News of the World Mobile Phone Hacking

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Neil

So whose fault is that? Reporters for trying to find out stories or the MP's etc that accepted all the free lunches or whatever?
Do you think this involves one media company or a few of them?

There are faults on both sides. Reporters for trying to take an undemocratic part in the political process because of their perceived power in influencing the electorate, and politicians in believing that they have to accommodate the reporters if they want to win elections.

It probably does involve more news organisations, but hasn't the perception always been (rightly or wrongly) that the party that gets The Sun on its side will win the election?

[Neil]

How long before we see a current or ex PM being questioned by the police, if it has not happened already?

I like watching the BBC news, we might all have to get used to it as it might be all that's left.

[Tealeaf]

Well, the question now is to what extent Sir Paul is the fall guy. At worse, I suspect he was just naive. It's the some of the second tier in the met who are the real guilty bastards. So will they be next on the list, or will it be Cameron?

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Neil

How long before we see a current or ex PM being questioned by the police, if it has not happened already?

Well we keep being told that the police investigation must be allowed to go where its inquiries take it. Logically that could mean an investigation of what conversations took place between News International staff (Rebekah Brooks on one of her cosy sleepovers, Andy Coulson et al) and senior politicians, and how these could have influenced government decision making.

It is potentially absolute political dynamite, which is why it will probably be nipped in the bud somewhere along the way!

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Well, the question now is to what extent Sir Paul is the fall guy. At worse, I suspect he was just naive. It's the some of the second tier in the met who are the real guilty bastards. So will they be next on the list, or will it be Cameron?

Was there a cover up to protect MP's is the more interesting question?
The enquiry was ended when they had a lot more evidence, what did they find out then that made them stop looking?


OMG someone shoot me now, I sound like MargaretR

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Well, the question now is to what extent Sir Paul is the fall guy. At worse, I suspect he was just naive. It's the some of the second tier in the met who are the real guilty bastards. So will they be next on the list, or will it be Cameron?

That is quite possible, the guy has gone cos hes accepting responsibility as head of the Met, even though he knew nowt about it,he says, Wonder if Cameron or the Murdochs will accept responsibility? Somehow i very much doubt it.

[Tealeaf]

Originally Posted by cashman

That is quite possible, the guy has gone cos hes accepting responsibility as head of the Met, even though he knew nowt about it,he says, Wonder if Cameron or the Murdochs will accept responsibility? Somehow i very much doubt it.

I'm just reading the Yank papers - NYT, Washington Post - and they are splashing this stuff all over the place. It's displacing the main story, which is that of the Presy's debt ceiling. So I suspect this is now going to start hitting Murdoch where it really hurts, over in the good ol' U.S. of A.

[Royboy39]

Originally Posted by cashman

That is quite possible, the guy has gone cos hes accepting responsibility as head of the Met, even though he knew nowt about it,he says, Wonder if Cameron or the Murdochs will accept responsibility? Somehow i very much doubt it.

Why Cameron? The whole saga started in 2006 and nothing was done about it then. I'm afraid that the posturing by Milliband will wash with Labour supporters but will not wash the majority, which is not Labour.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Royboy39

Why Cameron? The whole saga started in 2006 and nothing was done about it then. I'm afraid that the posturing by Milliband will wash with Labour supporters but will not wash the majority, which is not Labour.

well if yeh cant see that yer dafter n i thought.

[cmonstanley]

im telling you this is our watergatethere is more to come. watch out next week when cameron gives more of our money away when hes hiding in africa

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Royboy39

Why Cameron? The whole saga started in 2006 and nothing was done about it then. I'm afraid that the posturing by Milliband will wash with Labour supporters but will not wash the majority, which is not Labour.

It first came to light in 2006 Roy, how long it had been going on body knows, probable started around, um, say June 1997

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

im telling you this is our watergatethere is more to come. watch out next week when cameron gives more of our money away when hes hiding in africa

Were you born and idiot or did you study the subject at University, because you certainly graduated with Honours

[cashman]

Originally Posted by jaysay

It first came to light in 2006 Roy, how long it had been going on body knows, probable started around, um, say June 1997

another numpty,were talking about taking responsibility fer the employment of Douglas,against advice of very prominent people, also inviting him to Chequers after etc, plus initially siding wi him n the redhead. the man really is a joke. everyones well aware when it came to light, so was stephenson at the met, but he took responsibility cos he was the head.

[cmonstanley]

this is the lead up to her arrest
Detectives are examining a computer, paperwork and a phone found in a bin near the riverside London home of Rebekah Brooks, the former chief executive of News International.

The Guardian has learned that a bag containing the items was found in an underground car park in the Design Centre at the exclusive Chelsea Harbour development on Monday afternoon.

The car park, under a shopping centre, is yards from the gated apartment block where Brooks lives with her husband, a former racehorse trainer and close friend of the prime minister David Cameron.

It is understood the bag was handed into security at around 3pm and that shortly afterwards, Brooks's husband, Charlie, arrived and tried to reclaim it. He was unable to prove the bag was his and the security guard refused to release it.

Instead, it is understood that the security guard called the police. In less than half an hour, two marked police cars and an unmarked forensics car are said to have arrived at the scene

Police are now examining CCTV footage taken in the car park to uncover who dropped the bag. Initial suspicions that there had been a break in at the Brooks' flat have been dismissed.


David Wilson, Charlie Brooks's official spokesman, told the Guardian that Charlie Brooks denies that the bag belonged to his wife. "Charlie has a bag which contains a laptop and papers which were private to him," said Wilson.

"They were nothing to do with Rebekah or the [phone-hacking] case."

Wilson said Charlie Brooks had left the bag with a friend who was returning it, but dropped it in the wrong part of the garage. When asked how the bag ended up in a bin he replied: "The suggestion is that a cleaner thought it was rubbish and put it in the bin." Wilson added: "Charlie was looking for it together with a couple of the building staff.

"Charlie was told it had gone to security, by which stage they [security] had already called the police to say they had found something.

"The police took it away. Charlie's lawyers got in touch with the police to say they could take a look at the computer but they'd see there was nothing relevant to them on it. He's expecting the stuff back forthwith."

Rebekah Brooks was arrested on Sunday under suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications, and of corrupting police officers. She is due to appear before the Commons culture, media and sport select committee today on Tuesday afternoon.

[Margaret Pilkington]

where was that cut and pasted from?