[Update] The News Corp scandal

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by denphone

Met's threats to Guardian are 'direct attack on free press', say lawyers and what a load of nonsense that is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...n-attack-press

They have even invoked the HRA

The Society of Editors on Saturday joined the Index on Censorship in criticising the legal manoeuvre, while a leading QC suggested it could breach human rights laws

The law, and particularly the Human Rights Act, is supposed to protect journalists' sources."

Why should that act be allowed to be used to protect journalists who are PAYING police officers bribey money for information that could affect a court case. ?

If i read this right the met wants to know which of its officers has been lining his or her own pockets by taking bribes

Originally Posted by Sirius

Why should that act be allowed to be used to protect journalists who are PAYING police officers bribey money for information that could affect a court case. ?

If i read this right the met wants to know which of its officers has been lining his or her own pockets by taking bribes

Where is the accusation or the suggestion that The Guardian had paid their sources on the phone hacking story for the information? More likely the police don't want any more of these stories to be exposed in future. After all if it were not for these sources the investigation into the police accepting cash from NOTW and the fact they didn't conduct a proper investigation NOTW years ago would not be happening.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Damien

Where is the accusation or the suggestion that The Guardian had paid their sources on the phone hacking story for the information? More likely the police don't want any more of these stories to be exposed in future. After all if it were not for these sources the investigation into the police accepting cash from NOTW and the fact they didn't conduct a proper investigation NOTW years ago would not be happening.

So are you saying the police officers who released this information did it out of the goodness of there hearts. OK then until there is further information which will prove if or if not there was a bribe i am willing to say Allegedly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-jonathan-rees

Now did some of that paid for information reach the Guardian i wonder ?

Years ago, Jonathan Rees became a freemason. According to journalists and investigators who worked with him, he then exploited his link with the lodges to meet masonic police officers who illegally sold him information which he peddled to Fleet Street.

Originally Posted by Sirius

So are you saying the police officers who released this information did it out of the goodness of there hearts. OK then until there is further information which will prove if or if not there was a bribe i am willing to say Allegedly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-jonathan-rees

Now did some of that paid for information reach the Guardian i wonder ?

What? In that story The Guardian are reporting on someone who paid for information which he then 'peddled to Fleet Street', not that they illegally paid for said Information. It's also not the sources the police are requesting, the police was requesting The Guardian name the sources of people who told them of the phone hacking and the police being paid for information....

Damien, you are doing a "Guardian" - it is not about paying an officer for information, it is about suborning a Police Officer to pass confidential information; this is a criminal offence - no money has to change hands...

Originally Posted by Hugh

Damien, you are doing a "Guardian" - it is not about paying an officer for information, it is about suborning a Police Officer to pass confidential information; this is a criminal offence - no money has to change hands...

I know it's a criminal offense. That is one of the reasons why it's important for Journalists to protect their sources.

The difference here is that it was clearly in the public interest to reveal this information and to report on it. What is to stop the police or government to use this tact to stop other releases of information they don't like? After all pretty much every police or government leak is passing on confidential information. It's a serious problem if it's exposing people's private information, it's a different thing when it's passing on information about corruption or other ill-doing by those in power.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Damien

I know it's a criminal offense. That is one of the reasons why it's important for Journalists to protect their sources.

The difference here is that it was clearly in the public interest to reveal this information and to report on it. What is to stop the police or government to use this tact to stop other releases of information they don't like? After all pretty much every police or government leak is passing on confidential information. It's a serious problem if it's exposing people's private information, it's a different thing when it's passing on information about corruption or other ill-doing by those in power.

So who makes the choice on what is and what is not in the public interest. What you may think is in the public interest There is others who may not, Where does that stop and with WHO.

BTW who said it was ok for the Guardian to break the law or encourage a police officer to break the law, are the Guardian exempt from UK laws unlike you and me ?. Again i will ask why should the HRA be used to protect the Guardian if they have broken the LAW?

BTW before you accuse me of supporting that this information should not have been released, i do feel we should have been told about it, However its the law i am looking at and why the Guardian seem to think they are above it and untouchable ?

The problem is that until the Guardian broke the story the NOTW situation wasn't being investigated.Now it is and the Guardian as whistle blowers are now under investigation and suspicion of breaking the law..

We did ask some time back just how endemic law breaking is within the media in general..Seems we maybe about to find out.

In the meantime we have a police force that did not FULLY investigate phone hacking when it should have,has been possibly involved in passing on information they had no right to do so and possibly the upper echelons have cosied up to NI far too much leaving them open to accusations of complicity.

Let us NOT take our eye off the ball here and hopefully the investigations into NOTW are not going to be muddied up so as to make us the public confused about where blame should lie.

Originally Posted by Sirius

So who makes the choice on what is and what is not in the public interest. What you may think is in the public interest There is others who may not, Where does that stop and with WHO.

Well that is the difficult question. I would say most of the times it is an easy judgement to make, but clearly rules and a better body to regulate the press would help with this.

. Again i will ask why should the HRA be used to protect the Guardian if they have broken the LAW?

It's to protect the Guardian's sources. Not The Guardian itself, who didn't break the law as far as I am aware.

BTW before you accuse me of supporting that this information should not have been released, i do feel we should have been told about it, However its the law i am looking at and why the Guardian seem to think they are above it and untouchable ?

In future it is far less likely to be released if newspapers can no longer protect their sources. Whistle blowing will be far less common if the person leaking the information knows they stand a good chance of losing their job at best or facing prosecution at worst.

The Guardian should have a public interest defence in protecting their sources. That would be that they exposed NOTW and police corruption and to prosecute them for doing so would deter future whistle blowers.

[denphone]

Met police behaviour is worrying and deeply mysterious, says Hugh Grant and he should keep his mouth shut in my mind

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/se...ing-hugh-grant

Originally Posted by denphone

Met police behaviour is worrying and deeply mysterious, says Hugh Grant and he should keep his mouth shut in my mind

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/se...ing-hugh-grant

He has as much right to his opinion as you do.In fact I think he has more right as he has been the victim of illegal phone hacking.

Originally Posted by denphone

Met police behaviour is worrying and deeply mysterious, says Hugh Grant and he should keep his mouth shut in my mind

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/se...ing-hugh-grant

Why should he?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

He has as much right to his opinion as you do.In fact I think he has more right as he has been the victim of illegal phone hacking.

But this is a man who's behavior a while back was front page headlines and he moaned like mad back then if l rightly remember to keep it secret and now he toady's up to the media like the usual hypocrite.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...gh+grant&hl=en

Originally Posted by denphone

But this is a man who's behavior a while back was front page headlines and he moaned like mad back then if l rightly remember to keep it secret and now he toady's up to the media like the usual hypocrite.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...gh+grant&hl=en

Don't think he is toading up to the media at all. He was been quite critical of them throughout this affair...

If he has been wronged, he has the right to complain about it.