Depressingly predictable

[Big Ed]

Despite the fact that it is still unclear as to whether or not Milly Dowler’s voicemails were automatically deleted, the most disgusting elements of our press have emerged from the shadows by trying to discredit the story.
The repellent Kelvin McKenzie was on Sky News’ Press Preview last night, condemning The Guardian editor: Alan Rusbridger, for having caused the News of the World to shut down and put 300 people out of work.
Today it has emerged that Daily Mail columnist, Ephraim Hardcastle, had contacted Mark Lewis, the Dowler Family solicitor, to ask whether Bob and Sally Dowler planned to return the £3M to Rupert Murdoch and News International.
There is no doubt that the “false hope” aspect of the story is important and that the fact that it may not have been a News of the World employee who deleted the voicemails is something that deserves attention, however, they did hack Milly’s phone whilst she was missing and the fact that these two charmers cannot see that as morally disgusting in itself, is vindication of the requirement to have the Leveson Inquiry.

[BEEJ]

Agreed. A nauseating crowd, desperate to squirm out from any responsibility for wrong-doing.

However, correct me if I'm wrong. It is now believed that the messages on her phone were automatically deleted by the system (after 72 hrs?) after having been read. So the fact that the NoW journalist hacked in and listened to them will have triggered their subsequent deletion anyway?

The messages were still deleted as a consequence of the actions of NoW. Whether they deleted them directly or indirectly is neither here nor there.

Or am I missing something?

[Big Ed]

It’s probably best if I post a link to Nick Davies’ article on Monday wherein he updates the recent developments: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/12/phone-hacking-milly-dowler?INTCMP=SRCH
As an aside, Davies appears to have fallen into the trap of seeing the best in people he probably shouldn’t: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073843/Guardian-accused-sexing-Milly-hacking-story-The-false-allegation-led-200-people-losing-jobs.html
The comments on this one are interesting too.

[lapsedhibee]

Agreed. A nauseating crowd, desperate to squirm out from any responsibility for wrong-doing.

However, correct me if I'm wrong. It is now believed that the messages on her phone were automatically deleted by the system (after 72 hrs?) after having been read. So the fact that the NoW journalist hacked in and listened to them will have triggered their subsequent deletion anyway?

The messages were still deleted as a consequence of the actions of NoW. Whether they deleted them directly or indirectly is neither here nor there.

Or am I missing something?

You might be able to argue in defence of The Screws that manually deleting the messages specifically in order to free up space for more messages which you can then also snoop on is a worse, more cynical, offence than just listening to messages and letting nature take its course within the mobile network's machinery.

But McKelvin's outrage is just, to coin a phrase, putrid.

[speedy_gonzales]

BEEJ, you're quite correct.
However, has anyone questioned how or why the voicemails were deleted 'automatically' after 72 hours?
I was with Vodafone for years up until recently, I had voicemails from way back that had not been deleted, I hadn't stored them either, just listened and hung up. Perhaps it was more to do with the volume of messages that had been left on Millys phone.

Perhaps someone who is with Vodafone now can confirm or deny?!!?

[RyeSloan]

BEEJ, you're quite correct.
However, has anyone questioned how or why the voicemails were deleted 'automatically' after 72 hours?
I was with Vodafone for years up until recently, I had voicemails from way back that had not been deleted, I hadn't stored them either, just listened and hung up. Perhaps it was more to do with the volume of messages that had been left on Millys phone.

Perhaps someone who is with Vodafone now can confirm or deny?!!?

Vodafone auto deletes mine...dunno the time period but even when saved they only last 7 days....

[Leicester Fan]

It’s probably best if I post a link to Nick Davies’ article on Monday wherein he updates the recent developments: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/12/phone-hacking-milly-dowler?INTCMP=SRCH
As an aside, Davies appears to have fallen into the trap of seeing the best in people he probably shouldn’t: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073843/Guardian-accused-sexing-Milly-hacking-story-The-false-allegation-led-200-people-losing-jobs.html
The comments on this one are interesting too.

The Guardian are unbearably smug and superior about other papers, they can't really complain if they get some back.

[speedy_gonzales]

Vodafone auto deletes mine...dunno the time period but even when saved they only last 7 days....
Fair enough, not sure if things changed but our work phones were Vodafone(now O2), I had loads of voicemails and I didn't consciously save them for any particular reason.

[lyonhibs]

With all of the other low, ****my antics the NoTW got up to over a sustained period of time, the notion that it was the deletion - by whomever - of Milly Dowler's voicemail messages was the tipping point for NoTW to get its comeuppance is ludicrous.

[Beefster]

With all of the other low, ****my antics the NoTW got up to over a sustained period of time, the notion that it was the deletion - by whomever - of Milly Dowler's voicemail messages was the tipping point for NoTW to get its comeuppance is ludicrous.

It was the Milly Dowler hacking and story about the distress caused to the parents by the deletion of her voicemails by the NOTW reporters/investigators that caused the whole phone hacking story to blow up beyond something affecting politicians and famous folk.

If it was just about phone hacking, the Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, the Sun and more would have been shut down too.

[Beefster]

Agreed. A nauseating crowd, desperate to squirm out from any responsibility for wrong-doing.

However, correct me if I'm wrong. It is now believed that the messages on her phone were automatically deleted by the system (after 72 hrs?) after having been read. So the fact that the NoW journalist hacked in and listened to them will have triggered their subsequent deletion anyway?

The messages were still deleted as a consequence of the actions of NoW. Whether they deleted them directly or indirectly is neither here nor there.

Or am I missing something?

According to the Met, the NOTW/Mulcaire didn't listen to voicemails on her account until after the deletion happened.

[Big Ed]

It was the Milly Dowler hacking and story about the distress caused to the parents by the deletion of her voicemails by the NOTW reporters/investigators that caused the whole phone hacking story to blow up beyond something affecting politicians and famous folk.

If it was just about phone hacking, the Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, the Sun and more would have been shut down too.

The News of the World had hacked the phone of a missing girl, who would later emerge as a victim of abduction and murder.
That fact, in isolation, should be enough to disgust people.
Regarding the fact that other titles would have been shut down too: only The Sun, of all the remaining tabloids is owned by News International. It was their decision to shut The News of the World down, and I recall Rebekah Brooks saying "In a year you will understand why we made this decision."

[Beefster]

The News of the World had hacked the phone of a missing girl, who would later emerge as a victim of abduction and murder.
That fact, in isolation, should be enough to disgust people.
Regarding the fact that other titles would have been shut down too: only The Sun, of all the remaining tabloids is owned by News International. It was their decision to shut The News of the World down, and I recall Rebekah Brooks saying "In a year you will understand why we made this decision."

You are backing up what I said. That it was the Dowler hacking that disgusted the public. No-one was particularly bothered/interested when it was a few celebrities and politicians that seemed to be affected.

Just because a news title isn't owned by News International doesn't mean that they haven't hacked phones extensively. Wait to see how much squirming Piers Morgan does next week at the enquiry trying to deny that he was aware of it at the Mirror.

[Leicester Fan]

What if by hacking Millie Dowlers phone the NOTW had caught the killer or managed to find Millie alive?

[BEEJ]

What if by hacking Millie Dowlers phone the NOTW had caught the killer or managed to find Millie alive?
Do you think for one millisecond that would have been the prime purpose for their actions?

Or are they more likely to have left the Police to do their job while they get on with selling papers?

[Beefster]

What if by hacking Millie Dowlers phone the NOTW had caught the killer or managed to find Millie alive?

That logic would give vigilantes carte blanche to do whatever they want.

"Aye, I might have broken into the guy's house and stolen all his DVDs but I was looking for evidence of wrong-doing".

[Big Ed]

What if by hacking Millie Dowlers phone the NOTW had caught the killer or managed to find Millie alive?

:top marks
That's your best ever :aok:

[Big Ed]

You are backing up what I said. That it was the Dowler hacking that disgusted the public. No-one was particularly bothered/interested when it was a few celebrities and politicians that seemed to be affected.

Just because a news title isn't owned by News International doesn't mean that they haven't hacked phones extensively. Wait to see how much squirming Piers Morgan does next week at the enquiry trying to deny that he was aware of it at the Mirror.

I’m sorry; I thought that you were trying to suggest that it was the “false hope” aspect that turned public opinion.
I referred to News International because it was they themselves who shut down the News of the World. If you recall, it came as quite a shock at the time, because there was no clamour for it.
We know that other newspapers have hacked phones because of Operation Motorman, yet, when the information commissioner obtained the material, it was so short of resources that it approached and warned only a handful of those whose privacy had been compromised even where potential targets for terrorism or other crime were involved.
As for Morgan: as much as I would like to see him squirm (or worse) I suspect that his appearance will be something of a pantomime and be no more than mildly uncomfortable for him.
I hope to be wrong on that one though.

[Leicester Fan]

Do you think for one millisecond that would have been the prime purpose for their actions?



It'd be one hell of a scoop.

I'm just posing the question, the NOTW have exposed lots of criminal behaviour, most recently the Pakistani cricketers. If hacking a phone exposed corruption or a crime or a Tory sex scandal wouldn't the ends justify the means?

[Big Ed]

It'd be one hell of a scoop.

I'm just posing the question, the NOTW have exposed lots of criminal behaviour, most recently the Pakistani cricketers. If hacking a phone exposed corruption or a crime or a Tory sex scandal wouldn't the ends justify the means?

Given the scale of the whole hacking scandal: the number of people hacked, estimated at approximately 6000, and the length of time that it had gone on for, at least since 2002 and probably longer, how often had corruption or criminal activity been exposed by the News of the World using this method?
You would think there would be many instances: so far, I am aware of none.

[Leicester Fan]

Given the scale of the whole hacking scandal: the number of people hacked, estimated at approximately 6000, and the length of time that it had gone on for, at least since 2002 and probably longer, how often had corruption or criminal activity been exposed by the News of the World using this method?
You would think there would be many instances: so far, I am aware of none.

It is illegal, they're not likely to advertise the fact.

[Big Ed]

It is illegal, they're not likely to advertise the fact.

So is knowingly buying stolen information on a disc, but the Daily Telegraph did it when they exposed the Parliamentary Expenses Scandal. The end justified the means in that instance. The Telegraph knew that the story was of genuine national interest and rightly took the risk.
What the News of the World did was to undertake the illegal activity of phone hacking on a massive scale. Their motives were purely speculative.
In the Dowler case, they did tell Surrey Police that they had listened to Milly’s voicemail.

[hibbytam]

So is knowingly buying stolen information on a disc, but the Daily Telegraph did it when they exposed the Parliamentary Expenses Scandal. The end justified the means in that instance. The Telegraph knew that the story was of genuine national interest and rightly took the risk.
What the News of the World did was to undertake the illegal activity of phone hacking on a massive scale. Their motives were purely speculative.
In the Dowler case, they did tell Surrey Police that they had listened to Milly’s voicemail.

I might be wrong, but I thought the expenses scandel was caused through the freedom of information act, which parliament thought didn't apply to them.

Sewer rats have more dignity than the gutter red top press. Though the solution is simple, stop buying trashy newspapers.

[Big Ed]

I might be wrong, but I thought the expenses scandel was caused through the freedom of information act, which parliament thought didn't apply to them.

Sewer rats have more dignity than the gutter red top press. Though the solution is simple, stop buying trashy newspapers.

A Freedom of Information Act request for the release of details of MPs' expenses claims was allowed by an Information Tribunal. The House of Commons Authorities challenged the decision on the grounds that it was unlawfully intrusive. The High Court ruled in favour of releasing the details of the expenses claims. Subsequently the House of Commons authorities announced that publication of expenses, with certain information deemed sensitive removed, would be made in July 2009.
However before this could take place, a full uncensored copy of the expenses records and documentation was leaked to the Daily Telegraph, which began publishing details. The inference being that the sensitive information was actually a smokescreen, which would have resulted in various scams never being exposed.

[blackpoolhibs]

It'd be one hell of a scoop.

I'm just posing the question, the NOTW have exposed lots of criminal behaviour, most recently the Pakistani cricketers. If hacking a phone exposed corruption or a crime or a Tory sex scandal wouldn't the ends justify the means?

Surely this is police work, not folk who work for a newspaper? These folk are supposed to show us the news, not instigate it imo.

[Hibrandenburg]

What if by hacking Millie Dowlers phone the NOTW had caught the killer or managed to find Millie alive?

Think the phone tapping would have hindered the investigation if anything. The fact that the family were pressuring the police to follow a red herring lead must have wasted a few man hours.

[Future17]

A Freedom of Information Act request for the release of details of MPs' expenses claims was allowed by an Information Tribunal. The House of Commons Authorities challenged the decision on the grounds that it was unlawfully intrusive. The High Court ruled in favour of releasing the details of the expenses claims. Subsequently the House of Commons authorities announced that publication of expenses, with certain information deemed sensitive removed, would be made in July 2009.
However before this could take place, a full uncensored copy of the expenses records and documentation was leaked to the Daily Telegraph, which began publishing details. The inference being that the sensitive information was actually a smokescreen, which would have resulted in various scams never being exposed.

I remember discussing this at the time. If the Daily Telegraph has been truly interested in "the public interest" then they would have held on to the uncensored document in order to wait and see what was actually release by Parliament and what was censored.

[Big Ed]

I remember discussing this at the time. If the Daily Telegraph has been truly interested in "the public interest" then they would have held on to the uncensored document in order to wait and see what was actually release by Parliament and what was censored.

I referred to the Telegraph acting in the public interest, as an example of when it would be appropriate to break the law, in order to bring to light a story of far greater magnitude (which is what happened).
Your point is worth making. I certainly didn’t conclude that their sole purpose was for the common good: the fact that they printed fresh revelations on a daily, drip feed basis, suggests that they also liked the idea of increased circulation.