[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

I hate Murdoch and I'm embarrassed by the fact most of our population are obsessed with celebrity and royalist GSTQ nationalism shoved down our throats by the Sun and the NOTW.

It is our fault, I agree.

As for Assange, not even comparable. It's a shame your beloved Yanks and Sweden decided to conspire a made up sex claim as an excuse to arrest him.

It is not a matter of anything being shoved down Brits throats. It is a matter of their insatiable desire to swallow it voluntarily and then ask for something even spicier.

As noted, dealing in illegally obtained private communications is practiced equally by Assange and NOTW. That's my comparison. On what grounds do you reject it?
Have you forgotten that the stated goal of Assange was to ''bring down'' the US? Clearly he is an egotistical psychopath, just like Bin Laden. So you are now a conspiracy theorist? You probably think Bin Laden was conspired against by the US too.

[l_mac]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

Ah, so collecting private communications is OK with you, it's just that you want to decide whose privacy it is OK to invade?

You asked if NOTW had done anything different to wikileaks.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by l_mac

You asked if NOTW had done anything different to wikileaks.

Yes

In the sense that both were dealing in illegally obtained private communications for profit, I don't see a difference in sleaze level.

Do you think that if Assange had been offered transcripts of Hillary Clinton's private phone conversations he would have refused to accept them?

[JolánGagó]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

As noted, dealing in illegally obtained private communications is practiced equally by Assange and NOTW. That's my comparison. On what grounds do you reject it?

Is there such a crime in the code, "dealing with illegally obtained information"? I don't recall such a law.

Regardless of it, my position is publishers must be absolutely free to publish whatever they get their hands on regardless of source, of course they could be held responsible on libel and defamation grounds but NEVER on grounds of "illegal obtention of information", what a toxic BS.

If it is the publicher who bug the phones, that's another matter.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

It is not a matter of anything being shoved down Brits throats. It is a matter of their insatiable desire to swallow it voluntarily and then ask for something even spicier.

As noted, dealing in illegally obtained private communications is practiced equally by Assange and NOTW. That's my comparison. On what grounds do you reject it?
Have you forgotten that the stated goal of Assange was to ''bring down'' the US? Clearly he is an egotistical psychopath, just like Bin Laden. So you are now a conspiracy theorist? You probably think Bin Laden was conspired against by the US too.

Agree on the first sentence. As for Assange, comparing him with a mass murderer like OBL Do me a favour.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by JolánGagó

Is there such a crime in the code, "dealing with illegally obtained information"? I don't recall such a law.

Regardless of it, my position is publishers must be absolutely free to publish whatever they get their hands on regardless of source, of course they could be held responsible on libel and defamation grounds but NEVER on grounds of "illegal obtention of information", what a toxic BS.

If it is the publicher who bug the phones, that's another matter.

I thought that argument would come up. But I think it is no more valid than claiming that someone who pays a hitman to murder his wife can not be accused of murder.

But even in the present situation - what if the publisher is ''getting his hands on'' information from a free-agent source outside the publishing company? Where is the line drawn as to where the information comes from? If the publisher pays for the information is he free to publish it?

[Sophocles]

What's wrong with the Daily Mail? Okay, let me rephrase that: its prurience & prudery on sex & drugs are enormously tedious, but for many years it was the only opposition to the ghastly Blair government, while the supposedly "right-wing" Murdoch press were sucking Blair's cock over Iraq.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Sophocles

What's wrong with the Daily Mail? Okay, let me rephrase that: its prurience & prudery on sex & drugs are enormously tedious, but for many years it was the only opposition to the ghastly Blair government, while the supposedly "right-wing" Murdoch press were sucking Blair's cock over Iraq.

The Labour papers opposed the Iraq war full stop.

The Mail/Tories have no business slating Blair over Iraq as the blue shite have admitted over and over they would have taken us to war if they were in office.

[Black Adam]

Prince Philip is right, journalists are not people in professional/real jobs. Not feeling sorry for anyone losing a job in that "industry". All they do is tell stories with a spin.

Is Rebekah Wade jewish? Conspiracy theorists would like to know

[Garson007]

Originally Posted by Black Adam

Prince Philip is right, journalists are not people in professional/real jobs.

I've long been saying that professional journalism is a misnomer.

[JolánGagó]

Philip Mountbatten is often right. Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor too, she recently lambasted PC.

[safin-rules-no.1]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

Yes

In the sense that both were dealing in illegally obtained private communications for profit, I don't see a difference in sleaze level.

Do you think that if Assange had been offered transcripts of Hillary Clinton's private phone conversations he would have refused to accept them?

You don't see the difference between what Assange did and hacking in to murdered childrens mobile phones?

[buddyholly]

In criminal and moral considerations, no! Murdered children have no more right to privacy than the rest of us.

And then there is the Australian connection..................

[Action Jackson]

Assange is relevant how.

[safin-rules-no.1]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

In criminal and moral considerations, no! Murdered children have no more right to privacy than the rest of us.

And then there is the Australian connection..................