts are for libel what the Eastern District of Texas is for patents.

  • Locked thread