phone hacking enquiries spread to other papers

[ecuworrier]

Thje Daily Star newspaper is the latest office to be investigated....

is any good to come from this if so what?

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[EliB]

Good!!!!! NONE of them should be able to get away with it!!
Phone hacking is illegal - simple! But also, it's bad enough when they're hacking into phones of "celebrities" (so-called or otherwise) but when they're hacking into the phones of
bereaved families of murder victims or war dead - people who find themselves in the public eye but did NOT ask for the situation or court the publicity, then something major definitely needs
to happen!!!

[Boudi]

yes, as you say, it's illegal, and it's certainly not investigative journalism that has brought any justice, indeed, it's been further injustice!

if we find out a celeb has missed their hair appointment, what advance for society is there there?

The freedom of the press is to say what governments may be uncomfortable with rather than a carte blanche to do whatever they please.

[EliB]

The freedom of the press is to say what governments may be uncomfortable with rather than a carte blanche to do whatever they please.

Totally agree!!! But they use  the "Freedom of the Press" argument for just that purpose and think it absolves them of all accountability!!!!

[Jan]

Good!!!!! NONE of them should be able to get away with it!!
Phone hacking is illegal - simple! But also, it's bad enough when they're hacking into phones of "celebrities" (so-called or otherwise) but when they're hacking into the phones of
bereaved families of murder victims or war dead - people who find themselves in the public eye but did NOT ask for the situation or court the publicity, then something major definitely needs
to happen!!!

 

[administrator]

There needs to be a regulator similar to Ofcom to control the press and set standards

[Boudi]

There is...the PCC.

Just off to make a cuppa....bought a new chocolate tea pot

[EliB]

There is...the PCC.

Just off to make a cuppa....bought a new chocolate tea pot

LOLOL!!!!

Watched Question Time on iPlayer. When Jon Gaunt replied to Hugh Grant's comment about how there needs to be more regulation and Milly Dowler wouldn't have been hacked, it's a pity he didn't have his facts straight when he said "we have defamation legislation", because that's only enforceable if you're alive.....and tragically Milly Dowler isn't!
Was very impressed with Hugh Grant on the programme too!!

[Boudi]

he was pretty good. there seemed to be an attempt top say you're not perfect so you can't complain which really isn't the point

[AndyHB]

The freedom of the press is to say what governments may be uncomfortable with rather than a carte blanche to do whatever they please.

And I would add celebs, etc. who use the press to promote themselves or give a picture of themselves that isn't true.

Was very impressed with Hugh Grant on the programme too!!

And how often does one hear that?

[EliB]

[

Was very impressed with Hugh Grant on the programme too!!

And how often does one hear that?

Ooooh nasteeeeee!! LOL!!
Actually I do like Hugh Grant as an actor - and yes, it's usually Chick Flick type films he's in so guys don't tend to like him, but he IS good (and he's not bad to look at either!! haha!!)

[ecuworrier]

hmmm there certainly is a place for investigative journalism though if we rely on the press and media for guidance of we have as folks say pretty restrictive notions about what's in the 'public interest'... which is disappointing....

i don't see why celeb shoudl be 'fair game'... celeb is celeb and unless they are involved in illegal or political scandals i really couldn't care less... i don't agree that cos they make money out of making money for the press that that should necessarily mean that the press has licence to go the extra mile.....   or that we have any more right to know about stuff they haven't told you and i personally over a casual chat over a pint... it's pretty gross....    i mean why pay them for publicity in the first place?

 it has been poijted out that the press has been a little reticent to get involved in reporting of the news scandals... (though bbc radio media has been busy.... or at least given the impression of being obsessed it is the loss of 200 media jobs afterall! how awful is that compared to everyone else being made redundant left right and centre

didn't see the question time programme

but have heard both the ridiculous and interesting from John Gaunt on R5 live

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[AndrewF]

It is the old difference between what is 'in the public interest' and what is 'of interest to the public'.  Freedom of the press should only be used as an excuse for investigating the former, not the latter - and even then only legitimate methods should be used.

[ecuworrier]

It is the old difference between what is 'in the public interest' and what is 'of interest to the public'.  Freedom of the press should only be used as an excuse for investigating the former, not the latter - and even then only legitimate methods should be used.

i think it is a really interesting distinction... it's like does one look at one's daughter's diaries without permission if one has grave concerns risking all sorts of consequences .... or does one risk going to jail ....    to expose what is of great concern... whistle blowers are always at risk of losing jobs and careers and all that goes with it... but i think 'in the public interest' is a curious concept that means many things to many people like .... Tiger Woods and his sponsors .... or Max Mosely and F1 or the pakistani cricketers and the betting scandals well for some reason all those are about sport...  or tests on Royal and other security  or cash for questions... which of those are actually 'in the public interest'

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[AndrewF]

I don't think that Mosely being exposed was in the interest of the public as his private sexual proclivities had no bearing on his work nor was he claiming publicly to be something which he wasn't; OTOH the Pakistani cricketers were breaking the law if they were match-fixing (or even spot-fixing) and defrauding the bookies. As for testing the security of institutions, there is a time and a place for this - and probably a better way to do it (for example with a prior notification to someone in authority and/or a deposition placed with a lawyer in advance). Cash for questions was also breaking the rules of Parliament and thus was in contempt of Parliament which is illegal.
It is actually quite a straight-forward test to apply...