GDPR Cookie Consent by SimpleServe Privacy Script commons debate on phone hacking - AAD Consumer Forum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

commons debate on phone hacking

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • garlok
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    Absolutely PlanB

    Leave a comment:


  • PlanB
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    Originally posted by 5corpio View Post
    Red Top




    By paying a police officer for information, not only does the police officer commit a criminal offence under the Link: Public Bodies Corruption Act 1889 (as amended by the Link: Prevention of Corruption Act of 1916) in receiving the money or other material inducement, so does the person paying the bribe.
    Which is why I believe the police are Public Enemy Number 1 for accepting the bribes, and not the journalists for offering them - all newspapers pay for their stories, but the police could have said "no thank you".

    Interestingly the phone hacking story broke in 2007 with Sienna Millar and a couple of junior royals as victims, but it's only when Joe Public's privacy was violated that we are up in arms. Quite rightly so. Celebs have put themselves in the public domain, relatives of soldiers killed and murdered or missing children's families (with the exception of one) have not. Fleet Street is has truly deserved the name of the Gutter Press on this occasion.

    Leave a comment:


  • garlok
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    Yep confused, we have been saying this for a while. Its actually called the "Chipping Norton Set" Horse riding, booze ups and the like. And still Cameron covers them! What does the ginger tart have on him?

    regards
    Garlok

    Leave a comment:


  • pompeyfaith
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    David Cameron knows more than he is letting on and if he cannot be honest with his citizens who btw put him in office as PM then that is a vote of NO CONFIDENCE

    Leave a comment:


  • confused76
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    just watching the news now...David Cameron is mates with Coulson and Wade!

    Leave a comment:


  • garlok
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    Thanks 5corpio!

    I would still ask the questions as to why Cameron is allowing the Met to conduct the investigation inot their own corruption, clearly admitted to a commons Select Committee by one of the transgressors!

    regards
    Garlok

    Leave a comment:


  • 5corpio
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    Red Top

    On 11 March 2003, the editor of the Sun newspaper, Rebekah Wade, Link: admitted before the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee that while she had been an editor with News International she had paid police officers for information. The information was given in answer to a direct question from the Labour MP, Chris Bryant.

    Culture, Media and Sport Commons Select Committee Link: 11 March 2003

    467. And on the element of whether you ever pay the police for information?
    (Ms Wade) We have paid the police for information in the past.

    468. And will you do it in the future?
    (Ms Wade) It depends—


    By paying a police officer for information, not only does the police officer commit a criminal offence under the Link: Public Bodies Corruption Act 1889 (as amended by the Link: Prevention of Corruption Act of 1916) in receiving the money or other material inducement, so does the person paying the bribe.

    Leave a comment:


  • confused76
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    Originally posted by Never-In-Doubt View Post
    Whaaaaat, you're saying Dot Cotton doesn't exist?
    of course she exists! she runs the launderette in Walford Square

    Leave a comment:


  • PlanB
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    Originally posted by Never-In-Doubt View Post
    Whaaaaat, you're saying Dot Cotton doesn't exist?
    Well I read that on this forum so it must be true. But then I asked the Tooth Fairy and she said it was just a rumour started to unsettle people. What a relief.

    Leave a comment:


  • IF
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    Originally posted by Never-In-Doubt View Post
    Whaaaaat, you're saying Dot Cotton doesn't exist?
    I know.....I'm still in shock here!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Never-In-Doubt
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    Originally posted by PlanB View Post
    Rebekka Wade was married to 'Grant Mitchell' from Eastenders. Maybe that's why she has a questionable moral compass. Perhaps we should let Dot Cotton (if she exists) decide her fate from here . . .
    Whaaaaat, you're saying Dot Cotton doesn't exist?

    Leave a comment:


  • garlok
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    The other question that has to now be asked as conman Cameron seems to be incapable of any good judgment or acting properly in this affair, just how many phones have been hacked by Coulson and Brooks on his instructions for him?

    A flat denial Cameron will not suffice!

    regards
    Garlok

    Leave a comment:


  • PlanB
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    Rebekka Wade was married to 'Grant Mitchell' from Eastenders. Maybe that's why she has a questionable moral compass. Perhaps we should let Dot Cotton (if she exists) decide her fate from here . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • pompeyfaith
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    Garlok,

    Indeed, as as for camerons statement I did not buy it still he stands by those that done wrong absolutly shameless.

    Regards

    Leave a comment:


  • garlok
    replied
    Re: commons debate on phone hacking

    I would still ask why is the Met allowed to investigate this in conjunction with the ginger tart? Can't we traffic her to the Middle East in the sex trade?

    Surely someone of at least assistant chief constable rank from another force, preferably shall we say Scottish along with a specialist team with wide ranging powers of arrest and interrogation should have been brought in to do this?

    What becomes clearer by the day is the stinking cesspit of corruption that the British establishment has become. Right across the board as well from the Cabinet Office, Lord Chancellor's office downwards.

    regards
    Garlok
    Last edited by garlok; 8 July 2011, 08:47.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X