I heard on the radio just now, the second Senior Police Officer has resigned pending the Parliamentary enquiry into the NOTW bribery, phone tapping allegation.
By resigning, they retain their highly lucrative Pensions, and Superanuation Lump sum.
Not stupid, are they?. and once again it’s the Met.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Sky High - 20th July 2011 at 08:32
No chapter and verse required it’s all in the interconnectivity. Mobiles do not only call mobiles on the same network but in reality they call any number local or international (landline or mobile) – how do you think most of it connects.
:confused::confused:So, how do you suppose the hacking takes place? I really have no idea what you are talking about or worse, insinuating. I suggest you clarify what you are trying to say or leave it alone.
By: Grey Area - 19th July 2011 at 22:08
I made tthe same point in two existing threads dealing with the same topic (neither of which I started).
Is that against the rules? If so, then lock a thread. :rolleyes:My comments are hardly a sterotype…just pointing out NJayM’s words.
I’d wager those sentiments are shared by many.
Do you have proof they’re not?
Of course not.It’s just that Murdoch is not well liked in the UK…for many reasons.
Wealth, power, and nationality are among them.Do you dispute that?
Apart from the hackneyed old Internet debating trick of demanding proof of a negative, I honestly don’t know what you’re chunnering on about here .
Do you?
By: nJayM - 19th July 2011 at 20:35
No chapter and verse required – how on earth do they calc revenue owed
“The same org. licenses and control all mobile throughput and has everything to do with mobile networks”
Please be kind enough to show me chapter and verse that this statement is correct. I think you are wrong, but will be happy to accept that I am wrong once you produce the proof to support your statement.
No chapter and verse required it’s all in the interconnectivity. Mobiles do not only call mobiles on the same network but in reality they call any number local or international (landline or mobile) – how do you think most of it connects.
By: nJayM - 19th July 2011 at 20:27
Second letter of English alphabet followed by 20th letter
Sorry, can you say who you are talking about? I’m struggling with all sorts from the AA to KP!
Second letter of English alphabet followed by 20th letter
By: pagen01 - 19th July 2011 at 20:05
SH, I wasn’t having a pop earlier, but I was writing quickly and really wanted to hear any other side to the story, apologies if I have misinterpreted your posts.
By: Sky High - 19th July 2011 at 20:02
“The same org. licenses and control all mobile throughput and has everything to do with mobile networks”
Please be kind enough to show me chapter and verse that this statement is correct. I think you are wrong, but will be happy to accept that I am wrong once you produce the proof to support your statement.
By: pagen01 - 19th July 2011 at 19:54
Sorry, can you say who you are talking about? I’m struggling with all sorts from the AA to KP!
By: nJayM - 19th July 2011 at 19:29
The org. licenses and control all mobile throughput
The same org. licenses and control all mobile throughput and has everything to do with mobile networks – the ultra controller (in excess revenue and technical slaughter when desired) while also being in full control of all landlines.
We pay extortionate rates for mobile services unlike most of developed Europe where the handset costs are high (can be traded in or re-sold) and calls cost peanuts. This is primarily because in UK the mobile operators pay a high overhead to the same organisation just to have a license to run their own mobile network.
By: Sky High - 19th July 2011 at 19:24
As I understand it the “primary vehicle to all this hacking” are the mobile networks so has nothing to do with organisation to which you allude. Landline tapping takes place but is not a feature of what we are discussing here, so far as I am aware.
By: nJayM - 19th July 2011 at 19:19
My question was not pointing at Murdoch and it is necessary to read the entire post
This entire story is being magnified by the fact that any don’t like Murdoch or the fact he’s a “non-national”.
Many Brits look at all rich, successful, business people with a jaundiced eye, the fact that he’s a foreigner (:eek:), only makes it worse.
My question was not pointing at Murdoch and it is necessary to read the entire post.
The primary vehicle to all this ‘hacking’ is not the Met, Murdoch or anyone so far fingered but the organisation that I have asked all of you to make an intelligent guess of.
Two letters and they hold all our communications destinies in their fickle hands and partial brains.
By: J Boyle - 19th July 2011 at 18:57
So……. how many threads do you propose to post this sweeping national stereotype onto, Mr B?.
I made tthe same point in two existing threads dealing with the same topic (neither of which I started).
Is that against the rules? If so, then lock a thread. :rolleyes:
My comments are hardly a sterotype…just pointing out NJayM’s words.
I’d wager those sentiments are shared by many.
Do you have proof they’re not?
Of course not.
It’s just that Murdoch is not well liked in the UK…for many reasons.
Wealth, power, and nationality are among them.
Do you dispute that?
By: Grey Area - 19th July 2011 at 18:52
So……. how many threads do you propose to post this sweeping national stereotype onto, Mr B?
That’s two so far by my reckoning.
By: J Boyle - 19th July 2011 at 18:18
And who owns a hefty share within that one organisation? (They are non nationals)
This entire story is being magnified by the fact that any don’t like Murdoch or the fact he’s a “non-national”.
Many Brits look at all rich, successful, business people with a jaundiced eye, the fact that he’s a foreigner (:eek:), only makes it worse.
By: TonyT - 19th July 2011 at 16:33
Ohhhhh Nooooo not another future bloody copper on our TV’s selling double glazing and conservatories…….
By: Sky High - 19th July 2011 at 16:19
My question remains unanswered. So what do we do?
By: kev35 - 19th July 2011 at 13:53
If we can’t trust Judges over Polititions, then who can we trust?.
Jim.Lincoln .7
Exactly the point I was trying to make!
Regards,
kev35
By: Lincoln 7 - 19th July 2011 at 13:43
Kev re thread 22, we already have a system ie Juries, however, 12 just men/women would find this far too complex to decide any verdict on. I am sure they could get a Panel of Judicial Judges to oversee any enquiry as it goes along.And then finaly come up with their own judgement/s.If we can’t trust Judges over Polititions, then who can we trust?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Sky High - 19th July 2011 at 13:01
If we accept total scepticism, then you are right. So, what do we do?
By: kev35 - 19th July 2011 at 12:50
Kev. Thread 5. it needs to be a totaly impartial body. I see the Met have now started their own internal enquiry, which is exactly what they should never be allowed to do.They protect their own.
Jim.Lincoln .7
I know it should be an impartial body. But, who assesses the impartiality of any committee assigned to investigate incidents such as this? How can we ever be sure of the impartiality of anyone so assigned?
Regards,
kev35
By: Sky High - 19th July 2011 at 12:34
Pagen – yes, merging the threads might be a good idea.
We are in a democracy and so it should be no surprise that people are accountavble for their actions. I agree that on occasion responsibility is not accepted and then if evidence is produced they have no choice.
I am not clear where you can find that I am defending what has gone on, if your remark was directed at me. Quite the opposite, in fact. I could not have made clearer my desire to see the guilty punished. I just do not share in the general desire for conjecture and speculation.
Sign In
July 18, 2011 at 5:48 pm