Slashdot Mirror
Police Charge News of the World Editor Over Voicemail Hacking
New submitter HarryatRock writes with news that former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks and five others have been charged by police for their involvement in intercepting voicemail messages left for a murdered girl. From the article:
"She is charged with conspiring with her 49-year-old husband, personal assistant Cheryl Carter, chauffeur Paul Edwards, security man Daryl Jorsling, and News International head of security Mr Hanna to "conceal material" from police between 6 and 19 July. In a second charge Mrs Brooks and Ms Carter are accused of conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive between 6 and 9 July. In a third charge, Mr and Mrs Brooks, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling are accused of conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers between 15 and 19 July."
...to avoid anything related to Fox News like the plague
"She is charged with conspiring with her 49-year-old husband, personal assistant Cheryl Carter, chauffeur Paul Edwards, security man Daryl Jorsling, and News International head of security Mr Hanna to "conceal material" from police between 6 and 19 July. In a second charge Mrs Brooks and Ms Carter are accused of conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive between 6 and 9 July. In a third charge, Mr and Mrs Brooks, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling are accused of conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers between 15 and 19 July."
For all the people that are being charged, the Murdochs seem quite absent, but anyone without their surname seems to be fair game.
Hopefully someone turns on the Murdochs instead of taking the sword for the family.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This almost seems like justice is being served. What's the catch?
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
But he made up for it in thoroughness.
"Involvement in intercepting voicemail messages."
Accuracy has never been very important to /., has it?
They were charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by withholding evidence from police. There is no charge that they were involved in voicemail hacking (though of course there are plenty of allegations that they were).
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Non-UK sources provide additional details not allowed in the UK media, due to pre-trial laws. The Guardian broke this story, but now scrupulously points out it is limited in what it can report. Comparing to the NYT, the omitted facts seem to be the strange episode of the discarded briefcase in the parking garage. Brooks's husband was caught red-handed when he tried to reclaim it after someone found it in a dumpster.
Anyone know what else the UK press must omit?
The Guardian took the lead, quite alone, and has nothing like the "transgressions" of the tabloid press to answer. Obviously this is not where you're going with your comment, but what is more interesting to me is the difference in press freedom between the US and the UK. The Leveson hearings I could not imagine happening in the US Congress. A whole line of questions to Brooks were about the political influence of newspapers. The transgressions of the print media in the UK are worse than in the US, but so is the threat of regulation. I'm sure the Guardian and it supporters are indeed worried about suicidal danger. The Independent does not sound to happy about all this, from what little I have read. But the Murdoch press in the UK is a lot more powerful and vindictive than Fox/WSJ in the US. They really did meet and threaten top party leaders.
It is the attempted coverup they are being charged for, not the crime of phone hacking. That's what "perverting the course of justice" means here in the UK. It's a common law offence that usually carries a prison sentence, which can be up to life.
There's no difference between the two, except for their political beliefs.
You seem to have overlooked that this is a criminal case. Rebekah Brookes hasn't been tried yet so we can't say she personally is guilty yet. But the fact that a murdered girl and thousands of others had their phones hacked by the right-wing News International organisation isn't in question, it's established fact.
It's a more correct use than usual as hacking means "unauthorised access"
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Do not reply to people on th'internet who think Fox news is "news".
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.