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."
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: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)
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.
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?
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.
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?