Guest Peter James Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Why does phone hacking matter so much? Especially since they can stop it just by reading the instructions they got with their phones and changing their PIN numbers? Are we still expected to believe this is all about spin doctors concern for the late Milly Dowler? An innocent child who never even knew her phone had been hacked, and probably wouldn't have minded if she had known. Not the royal hangers on, politicians, or bent cops trying to keep their bribes a secret? Or the rest of the press who have been waiting for any chance to attack Murdoch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 When you look beyond the PR spin, I guess this isn't really about Milly Dowler then? Royalty is worried about what the illegal phone hackers found out, politicians are worried about how their own connections with a bunch of crooks will affect their public image? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 It is alleged that Milly Dowlers phone was not just listened in to, but voice mail messages were deleted to make room for more. This gave her family the impression that she was still alive, and it interfered with police evidence. I for one find that indefensible. As for general hacking, I don't see the difference between listening in to other peoples phone messages and opening and reading other peoples letters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 malc d - 2011-07-19 9:49 AM It is alleged that Milly Dowlers phone was not just listened in to, but voice mail messages were deleted to make room for more. This gave her family the impression that she was still alive, and it interfered with police evidence. I for one find that indefensible. As for general hacking, I don't see the difference between listening in to other peoples phone messages and opening and reading other peoples letters. Totally agree malc d I would also add that in order to get the numbers the reporters are alleging that they paid Police Officers for the individuals numbers - be they victims, victims families or VIP's of whatever type or colour. This is against the law and is a huge breach. Brooks admitted to the Parliamentary select committee during the first investigation that they had paid police officers for this information. Coulson sitting next to her managed to manoeuvre the questioning away from this damning admission. Coulson then gets employed by our new PM And the initial investigation into the hacking ignores the admission by Brooks and wraps up with a "nothing to see here" spherical objects conclusion. Now we have Brooks arrested on a Sunday - thereby effectively allowing her to state that she can say nothing to the MP investigation later today - I find that HIGHLY suspicious. Then the head of the Met resigns. How anyone can say "What is the problem here?" frankly beggars belief. Sorry Peter - but it does - no offence meant - but I really cannot understand how you can state that "Milly Dowler probably would not have minded" whilst ignoring the fact that one Newspaper group of 4 national newspapers is at the centre of this and they were SO powerful that politicians felt they had to have this group on side if they wanted to get elected! The phone hacking just shows the arrogance - what it enables the UK to do is to - hopefully - dismantle a highly toxic relationship between the Police, the Politicians and elements of the Press. For me it cannot come soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Why does phone hacking matter so much? Well number one reason is most non Murdoch press and tv would do anything to knock him off his perch. But for me it's the blatent curruption within the police that is the important bit, every now and again they need a kick up the arse to remind them to abide by the law. Murdoch will be much more worried about what might happen in US, which is why he now is cooperating over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 If a private eye or journalist can hack into any phone so can the government and no doubt they already do? It's one small step from people in the news being hacked to evryone's phone being continuously monitored? And that would be close to being in a police state, would it not? And that is why it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 malc d - 2011-07-19 9:49 AM It is alleged that Milly Dowlers phone was not just listened in to, but voice mail messages were deleted to make room for more. This gave her family the impression that she was still alive, and it interfered with police evidence. I for one find that indefensible. As for general hacking, I don't see the difference between listening in to other peoples phone messages and opening and reading other peoples letters. If it was evidence, wouldn't the police have listened to them, and deleted them if that was necesary to make room for more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 CliveH - 2011-07-19 10:22 AM How anyone can say "What is the problem here?" frankly beggars belief. Sorry Peter - but it does - no offence meant - but I really cannot understand how you can state that "Milly Dowler probably would not have minded" whilst ignoring the fact that one Newspaper group of 4 national newspapers is at the centre of this and they were SO powerful that politicians felt they had to have this group on side if they wanted to get elected! I didn't say there is no problem with police corruption, or with Murdochs grip on the media, but why does phone hacking matter so much. After all, thats whats brought all this on. Murdochs grip on the media has been a well known fact for over 40 years, but nothing was done until his minions were caught hacking the royal phones. Incidentally Murdochs grip on the media hasn't been all bad. Before Murdoch the Unelected Royalty were generally thought of as Gods, and probably still would be if we only had the BBC. Its been mainly Murdoch with his Fake Sheik who exposed them. At least the Duchess of York can go back to selling the Duke of Yorks Services now that the Fake Sheik has been sacked ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 colin - 2011-07-19 10:22 AM Murdoch will be much more worried about what might happen in US, which is why he now is cooperating over here. I can see they are far harder on corporate corruption in the US than they are here. Remember the Nat West Bankers going to jail in America? They would have got a severance package and bumper pension here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Tracker - 2011-07-19 11:29 AM If a private eye or journalist can hack into any phone so can the government and no doubt they already do? It's one small step from people in the news being hacked to evryone's phone being continuously monitored? And that would be close to being in a police state, would it not? And that is why it matters. WEll yes, but all this was not brought about the government hacking our phones is it? No doubt that will continue. All this was brought about by a few reporters hacking the phones of the country's best brains who didn't comprehend the instructions they got with their phone and change their PIN number *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Peter James - 2011-07-19 12:27 PM malc d - 2011-07-19 9:49 AM It is alleged that Milly Dowlers phone was not just listened in to, but voice mail messages were deleted to make room for more. This gave her family the impression that she was still alive, and it interfered with police evidence. I for one find that indefensible. As for general hacking, I don't see the difference between listening in to other peoples phone messages and opening and reading other peoples letters. If it was evidence, wouldn't the police have listened to them, and deleted them if that was necessary to make room for more? NO THEY WOULD NOT! Amazing that anyone would think that they would!!! Evidence is evidence - not to be deleted!! - no doubt if they wanted to "make room" they would have informed the parents and downloaded and saved some to make room. What happened here was toe-rags deleted the messages - giving the distraught parents REAL anguish because it gave them false hope that Milly was alive and it was her deleting the messages! I find what they did totally abhorrent. And surprised that anyone can seek to minimise and trivialise the enormity of this truly awful act. And as other have said - some Police seem to be guilty of releasing the telephone numbers to toe-rag journalists in return for a bribe so that they could access the stored messages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I'm not sure what source Peter James is using to back up his views. He says " All this came about because a few reporters hacked the phones of the countrys' best brains" From what I have seen and heard on most TV news channels over the last week or so is that it is believed that the phones of the families of soldiers killed in the middle east, the phones of 7/7 victims, and possibly even the phones of 9/11 victims were hacked. Estimates are that around 4000 phones have been targeted. Maybe those people are the countrys' best brains but what possible legitimate purpose would there be in hacking into their phones and listening to private messages ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 And to think, there are still people who refuse to believe George Orwell's 1984 could happen. We are merely the governments subjects, and as such, anything goes as far as they are concerned, anyone believing the government had no knowledge of all the details of this scandal is more than just a little naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Happy to say I agree 100% Donna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 CliveH - 2011-07-19 2:56 PM Happy to say I agree 100% Donna. Be carefull Clive, somebody somewhere might be monitoring this conversation and use that in evidence against you in a later debate. :D :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I am always careful with you Donna (lol) (lol) In fact just getting "Google" on the screen can make me go all unnecessary 8-) Tracker says that that obscene voicemail you left on my mobile that he listened/hacked into, was most unfair – and he wants to know how you know? I would like to know what the message was because Peter deleted it to make room for something “big” before I actually heard it. Apparently the whole story is to be in the new “Sun on Sunday” You are on page three without your Google…………………….. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 CliveH - 2011-07-19 12:48 PM Peter James - 2011-07-19 12:27 PM If it was evidence, wouldn't the police have listened to them, and deleted them if that was necessary to make room for more? NO THEY WOULD NOT! Amazing that anyone would think that they would!!! Evidence is evidence - not to be deleted!! - no doubt if they wanted to "make room" they would have informed the parents and downloaded and saved some to make room. .. and how would they 'make room' by deleting them from the phone. I would have thought that would appear a sensible thing to do at the time, to make room for messages that might contain clues. Why was the phone memory left full, so that it was not able to accept more messages that might have contained evidence? The point I am trying to make is that it sounds like the Police were not doing their job, so (not for the first time) the hacks were doing it for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 donna miller - 2011-07-19 2:44 PM And to think, there are still people who refuse to believe George Orwell's 1984 could happen. We are merely the governments subjects, and as such, anything goes as far as they are concerned, anyone believing the government had no knowledge of all the details of this scandal is more than just a little naive. I haven't read 1984, but I gather it was about the Government spying on us? which no doubt continues. This is different because its about the press spying, - the biggest difference being that the press has also been spying on royalty and politicians, then making their findings public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 malc d - 2011-07-19 1:53 PM I'm not sure what source Peter James is using to back up his views. He says " All this came about because a few reporters hacked the phones of the countrys' best brains" From what I have seen and heard on most TV news channels over the last week or so is that it is believed that the phones of the families of soldiers killed in the middle east, the phones of 7/7 victims, and possibly even the phones of 9/11 victims were hacked. Estimates are that around 4000 phones have been targeted. Maybe those people are the countrys' best brains but what possible legitimate purpose would there be in hacking into their phones and listening to private messages ? I was trying to be funny when I said 'Best Brains' I was thinking of the Royalty and politicians who had theiir phones hacked (must be clever people as we are paying them so much), and similarly the secret service spoooks who are paid to look after their security, but didn't comprehend the instructions they got with their phones and change their PIN numbers. The purpose must have been to generate stories for News International. And sometimes to help any politicians who supported Murdochs business interests, by discrediting their opponents. What I find most disgusting is that the politicians who send our lads to war, didn't have the personal courage to stand up to Murdoch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Peter James - 2011-07-19 6:41 PM CliveH - 2011-07-19 12:48 PM Peter James - 2011-07-19 12:27 PM If it was evidence, wouldn't the police have listened to them, and deleted them if that was necessary to make room for more? NO THEY WOULD NOT! Amazing that anyone would think that they would!!! Evidence is evidence - not to be deleted!! - no doubt if they wanted to "make room" they would have informed the parents and downloaded and saved some to make room. .. and how would they 'make room' by deleting them from the phone. I would have thought that would appear a sensible thing to do at the time, to make room for messages that might contain clues. Why was the phone memory left full, so that it was not able to accept more messages that might have contained evidence? The point I am trying to make is that it sounds like the Police were not doing their job, so (not for the first time) the hacks were doing it for them. As I say - the police can "make room" by downloading AND SAVING THE MESSAGES - if there was a need. The toe-rag journalists simply deleted as the only option available to them. So you are wrong peter to assume that deleting was the only option for everyone - it wasn't - the Police have far more options. And if you think that unauthorised deleting of messages - such that distressed parents could think that their daughter was still alive was "sensible" - then I believe you have some serious sensibility issues yourself! Why was the phone message facility left full? - I would suggest because no one thought it possible that scum would be tapping into a dead girls message box to sell tomorrow’s fish and chips wrapper. To try and make out that the "hacks" were somehow doing the job of the Police is, frankly, absurd. They were and still are scum out to get a story by any means and bugger the methodology and morals of how they did it. THAT is why there is such an outcry. The fact that some police took money for releasing the numbers is despicable but I doubt that this was widespread and I suspect that some police officers will lose their jobs and even end up in jail when the truth is out... But I hardly think that the defence of "I was doing what the police should have been doing, gov!" - is going to make any sort of impression. Far from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 CliveH - 2011-07-19 7:21 PM As I say - the police can "make room" by downloading AND SAVING THE MESSAGES - if there was a need. Yes I appreciate that saving the messages might have been better than deleting them. Why hadn't the police done this? Surely the priority at the time would have been to make room for more in case they contained previously unheard evidence? If has been suggested the message box was full, then presumably there was a need to make more space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 A very good question. One answer that is unsavoury in the extreme is that perhaps the investigating police were unaware of what these toe-rag journos were capable of and so when they saw Milly's messages being deleted - PERHAPS - they were misled into thinking she was not at that stage dead - when the reality was that she was? Could the police have been mislead into thinking the poor girl had simply run away? Did the deletion of messages give a false idea that no crime had been committed and that she would probably turn up alive and well? I frankly have no idea. But the knock on effect of such appalling actions could very well be even more appalling consequences if the delay in catching her murderer allowed him to escape and commit more crimes. I am not privy to any such facts or information - but for journalists to interfere with evidence in a missing persons investigation is downright insane. Criminally so. But to try to shift the blame for an appallingly cynical act onto the police on the spurious assumption that the police would somehow gain by either doing what the toe-rag journos were doing or that the toe-rag journos somehow did the investigation a favour is bizarre. That is not to say that the police are not at fault - not so much the specific investigation in Milly Dowlers abduction - but that fact that there is clear evidence that some police officers were complicit in the illegal phone tapping of the voicemails of a huge range of people by scum journalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 CliveH One of Millys' parents complaints when they met Rupert Murdoch is reported to be the fact that when they realised that her messages were being deleted, it did give them hope that she was still alive. If they, and the police, were under that impression, why would anyone then expect the police to start deleting messages ? (Possibly that would have been illegal - even for the police ?) The original question was " Why does phone hacking matter so much ?" Either we think it is wrong and illegal, or we think it doesn't really matter. Each can make their own judgement on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 But if the police had been doing their job they would have made room for more messages on the phone so the hacks wouldn't have done? Police selling phone numbers to the hacks - we have to remember that phone hacking and more is an everyday job for the police, so presumably they don't all share the revulsion for it that you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 malc d - 2011-07-19 8:49 PM why would anyone then expect the police to start deleting messages ? To make room for more messages in case they gave any clues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.