Police Charge News of the World Editor Over Voicemail Hacking 131
New submitter HarryatRock writes with news that former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks and five others have been charged by police for their involvement in intercepting voicemail messages left for a murdered girl. From the article:
"She is charged with conspiring with her 49-year-old husband, personal assistant Cheryl Carter, chauffeur Paul Edwards, security man Daryl Jorsling, and News International head of security Mr Hanna to "conceal material" from police between 6 and 19 July. In a second charge Mrs Brooks and Ms Carter are accused of conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive between 6 and 9 July. In a third charge, Mr and Mrs Brooks, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling are accused of conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers between 15 and 19 July."
Just another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The WSJ is covering this pretty well, but Fox TV news is not, from what I've read and read about.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Just another reason... (Score:5, Informative)
In the U.S., providing news is no longer required to maintain an FCC TV license, and neither is providing unbiased news. There is still a minimal educational requirement, but it's nothing compared to the 1970s, when outside business groups would try to capture station's FCC licenses by citing strict FCC public service requirements. Those were also the days of the Fairness Doctrine.
Some low-rent broadcast stations claim to fulfill the current minimal Educational/Instructional standards by showing Edgemont, a teen drama imported from Canada! You can read about it here, the requirement is called E/I: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgemont_(TV_series) [wikipedia.org] In fact, Fox Family used to use Edgemont for this!
The station here that shows Edgemont (at noon, when its intended audience is not even home), fills much of the rest of its daytime schedule with infomercials, which would have been impossible under 1970s rules. An FCC license has gone from a license to print money to a license to shill trinkets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
She's not accused of concealing information in the sense of refusing to answer questions or not spontaneously telling police everything which is going on....AIUI she's accused of removing files belonging to her employer from her employer's archive when she knew those were likely to be relevant to a police investigation. So it's more like tampering with evidence than refusing to tell the police something.
TFS is wrong, by the way. She hasn't been charged with being involved in intercepting voicemails, only wi
Re:Just another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you're trolling, but what does Rupert Murdoch's gutter-level right-wing editorial service called Fox News have to do with a legitimate news operation?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Would it be better for the Country if only one political point of view was held accountable by the corporate media?
There is a reason Fox News regularly kills
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because lots of morons watch FOX News?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fox is demonstrably more biased than any of those other other stations. Only a liar would say otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. MSNBC is just as biased as Fox and CNN is pretty close, at least when it comes to web sites. I don't watch any of those actual channels so it might be different there.
Re:Just another reason... (Score:5, Informative)
A Fox News producer was caught on tape trying to whip up the crowd for Glenn Beck's "9/12" demonstration. Fox then ran full-page advertisements in the newspaper asking why the other cable news networks weren't covering such an important event (using, for some bizarre reason, a video still from CNN, which was covering the event). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzWC0GX38Mk [youtube.com]
In 1996 Fox anchor Tony Snow endorsed Bob Dole for President. In 2000 Snow then went to purportedly cover the 2000 Republican convention as a journalist, then gave a speech to a Republican youth group when asked. Snow later went to the White House to become Bush's press secretary. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067 [fair.org]
You do not see comparable levels of bias with MSNBC. You just don't.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll see your John Prescott Ellis, Heidi Noonan, and Tony Snow, with Al Sharpton [wikipedia.org], and Kieth Olberman and Chris Matthews [thedailybeast.com] and raise you Dave Weigel [huffingtonpost.com] of Journolist [politico.com] fame, Susan Roegen [youtube.com], and George Stephanopoulos [wikipedia.org].
To me the issue isn't whether bias exists. It does. To me the issue is whether the United States is a better place if both pol
Re: (Score:2)
Bias is not the issue. Fox News is one big very powerful propaganda machine.
News is incidental at most.
Re: (Score:2)
No wait you are missing the point completely. I am NOT criticizing Fox News for hiring almost exclusively far-right pundits. Biased POLITICAL COMMENTARY is not the problem. I very carefully selected
Re: (Score:2)
The Corporate media has numerous outlets sympathetic to the left, and really only sympathetic to the right.
Here's the question I keep asking, only to receive down mods and straw men about who is more biased offered in return: Is the country healthier of only one side of the argument is heard in the corporate media?
Re: (Score:2)
MS owns MSNBC. How can that not be biased? Hint: how much Linux coverage do you read on MSNBC as compared to the BBC, which recently had a feature on the latest Ubuntu release.
Wow, that's one hell of a crowbar you have there. Where do I get one?
Re: (Score:2)
Fox is demonstrably more biased than any of those other other stations. Only a liar would say otherwise.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I love the Interwebs! But you said demonstrably more biased, then accused anyone not sharing your opinion of lying. By all means, please demonstrate how Fox is more biased than say, MSNBC. You might even convince me. I would be more receptive to your arguments, however, if you hadn't described voicing an alternate opinion as lying. Opinions can be wrong, but they can't be lies.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't watch Fox News enough to critique it, but (if you want facts) Murdoch clearly turned the Wall Street Journal from a respected, objective news source into a propaganda vehicle:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/edward_m_kennedy/index.html?inline=nyt-per [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Many
Don't forget to vote!
Re: (Score:2)
pot>kettle=You're all black
A common fallacy.
Barbara Stanwyck: "We're both rotten!"
Fred MacMurray: "Yeah - only you're a little more rotten."
http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult [truth-out.org]
The important thing about that story is that the WSJ has a documented history of objectivity and impartiality in its news pages. That's why everybody in power used to read them.
Murdoch and his editors changed several stories to favor the conservative side. Tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting. You could be right. Next time I'm in the library, I'll do a search for the 1996 election and see how they covered it. I assume you're referring to the news coverage, not the editorial page.
The reason I read the WSJ for so long is that on the issues I followed, they seemed to do a good job, compared to the other papers. In the 1970s, I used to work for an engineering organization that published auto safety studies. There was a big debate about whether to pass laws that would require auto
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the following 2-part article if you get a chance:
Boring From Within the Bourgeois Press, Part 1, A. Kent MacDougall
Monthly Review Volume 40, Number 7 (December 1988)
Boring From Within the Bourgeois Press, Part 2, A. Kent MacDougall
Monthly Review Volume 40, Number 6 (November 1988)
MacDougal said that he was a socialist, he had no trouble writing for the WSJ if he followed the rules of writing an objective story with every statement backed up by facts, and he never heard of advertiser or political pre
Re:Just another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a debate where there is some merit to both sides. News Corp. is right-wing propaganda. They're not just a right-wing version of NBC, CBS and the Washington Post.
The only people who defend News Corp. are right-wing wackos who don't know the difference between truth and propaganda.
They're not like other American news organizations. Murdoch orders his editors to distort the news to advance his political goals.
Fox News made "Fair and balanced" a cynical joke. It's like cigarette companies advertising that their cigarettes are healthy and doctors recommend them.
The worst thing Murdoch did is destroy the Wall Street Journal, which used to be the best newspaper in the world, respected by left and right:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html [nytimes.com]
Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward at The Journal
By DAVID CARR
December 13, 2009
A little over a year ago, Robert Thomson, The Journal’s top editor, picked Gerard Baker, a columnist for The Times of London, as his deputy managing editor. Mr. Baker is a former Washington bureau chief of The Financial Times with a great deal of expertise in the Beltway. The two men came of age in the more partisan milieu of British journalism.
According to several former members of the Washington bureau and two current ones, the two men have had a big impact on the paper’s Washington coverage, adopting a more conservative tone, and editing and headlining articles to reflect a chronic skepticism of the current administration. And given that the paper’s circulation continues to grow, albeit helped along by some discounts, there’s nothing to suggest that The Journal’s readers don’t approve.
Mr. Baker, a neoconservative columnist of acute political views, has been especially active in managing coverage in Washington, creating significant grumbling, if not resistance, from the staff there. Reporters say the coverage of the Obama administration is reflexively critical, the health care debate is generally framed in terms of costs rather than benefits — “health care reform” is a generally forbidden phrase — and global warming skeptics have gotten a steady ride. (Of course, objectivity is in the eyes of the reader.)
The pro-business, antigovernment shift in the news pages has broken into plain view in the last year. On Aug. 12, a fairly straight down the middle front page article on President Obama’s management style ended up with the provocative headline, “A President as Micromanager: How Much Detail Is Enough?” The original article included a contrast between President Jimmy Carter’s tendency to go deep in the weeds of every issue with President George W. Bush’s predilection for minimal involvement, according to someone who saw the draft. By the time the article ran, it included only the swipe at Mr. Carter.
On Aug. 27, a fairly straightforward obituary about Ted Kennedy for the Web site was subjected to a little political re-education on the way to the front page. A new paragraph was added quoting Rush Limbaugh deriding what he called all of the “slobbering media coverage,” and he also accused the recently deceased senator of being the kind of politician who “uses the government to take money from people who work and gives it to people who don’t work.”
On Oct. 31, an article on the front of the B section about estate taxes at the state level used the phrase “death tax” six times, but there were no quotation marks around it. A month later, the newspaper’s Style & Substance blog suggested that the adoption of such a loaded political term was probably not a good idea: “Because opponents of estate taxes have long referred to them as death taxes, the term should be avoided in news stories.”
Re:Just another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a reason Fox News regularly kills the other news networks viewership numbers combined.
This is because Fox News regularly throws journalistic integrity to the wind in pursuit of ratings.
Re: (Score:2)
Barbara Stanwyck: “We’re both rotten!”
Fred MacMurray: “Yeah — only you’re a little more rotten.”
— “Double Indemnity” (1944)
http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult [truth-out.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Gees wake up. Fox not-News is basically a cable news network, it will dominate where it's cable dominates, like duh. How do it's numbers compare when it competes, how well does cable news compete with free to air news and more importantly how well does Fox not-News compete on the Internet (I hear it get's it arse kicked all over the place hugely, it pretty much does the worst on the internet). So Fox not-News has the dying of old age luddites, yep, they'll get far with that audience, oh my.
First comes th
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you're trolling, but what does Rupert Murdoch's gutter-level right-wing editorial service called Fox News have to do with a legitimate news operation?
Fox News is a large and diverse organization which pretty easily defies your shallow stereotyping. There are some editorial commentators who are pretty far out there (exactly like you find on other large cable networks), and some who are more grounded and evenhanded (exactly like you find on other large networks). The actual news side of the organization (non-editorial) is a lot more professional and objective than many people give them credit for. In fact, I think much of the flak they get is simply bec
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of just saying "seriously", why don't you provide a counterexample? In this context, that would be an example of a Fox News misdeed of which other networks are never guilty. Note that we're excluding the Fox commentary and editorial people, and just talking about the formal news reporting.
Go for it. (Or am I calling your bluff?)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously?
Re: (Score:3)
Your assumptions serve you poorly. I actually don't regularly listen to or watch Fox News, or any of the other large news networks.
But you didn't answer the question. Why don't you give an example? Are you unable to?
Note to self: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously?
I think so. The rest of the media, CNN, NBC, ABC, Washington Post, NYT, are so far up the ass of the Democratic party that they might as well be called it's propaganda wing. It is a positive thing that there is a different view aired on at least one news TV channel (in addition to WSJ and radio of course).
Re: (Score:2)
Bear with me for a second here. What if the rest of the media appears to be on the Democratic party's side because the Republican party is actually insane? What if Fox News is a major factor in the the Republican descent into madness? Think for a moment about who the biggest names in the Republican party are, don't they sound like Beck, Hannity, O'Reiley and Palin? What do these people have in common? They all work for Rupert Murdoch and they're seem to be the ones pushing the Republican agenda. They'
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Just another reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because there's growing concern that the phone hacking was not limited just to that newspaper, and was used by several N.I. operations, including some in the States, which puts Fox right in the headlights.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Since some people may have thought I was trolling*, let me explain what I meant:
1. The OP said "Just another reason to avoid anything related to Fox News like the plague". However, I haven't read any actual evidence that Fox News personnel were involved in the phone hacking. So the OP's statement was at minimum a non sequitur, and appears to furthermore be merely a specimen of irrelevant Fox News bashing. It's fair to say that he/she was trolling.
2. When I said "the legitimate news operation at Fox New
Re: (Score:1)
specifically
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
(my emphasis) So really should you trust ANY news from this media empire?
other info on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wilson_(reporter) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Do you ever feel like your fighting a loosing cause like you're saying "other than all the hookers, hitmen, and bookies who testified against him, do you have any real evidence that my client isn't really a legitimate businessman". The majority of the content of "Fox News" isn't news, it's commentary. And even the news is subject to political manipulation, for example the infamous "no positive mentions of Global Warming allowed" memo. Then there's instances of Fox's "News" people using the commentators a
Re: (Score:2)
Do you ever feel like your fighting a loosing [sic] cause
No, not really. And despite the number of highly emotional words you posted, there was only one rational idea you gave me to respond to, so...
for example the infamous "no positive mentions of Global Warming allowed" memo
How exactly is that different from other large networks stringently blacking out any official posture of credence toward climate disaster skepticism?
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really. And despite the number of highly emotional words you posted, there was only one rational idea you gave me to respond to, so...
I'm just pointing out that you can argue that technically the news section of Fox News isn't really that biased, but that's not what most people see when they watch "Fox News". There's only about 8 hours of news programming on what it allegedly a 24 hour news channel, and if I remember correctly none of them are among the most watched hours of the channel.
How exactly is that different from other large networks stringently blacking out any official posture of credence toward climate disaster skepticism?
Well, firstly because that actually happened and secondly "climate disaster scepticism" isn't a real thing. Would you care to try to invent something mo
Re: (Score:2)
Since when was TV News anything other than gutter-level TV?
FTFY
Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (Score:5, Interesting)
"She is charged with conspiring with her 49-year-old husband, personal assistant Cheryl Carter, chauffeur Paul Edwards, security man Daryl Jorsling, and News International head of security Mr Hanna to "conceal material" from police between 6 and 19 July. In a second charge Mrs Brooks and Ms Carter are accused of conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive between 6 and 9 July. In a third charge, Mr and Mrs Brooks, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling are accused of conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers between 15 and 19 July."
For all the people that are being charged, the Murdochs seem quite absent, but anyone without their surname seems to be fair game.
Hopefully someone turns on the Murdochs instead of taking the sword for the family.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully someone turns on the Murdochs instead of taking the sword for the family.
Never happen. When you're the 1%, the 99% take the sword.
Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (Score:5, Insightful)
And in this case, when you're in the .01%, 99% of the 1% are fair game too.
Re: (Score:3)
Rebekah Brooks is an interesting case, Only recently she was testifying to the leveson inquiry and some of what she had to say was personally damaging to the prime minister David Cameron and i'm not referring to Camerons use of lol (lots of love he thought it meant) which a lot of reporting seems to be focused on. Rather that the current government seems to have asked certain people at news international how to play the phone hacking scandal.
Although i'm struggling to find the exact quote now, there should
Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember that the Murdochs are several degrees removed from all of these charges. Now they may be evil masterminds and they may eventually be charged with one or more crimes, but for the moment the police are having to work their way up through the ranks.
I suspect that for anything substantial to stick it's going to take more than one or two NOTW employees pointing at the Murdochs and saying "they made me do it".
Re: (Score:2)
Rupert Murdoch on the other hand is apparently slipping into senility and is therefore exhibiting periods of forgetfulness and general confusion, the poor man.
Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (Score:4, Interesting)
James Murdoch is most certainly not far removed, and I think it's pretty likely he will be charged soon enough.
Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately most large corporations are led by twats like this, does MS, HP or Nokia not spring to mind?
Re: (Score:2)
He is a manager, and he involves himself deeply in his properties (like the Wall Street Journal). He's responsible for knowing what's going on. I expect him (and his editors) to be saying, "We're really getting these great scoops. I wonder how we're doing it?"
How can a newspaper editor not know that her reporters are illegally hacking phones?
Editors (and their lawyers) have to know where the information is coming from, for many reasons. They can get sued for libel. Their reporters could be making it up.
Re: (Score:3)
I very much doubt the Murdoch's actually committed any of these crimes themselves. They may or may not have ordered people to do it, although I find that unlikely. Much more likely, they simply ordered people to find the information "any way they can" (or other euphemism). You don't generally get to be as rich and powerful as the Murdoch's by being able to be easily associated with criminal activity, after all.
Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (Score:4, Interesting)
James Murdoch was most definitely informed of what was happening, and though suddenly he's started suffering selective amnesia, clearly authorized payouts to keep the hacking scandal suppressed. In Britain, as in most civilized places, when confronted with evidence of a crime, you are not allowed to just buy off victims and not pick up the phone and let the authorities know.
Re: (Score:2)
He's about as responsible as an actual Mafiaa boss. From what I've heard he made sure to never directly order anything illegal, he'd give general directions but if you didn't do exactly what he wanted you to do without complaint, you'd end up out on your ass faster than you could say "You want me to do what?".
He's quite responsible for building what appears to be a media empire founded on breaking the law whenever it was convenient. I don't expect Rupert will ever face charges, he'll be allowed to escape
I'm Shocked (Score:3)
This almost seems like justice is being served. What's the catch?
Re:I'm Shocked (Score:5, Insightful)
No indictment for any Murdoch.
Re:I'm Shocked (Score:4, Insightful)
The Murdochs knew what was going on so made sure they were well protected. It will be hard to meet the burden of proof and get them convicted.
Re: (Score:3)
See my signature.
Re: (Score:2)
Over here in jolly old Britland; company directors are jointly & severally responsible under law.
Re: (Score:2)
This almost seems like justice is being served. What's the catch?
The Murdoch family gets away with it, scott-free.
Re: (Score:1)
She's rich and white and stuff - good laywers, and she's pregnant. Also, she probably has stuff on everyone. She's not going to prison.
Re: (Score:3)
There was a rumour that she knew she'd eventually face charges so she got pregnant in order to help her case, as rich pregnant women with connections to the Prime Minister don't go to jail. She claimed her body clock was "ticking" and such scurrilous accusations denigrated the fine reputation of the UK press.
Lest it be forgot, she was editor of the News of the World, a paper that even fish balked at being wrapped in.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't really one.
Now matter how much certain people in and around the government might want to try and protect the Murdochs and their business interests, it's basically impossible for them to do so at the moment without committing political suicide; even the slightest suspicion of support is probably enough to stop you getting re-elected.
Silly working class girl (Score:1)
if she were an upper class twit like Piers Paul Hugh Montefiore O'Brien Morgan she could be working with the excellent CNN.
Mainstream media (Score:1)
Print media is shrinking fast as newspaper readers instead search the www and advertising moves to Google.
Are we witnessing a suicidal counterattack by non Murdoch media in an attempt to divert attention away from their own transgressions.
I get the feeling that Rebecca's real crime was to promote the David Cameron brand.
Re:Mainstream media (Score:5, Interesting)
The Guardian took the lead, quite alone, and has nothing like the "transgressions" of the tabloid press to answer. Obviously this is not where you're going with your comment, but what is more interesting to me is the difference in press freedom between the US and the UK. The Leveson hearings I could not imagine happening in the US Congress. A whole line of questions to Brooks were about the political influence of newspapers. The transgressions of the print media in the UK are worse than in the US, but so is the threat of regulation. I'm sure the Guardian and it supporters are indeed worried about suicidal danger. The Independent does not sound to happy about all this, from what little I have read. But the Murdoch press in the UK is a lot more powerful and vindictive than Fox/WSJ in the US. They really did meet and threaten top party leaders.
"Charge ... Over Voicemail Hacking" (Score:5, Informative)
"Involvement in intercepting voicemail messages."
Accuracy has never been very important to /., has it?
They were charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by withholding evidence from police. There is no charge that they were involved in voicemail hacking (though of course there are plenty of allegations that they were).
UK media cannot report it all (Score:5, Interesting)
Non-UK sources provide additional details not allowed in the UK media, due to pre-trial laws. The Guardian broke this story, but now scrupulously points out it is limited in what it can report. Comparing to the NYT, the omitted facts seem to be the strange episode of the discarded briefcase in the parking garage. Brooks's husband was caught red-handed when he tried to reclaim it after someone found it in a dumpster.
Anyone know what else the UK press must omit?
It's the coverup (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the attempted coverup they are being charged for, not the crime of phone hacking. That's what "perverting the course of justice" means here in the UK. It's a common law offence that usually carries a prison sentence, which can be up to life.
Re: (Score:1)
It is the attempted coverup they are being charged for, not the crime of phone hacking.
Right, because all they did, AFAIK, is spoof caller-ID information to gain access to the voicemail without a password, and IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL at the time. So the police are charging whomever they can with whatever they can to make the public happy.
All Murdoch had to do was say, "Yeah, we did what we could, within the confines of the law, to get the story," and the whole thing would have blown over in a couple of days. Instead, companies crumble and lives are ruined for something that was in poor taste, bu
Re: (Score:1)
Right, because all they did, AFAIK, is spoof caller-ID information to gain access to the voicemail without a password, and IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL at the time. .
The "This wasn't illegal at the time" comment has been made a number of times but surely gaining access to voicemail, whether by caller-ID spoofing or guessing passwords is going to be illegal under the computer misuse act which predates RIPA by a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it WAS illegal at the time - CMA 1991, a decade older than these crimes. They gained access to a computer system they were not authorised to use, and did so KNOWING they were not authorised to use it.
Its just that that usually only carries a 6 month sentence, whereas Perverting the Course of Justice can be a MUCH bigger stick.
Re: (Score:2)
As Nixon pointed out, "it's not the crime, it's the coverup". Ironic that he gave Roger Ailes one of his first jobs in DC. Roger Ailes of NewsCorp...
The best defence (Score:2)
"I wasn't aware of anyone doing anything wrong."
Then, when given proof that you should have been: "I didn't read it."
Worked for James Murdoch.
Re: (Score:2)
Works even better when you reply *in detail* to something you haven't read.
Call me when she's convicted (Score:2)
Oh the irony (Score:1)
Shes whinning she cant get a fair trial due to all the media attention.
Payback (Score:2)
Not getting caught for a long time does not mean you got away. Ask Kadhafi.
I see the reduced centensing between the lines (Score:2)
A personal assistant and a chauffeur? How much does anyone want to be the personal assistant and chauffeur spend more time in jail?
Special Note To Women: CYA (Score:2)
If you are going to do anything even remotely illegal, or you even suspect it might be illegal someplace on this planet, then make SURE you have an iron-clad butt-cover.
Because at the end of the day, male criminals will ALWAYS toss you an anchor, will ALWAYS shove you out of the lifeboat, and will ALWAYS stab you in the side to make sure you limp along and bleed for the sharks.
Attractive woman (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no difference between the two, except for their political beliefs.
So care to tell me which liberal canceled Firefly?
Re: (Score:1)
Touche'
Re: (Score:2)
Well they were no great loss any way.
Re:Insert (Score:5, Informative)
There's no difference between the two, except for their political beliefs.
You seem to have overlooked that this is a criminal case. Rebekah Brookes hasn't been tried yet so we can't say she personally is guilty yet. But the fact that a murdered girl and thousands of others had their phones hacked by the right-wing News International organisation isn't in question, it's established fact.
Re: (Score:1)
EVERY news organization lies to make money. Yet the only one getting attention on /. is the conservative one. The ABC story never even made it to /. , just like any story p
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about lying? It's well beyond lying. News International are a criminal organisation. The best I can do? What, news organisations being criminal isn't enough for you?
Truth is you'll give anything right-wing a free pass.
Re: (Score:1)
Who said anything about lying? It's well beyond lying. News International are a criminal organisation. The best I can do? What, news organisations being criminal isn't enough for you?
I'd say the numerous assaults and beatings in which the perpetrators said something about "doing it for Treyvon" is enough. The media hyped the issue, turned it into a racial issue (white hispanic?! Seriously?) You want to blame Rupert Murdoch for what one of his subsidiary companies do, when there is no proof that Murdoch knew anything about? So do we blame Obama for everything stupid that the Federal government does? Do you blame Obama for the Soldier that killed 16 Afghanistan civilians? After all,
Re: (Score:2)
And the reporter who presented that story got fired.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I really wish the media would stop referring to this as "hacking". It's just listening to the voicemail of people who are too stupid to change the default password, isn't it?
I wish people would stop referring to it as "stealing". It's just taking the stuff of people who are too stupid to lock their doors, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
It's a more correct use than usual as hacking means "unauthorised access"