IN NOVEMBER 2005, three senior aides to Britain’s royal family noticed odd things happening on their mobile phones. Messages they had never listened to were somehow appearing in their mailboxes as if heard and saved. Equally peculiar were stories that began appearing about Prince William in one of the country’s biggest tabloids, News of the World.
As Scotland Yard tracked Goodman and Mulcaire, the two men hacked into Prince Harry’s mobile-phone messages. On April 9, 2006, Goodman produced a follow-up article in News of the World about the apparent distress of Prince Harry’s girlfriend over the matter. Headlined “Chelsy Tears Strip Off Harry!” the piece quoted, verbatim, a voice mail Prince Harry had received from his brother teasing him about his predicament.
The palace was in an uproar, especially when it suspected that the two men were also listening to the voice mail of Prince William, the second in line to the throne
The ones in charge, Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, have known about this for years and approved of it. They are the ones who should be charged, not the pianists, i.e. the reporters. They did what they were told to do.
"When The Times reporters asked one veteran News of the World reporter how many people in the offices knew about the hacks, the reporter said “Everyone knew The office cat knew."
I don't think that's particularly fair. How would the readers know that the Newspaper was breaking the law to get it's stories? And, of course, if you're going that way what about the advertisers who paid the News of the World to commit the crimes and entice the readers? After all, the readers are mere witnesses, the advertisers aided and abetted the crimes by providing the money for them...
No, the responsibility for the crimes lies with the people who did them, and the people who ordered them done.
Sure, I'm not suggesting the NOTW shouldn't be held responsible. But it just seems a little hypocritical for tabloid readers to spend years avidly reading the kind of intrusive stories described by the OP, only to then turn round and act horrified when they discover they were created using dodgy practices.
The morning news were saying that the way some laws are written that they will have to do the time, even if proven that they had nothing to do with it. At one point or another someone was tired of watching scapegoats being lead to the slaughter while the people on top were immune. It looks like a few of these laws that may have been broken do hold those in charge at the very top responsible for all the actions of their underlings. They were showing Murdoch's son superimposed behind bars all morning long.
The Younger Murdoch may be facing serious charges in the US over the bribing of British police officers (and now, we learn, even a member of the Queen's security staff). There's some suggestion that the only reason Rebekah Brooks hasn't been forced to fall on her sword yet is to try to deflect the lightning from James Murdoch, but that won't preserve him if the DoJ decides to go after him over bribery of foreign officials.
Criminal liability of directors etc. (1)Where an offence under any provision of this Act other than a provision of Part III is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of — (a)a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or (b)any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,he (as well as the body cor
Can I ask someone in the US to get the Feds on to this? News International's staff are alleged to have bribed UK Police, which is a federal crime under your Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Please get it investigated, and get New International prosecuted for perverting justice.
Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers
something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.
Press charges against Murdoch and Brooks (Score:5, Interesting)
Published: September 1, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html [nytimes.com]
IN NOVEMBER 2005, three senior aides to Britain’s royal family noticed odd things happening on their mobile phones. Messages they had never listened to were somehow appearing in their mailboxes as if heard and saved. Equally peculiar were stories that began appearing about Prince William in one of the country’s biggest tabloids, News of the World.
As Scotland Yard tracked Goodman and Mulcaire, the two men hacked into Prince Harry’s mobile-phone messages. On April 9, 2006, Goodman produced a follow-up article in News of the World about the apparent distress of Prince Harry’s girlfriend over the matter. Headlined “Chelsy Tears Strip Off Harry!” the piece quoted, verbatim, a voice mail Prince Harry had received from his brother teasing him about his predicament.
The palace was in an uproar, especially when it suspected that the two men were also listening to the voice mail of Prince William, the second in line to the throne
The ones in charge, Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, have known about this for years and approved of it. They are the ones who should be charged, not the pianists, i.e. the reporters. They did what they were told to do.
Read more at http://www.observer.com/2010/media/new-york-times-goes-after-murdoch-and-news-world-phone-hacking-scandal [observer.com]
"When The Times reporters asked one veteran News of the World reporter how many people in the offices knew about the hacks, the reporter said “Everyone knew The office cat knew."
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/europe/12hacking.html?_r=1&ref=world [nytimes.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/world/europe/11britain.html?ref=world [nytimes.com]
The evidence is there, and everywhere, Murdoch and Brooks are scum.
Re:Press charges against Murdoch and Brooks (Score:4, Insightful)
What about the morons who kept buying the paper every Sunday to read those kind of idiotic stories?
Perhaps it's a case of getting the newspapers we deserve?
Re: (Score:2)
Those morons were never in charge or paid by Murdoch to commit crime.
They were not even aware that they were witnesses to crimes, repeatedly.
Re: (Score:1)
In this period, she reportedly attempted to persuade David Yelland to end the Page Three Girls feature.
Yeah, she's pure scum - no respect for British tradiotion.
Hanging's too good for her.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's particularly fair. How would the readers know that the Newspaper was breaking the law to get it's stories? And, of course, if you're going that way what about the advertisers who paid the News of the World to commit the crimes and entice the readers? After all, the readers are mere witnesses, the advertisers aided and abetted the crimes by providing the money for them...
No, the responsibility for the crimes lies with the people who did them, and the people who ordered them done.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I'm not suggesting the NOTW shouldn't be held responsible. But it just seems a little hypocritical for tabloid readers to spend years avidly reading the kind of intrusive stories described by the OP, only to then turn round and act horrified when they discover they were created using dodgy practices.
Re: (Score:2)
The morning news were saying that the way some laws are written that they will have to do the time, even if proven that they had nothing to do with it. At one point or another someone was tired of watching scapegoats being lead to the slaughter while the people on top were immune. It looks like a few of these laws that may have been broken do hold those in charge at the very top responsible for all the actions of their underlings. They were showing Murdoch's son superimposed behind bars all morning long.
Re: (Score:2)
The Younger Murdoch may be facing serious charges in the US over the bribing of British police officers (and now, we learn, even a member of the Queen's security staff). There's some suggestion that the only reason Rebekah Brooks hasn't been forced to fall on her sword yet is to try to deflect the lightning from James Murdoch, but that won't preserve him if the DoJ decides to go after him over bribery of foreign officials.
The Murdoch's are in serious trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/79 [legislation.gov.uk]
Criminal liability of directors etc.
(1)Where an offence under any provision of this Act other than a provision of Part III is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of
—
(a)a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or
(b)any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,he (as well as the body cor
Re: (Score:2)
Can I ask someone in the US to get the Feds on to this? News International's staff are alleged to have bribed UK Police, which is a federal crime under your Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Please get it investigated, and get New International prosecuted for perverting justice.