News of the World phone hacking

[From Gradel to Grave]

The transcript of Rebekah Brooks' meeting has her saying to the News of the World journalists that they would understand the reason for closure in a year's and that there was more to come out.

Makes you wonder. Bugging the People's Princess maybe? :icon_wink

 

[Blue Maniac]

Cate.

What's she got to do with anything?

And I'm deeply worried by your inability to answer a question.

I tend to ignore rhetorical questions too. It is, by definition, pointless.

 

[Mawsley]

I tend to ignore rhetorical questions too. It is, by definition, pointless.

I wonder where the rhetorical question was?

 

[Blue Maniac]

I wonder where the rhetorical question was?

There have been several. I now notice, though, that you have a couple of valid ones outstanding. Let's see if they get answered.

 

[Mawsley]

You should have ignored the last one.:icon_wink

 

[Blue Maniac]

You should have ignored the last one.:icon_wink

I'm aware of what I did.

I'm not apologising.

 

[Mawsley]

:icon_bigg

 

[David Gwilliam]

Cate.

And I'm deeply worried by your inability to answer a question.

I replied to Lee's revelation about there being an imposter pretending to be Princess Kate because I found it deeply disturbing and felt we needed to know more.
Your post 34 about turning on Question Time and watching elephants simply led me to assume that you were on the wrong channel.

 

[Mawsley]

...but why do you want to throw money at a judge to discover what we already know?

 

[Blue Maniac]

I replied to Lee's revelation about there being an imposter pretending to be Princess Kate because I found it deeply disturbing and felt we needed to know more.
Your post 34 about turning on Question Time and watching elephants simply led me to assume that you were on the wrong channel.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, you've still not answered either question.

 

[The Major]

The Daily Mail? Informative?

Is this the same Daily Mail that ignored the phone hacking scandal in order to tell us what the real people's Princess was wearing on her jollies to Canada?

There has been coverage of the phone hacking in the Mail.

 

[spionfox]

employing a prostitute behind the back of his gorgeous woman

Don't let her appearance blind you to the fact that she probably didn't perform in the sack!

 

[Miles Away]

Personally I think it's a real shame what has happened to the fourth estate. It should aspire to protect and inform it's people and when at it's best it does.

Sadly, and particularly in England that concept is dead on the vine.

Why bring them to court? Because maybe when all the dirt is dug up the powers that be will definitively block Murdochs purchase of sky news. For that alone it is probably worth it.

 

[RHYDAL]

I find myself in the strange situation of defending Hugh Grant - strange because I get irritated by how wimpish todays leading men are and Hugh Grant ranks only just above Tom Cruise for irritation.

Strange indeed.

The business with Hugh Grant and the prostitute was in 1995 (I had to look this up on Wikipedia). It came about because of the police and not a newspaper. Wikipedia makes no suggestion that journalistic bad practice was involved.

Agreed, however his life after that was made a misery by the constant hounding he and Liz suffered at the hands of persistant and invasive journalists. The same sort of people, who have scant disregard for the rights of an individual, as the hackers. That is sure to have added vigour to his desire to bring their house down.

Hugh Grant's agenda is surely clear. His phone was hacked. The original police investigation seemed to him inadequate. When he "bugged the bugger" in an article for the New Statesman he became more proactive than other celebrities. Question Time likes to have a celebrity on the panel to dumb it down. In this case the celebrituy had a valid reason for being on the programme and did very well.

I do not question the reason he was on the panel. The point I was making is that people in glass houses should not throw stones.

I am now going to risk sounding "holier than thou". I can understand people buying the Daily Mail and The Guardian because they are both informative and feed the individual bias of the buyer. People prefer to read articles that fit in with their prejudices - what is called confirmation bias. I find it disconcerting that people choose the NOW or The Sun yet my newsagent tells me he sells 80 copies of the News Of The World.

Agreed. For the record, on the very rare ocassion that I buy a paper it's the Times. Does this make me a bad person? Or is it all the other stuff?

 

[RHYDAL]

Don't let her appearance blind you to the fact that she probably didn't perform in the sack!

At my age, as long as she can create and accomodate wood, and have low expectations, she'll do for me.

 

[Cate Fox]

Cate.

What?

 

[Blue Maniac]

What?

:icon_lol:

 

[Leesoh]

i am deeply worried by your description of kate as "the real peoples princess". This implies that you know an imposter who is the fake peoples princess.
Is this a katie price publicuity stunt?

i replied to lee's revelation about there being an imposter pretending to be princess kate because i found it deeply disturbing and felt we needed to know more.
Your post 34 about turning on question time and watching elephants simply led me to assume that you were on the wrong channel.

wtf???

 

[David Gwilliam]

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, you've still not answered either question.

Anyone who did not know you BM would think you were trying to stir up mischief.

If Mawsley had made such a bizarre reply to one of your posts I might have had a bright idea. I might think "see if I can get BM to give a reply to that business about elephants and their trunks without being bad mannered." (Suffice to say that it did lead me to wonder what chemicals exastly Mawsley creates in his science lab.) .
You can be assured that I would then have not actually posted it because that would be needlessly provocative.

As it was Lee did a post that was intelligible and amusing so of course that was the one I chose to answer.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Anyone who did not know you BM would think you were trying to stir up mischief.

Me? Never.

If Mawsley had made such a bizarre reply to one of your posts I might have had a bright idea.

Mawsley? A bizarre reply? Never.