And all this from one blokes actions working for one paper. Thats just so laughable.

I smell scapegoating. I'd bet serious money that all of the tabloids do exactly the same.

Second please spare me the moral outrage of a bunch of politicians. Especially from the sleaziest party ever - Labour. Have you forgotten or forgiven being stolen from for years by these b*********s? Because I haven't. Jacqui Smith - stole 100K from us and didn't pay it back. Baronness Angela Smith - sort of forgot that a mortgage she was claiming for didn't actually exist (but Gordo made her a Baronness). So phoney Baloney Moral outrage from politicians makes me retch.

I agree that this listening and deleteing other people's messages especially murder victims is wrong bordering on obscene but please spare me the faux outrage and mob media frenzy. You people buy the tabloids, you wanted to read about Milly's intimate details so your really not a lot better. If you didn't then why are the tabloid sales so large?

I eschew the tabloids on the grounds that it's mindless pap. Ditto all soaps and the Royals. Can you say the same?

It's already getting ridiculous. The allegation is that some peoples voice mail messages were listened to. Graham Foulkes a 7/7 victim family member was quoted as being upset that 'someone was listening while I was pouring my heart out'. Nobody has made that allegation thats just untrue yet the media pounce on it and it's now 'accepted fact'. Mob frenzy. I want no part of any mob unless it's a lynch one aiming to visit most thieving politicians. In which case I'm in.

One Labour MP did raise a very good point today that Rubert Murdoch controls four of our national newspapers, the nations second biggest broadcaster, has a monopoly on Sports broadcast rights, monopoly on Box office movie rights and benefits from UK advertising to a tremendous degree, yet he doesnt live here. He doesnt live in the UK, he doesnt pay tax in the UK, he doesnt contribute in any way, and it was remarked "at least Berlusconi lives in Italy" and pointed out that nations like America wouldnt allow that (indeed Murdoch had to acquire US citizenship to acquire Fox), so why should we?

So, Jamie, are you suggesting we should ban non-UK citizens from investing in UK companies, generating tax revenues for the UK, creating wealth for the UK & jobs for UK citizens, if this investment is dependent on them having controling interests in the said company?

By-bye Nissan in Sunderland, Toyota in Derby & N Wales, etc etc

Or are you talking about media companies only?

Or what?

Edited by bonzo dog on 07/07/2011 at 21:15

Well News of the World is no more.......

Obviously more bad news to come..

Lying to the House of Commons is an interesting offence... as NOTW have done...and perjury to the Courts and I suspect we'll find a few politicians very embarassed...

Edited by madf on 07/07/2011 at 19:39

Mr Murdoch has cut off the limb before the infection spreads to the rest of the organisation. I must say it was a shock to hear the news, not on the same level as Kennedy, Challenger or the Twin Towers of course, but something that will mark the era.

Edited by dereckr on 08/07/2011 at 00:28

I agree, mainly.

However, there's absolutely no chance "this sorry crap" will be brought to an end, swift or otherwise. Why? Because the public buys the newspapers and magazines that trade in this kind of stuff.

You may not buy it and I certainly don't, but, in general, the public gets what it deserves.

im not trying to claim any of the tabloids reporting is "tasteful" or that i agree with talentless cows like Imogen Thomas or that Vanessa woman making a living purely out of having sex with footballers, but when the likes of Max Clifford essentially arrived beside the bed at the time handing the woman his business card and telling her she can make £250,000 off of it she'd be stupid to not take it. Hell we all would wouldnt we? We'd all take money for old rope if you think about it, so i dont particularly "judge" these people for having done so.

I do think these footballers should be more careful though, theres alot of scheming gold diggers out there more than willing to drag their name through the press for a few quid, these are young men of sometimes limited common sense who earn extraordinary amounts of money, you cannot control people like that but they should stop being so niave and realise on their wages the majority of the world just wants to screw them over and will pretend to be their "friend" in order to do so. They should be aware of that and if they didnt keep falling for the same trick perhaps the likes of "poor Imogen" wouldnt be making her millions. In fact alot of people in the media are incredibly rich despite having not done much. Im still trying to work out why Katie Price is so special or what she's done, but she's obviously very clever at what she does (earning money from doing nothing) and has a very good publicist and manager.

If a newspaper wants to spend a million quid on hearing about someone's shag then thats up to them where they put their money, and if someone wants to earn a million by telling them about it thats also up to them, leaving aside the arguments of morality and equality (women using their body essentially to make alot of money off of rich sports people, hard ot imagine a man doing the same thing to a female sports person, this seems to only work one way).

But our media has a culture and an insatiable need for "shock". Theres people who have slept with Chickens turned down for Jeremy Kyle for being too normal, this nation has an appetite for shock, its almost like a magnet, we cant keep away from it. And as long as that continues, slappers will continue to get rich off of doing not much.

The same people who lap up the cheap trash are the same ones who would run to the papers with their hand out if they thought their vile doings would be "worth" some money. I always say if you dont want to end up in the papers then dont do anything stupid. I apply that mainly to footballers and they only get targeted and tarnished because they could lose all sorts of image rights contracts (as in the case of tiger woods) if these stories get out, well i say its their own sodding fault. And there clearly is a line because its being drawn here, some 40 year old running off with a 19 year old russian and leaving a poor mother with four kids to bring up on benefits may seem a a story of very poor taste but that mother on benefits with four kids in question wont be complaining when she makes a few quid out of the story (and good on her if someones stupid enough to pay it) but it doesnt mean you have to read it. I dont read the paper, they can put what they like it, if it was your private life all over it a) nobody knows who you are so it wouldnt be in anybodies interest to run the story unless it was very outrageous and b) i'd have forgotten you in 5 minutes even if i did read it, i dont store information i dont require about people i dont know or care about. And i do feel most people who dont lap it up are the same.

Some families are being ripped apart by greasy haired hacks, thats what is the problem, and there are already laws in place to make sure this sees a rightful conclusion. A story about how a skint wife had her husband run off with a russian playboy bunny only gets in the papers because said skint wife wanted it to, theres no poor old woman there, she wants it to hit the presses, the more the better, ker ching!! Things like hacking of private messages (which is shockingly easy to do and would be alot harder if people just changed their pin numbers from the default) of dead soldiers families is wrong, thats a newspaper hunting for a story without any consent from any side and their actions are illegal, you dont need to make radical legislation to deal with something which is already illegal.

I appreciate your mindset of flushing out Z list nobodies and starting over but the fact is its not up to you or i to decide if the public want to read this stuff, or to decide if newspapers want to pay Big Boobed Blondes for their juicy gossip about another failed marraige. The greatness of a free society is people are free to do and say things which others may disapprove of. You say we should pick and choose which stories are deemed in the public interest, well how do we decide that? Who gets to decide what we should or should not hear about within the confines of legality? Who gets to decide we should hear about an expenses fiddler but not about John Terry f***ing a team mates woman, who gets to decide? The argument of a privacy law has been banded about for a while now, as of course this country doesnt have one. We do have the Human rights bill which states that the media have freedom of expression but also that individuals have right to privacy, obviously this is conflicting and its left up to judges in individual cases as to which need is the greater or most relevant. I personally feel this is the best way to handle it because no legislation could cover every base or eventuality. Perhaps there should be stricter rules on how injunctions are granted and clearer guidelines as to when judges are allowed to issue them. Ive always been against these injunctions as i feel one day it wont be a case of footballers and slappers it'll be a proper story which we SHOULD hear about and we wont be able to because of these, i fear a purpose made privacy law will further drive censorship on. And how is censorship any better than Murdoch's domination of the media? Its not is it really?

If anything no regulation is the best form of regulation. How better to regulate peoples moral activities if they know there are no silly laws to protect them when they do wrong? Why give them laws to hide behind?

You feel every individual has a right to privacy, the media feels everybody has the right to know about everybody, thats how the media works, sometimes they dont even print things because they think we want to read it, but because they can get paid off by famous people in question to not print anymore of it. I say again, nobody would be interested in you so you wont end up on the front of the sun, but people who have alot of money or images to protect or reputations to uphold should be sensible enough to not do anything stupid enough to end up on the front pages, especially as they know the vultures will be on it, unregulated and not held to account to spout it before you get a chance to hear about it. I feel the European courts decision against Mosley's proposition that newspapers should ask permission before printing stories to be a victory for free speech, if newspapers had to ask first then they'd all get super injunctions and we'd have no media.

The law is already in place to deal with these hideous issues at NOTW, we dont need to make more laws. I dont want to see a country where somebody in some Government office decides what is in my interest to read and what isnt on my behalf. I dont want a country where freedom of speech is supressed (having a privacy law would do that in some way, no matter how you cut it), the sometimes ugly unfortunate truth of freedom of expression is that you are allowed to express whatever you like no matter how much people may dislike it. Thats something we should be proud of having in this country, go to places like North Korea and China where the population are conditioned, brainwashed by a controlled media state where somebody else decides on their behalf what they should see or hear, its small steps from that if we start locking down what our media is allowed to print and is why i am in disagreement with Ed Miliband's suggestion that its time the Government got on with regulating the press despite my much documented anti-support of the Conservative Party. This is a rare occasion where i am pleased we dont have a Labour Government in right now, because they'd have 500 people devising 5 million bits of legislation to lock down freedom of speech. Its not up to one person or a committe to decide whats in the public interest, whats in your interest or my interest, its not up to them, so they should keep out of it.

The likes of Max Clifford is an evil genius, he knows this vile business and he knows how to make money and how to advise others to benefit from the sleazy side of the media, fair play to them. Slappers are free to get rich off of sex with footballers and im free to not care about it, but just because i dont care about it, doesnt mean iget to decide the rest of Britain doesnt care, this...BRITAIN!!!

Edited by jamie745 on 09/07/2011 at 02:27