Rupert Murdoch's Editor and Chief, of his now shuttered newspayer, testified that it was easy to HACK PEOPLES VOICEMAILS. Is that why she and Murdoch's other editors allowed listening into BRITS voicemails?? I guess if it was so easy, she she should be held accountable, right?? Another MSM distraction?? Nope! Came from the UK but has tentacles 'across the pond'.
Rebekah Brooks said it was 'easy to listen to voicemails', hacking trial hears
Eimear Cook, ex-wife of Colin Montgomerie, accused of lying under oath over statements made about lunch with Brooks
guardian.com, Monday 25 November 2013 13.20 EST
Rebekah Brooks
Rebekah Brooks allegedly told Elmear Cook that it was easy to listen to famous people's voicemails.
Eimear Cook, the ex-wife of golfing star Colin Montgomerie was accused of repeatedly lying under oath about a lunch with Rebekah Brooks in which she claimed the former News International chief excutive had told her how easy it was to hack phones.
In a tense and prolonged exchange at the Old Bailey on Monday, counsel for Brooks said Cook had fabricated parts of her witness statement to the police, including a claim that the former publishing boss had told her about an assault on her ex-husband Ross Kemp.
Brooks' counsel Jonathan Laidlaw, QC, asked her had she done this to increase the compensation she received as part of a civil claim she made against News International for phone hacking.
"Is that why you made things up?" he asked. "To get more money as a result in the settlement?".
She "categorically" denied she had lied on oath. "I have no reason to lie," she said.
Cook, who was married to the former European Ryder Cup team captain for 14 years from 1990, met Brooks at the suggestion of friends after finding herself the subject of press intrusion following the break up of her marriage, she said.
Describing the private lunch, which took place at the Knightsbridge home of mutual friends, Cook told the jury the four had enjoyed lighthearted conversation about celebrities.
"We discussed a lot of public figures, people in the media in a gossipy fun way. I think I remember we were laughing because she had been in her own newspaper because she had a domestic row with her husband and that it had made her newspaper and we were laughing at the irony of it."
She added: "The bit I remember most was the topic of how easy it was to listen to their voicemails as long as they had not changed their factory settings on their pin code.
"She [Brooks, who was then Rebekah Wade] said that it was so easy to do and she couldn't believe that famous people who have all these advisers did not know they needed to change their pin code to make their voicemail secure".
Cook said Brooks told her Heather Mills and Sir Paul McCartney, who were engaged at the time, had had a row at a New York hotel and she had thrown her ring out of the window.
"It was in parentheses about the phone hacking. I was under the impression she was talking about Paul McCartney's phone not having its pin code changed," she said.
Who cares?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 25, 2013, 11:32:52 AM
Who cares?
Yet when the WH does it to our reporters, not a freakin word.
Hang on. SciFi fool criticized us for not covering this because Murdoch owns FOX News. And now this clown starts a thread on it.
What a coincidence...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 25, 2013, 12:01:54 PM
Hang on. SciFi fool criticized us for not covering this because Murdoch owns FOX News. And now this clown starts a thread on it.
What a coincidence...
According to numb nuts, we're censoring. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 12:07:12 PM
According to numb nuts, we're censoring. :rolleyes:
Then why is he here? Why doesn't he scale the wall and go to the west?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 25, 2013, 12:09:47 PM
Then why is he here? Why doesn't he scale the wall and go to the west?
Liberal in a round room searching for the corner?
When are we getting the G.W. Bush posts?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 25, 2013, 11:32:52 AM
Who cares?
Perhaps, NO ONE. But it also depends on whether it 'crosses the pond'. Remember this was an BRITISH newspaper owned by an AMERICAN company.
Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 11:34:22 AM
Yet when the WH does it to our reporters, not a freakin word.
THAT doesn't apply to me. I had lots of words,
in the NEGATIVE, to say about the AP guys phone calls geing monitored. No different from this Pres. than the previous
last Pres--for me. ZERO, ZIP, NADA on this subject.
But in this case, Murdoch newspapers Editors allowed reporters to hack a DEAD CHILD'S phone, leaving her parents in HOPE that she was alive since 'activity' showed up on her phone (as well as Scotland Yard). This Murdoch newspaper hacked the LABOUR PRIME MINISTER'S phone and was about to break story in which the PM and his wife TRAGICALLY just found out there infant daughter had a deadly disease and weren't ready to tell the world and were going to be outed.
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 25, 2013, 12:42:40 PM
THAT doesn't apply to me. I had lots of words, in the NEGATIVE, to say about the AP guys phone calls geing monitored. No different from this Pres. than the previous last Pres--for me. ZERO, ZIP, NADA on this subject.
But in this case, Murdoch newspapers Editors allowed reporters to hack a DEAD CHILD'S phone, leaving her parents in HOPE that she was alive since 'activity' showed up on her phone (as well as Scotland Yard). This Murdoch newspaper hacked the LABOUR PRIME MINISTER'S phone and was about to break story in which the PM and his wife TRAGICALLY just found out there infant daughter had a deadly disease and weren't ready to tell the world and were going to be outed.
Then why don't you post this on a UK board.
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 25, 2013, 12:23:40 PM
Perhaps, NO ONE. But it also depends on whether it 'crosses the pond'. Remember this was an BRITISH newspaper owned by an AMERICAN company.
Well so far it hasn't crossed the pond. If it does maybe we will care.
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 25, 2013, 12:42:40 PM
THAT doesn't apply to me. I had lots of words, in the NEGATIVE, to say about the AP guys phone calls geing monitored. No different from this Pres. than the previous last Pres--for me. ZERO, ZIP, NADA on this subject.
But in this case, Murdoch newspapers Editors allowed reporters to hack a DEAD CHILD'S phone, leaving her parents in HOPE that she was alive since 'activity' showed up on her phone (as well as Scotland Yard). This Murdoch newspaper hacked the LABOUR PRIME MINISTER'S phone and was about to break story in which the PM and his wife TRAGICALLY just found out there infant daughter had a deadly disease and weren't ready to tell the world and were going to be outed.
I was talking about the press being dead silent over it.
Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 12:12:34 PM
Liberal in a round room searching for the corner?
WE don't seem to have the biggest problem with the 'circular firing squad'
off late. According to your own about your own, Republicans have that issue for now.
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 25, 2013, 01:07:36 PM
WE don't seem to have the biggest problem with the 'circular firing squad' off late. According to your own about your own, Republicans have that issue for now.
Nothing circular here, we have the RINO lined up against the wall.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 25, 2013, 12:50:06 PM
Then why don't you post this on a UK board.
Again, a UK PAPER, American ownership. American ownership by a man who FUELS and STOKES AMERICAN fires and is in bed with and actively courts the TOP political leadership in the country An American owned paper whose craven management was CRUEL even by
Republicans standards, I would think, who used a teenager and and infant as cheap fodder to sell product! (It's one thing to out a middle-aged philandering royal and another to PAY COPS FOR PHONE #'S of crime victims and then hack them).
QuoteAn American owned paper whose craven management was CRUEL even by Republicans standards, I would think,
LOL!
You are so transparent...
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 25, 2013, 01:57:24 PM
Again, a UK PAPER, American ownership. American ownership by a man who FUELS and STOKES AMERICAN fires and is in bed with and actively courts the TOP political leadership in the country An American owned paper whose craven management was CRUEL even by Republicans standards, I would think, who used a teenager and and infant as cheap fodder to sell product! (It's one thing to out a middle-aged philandering royal and another to PAY COPS FOR PHONE #'S of crime victims and then hack them).
I believe Murdoch is Australian.
Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 12:07:12 PM
According to numb nuts, we're censoring. :rolleyes:
I THINK I'm figuring it out but it sure seemed like I was being 'shunted' to or 'shunned'
(pick one late last week). So far this afternoon, I'm seeing my stuff (where I thought it
was susposed to be).
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 25, 2013, 02:46:18 PM
I THINK I'm figuring it out but it sure seemed like I was being 'shunted' to or 'shunned'
(pick one late last week). So far this afternoon, I'm seeing my stuff (where I thought it
was susposed to be).
We don't censor, nor ban members for being libs. Please stop saying we do that when we don't.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 25, 2013, 01:59:36 PM
LOL!
You are so transparent...
b o should learn from him. :lol:
Quote from: taxed on November 25, 2013, 02:56:47 PM
We don't censor, nor ban members for being libs. Please stop saying we do that when we don't.
Though we have banned idiots, people that even embarrass our lib members.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on November 25, 2013, 12:51:32 PM
Well so far it hasn't crossed the pond. If it does maybe we will care.
Actually it has! NY Attorney General and the FBI. I have zero idea whether either has had any subsequent legs but yes it 'crossed the pond' last year. Apparently, some of the CITIZENS they hacked were BRITS who were American citzens OR visiting here and were hauled in or 'visited for discussion. GRANT (the 'good looking' one, can't remember his name) SETTLED for an 'undisclosed' amount from Murdoch and Co. As did a couple of others. My guess is the BRITISH trials will help with 'discovery' here. Whether it is just 'stars' who were hacked like an ex-Beatle (Paul) which I could give a shit about or whether those are pursued or OTHERS of import in public domain, waits to be seen.
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 25, 2013, 03:26:05 PM
Actually it has! NY Attorney General and the FBI. I have zero idea whether either has had any subsequent legs but yes it 'crossed the pond' last year. Apparently, some of the CITIZENS they hacked were BRITS who were American citzens OR visiting here and were hauled in or 'visited for discussion. GRANT (the 'good looking' one, can't remember his name) SETTLED for an 'undisclosed' amount from Murdoch and Co. As did a couple of others. My guess is the BRITISH trials will help with 'discovery' here. Whether it is just 'stars' who were hacked like an ex-Beatle (Paul) which I could give a shit about or whether those are pursued or OTHERS of import in public domain, waits to be seen.
Awesome. We still don't care.
Crazy persons rant here, impossible to read OP tedious post but his subsequent posts are hilarious :laugh: Anyone understand his point or does he even have a relevant conclusion?
Quote from: Mountainshield on November 26, 2013, 04:13:48 AM
Crazy persons rant here, impossible to read OP tedious post but his subsequent posts are hilarious :laugh: Anyone understand his point or does he even have a relevant conclusion?
I think the fact that he looked up "Liberalism Mental Disorders" in the DVM, (like looking up gullible in the dictionary because someone told him it wasn't there).
Says a hell of a lot.
Of course it's not there, libs wrote the damned book on mental disorders. Who better to explain abhorrent behavior, than the very people that support it as a party?
Why can't these people do simple math as in the form of critical thinking?
Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 12:56:28 PM
I was talking about the press being dead silent over it.
If the press was silent on the subject, then HOW DID YOU AND I KNOW ABOUT IT??
(And they weren't silent and they were PISSED as they should have been as "Intelligence" was actually trying to
find out info ABOUT them and their sources, rather than just one of those grand 'sweeps' that happened to catch their calls in the sweep).
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 26, 2013, 10:52:57 AM
If the press was silent on the subject, then HOW DID YOU AND I KNOW ABOUT IT??
(And they weren't silent and they were PISSED as they should have been as "Intelligence" was actually trying to
find out info ABOUT them and their sources, rather than just one of those grand 'sweeps' that happened to catch their calls in the sweep).
STFU already. All logical Americans are against all of this surveillance already. Only a total jackass would blabber about political or social issues in some sort of idiot connection.
Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 01:13:07 PM
Nothing circular here, we have the RINO lined up against the wall.
As in "Reasonbleness Is Not an Option"?
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 26, 2013, 10:52:57 AM
If the press was silent on the subject, then HOW DID YOU AND I KNOW ABOUT IT??
(And they weren't silent and they were PISSED as they should have been as "Intelligence" was actually trying to
find out info ABOUT them and their sources, rather than just one of those grand 'sweeps' that happened to catch their calls in the sweep).
And just how long did that story stay in the news?
Now compare that to the constant drumbeat against any former GOP POTUS.
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 26, 2013, 11:43:30 AM
As in "Reasonbleness Is Not an Option"?
There isn't anything reasonable about liberalism...
Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 26, 2013, 11:43:30 AM
As in "Reasonbleness Is Not an Option"?
When it comes to hunting RINO? NO FUCKING WAY!