... wow. That's just so many kinds of wrong

[fearmeforiampink]

To mess with the private voicemail messages of celebrities is one level of wrong. It's quite wrong, it's another extension of the "They asked for it" (some of them did, some of them didn't) "Therefore we can do what we want to them" (no, no you can't).

But it's still not as wrong as not only listening to the messages left by the worried family of a missing girl, but deleting them when the voicemail filled up, so they could listen to more of them. Oh, and later getting an exclusive interview with the family about their hopes she might be alive, based on said deletions.

Firstly there's all the 'no that's just not on' side of things. Secondly, there's the whole 'interference in a police case, destruction of evidence' side of it too.

Please can we fire News of the World of of a huge cannon to Jupiter or something? Please?

Comments

[pewterfish.livejournal.com]

Errm. I don't seem to have any appropriate words here.

What the buttock-clenching fuck? I'm not sure how, exactly, but that's GOT to be illegal. If it isn't, it needs to be.

[pewterfish.livejournal.com]

Incidental, since the News of the World is owned by NewsCorp, this may be of use to some people:

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/murdoch-deal-petition#petition

Petition regarding the NewsCorp/BSkyB merger, which many people are using to make something of a point about the Dowler case.

[fearmeforiampink]

I'd assume it is quite illegal, the problem will just be showing that the journalists ordered it done, rather than it falling on only the private investigator.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

Well, on one hand, Glenn Mulcaire is blaming his actions on 'relentless pressure' on the part of NotW for results (and also talking about doing it 'in the name of investigative journalism', which ... it's a lot of double-speak, really; first blame the NotW, then gabble on about doing it because it was somehow right.

On the other hand, Rebekah Brooks is talking about how it's 'inconceivable [she] knew about it'. Of course, she's also talking about how she's "sickened that these events are alleged to have happened", which I suppose is supposed to mean that she's sickened by the alleged (but unproven, or so she'd like people to think despite documentary evidence that it at least happened) events, but technically reads that she's sickened that there are allegations at all. And this from someone who works at a ... well, 'newspaper'?

[omniscient-fool.livejournal.com]

I don't know what the legal position of liability is here (I suspect that that might become an important issue as this develops), but morally at least, the journalists/editors and the paper should be liable for their sources. Scapegoating doesn't really work here. Claiming they didn't know phone hacking was being used isn't good enough as it is part of their job to check the credibility of their sources, which includes knowing where information has come from. Therefore even if they didn't know about it, they should still be liable because it is their responsibility to find out and they have been negligent in exercising that. The only thing that I can see would get them out of this would be if they could prove that the PI convincingly falsified information about the source.

[fearmeforiampink]

And my understanding is that, whilst the extent it was known throughout the organisation is at question, certainly there were those in the organisation that knew what he was doing.

[omniscient-fool.livejournal.com]

Oh totally. I don't believe for a second the 'we didn't know' line. I'm just saying that in terms of liability, not knowing shouldn't be an excuse when it's your job to know. Well done on the Murdoch protest btw. Hope you didn't get mobbed by too many Potter fans!