egafd.com

Another potential insight into the wonderful world of Murdoch and News of the World journalism.

If true, this really does set a new low- hacking Millie Dowler's phone and deleting messages in order to leave space for new ones. Thus giving the Dowler family the hope that she might still be alive and disrupting the police enquiry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/0 ... s-of-world

Lets see if the News International writs start flying. The then editor of the NOW was Rebekah Brooks, now, Murdoch's UK Chief Executive. And the Deputy Editor? One, Andy Coulson.

Cheers
D

Strange isn't it that this story comes out the week after the decision has been made to allow Murdock to buy out all of Sky TV?

No doubt Cameron's cronies will be scrabbling about at this very moment to think of reasons why "what happened at the News of the World has no impact whatsoever on the decision to allow News Corp to buy the remaining stake in Sky TV".

They are all a bunch of bastards!

Sadly our political parties, both left and right, are so in awe of, and afraid of, the Dirty Digger that I dont think it will get past hanging a few lower ranks out to dry. Personally I'd like to see Murdoch brought down several pegs, but it wont happen.

News International have just released a statement saying "This particular case is clearly a development of great concern and we will be conducting our own inquiries as a result"

Now, this is rather extraordinary giving, according to the Guardian, the following occurred back in 2002.

"The paper made little effort to conceal the hacking from its readers. On 14 April 2002, it published a story about a woman allegedly pretending to be Milly Dowler who had applied for a job with a recruitment agency: "It is thought the hoaxer even gave the agency Milly's real mobile number ? The agency used the number to contact Milly when a job vacancy arose and left a message on her voicemail ? It was on March 27, six days after Milly went missing, that the employment agency appears to have phoned her mobile."

The newspaper also made no effort to conceal its activity from Surrey police. After it had hacked the message from the recruitment agency on Milly's phone, the paper informed police about it. It was Surrey detectives who established that the call was not intended for Milly Dowler. At the time, Surrey police suspected that phones belonging to detectives and to Milly's parents also were being targeted."

Those Surrey police, shit hot or what!

Now one wonders who at the NOW made the decision to take the information gleaned from hacking Millie's phone to Surrey Police? THe Private Investigator who hacked the phone? I doubt it somehow.

Secondly, the original enquiry into the NOW phone hacking was in 2005 and 2006. This goes back to 2002.

This blows the Dirty Digger's argument that it was just one rogue reporter, totally out of the water. The "rogue reporter" must have been the NOW reporter who wasnt phone hacking.

Cheers
D

NOTW are and always will be vermin. It would be so good to turn the stories around and dig up some shit on the editor and journos......

David Johnson wrote:


[SNIP]
>
> Those Surrey police, shit hot or what!
>
[SNIP]

... and as The Guardian also pointed out, Surrey Police didn't do anything because they wanted all available resources to be concentrated on finding Milly Dowler. As a parent with a (at the time) 15 year old daughter living in the area, I would have been concerned had Surrey Police used some of their manpower to investigate the NotW when they should have been investigating Milly's abduction.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to see Murdoch, Wade, Coulson etc strung up in Trafalgar Square, say, and left to rot for all to see.

Fleet Street's dirty secret is that they all did it, which is why they are making so little of the News of the World's discomforture.

Bob,
I think you have missed the point.

The Guardian story also states.

"According to one senior source familiar with the Surrey police investigation: "It can happen with abduction murders that the perpetrator will leave messages, asking the missing person to get in touch, as part of their efforts at concealment. We need those messages as evidence. Anybody who destroys that evidence is seriously interfering with the course of a police investigation."

My comment was not from the point of view of any suggestion from me that Surrey Police should have been spending more time on a generalised NOW phone hacking story at the time, but surely two points are relevant:

1. Given the quote above, if the Guardian story is true, you would have expected some questions being asked as to how the NOW got this information and whether there was any other info. they had access to or heard which had subsequently been deleted.

2.The events described took place in 2002. Given all the media about the general NOW news hacking story, from 2005 onwards, why on earth did the Surrey police issues apparently only surface fairly recently. After all, according to the Guardian, the NOW had provided prima facie evidence that Millie's phone had been hacked by contacting the Surrey police with that evidence.

Cheers
D

Possibly true about the tabloid press.

However it is a bit strange that although this story has been going on for years and years re. the NOW, nothing much has surfaced re. other newspapers' journalists being arrested/interviewed/sentenced etc. as far as I can recall.

Re. they all did it, hence they are not making much of the story, you can hardly point the finger at the Guardian they have run with this story big time for years and years.

Cheers
D

BBC reporter Nick Robinson is stating that Culture Minister Jeremy Hunt's office are arguing that the criteria for deciding on whether Murdoch should be allowed to take over the rest of BSKYB is purely one of media plurality i.e. does Murdoch control too much of the media. That is why News International are looking to flog off Sky News.

According to Robinson, the criteria were decided by one, Vince Cable who was originally responsible for the role prior to it being take off him. Cable could have included "being a fit and proper person/company" into the criteria but did not. Hunt's office argue that if the criteria are changed now, the government could be subject to a judicial review which they would lose.

So Vince Cable "I am fighting a war against the Murdoch empire" "I have a nuclear option in my trousers" as he boasted to the two Telegraph reporters masquerading as constituents, appears to have thrown a spanner in the works. How convenient!

Cheers
D