Why does phone hacking matter so much?

[CliveH]

Peter James - 2011-07-19 8:50 PM

 

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.

 

OK - I will say it one last time - if the police were unaware of what the journos were doing then they (and the parents as malc d above points out) did not necessarily believe that Milly was anything more than a runaway at that point in time.

 

As I say - the journos were interfering with a police investigation.

 

What is RIGHT about that given the distress and anguish it caused her parents?

 

As for malc d point – voicemail interception is wrong – the current investigation and news coverage tends to confirm that.

 

But this action is but the start – the corruption looks like it goes into the met police certainly – and possibly other forces. As for Cameron employing an ex NI individual so close to this – against the explicit advice of the likes of Paddy Ashdown – speaks volumes as to the competence of our PM.

 

No more from me on this tonight – a dog walk for a swift pint, then an early start for me tomorrow.

 

Goodnight – and hope my strong views on this has not offended anyone.

 

[colin]

Peter James - 2011-07-19 12:36 PM

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.

 

The royals have been fair game for the press for more years than Murdoch has been alive

[Brian Kirby]

But back to Peter's question, which I take to be merely rhetorical, why does it matter? It is, in and of itself, a low grade invasion of privacy. It is a nuisance crime. As has been said many times, no-one died.

 

It was a godsend to a few already wealthy celebs, who were able to extract substantial sums from News International because their celebrity privacy (surely a contradiction in terms?) had been invaded. Mr and Mrs non-celebrity, of course, got rather less, because invasion of non-celebrity privacy is deemed worth less. There's bitter! :-)

 

But look where it has gone. Look what has so far been exposed. Look who is now implicated, and why. How true it can sometimes be, when people talk of the tip of an iceberg, or the first sniff of something truly rotten?

 

Here we have parts of the police apparently regularly on the take. We have journalists employed by bosses who feign no knowledge of what they were doing. We have organisations spending huge sums of money on private investigators and lawyers, and on serving police officers, while no-one in charge knew who was singing off on the costs. We have these same people continually popping up here and there in, and around, government, with no apparent sense that they may not be the most reliable guardians of confidentiality. We have chaps asking other chaps whether they are honest, upstanding, citizens and implicitly believing them when they say yes. We have the most senior police officer in the country, on a £300,000 salary, allegedly accepting the largess of a member of the press to the tune of £12,000, and unable to see anything questionable about his conduct. No-one saw anything wrong. No-one did anything wrong. No-one authorised anything wrong. Who are the fools? Us, or them?

 

Large, wealthy, and very influential organisations - the police force, the government, and the press - found they had a vested influence in allowing this to continue because it was to their mutual advantage. Some benefited financially, some with power, some with information. All those petty transgressions became, step by step, just as steps on a slippery slope, larger and darker, and no-one had the courage to challenge it. Were it not for the phone hacking, we should not yet have seen it.

 

Such is the appeal of the status quo, I don't have much confidence this will bring any worthwhile long term changes, any more than I really believe the MP's expenses scandal will really bring long-term changes, or that government will really change its unhealthy relationship with the financial services trade in the wake of the financial collapse. But, for just a few weeks, it has shaken and frightened a small group of people who had become so complacent, and so egotistical, that they appear to believe they really do walk on water. If just a few of them now begin to actually believe they are drowning, and that persuades them to change, even for a while, their relationships; and to deflate their egos, it will have done some small good. If it achieves more, it will do much good.

 

That, for me, is why the phone hacking matters. Because it was the first whiff of the rot that had been so carefully concealed, and fostered, and that we can all now clearly see.

[Guest pelmetman]

OT:D but for me the interesting bit is the way the politicians have turned on Murdoch and his empire8-).....................Maybe the ferocity of their attack is equal to the amount of power (imagined or actual) he had over them;-)

Its like one of those wild life programs where wolves turn on their weakened leader(lol)(lol) 

[Guest Peter James]

Thats Very Good Brian.

 

Incidentally, when I ask the question why does phone hacking matter so much. I am resigned to the idea of government spooks hacking my phone and computer etc. So its not a great concern to me if the press hacks are doing it too. At least the press hacks did to some of the status quo, and exposed them as well, not just the little people like the Government does.

[Guest Peter James]

pelmetman - 2011-07-20 8:48 AM

 

OT:D but for me the interesting bit is the way the politicians have turned on Murdoch and his empire8-).....................Maybe the ferocity of their attack is equal to the amount of power (imagined or actual) he had over them;-)

Its like one of those wild life programs where wolves turn on their weakened leader(lol)(lol) 

 

What I find so disgusting is they didn't have the courage to do it sooner.

These are the people who declare war in our name !!!

[CliveH]

Can I also point out that our "government" monitors communications of those it fears may cause harm.

 

I actually have no real problem with this. My son was flying to Venice on the day the "liquid bomb" plot surfaced. We were at Stansted in the early hours having a coffee waiting for his 7am flight check in gate to open when all of a sudden there were police men and women in black combat gear with machine guns all over the place. The resulting chaos was a nightmare but one that was stoically dealt with by all as the truth of the situation gradually became clear.

 

When the story unfolded I was very glad that we had been “put out” a bit on the day and that the terrorists "civil liberties" had been compromised in the name of safety. A bit of inconvenience was a small price to pay.

 

I can cope with that - I can see the rationale. I, my family and other travellers benefited by our improved safety.

 

What gets me is the confusion by people like Peter (NO OFFENCE PETER - JUST A POINT OF VIEW!) that phone monitoring of actual conversations in the context of actual threats to us here in the UK is in anyway synonymous with a toe-rag journo hacking into peoples stored voicemail messages.

 

Brian's summation is excellent.

 

The hacking into the voicemails is the first whiff or corruption – as we dig deeper there will either be (another) cover up, or we will see action and a (hopefully) a fresh start.

 

My problem is that I believe Cameron has to go. His judgement in overriding the many concerns made about his employing an ex NI Ast. Ed. and inviting Murdoch for afternoon tea by the back door of number 10 to say “Thank-you” paints a picture of someone happy to be part of what was going on.

 

Because – even back then, there was a significant undercurrent of suspicion of what NI was upto re the voicemail hacking and many of those close to the top could see the slippery slope appearing before those that were in bed with the Murdochs/NI.

 

[Guest Peter James]

CliveH - 2011-07-20 10:00 AM

My problem is that I believe Cameron has to go. His judgement in overriding the many concerns made about his employing an ex NI Ast. Ed. and inviting Murdoch for afternoon tea by the back door of number 10 to say “Thank-you” paints a picture of someone happy to be part of what was going on.

 

Every Prime Minister since and including Thatcher has kept the back door to number 10 open for Murdoch and conducted the dialogue on their knees.

None of them have had the courage and integrity to stand up to Murdoch until he was weakened by all this.

Murdoch got Cameron into number 10, and could have got him out again.

Unlike the other 2 parties, the Liberals had made all the right calls, opposing the illegal invasion of Iraq, warning of the impending financial crash, but Murdoch still kept them down at number 3.

[CliveH]

Yes I agree with what you say here - in fact my only criticism of the Lib Dems was the rather silly arrogance of Vince Cable in openly declaring war on Murdoch and the BSkyB bid.

 

That was stupid and put the Lib Dems on the back foot.

 

[Guest Peter James]

CliveH - 2011-07-20 2:56 PM

 

Yes I agree with what you say here - in fact my only criticism of the Lib Dems was the rather silly arrogance of Vince Cable in openly declaring war on Murdoch and the BSkyB bid.

 

That was stupid and put the Lib Dems on the back foot.

I guess Vince Cable was ahead of public opinion again. If he said that now he would have got away with it?

 

(In any event I have a lot of sympathy for Vince Cable taking second place to George Osborne, because I worked in a similar situation myself. My boss was an incompetent pillock who acted like a spoiled child, but his parents owned the company.)