News of the World phone hacking

[David Gwilliam]

Is this really a reply to the post you quoted? I fail to see the link. In relation to your response to my post, you appear to have gone out of your way to be deeply offended by an inconsequential throwaway comment.

It feels strange to find myself ar odds with three members of the forum whose posts I have admired for so long.

Your post was part of a double whammy which clearly was intended to knock the general quality of my posts making what you felt was a serious criticism though in what seemed to be a good humoured fashion. My main post in answer to it (post 67) answered it in, I hope, a semi humorous and gracious way. I then looked up the Grandpa Simpson character in Wikipedia and realised that Beighton's reference was rather unpleasant - much stronger than I had thought (perhaps stronger than you or he thought). . I added a couple of short digs in replies to Mawsley and Spion just to let you and Beighton know I felt you had gone too far.
I did not feel the comments were inconsequential However, I was irritated rather than "deeply offended" as I realised that one of the motives was having a laugh at my expense - which is always a good motive.

The conversation had, I thought, moved on from the quality or otherwise of my contributions until Boc made it a triple whammy. I felt that this was totally different from the tone of the posts by you and Beighton. I could not see any humour in it. To me Boc's post seemed meant to be serious, personal and I was to use your phrase was "deeply offended.".

I hope we can now get back on track with the Murdoch thread.

 

[Siouxsie]

It's too late and I've drunk too much (been at a birthday party) to understand most of this and I've now lost track of who is offended by whom. I'm just hoping there is going to be a group hug soon

 

[bocadillo]

The above post is bad mannered patronising and offensive

I can assure you that it was not intended to be any of the three, but just a comment on what I felt on the subject in hand.

...drivel.

I suppose I could find it offensive that you think I write drivel but I don't and I won't.

"The root of none of your writing" is a strange phrase.

It had already been said in the thread that some of your writing was rooted in a certain fashion; this "strange phrase" refers to that

As with any poster who has at time tried to be humorous there will be posts that fail I am sure that people can "cherry pick" incompetent posts from me as from any regular contributor.

I'm not sure that anybody has suggested that any of your posts have been incompetent and that they have "failed". I have skipped over parts of some of your longer posts which delve into history and quote figures from the past but that is only because they have not kept my interest but most else of what you write has fascinated me.

You may regard yourself as "older and unusual" - fine but you wouldn't know me if we passed each other in the street so leave me out.

Why is it important for me to be able to recognise you in the street? It is clear from the things that you have written on here that you are 'older' rather than 'younger'; it is a matter of fact and surely not something that you can be offended by. I don't think there's any shame or any cause for concern in being seen as "unusual" either; I think back to your postings some time ago when you talked about your visits to the tea-rooms beside the canal. As somebody who enjoys the waterways but from a different angle that marked you out (for me) as a 'chilled' person - and that is something very different from most in this age and therefore unusual. I have read most of what you have written in this forum since - your manner and style is different; it is unusual. It is something to celebrate. Let me make it clear - I label you as 'older and unusual' to congratulate you, not to attack or offend you.

However, tempting it may be to reply in kind I will not change the rule I have kept to since I came on this forum to attack the post and not the poster..

So to suggest that I write drivel is not attacking the poster? Perhaps it is, I don't know. I would just point out that not a single word of what I wrote was designed or intended to attack you or to offend you and I am sorry if you think it was. In fact I was merely trying to put Blue Maniac's language, which again I felt was not attacking you or designed to cause offence, into context. I regret that you are offended by what either of us have written.

 

[bocadillo]

It feels strange to find myself ar odds with three members of the forum whose posts I have admired for so long.

Your post was part of a double whammy which clearly was intended to knock the general quality of my posts making what you felt was a serious criticism though in what seemed to be a good humoured fashion. My main post in answer to it (post 67) answered it in, I hope, a semi humorous and gracious way. I then looked up the Grandpa Simpson character in Wikipedia and realised that Beighton's reference was rather unpleasant - much stronger than I had thought (perhaps stronger than you or he thought). . I added a couple of short digs in replies to Mawsley and Spion just to let you and Beighton know I felt you had gone too far.
I did not feel the comments were inconsequential However, I was irritated rather than "deeply offended" as I realised that one of the motives was having a laugh at my expense - which is always a good motive.

The conversation had, I thought, moved on from the quality or otherwise of my contributions until Boc made it a triple whammy. I felt that this was totally different from the tone of the posts by you and Beighton. I could not see any humour in it. To me Boc's post seemed meant to be serious, personal and I was to use your phrase was "deeply offended.".

I hope we can now get back on track with the Murdoch thread.

I almost wish I had read this before I had responded as I have done above. I could delete it but I'm not going to. It is true that my post last night was serious; there was not meant to be any humour in it. I say again that is was not designed to be offensive and I am disappointed that you have found it so.

Your use of the terms "double..." and "triple whammy" suggests that you regard the forum as some sort of a battle ground - or at the very least think that other people do (this latter being the more likely). It is nothing of the sort. Yes - people have a laugh at the expense of others - but that is clearly one of the things that this forum is about.

I'm not going to go on and give you the opportunity to be "irritated" or "deeply offended" by anything else that you may write. Perhaps it is time to get back to the tea-room; next time I pass that way, I will certainly ask for you by name (I hope it is your real name, otherwise I'm going to look a fool) in the hope that in future I will​ recognise you in the street.

 

[bocadillo]

It's too late and I've drunk too much (been at a birthday party) to understand most of this and I've now lost track of who is offended by whom. I'm just hoping there is going to be a group hug soon

Perhaps we should invite these two over to get it under way:

 

[David Gwilliam]

I can assure you that it was not intended to be any of the three, but just a comment on what I felt on the subject in hand.

It had already been said in the thread that some of your writing was rooted in a certain fashion; this "strange phrase" refers to that

I'm not sure that anybody has suggested that any of your posts have been incompetent and that they have "failed". I have skipped over parts of some of your longer posts which delve into history and quote figures from the past but that is only because they have not kept my interest but most else of what you write has fascinated me.

Why is it important for me to be able to recognise you in the street? It is clear from the things that you have written on here that you are 'older' rather than 'younger'; it is a matter of fact and surely not something that you can be offended by. I don't think there's any shame or any cause for concern in being seen as "unusual" either; I think back to your postings some time ago when you talked about your visits to the tea-rooms beside the canal. As somebody who enjoys the waterways but from a different angle that marked you out (for me) as a 'chilled' person - and that is something very different from most in this age and therefore unusual. I have read most of what you have written in this forum since - your manner and style is different; it is unusual. It is something to celebrate. Let me make it clear - I label you as 'older and unusual' to congratulate you, not to attack or offend you.

So to suggest that I write drivel is not attacking the poster? Perhaps it is, I don't know. I would just point out that not a single word of what I wrote was designed or intended to attack you or to offend you and I am sorry if you think it was. In fact I was merely trying to put Blue Maniac's language, which again I felt was not attacking you or designed to cause offence, into context. I regret that you are offended by what either of us have written.

It seems that perhaps still irritated by the Grandpa Simpson reference I misjudged your post. For that I apologise.

I'm just hoping there is going to be a group hug soon

Definitely not Siouxsie? I am British and do not go in for hugging men - a brief "What are you drinking?" is as far as I go.:icon_roll

 

[bocadillo]

I am British and do not go in for hugging men

I'm British too - but, deciding that discretion was wise (and knowing that NF had a camera and access to her-at-home's contact details), I should point out that I did not avail myself of the above young ladies' offer but instead threw myself into the arms of a slightly older (than them, not me) man who was carrying a similar sign. I think we both understood that it was just for fun; I would hate to have disappointed him.

... a brief "What are you drinking?" is as far as I go.:icon_roll

Be advised to be wary of offering as such if you visit Scandinavia. With a pint of anything decent costing nine quid and a gin and tonic about the same, you would need deep pockets and long arms. Ye gods and little fishes, even my Diet Coke (eeerrr... Cola Light) might cost you a fiver.

 

[Matt_B]

It seems that perhaps still irritated by the Grandpa Simpson reference I misjudged your post. For that I apologise.

I'd hate to think what is written on the Wiki page, but I really can't see how you can be so upset over what was intended as a light hearted poke at the fact that some of your posts are rather disconnected from the original point.

 

[SJN-Fox]

Brooks has been arrested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14178051

 

[David Gwilliam]

I'd hate to think what is written on the Wiki page, but I really can't see how you can be so upset over what was intended as a light hearted poke at the fact that some of your posts are rather disconnected from the original point.

Oh dear! And so it goes on. I was offended by Bocs post which was due to my misunderstanding it.. My main and long reply to you and BM was post 87 which I felt was gracious and good humoured but which only Spion seems to have read. It is ironic to be accused of going off topic by the person who brought the Simpsons into a topic about the News Of The World especially as in post 107 I tried to bring the thread back on topic. I tagged little digs onto the end of replies to Mawsley and Spion which showed irritation - I was irritated but I was not upset. There is a big difference.

Brooks has been arrested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14178051

Thank goodness somebody is interested in the topic.

There is an angle that I do not feel has been touched enough. For decades politicians have courted newspapers. In the 1930s Churchill then a backbencher courted Harold Rothermere of the Daily Mail (successfully) and Geoffrey Dawson of the Times (unsuccessfully) to make them aware of the German danger. However, Rothermere and Dawson were both patriotic British citizens genuinely concerned with what they thought was best for the country. In the case of Rupert Murdoch politicians have been courting a foreign citizen whose allegience (in theory) is to America. Murdoch's agenda has had little to do with British interests and more to do with the interests of the Republican party in America.

As far as I understand it American law makes it illegal for an American citizen or American company to bribe foreign officials (e.g. British policemen). What is more they seem to target corporate America.Martha Stewart who is a huge name in corporate America was sent to prison on what I thought was a very harsh judgement. At the age of eighty Rupert Murdoch is no doubt safe from American prisons. If it can be proved that James Murdock knowingly broke American law (a big "if") then he could well wnd up in prison - American courts like a powerful scalp.

 

[spionfox]

My main and long reply to you and BM was post 87 which I felt was gracious and good humoured but which only Spion seems to have read.

I'm not entirely sure if that is in my favour or not :icon_lol:

 

[Mawsley]

I see the incensed public have demonstrated their anger by continuing to buy copies of the Sun and maintaining their Sky subscriptions.

 

[Blue Maniac]

I see the incensed public have demonstrated their anger by continuing to buy copies of the Sun and maintaining their Sky subscriptions.

I am amazed that everybody isn't suddenly reading the Mail and smashing up their tv sets.

 

[bocadillo]

I am amazed that everybody isn't suddenly reading the Mail and smashing up their tv sets.

As I booked the hotel in your name I was thinking of doing that very thing. But then I saw how many SEK they wanted for the Daily Mail and changed my mind.

 

[jb5000]

Brooks has been arrested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14178051

And now the top man in the Met has quit. Do you think anyone will have noticed in this thread? ;-)

 

[David Gwilliam]

And now the top man in the Met has quit. Do you think anyone will have noticed in this thread? ;-)

Sir Paul Stephenson accepted a "free" stay in a luxury health spa. I have never run such a spa but I would guess that if luxury health spas offer everybody free stays they would go out of business. If I was not charging Sir Paul for his stay I would hope to be able to bill some benefactor .

I would enjoy a free stay at a luxury health spa but if I was offered one I might wonder "whats the catch"? For a police officer Sir Paul seems to have a refreshingly unsuspicious nature.

 

[Mawsley]

I'd rather have ground glass mixed with Tabasco rammed up my penis than suffer sharing a glorified bath & sweatbox with a bunch of jumped-up arseholes.

Two body parts in one post - this is the thread which just keeps on giving.

 

[Miles Away]

Quite a scandal.....


Will the Davey G/Blue Lunatic feud never end? Will Boc be forced to resign? How implicit is Jeff Webb?


It's an outrage.

In all seriousness, News Corp must have had it's mucky paws in almost everything. It's already got as high up as the Prime Minister and the head of the old bill...whatever next?

 

[Mawsley]

It's already got as high up as the Prime Minister and the head of the old bill...whatever next?

My sources tell me that they were behind Superscout's list, Macky's disappearance and increased levels of pendantism on the forum.

 

[Miles Away]

My sources tell me that they were behind Superscout's list, Macky's disappearance and increased levels of pendantism on the forum.

ohhhya bastard. Next thing you know we will find out Melton is behind it all.