Re: Report: UK tabloid hacked into voicemails
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:04 am
Here's an old story about how Andy Coulson, NOTW editor and then Head of Communications for current Prime Minister David Cameron (yeah, I know you all know, but furners still mightn't) scratched the back of Andy Hayman, head of Specialist Operations for the Met, away back in the olden times of 2010:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/20 ... dy-hayman/
And how The Sun, quite restrainedly by their standards, helped the Met in smearing De Menezes as a suspected rapist back in 2006:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... e40996.ece
Extra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_J ... llegations
And how Coulson scratched Hayman's back even harder yet more soothingly back in 2005, immediately after the Menezes shooting:
http://twitpic.com/3fkntc/full
And then there's the Forest Gate raid... where the NOTW, exonerating the Met, claimed that one of the suspects had shot the other, whereas in fact the police had shot him without good reason (for raising his arm - not a gun, his arm).
200 officers busted into a house to arrest two suspects who were later shown to be innocent, despite the fact that both were Muslim men. The man who was shot, after bringing charges against the Met for compensation, was then picked up and charged with having child porn on his computer - this being loudly trumpetted by the NOTW - but was then shown to be entirely innocent of that charge too! Coverage of his innocence was minimal.
Given what Tom Watson has said about the other methods NOTW used - trojan horses, computer hacking, etc. - is it a stretch to think that they, or their private eye employees, could be used as a deniable implanter of child porn on the home computers of those who threaten or inconvenience certain people within the Met? Or they might plant it themselves just to prolong or give flavour to a story? The conviction of Karen Matthews' boyfriend on those grounds never seemed right to me, however scummy he might've been. It was like a scripted epilogue to a perfect NOTW editorial about "broken britain."
We know that the Murdoch papers committed or facilitated criminal acts solely in order to report them, as in the Victoria Beckham kidnapping conspiracy. And we know that nothing was off-limits or beneath them, as Paul MacMullan is only too happy to keep telling us, with either pride, defiance, or fleeting remorse depending on his current level of sobriety:
There are (still) people who claim that the NOTW served the public interest. Who the hell cared or needed to know about Denholm Elliot by this stage, nevermind his daughter? FFS! They killed her.
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/20 ... dy-hayman/
And how The Sun, quite restrainedly by their standards, helped the Met in smearing De Menezes as a suspected rapist back in 2006:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... e40996.ece
Extra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_J ... llegations
And how Coulson scratched Hayman's back even harder yet more soothingly back in 2005, immediately after the Menezes shooting:
http://twitpic.com/3fkntc/full
And then there's the Forest Gate raid... where the NOTW, exonerating the Met, claimed that one of the suspects had shot the other, whereas in fact the police had shot him without good reason (for raising his arm - not a gun, his arm).
200 officers busted into a house to arrest two suspects who were later shown to be innocent, despite the fact that both were Muslim men. The man who was shot, after bringing charges against the Met for compensation, was then picked up and charged with having child porn on his computer - this being loudly trumpetted by the NOTW - but was then shown to be entirely innocent of that charge too! Coverage of his innocence was minimal.
Given what Tom Watson has said about the other methods NOTW used - trojan horses, computer hacking, etc. - is it a stretch to think that they, or their private eye employees, could be used as a deniable implanter of child porn on the home computers of those who threaten or inconvenience certain people within the Met? Or they might plant it themselves just to prolong or give flavour to a story? The conviction of Karen Matthews' boyfriend on those grounds never seemed right to me, however scummy he might've been. It was like a scripted epilogue to a perfect NOTW editorial about "broken britain."
We know that the Murdoch papers committed or facilitated criminal acts solely in order to report them, as in the Victoria Beckham kidnapping conspiracy. And we know that nothing was off-limits or beneath them, as Paul MacMullan is only too happy to keep telling us, with either pride, defiance, or fleeting remorse depending on his current level of sobriety:
There are (still) people who claim that the NOTW served the public interest. Who the hell cared or needed to know about Denholm Elliot by this stage, nevermind his daughter? FFS! They killed her.



