Talk:News International phone hacking scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Original Police Inquiry[edit]

There is nothing about the first police Inquiry which was remarkably lenient to the point that John Prescott was told that he had not been hacked but subsequently found 44 occasions & said that the police had deliberately concealed this from him. I quote from the Wikipedia article Andy Hayman-

"Hayman was in charge of the inquiry into the News of the World phone hacking affair. In April 2010 The Guardian reported that he "subsequently left the police to work for News International as a columnist." He has contributed to The Times, owned by NI, and there has "written in defence of the police investigation and maintained there were 'perhaps a handful' of hacking victims."

Is it usual that a police officer investigates a suspect, gives him a clean bill of health, then obtains a job working for them? Perhaps this is the real story behind this affair. Cynical people might be reminded of the good old days when senior police officers went on holiday with major crime figures. --Streona (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also - what steps were taken to force the investigation. I think I remember it was forced by a court order that the police proceed, or else they were fobbing it off. There is nothing in the article of the struggle Gordon Brown took to get the investigation moving. The public would like to know so that we can use the same methods if we need police and are not celebrities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.79.150 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Article in dire need of update[edit]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/02/british-police-make-eight-more-phone-hacking-related-arrests.html - February 11th, 2012, British police make eight more arrests to do with phone hacking "related" arrests.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/02/rupert-murdoch-flies-to-london-to-confront-angry-tabloid-staff.html - February 17th, 2012, Rupert Murdoch flies to London to confront angry tabloid staff.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-james-murdoch-20120301,0,570290.story - March 1st, 2012, News Corp. heir apparent James Murdoch resigns from London post.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/us-newscorp-journalists-pressure-idUSTRE8251HX20120306 - March 7th, 2012, two journalists in suicide attempts.

Adding all of the above information to the timeline, for starters, would be helpful. Then add the same information to the rest of the article in some way, perhaps?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Article updated[edit]

Look, I decided to do it myself.

A few things, if anyone and I mean anyone can find any phone hacking related events that happened between 13 December 2011 and 11 February 2012 then please feel free and add them to the timeline. Secondly, I propose a piece be added under the header Fallout from scandal to do with the attempted suicides of the two journalists who have been obviously caught up in this huge on-going scandal. If anyone wants to edit the timeline from 13 December 2011 to 7 March 2012 (my editing) then feel free to do so as in being more clear about what happened, who was involved and also maybe using different descriptive wording... adjectives.

Last but not least, someone has appeared to have vandalised (not an honest mistake) the timeline in the article by doubling the dates up and bolding one of them. I decided not to fix it while I had the chance because I wanted everyone to see it and I think we should wait and see to find out if the cheeky devil will fix it him or herself especially now I have spoken out about it. That appeared to have happened at the same time I was making my changes to the article. -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Article updated[edit]

A new development today (13 March 2012) and a rather big one too if I may say so, so that has been noted in the timeline and perhaps also somewhere else in the article? Anyone? So, geez, where is everyone? Has the upkeep of this article fallen on the shoulders of me? For now?

Two things, if anyone knows whether James Murdoch was questioned by the same parliamentary committee that he was on the 10 November 2011, that is... the Culture, Media and Sports committee and not another then please edit the timeline, someone, to correct that? Secondly, if anyone thinks that I could word myself better with my timeline editing then please feel free to edit it yourselves but right now, I think I am allll byyyy myyyyself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Article updated[edit]

I think I am finished updating the article for now. I added a new piece under Fallout from scandal to do with the attempted suicides of the two News International journalists. I think that if there is a successful suicide in future, it will be of course detailed in the article and timeline, if not by me then someone else (hopefully), but the heading should change to Suicides and maybe the piece on the two attempted suicides should be moved under any new development like that.

While editing, I noticed that many of the dates are correct, but missing years on the end, I feel this is important. What if a reader logs on and reads July 17 but is kept in the dark by not knowing which year? This has happened in the timeline as well as the rest of the article. This scandal, or how some others have said they would like for it to be referred as, affair, has been simmering for years but boiled over in mid-July 2011 as we all know. So does that not warrant the year being noted with a date such as July 17 or November 11 so the reader knows when exactly that development happened? Please, if there is anybody out there, submit your thoughts on this or anything else I have raised.

I also noted the second arrest of Rebekah Brooks on March 13. In the report that was sourced from The Wrap, according to them four others were also arrested. Does anyone else believe this? Who are these people that were taken in by police in the arrest? I think this is a nuisance of a fabrication myself but I included it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Article updated[edit]

So I have finally added the latest developments I raised when I first stumbled upon this Wikipedia article to the well, article. Again, if anyone reads my edits and thinks there is something wrong, then please feel free to make any changes.

I think that is all. -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

All of the reverted edits were unsourced. They were also written in a slangy tabloid style. Please find reliable sources for these additions before re-adding them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Is not 'slangy tabloid style' appropriate for the subject? ;)

Many are probably thinking along the following lines:

Journalistic investigation will involve a certain amount of grey hattery.

If 'them at the top' knew that the journalists were going into black hat domains they are culpable.

If them at the top didn't know 'they should have'/they created a climate in which it could occur, so they are culpable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Future[edit]

With News Corporation possibly splitting in two in the future, I think Rupert Murdoch and his family should keep a closer eye on what goes on at News Corp. Hopefully, another scandal can be prevented.

173.57.39.183 (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Anonymous

Well that is what you think but I will remind you that the talk page is for discussion of the article, as in the article, not the articles subject. I edited the article and updated it many a time but some wiseguy came along and deleted all my edits except for those in the timeline. I'm not going to familiar myself further with Wikipedia policy, forget it. So with that I'm not making any more updates to this article. I still visited today to see if anyone else had been updating this article and yes someone has appeared to have done so. 02:49, 12 July 2012‎ User:60.234.214.63

Article, once again, in dire need of update[edit]

I said I won't do it and I will stand by that, unless I can be somehow persuaded. This scandal, story, affair... call it what you will hasn't been in the news as much lately but there have been still many developments since May of this year. Mark my words, there will be more. Anyone care to detail them in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to update it and have such an apathetic stance, why should that invigorate other editors to make you happy by doing the work?Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked a valid and open question, and it has been months now, I suppose nobody cares. Well, so be it. What I said shouldn't motivate anyone to update this article, I guess. But if someone had read my question and thought... Ah! I care! I will make an update here and there for those like myself interested in this article!, and let all of us know of their action or actions, then that's fine. This story has not gone away and it is pretty near two years ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed this badly needs updating. Unfortunately it is so rambling and unwieldy and out of date that it would be a major effort to do it well. It's not clear to me that the content even appears under the correct title any more. The article's focus on News is straying into POV, I think. Although a large fraction of the coverage has focused on NewsCorp, it seems fairly clear that the problems go much further into the British press. This article itself already refers to very serious allegations (and arrests) against Trinity Mirror Group newspapers, for instance, for all the same activities that happened at NotW. None of the investigations have specifically focussed on NewsCorp - operations Motorman, Weeting, and Elveden and the Leveson inquiry have all been general investigations into press activity, not focused on NewsCorp. I don't think anyone is really to blame for this - the problem is that the scope of the scandal has expanded beyond News since most of the content was written.

In fact it's quite possible this article should be disbanded altogether and merged into [News media phone hacking scandal] - it covers the same ground but has a broader focus. Also rather better written, IMO. GoldenRing (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Trolls trolling this talk page[edit]

I just want to let everyone know do not pay any attention to the trolls especially at the top of this talk page. It is obvious they are trolls because they are there to try and hide inside knowledge and sway public opimion in favour of the media conglomerates rather than the victims. I would have liked to have seen more coverage of this and there should be, but this article needs more updates and someone should do it for ultimately the sake of education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Length[edit]

Good grief, 15,000 words! Sca (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)