News International papers targeted Gordon Brown

[oldironside]

"Journalists from across News International repeatedly targeted the former prime minister Gordon Brown, attempting to access his voicemail and obtaining information from his bank account, his legal file as well as his family's medical records.

There is also evidence that a private investigator used a serving police officer to trawl the police national computer for information about him.

That investigator also targeted another Labour MP who was the subject of hostile inquiries by the News of the World, but it has not confirmed whether News International was specifically involved in trawling police computers for information on Brown.

Separately, Brown's tax paperwork was taken from his accountant's office apparently by hacking into the firm's computer. This was passed to another newspaper."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/11/phone-hacking-news-international-gordon-brown

Now, I realise Gordon isn't everyone's cup of tea, but he was Chancellor and PM, FFS! How is our democracy supposed to function with an aggresively undemocractic, foreign controlled organisation targeting the people at the very top? (By the way, that was a rhetorical question)

I'm starting to run out of precedents for these bastards trying to hijack the government for their own ends.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EDNx1AdwR1c/S0A43wSjdSI/AAAAAAAAAjg/cXPo9ET_szk/s400/Gang+of+Four.gif

[LeftishBrit]

1. I am not surprised about Gordon Brown...

a lot of the press seemed to regard him as the Enemy. Partly just because he was Labour (which Blair wasn't) and probably also - given their emphasis on his 'temper' and 'bullying' - because he may have made the mistake of telling media people off when they deserved it!

Brown isn't perfect, and was too RW on some issues; but he was our best Prime Minister in 30 years and did some quite good things with regard to health and education, as well as taking us out of Iraq though not Afghanistan.

In any case, bugging your political opponents, or anyone else for that matter, is not generally regarded as suitable behaviour in a democracy. Nixon was brought down by such antics in 70s America, but it seems to have been regarded as perfectly acceptable by much of our press, and of course there are far more bugging/ surveillance techniques available nowadays than at the time of Watergate.

[LeftishBrit]

2. And just to add...

that invading Brown's own privacy was bad enough, but if it's true that they got hold of and used confidential medical information about his small child, THAT is truly disgusting!

[fedsron2us]

3. Prying into the medical records of a sick infant

is a particularly scummy form of investigative journalism, particularly as Brown never attempted to exploit his family for political advantage. There could not be the remotest public interest excuse for such illegal behaviour. If this story is true then some members of the media need an extended stay in jail.

[dipsydoodle]

7. That was a fairy story

THE Sun today exposes the allegation that we hacked into Gordon Brown's family medical records as FALSE and a smear.

We discovered the ex-PM's four-year-old son Fraser had cystic fibrosis months after his birth.

We can reveal the source of our information was a shattered dad whose own son also has the crippling disease and who wanted to highlight the plight of sufferers.

And when we approached former Labour leader Mr Brown and his wife Sarah with the story, she gave us their consent to run it.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3691926/The-Sun-exposes-the-allegation-that-we-hacked-into-Gordon-Browns-family-medical-records-as-FALSE-and-a-smear.html#ixzz1RykjlcAp

I thought there was something odd about Brown suddenly coming out with this yesterday out of the blue. Just jumpin' on the bandwagon I guess.

see also : http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=47489&c=1

[LeftishBrit]

8. Sorry, even this version still stinks

Not that I would believe anything just because the Sun 'reveals' it in any case; but let's suppose for the moment that their story is true as far as it goes. Firstly, how did the 'shattered Dad' know about Brown's son's diagnosis? Was he a fellow parent at the hospital? In which case, he was betraying another parent's confidence, and using a tragedy to get money from the Sun. And the Sun were enabling him, if not pressing him, to do so. If he knew Brown well enough to know whether he was 'coming to terms' with it, and he thought Brown should let the public know about the condition, then he should have suggested it to Brown. Not sent the story to the Sun! If he didn't know Brown personally, he should have shut up with the tittle-tattle. Or maybe he was a fake, like many of these people. And even if the Browns 'gave consent', this version still indicates that the Sun approached THEM, having already gained the information from another source, rather than that the Browns approaching them. Once they were approached by the Sun, there weren't many alternatives to giving consent; the Sun would have found some way to reveal it anyway.

Hacking is only one of the vicious activities in which the Sun and similar outlets have indulged. Their real offense is their constant invasion of people's privacy, and assumption that they have a right to everyone's personal information - not just that they have often used a particular hi-tech method of privacy invasion, even though that is one shocking aspect of it.

[dipsydoodle]

9. It may well stink

but under current circumstances Id say its unlikely that The Sun would fabricate what they claim. I have no recollection of any sensitivity on the subject when it was first published.

[LeftishBrit]

10. I think it's likely that the Sun could fabricate anything!

They are liars on just about everything.

But even if they're telling the truth here, it still puts them in a bad light.

[dipsydoodle]

12. BBC link

The Sun newspaper has strongly denied accessing former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's family medical records without his knowledge.

The paper said a story in 2006 that Mr Brown's son Fraser had cystic fibrosis came from a member of the public.

The Sun has released a video interview with the unidentified man who it says was the source.

A spokeswoman for Mr Brown said in response: "The matter is now in the hands of police."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14133113

Good to see its now in the hands of the police. If charges are not bought then perhaps Brown will be charged with wasting police time if he cannot provide a satisfactory explanation as the delay in raising this issue.

[fedsron2us]

13. So the Sun can blank out 'whistleblowers' face and disguise his voice

to protect his privacy but apparently Brown's child is not entitled to that same anonymity.

Strange also that NI are able to come up with information about a leak from a source which they claim is legal but can't lay their hands on the evidence that relates to all the illegal hacking and blagging of data.

What a bunch of hypocritical fucking scumbags.

[oldironside]

15. Well...

... fucking said.

News International have told enough bare faced lies so far in this saga, what difference would a few more make?

And, as was raised above, what fucking right have they got to publish private medical details about anyone's family?

The whole thing stinks to high heaven and, if a News International spokesman told me that the sky was blue I'd start to doubt my own sanity.

[non sociopath skin]

14. Whether or not Brown jumped on the bandwagon or over-egged the pudding ...

... to make a piece of gutter journalism into a piece of sewer journalism, might it not be an idea to keep our powder dry and concentrate on the real perps here.

The RW blogs are falling over themselves to find false analogies - be they Johann Hari's plgiarism or Gordon Brown's tears - in order to try to rehabilitate one of their favourite and most useful sewer-rats.

Please let's not give them credibility.

The Skin

[fedsron2us]

17. I suspect many of the bloggers

are just as much as on the payroll of media organisations as many of the PI and Cops in this scandal. The reason many are so vociferous is that they see their paydays galloping over the horizon. I suspect the sole purpose of many of them was to act as cut outs between information obtained illegally and the press (ie the story was first aired on the blog and then it was quoted as the source by the papers). Past analysis of some of the leaks and the blog site contents might make for some interesting reading for PC Plod if he does finally get his act into gear. Without the media to run their stories many are going to lose a lot of their influence. Of course, they could simply decide to cover policy issues rather than playing the man all the time but that might require some proper journalistic skills.

[T_i_B]

21. Hari's plagiarism?

More usual to hear right wingers claiming that this is all in fact a left wing conspiracy to silence the "free press" or claiming this is politicians revenge for the expenses scandal (which overlooks the fact that the expenses scandal was broken by the Daily Telegraph, which is not owned by the News Of The World).

[LeftishBrit]

22. Yes, and also:

(a) If Murdoch is too powerful, then so is the BBC!

(b) What right have the likes of Hugh Grant to set themselves up as arbiters of morality? (as though hiring a prostitute, regrettable as it was, is on a par with the crimes of the Murdoch empire)

(c) Labour dunnit too! Which makes it all quite all right!

[oldironside]

23. You are dribbling nonsense.

1. The BBC is governed by it's charter and, if you can be bothered to read through this, is devoted to promoting civil society, education and stimulating creativity. If the BBC did what News International have done it would lose its charter. It is not beholden to a megalomaniac, and it never hacked a private individuals phone to give it's viewers their jollies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.pdf

2. Cheap shot at Hugh Grant. He may have got a blow job from a tart, but that doesn't mean his forfeits his right to privacy in perpetuity. I have done a lot of things I wouldn't like published on the front page of the Sun, but that doesn't mean they have the right to print them. Have you never made a mistake you wouldn't like published in this forum?

3. Labour dun wot? Tried to woo the (far too powerful) Murdoch press in order to get into or stay in power? That, in case you haven't noticed, is one of the main arguments in favour of emasculating Murdoch and the rest of the gutter press. What fucking right has he to decide who is or isn't fit to govern the UK? None, but every PM since Thatcher has still had to kow tow to that c***

[T_i_B]

24. You do realize....

...that LeftishBrit was summarising some RW arguments that are being made by Murdoch allies at the moment.

I just wish that some of these people would acknowledge that the arguments they made dissmissing the hacking scandal in the first place were wrong on an epic scale.

[LeftishBrit]

25. I was NOT, I repeat NOT endorsing these views myself!!!

I was somewhat sarcastically summarizing the views of the RW writers (especially the Hate-Mail and Conservative Home), following on from T-i-B's post.

(After 7 years here, you should know me better than that - even if I had a hole in my head, that couldn't get me to agree with Melanie Phillips et al!)

Of course, I actually agree with all your objections. I should doubtless have used the :sarcasm: icon for my post.

[oldironside]

26. My sincerest apologies.

I read the comment rather too late. Please accept my apology.

[LeftishBrit]

27. No problem!

I know we're on the same side about Murdoch.

Whatever happens, it's so satisfying seeing him being made to squirm.

[LeftishBrit]

16. 'satisfactory explanation as to the delay'

Um, perhaps because he didn't want to encourage the Sun to get even MORE vicious toward him and his family as they undoubtedly would have?

Are you seriously siding with the Sun here?

[dipsydoodle]

19. Nope.

But by the same token I wouldn't piss on Brown if he was on fire.

[LeftishBrit]

20. Well, I feel the same way about Cameron...

but nevertheless would strongly object if the media got hold of confidential info about Ivan or any of his other children and published it. (Maybe they have.)

[fedsron2us]

11. More vile wriggling from the loathsome NI

Even if the Sun claims are true the behaviour is highly dubious ethically. Brown's sons was entitled to have his medical condition kept private and exposing that information violated that right even if the information was volunteered by a third party. The Sun could simply have chosen not to print it as there was no real 'public interest' involved. Cystic fibrosis is one of the most common hereditary condtions amongst children so it is frequently covered as a general medical issue on the TV and Radio. Nothing was added to that sum of knowledge or general exposure of the disease by the Suns revealing that the Prime Ministers son suffered from it. So the Suns special pleading is simply laughable.

What most people seem to forget here is that it was not the fathers privacy that was being violated but the childs. Browns son at 4 months old was hardly a political figure and the Suns attempts to treat him as such are beyond contempt.

Also worth noting that all the other violations of Browns data including the attempt to gain access to his legal and bank records were most definitely illegal. According to his bank there is pretty good circumstantial evidence to suggest that the blagging of his Abbey account originated at NI.

Any way it may all soon be academic if the US authorities decide to lauch an investigation into NI activities following Rockefellers announcement. That might tip the rest of NewCorp shareholders to give Murdoch the bums rush.

[tjwmason]

4. This takes it beyond the N.o.t.W.

The single rogue reporter thing utterly collapses and it's clear (as though we needed further evidence) that this is an issue throughout News International.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. You're right that going beyond NotW is important, though I never understood 'one rogue reporter'

Certainly, when they paid Gordon Taylor, they admitted it was other reporters (Goodman, the royal reporter, would never have been dealing with someone from football); and I think the assumption (and accusation) they had targeted others was there right from the start.

Yes, now it's not just "a single rogue newspaper".

[oldironside]

6. I'm reminded...

... of the Nixon Aide Ziegler commenting: "That statement is no longer operable." They lie until it is proven to be wrong, then they pull back, give out another lie and hope it will stop there.



(Anyone complaining about a pic of the young and lovely Julie Christie?)

[dipsydoodle]

18. Anyone complaining ?

Not me.

This is an age related reply. :)