[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think there is a difference between paying for a tip-off or certain information and maintaining a network of sources, some in sensitive posts, to provide you with a stream of information. The former would suggest a system were corruption can be exposed, the latter would suggest a system whereby those sources would routinely seek out information that they could sell to the paper. The former would led to stories like the expenses scandal whereas the latter would lead to minor stories about celebrities having children, getting arrested or having health issues. It leads to photographers being present at the arrest of a public figure.

I think the more interesting story from yesterday was the executives being aware of phone hacking as early as 2006. If you remember back in 2008 when this story first broke and was subsequently denied by News International in very strong terms, accusing The Guardian of misleading the public. The NOTW and Brooks called for the editor to resign and yet they knew all along it was true. The police spent a matter of hours looking at the new evidence and said there wasn't any. Suddenly, the same evidence has led to one of the biggest police operations ever with many arrests and many to come.

I still want to see senior police officers, those who decided not to go after News International, investigated.

---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Because they are both trashy newspapers who's sole purpose is as a mouthpiece of the Murdoch's!

Didn't you say you read the Times??