This is a specific and different charge, so don't bring that in.
Why not? it concerns the same empire and the pattern is the same on here. Pretty much everyone knew about phone hacking but - due to "willful blindness" (on the part of politicians and the Murdochs) - there was "no evidence".
The ITV digital cards being hacked is not exactly a new revelation, but you are hiding behind the "no evidence" thing here as well.
That doesn't do anyone any good to do this.
Whatever the facts, this story just reeks of "butthurt".
So are you saying it doesn't actually matter what the facts are??!!
It saying something when she could appear on the same screen as Piers Morgan and come out of it looking like a far bigger plonker than him.
I think loiuse Mensch is a lovely lady, she just does not think before she opens her mouth, but she love's the Murdoch's and has been with Labour now the conservative's next may be UKIP or she may just interveiw people the same as Piers Morgan or work for SKY
I think loiuse Mensch is a lovely lady, she just does not think before she opens her mouth, but she love's the Murdoch's and has been with Labour now the conservative's next may be UKIP or she may just interveiw people the same as Piers Morgan or work for SKY
I find it refreshing that there is an MP out there who has the balls to say what she really thinks, without hedging what they think in obscure legalisms. Inentitably that means occasional mistakes. She even had the backbone to admit a mistake and apologise. Not saying I agree with everthing she says, just that the world would be better with more honest MPs.
I find it refreshing that there is an MP out there who has the balls to say what she really thinks, without hedging what they think in obscure legalisms. Inentitably that means occasional mistakes. She even had the backbone to admit a mistake and apologise. Not saying I agree with everthing she says, just that the world would be better with more honest MPs.
Did you watch the video i4u linked to? She made a complete idiot of herself by refusing to apologise when she must have already known she was in the wrong. Morgan even read the passage out to her she had misquoted. She had no choice but to apologise in the end because she would have been censured for hiding behind parliamentary priveledge. If she really had balls like you say she would have apologised on camera to Morgan then.
Also if questioning Murdoch about something that wasn't even supposed to have happened at his newspapers and was based on something she read in a newspaper is saying what she thinks then wouldn't it be better to keep her thoughts to herself?
Opening up the debate a bit, does Sky broadcast hard core porn on any of it's operations in other countries? Given management links and shared core values, what would that say about fitness to run a UK channel?
(The same question could be asked of any international broacasting organisation. Answers might differ).
Why not? it concerns the same empire and the pattern is the same on here. Pretty much everyone knew about phone hacking but - due to "willful blindness" (on the part of politicians and the Murdochs) - there was "no evidence".
The ITV digital cards being hacked is not exactly a new revelation, but you are hiding behind the "no evidence" thing here as well.
That doesn't do anyone any good to do this.
So are you saying it doesn't actually matter what the facts are??!!
One claim has no relevance to another, its just piling on, I could say that you plagerized your post, and then add on some murder right? You judge on the merits of each individual incident unless you wish to go down the road of the salem witch trials where hysteria rules the day.
You don't seem aware how the CANAL+ code was embedded in its cards, that sophiscated technology would be required to get access to the code, before even attempting to decode it.
About 2 years ago Panorama ran a programme about phone and computer hacking by the NOTWs which at the time was dismissed as nonsense.... mmmmm.
Newspaper reports on "hacking" tend to border on hyperbole thanks to reporters having almost no knowledge of technology themselves. Hackers don't sit there "guessing" passwords in the first place, if your password isn't on the pre-generated lists out there by default you have to find other vectors for attack, this is simply the basics, to make something more of that than it is kind of tells us what kind of exaggeration is going on with the story.
One claim has no relevance to another, its just piling on, I could say that you plagerized your post, and then add on some murder right? You judge on the merits of each individual incident unless you wish to go down the road of the salem witch trials where hysteria rules the day.
I see what you are saying, but they are both examples of ill behaviour by a group who are reknowned for it and have been for years, but never called on it, until now of course....
Did you watch the video i4u linked to? She made a complete idiot of herself by refusing to apologise when she must have already known she was in the wrong. Morgan even read the passage out to her she had misquoted. She had no choice but to apologise in the end because she would have been censured for hiding behind parliamentary priveledge. If she really had balls like you say she would have apologised on camera to Morgan then.
Also if questioning Murdoch about something that wasn't even supposed to have happened at his newspapers and was based on something she read in a newspaper is saying what she thinks then wouldn't it be better to keep her thoughts to herself?
Still better than the performance some MPs turn in. Some would still be trying to wriggle out of it. She could have issued a correction sooner, my point was that her original (wrong) statement came from a sense of conviction, not party central office or a bunch of civil servants, and had not been picked over by the lawyers first. Sometimes big changes start with one MP not slavishly following the line. This time she got it wrong.
I find it refreshing that there is an MP out there who has the balls to say what she really thinks, without hedging what they think in obscure legalisms. Inentitably that means occasional mistakes. She even had the backbone to admit a mistake and apologise. Not saying I agree with everthing she says, just that the world would be better with more honest MPs.
The trouble is with Loiuse Mensch is she honest or does she just say what someone else want's her to say ie Cameron, Osbourne and the Murdoch's:o and as for backbone I would not want to comment
Still better than the performance some MPs turn in. Some would still be trying to wriggle out of it. She could have issued a correction sooner, my point was that her original (wrong) statement came from a sense of conviction, not party central office or a bunch of civil servants, and had not been picked over by the lawyers first. Sometimes big changes start with one MP not slavishly following the line. This time she got it wrong.
She misquoted from a book that a couple of minutes research by an assistant would have proved incorrect. The question was about the Mirror. Why was she even asking Murdoch a question about the Mirror?
Giving her credit for eventually apologising when it was so easy to demonstrate that she was wrong is a bit generous IMO. Using parliamentary privilege to hide behind such obviously wrong information would maybe even led to her removal from the committee. It certainly should have done if she persisted with a claim that was so obviously wrong.
It may be that eventually other newspaper organisations will be drawn into this. It wont happen from asking Rupert Murdoch about something that was nothing to do with him based on misquoting an article in the Telegraph.
Anyhow I didn't bring this subject up. It's the fact that she has tried her best to undermine the majority decision of the committee that means I have no respect for her. especially when the reason she has given for doing it also seems to be false. The 'not fit' proposal was not sprung on the committee at the last moment as she claimed.
One claim has no relevance to another, its just piling on, I could say that you plagerized your post, and then add on some murder right? You judge on the merits of each individual incident unless you wish to go down the road of the salem witch trials where hysteria rules the day.
Oh very droll - playing the "let's just be calm and reasonable" card in defence of a proprietor who made his fortune by exploiting every salacious trick in the book to sell his tabloid newspapers (which have not exactly shirked from conducting plenty of witch trials over the years either).
Still, fair enough, let's talk about "individual incidents" shall we?
Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't have an investigation into NI thinking they were above the law because people buy the Sun and watch Sky tv? What about the majority who don't buy the Sun or subscribe to Sky? As i have already pointed out anyway people who want to watch sports have Hobson's choice.
Not having an inquiry because a lot of people would - might - be affected would be like letting banks off staggering incompetence just because they are big.
Oh very droll - playing the "let's just be calm and reasonable" card in defence of a proprietor who made his fortune by exploiting every salacious trick in the book to sell his tabloid newspapers (which have not exactly shirked from conducting plenty of witch trials over the years either).
Still, fair enough, let's talk about "individual incidents" shall we?
If you had looked
"In early 2006, Valassis settled a complaint by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission that it had attempted to collude with News America Marketing, its top rival, to eliminate competition between the two. Under a consent order, Valassis was barred from engaging in similar conduct.[3]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valassis
The dirt is more complicated than you'd probably like...
The fact remains, the "hacking" as shown by my links is so common that to make it out to be something so nefarious and on such a high level that it was like a space program is simply misleading.
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the second biggest shareholder in Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation,
has revealed his frustration with the fallout from the News of the World phone-hacking scandal and
admitted that it is harming the reputation of the company overall, not just its publishing interests.
If you had looked
"In early 2006, Valassis settled a complaint by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission that it had attempted to collude with News America Marketing, its top rival, to eliminate competition between the two. Under a consent order, Valassis was barred from engaging in similar conduct.[3]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valassis
The dirt is more complicated than you'd probably like...
The fact remains, the "hacking" as shown by my links is so common that to make it out to be something so nefarious and on such a high level that it was like a space program is simply misleading.
(my emphasis)
Fair enough - let's have a closer at this particular "more complicated"/"so common" example shall we?
Sept. 27 (Bloomberg) -- A News Corp. unit that used lessons gleaned from gangster films to motivate employees and crush rivals is the latest arm of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire to be swept up in a probe that began with hacking and bribery allegations.
Already the subject of inquiries in America and the U.K. of police payoffs and illegal voice-mail access by its British newspapers, News Corp. has been asked by U.S. investigators for documents relating to its News America Marketing Group, which places in-store ads in supermarkets and retailers worldwide, according to a person familiar with the matter......
Along with the request for files, prosecutors asked this month to meet with lawyers for Robert Emmel, a former News America employee who alleged in court papers the division violated racketeering laws and engaged in “predatory and anticompetitive schemes.”
... The Floorgraphics case that has piqued the interest of U.S. investigators, according to the person familiar with the recent document request, began in 2004 when the company sued News America, saying its rival was seeking to drive it out of business. At the 2009 trial, George Rebh, co-founder of Floorgraphics, which places ads on the floors of supermarkets, testified that Carlucci threatened him in 1999 after he refused to sell his company to News America.
“If you ever get into any of our businesses, I will destroy you,” Carlucci said, according to Rebh’s testimony. Then, referring to Murdoch, Carlucci added, “I work for a man who wants it all,” Rebh testified.
Carlucci has denied making such statements.
From then on, Floorgraphics claimed, News America made improper payments to gain retailers’ business, spread misinformation about Floorgraphics’ success in installing ads and defaced some of its floor ads, creating the potential of slip-and-fall lawsuits that would deter retailers from doing business with Floorgraphics, according to testimony at trial. By 2009, Floorgraphics, now based in Hamilton, New Jersey, had gone from 85 employees to fewer than 25.
“News America never ‘defaced or scraped up’ Floorgraphics’ products,” Halpin said, calling all the allegations “false.”
A News America lawyer acknowledged to the jury in the case that “some person” had used a company computer to hack into Floorgraphics’ password-protected customer website.
Lawyers for Floorgraphics presented evidence that one or more people using the News America computer system had hacked into the rival’s website 11 different times over a four-month period.
The case settled six days into the trial when News America agreed to purchase Floorgraphics’ assets for $29.5 million.
Also that year, News America suffered its biggest legal defeat in a trial against Valassis Communications Inc., a Livonia, Michigan-based marketer that competed to sell coupons in Sunday newspapers. After a Detroit jury ordered News America to pay $300 million, the companies settled that and two other suits for a total of $500 million.
....Even with the lawsuits, Murdoch was pleased with Carlucci’s performance, according to evidence presented at the Valassis trial. Murdoch rewarded him in 2005 with a second job as publisher of the New York Post.
So what do people think of this small selection from the news report which deserves to be read in full? Common or complicated, you decide!
Murdoch is a patsy for the bigger-wigs up the ladder.
Did he have a fall-out with them and they set him up?
Would be good to discuss Who is bigger than Murdoch....who set him up for a fall.
Who do you set him up then? I suppose we could say this wouldn't all have come out if it wasn't for the royal family complaining their phones had been hacked. Maybe the Duke of Edinburgh is out to get Rupert.
Who do you set him up then? I suppose we could say this wouldn't all have come out if it wasn't for the royal family complaining their phones had been hacked. Maybe the Duke of Edinburgh is out to get Rupert.
Who knows..............loads of big corporate big fishes that are bigger than Murdoch that could've set him up.
But I think it would be a good guessing game and good new thread, don't you?
Edit: In fact, I think I'll start a thread asking exactly that question
So what do people think of this small selection from the news report which deserves to be read in full? Common or complicated, you decide!
Ruthless is ruthless, so whats your point other than that you don't like it?
Like it or not the way they are going after just him is ideological. Look into most any surviving corporation and you will find the same, steve jobs back dated his stock options, and colluded with other corps to keep employees from jumping ship to get higher salaries and the rest...did you see the uk government going out of their way to call steve jobs unfit?
Ruthless is ruthless, so whats your point other than that you don't like it?
Like it or not the way they are going after just him is ideological. Look into most any surviving corporation and you will find the same, steve jobs back dated his stock options, and colluded with other corps to keep employees from jumping ship to get higher salaries and the rest...did you see the uk government going out of their way to call steve jobs unfit?
He did not allow hacking and other corrupt actions to take place , talk about trying to kick a man when he is dead you should be ashamed :mad:
Former hackers were being employed to hack into rivals encryption software, they were provided with facilities they would not have had available unless funded by a commercial company.
A hackers website was set up, said to be under the control of companies associated with the Murdoch empire.
The purpose of the website was said to be to prevent hacking, but it was claimed rival companies codes somehow appeared on the website.
Hacking of TV is still common place, little more tricky now maybe, but many thousands still watch all manner of channels without paying the provider, although they do pay the 'supplier' beit by card or sharing. so ITV many have been hacked by NDS, but it was only a matter of time before it was done anyway, if not already done, but it seems ITV ignored the problem. the likes of TV1000 / TV3 / the Dutch Channels etc, all fought back
Comments
Why not? it concerns the same empire and the pattern is the same on here. Pretty much everyone knew about phone hacking but - due to "willful blindness" (on the part of politicians and the Murdochs) - there was "no evidence".
The ITV digital cards being hacked is not exactly a new revelation, but you are hiding behind the "no evidence" thing here as well.
That doesn't do anyone any good to do this.
So are you saying it doesn't actually matter what the facts are??!!
It saying something when she could appear on the same screen as Piers Morgan and come out of it looking like a far bigger plonker than him.
I think loiuse Mensch is a lovely lady, she just does not think before she opens her mouth, but she love's the Murdoch's and has been with Labour now the conservative's next may be UKIP or she may just interveiw people the same as Piers Morgan or work for SKY
I find it refreshing that there is an MP out there who has the balls to say what she really thinks, without hedging what they think in obscure legalisms. Inentitably that means occasional mistakes. She even had the backbone to admit a mistake and apologise. Not saying I agree with everthing she says, just that the world would be better with more honest MPs.
Did you watch the video i4u linked to? She made a complete idiot of herself by refusing to apologise when she must have already known she was in the wrong. Morgan even read the passage out to her she had misquoted. She had no choice but to apologise in the end because she would have been censured for hiding behind parliamentary priveledge. If she really had balls like you say she would have apologised on camera to Morgan then.
Also if questioning Murdoch about something that wasn't even supposed to have happened at his newspapers and was based on something she read in a newspaper is saying what she thinks then wouldn't it be better to keep her thoughts to herself?
(The same question could be asked of any international broacasting organisation. Answers might differ).
One claim has no relevance to another, its just piling on, I could say that you plagerized your post, and then add on some murder right?
Newspaper reports on "hacking" tend to border on hyperbole thanks to reporters having almost no knowledge of technology themselves. Hackers don't sit there "guessing" passwords in the first place, if your password isn't on the pre-generated lists out there by default you have to find other vectors for attack, this is simply the basics, to make something more of that than it is kind of tells us what kind of exaggeration is going on with the story.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/04/smartcard_hacking_tools/
As you can see people hacking "smart card" type encryption has been happening for a while, even without supposed newscorp funding, these things are hacked regardless.
From the looks of it they were relying not on real security but security from obscurity, which is why they were compromised so easily.
I see what you are saying, but they are both examples of ill behaviour by a group who are reknowned for it and have been for years, but never called on it, until now of course....
Still better than the performance some MPs turn in. Some would still be trying to wriggle out of it. She could have issued a correction sooner, my point was that her original (wrong) statement came from a sense of conviction, not party central office or a bunch of civil servants, and had not been picked over by the lawyers first. Sometimes big changes start with one MP not slavishly following the line. This time she got it wrong.
The trouble is with Loiuse Mensch is she honest or does she just say what someone else want's her to say ie Cameron, Osbourne and the Murdoch's:o and as for backbone I would not want to comment
She misquoted from a book that a couple of minutes research by an assistant would have proved incorrect. The question was about the Mirror. Why was she even asking Murdoch a question about the Mirror?
Giving her credit for eventually apologising when it was so easy to demonstrate that she was wrong is a bit generous IMO. Using parliamentary privilege to hide behind such obviously wrong information would maybe even led to her removal from the committee. It certainly should have done if she persisted with a claim that was so obviously wrong.
It may be that eventually other newspaper organisations will be drawn into this. It wont happen from asking Rupert Murdoch about something that was nothing to do with him based on misquoting an article in the Telegraph.
Anyhow I didn't bring this subject up. It's the fact that she has tried her best to undermine the majority decision of the committee that means I have no respect for her. especially when the reason she has given for doing it also seems to be false. The 'not fit' proposal was not sprung on the committee at the last moment as she claimed.
Oh very droll - playing the "let's just be calm and reasonable" card in defence of a proprietor who made his fortune by exploiting every salacious trick in the book to sell his tabloid newspapers (which have not exactly shirked from conducting plenty of witch trials over the years either).
Still, fair enough, let's talk about "individual incidents" shall we?
Starting with the Floorgraphics case.
Not having an inquiry because a lot of people would - might - be affected would be like letting banks off staggering incompetence just because they are big.
If you had looked
"In early 2006, Valassis settled a complaint by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission that it had attempted to collude with News America Marketing, its top rival, to eliminate competition between the two. Under a consent order, Valassis was barred from engaging in similar conduct.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valassis
The dirt is more complicated than you'd probably like...
The fact remains, the "hacking" as shown by my links is so common that to make it out to be something so nefarious and on such a high level that it was like a space program is simply misleading.
Fair enough - let's have a closer at this particular "more complicated"/"so common" example shall we?
News Corp. Marketing Subsidiary Probed by U.S. Over Tactics
So what do people think of this small selection from the news report which deserves to be read in full? Common or complicated, you decide!
Did he have a fall-out with them and they set him up?
Would be good to discuss Who is bigger than Murdoch....who set him up for a fall.
Who do you set him up then? I suppose we could say this wouldn't all have come out if it wasn't for the royal family complaining their phones had been hacked. Maybe the Duke of Edinburgh is out to get Rupert.
Who knows..............loads of big corporate big fishes that are bigger than Murdoch that could've set him up.
But I think it would be a good guessing game and good new thread, don't you?
Edit: In fact, I think I'll start a thread asking exactly that question
Ruthless is ruthless, so whats your point other than that you don't like it?
Like it or not the way they are going after just him is ideological. Look into most any surviving corporation and you will find the same, steve jobs back dated his stock options, and colluded with other corps to keep employees from jumping ship to get higher salaries and the rest...did you see the uk government going out of their way to call steve jobs unfit?
He did not allow hacking and other corrupt actions to take place , talk about trying to kick a man when he is dead you should be ashamed :mad:
Hacking of TV is still common place, little more tricky now maybe, but many thousands still watch all manner of channels without paying the provider, although they do pay the 'supplier' beit by card or sharing. so ITV many have been hacked by NDS, but it was only a matter of time before it was done anyway, if not already done, but it seems ITV ignored the problem. the likes of TV1000 / TV3 / the Dutch Channels etc, all fought back
False outrage with a dose of more false outrage, I guess you are making my point for me.