On 23-7-2011 19:10, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/23/2011 0:52, andrel wrote:
>> What is yesbuthowever for kind of a source? Never heard of it.
>
> Me neither. It was just the first one I found while googling.

Seems fair. Still: blog or news source?

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/07/2011718201941133707.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/19/uk.phone.hacking.hoare/index.html

> Unfortunately the cream pie kind of pushed anything more relevant off
> the front pages for a while, so it was surprisingly hard to come up with
> search terms.

Here it was just a very small sideline, then again we don't have any 
Murdoch financed 'news' media here. I can imagine that a channel like 
Fox used it to make a victim out of Murdoch, even to such an extend that 
more serious papers had to follow.

>> 'There were rumours that police were involved. This led to the
>> resignation of two of Scotland Yard’s top cops.'
>
> Well, no. Murdoch was tapping phones by paying the police to do it for him.

Murdoch himself certainly wasn't. The police have been accused of taking 
briberies, but that has not been proved as far as I know. I might have 
not completely followed the story, but it generally is about hacking not 
tapping. I can not remember seeing a direct claim that police was 
tapping phones and passing the data to the NotW or any other Murdoch paper.
Anyway, the two policemen resigned because their position was untenable 
because there was widespread doubt about their loyalty and professional 
conduct. But, and that is the point, their resignation does not prove 
anything other than their ability to understand the inevitable. You can 
claim otherwise, but a journalist can't, because it implies they are 
guilty *because* there is a suspicion. That violates the 'innocent until 
proven guilty' principle.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message