All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening to the voicemails of living people) but now it seems that the voicemails were probably deleted automatically by the system.
Maybe the greedy Dowler family and their greedy lawyers should be paying some money back to the News of the World. Still, the latter probably have so many guilty secrets, they'd write a blank cheque without even asking their staff if they've broken the law.
On 2011-12-12, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's > voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening > to the voicemails of living people) but now it seems that the voicemails > were probably deleted automatically by the system.
Sounds highly suspicious to me... "detectives now thought that Milly
Dowler's voicemails had probably been automatically deleted because
they were more than 72 hours old". I've never previously heard of
mobile phone systems deleting voicemails automatically, let alone
after such a short time as 72 hours. My voicemails certainly don't
vanish after three days.
On Dec 12, 9:15 pm, Jon Ribbens <jon+use...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2011-12-12, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> > All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's
> > voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening
> > to the voicemails of living people) but now it seems that the voicemails
> > were probably deleted automatically by the system.
> Sounds highly suspicious to me... "detectives now thought that Milly
> Dowler's voicemails had probably been automatically deleted because
> they were more than 72 hours old". I've never previously heard of
> mobile phone systems deleting voicemails automatically, let alone
> after such a short time as 72 hours. My voicemails certainly don't
> vanish after three days.
Well I don't know but the explantion went "He said "most likely
explanation" was that messages were automatically removed after 72
hours, and added that the network provider had confirmed that this was
"a standard automatic function of that voicemail box system at the
time [2002]". [my insertion] Perhaps things have moved on a bit in 10
years.
The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote in news:9kn8pkFirpU1
@mid.individual.net:
> All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's > voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening > to the voicemails of living people)
Your child's last words stolen away and never heard ...
... sometimes and only sometimes I do question your judgement.
I have no interest in the subject generally hence I haven't replied to the rest of your post, no other reason.
> On 2011-12-12, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's
>> voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening
>> to the voicemails of living people) but now it seems that the voicemails
>> were probably deleted automatically by the system.
> Sounds highly suspicious to me... "detectives now thought that Milly
> Dowler's voicemails had probably been automatically deleted because
> they were more than 72 hours old". I've never previously heard of
> mobile phone systems deleting voicemails automatically, let alone
> after such a short time as 72 hours. My voicemails certainly don't
> vanish after three days.
In message <slrnjecrn8.pan.jon+use...@snowy.squish.net>, Jon Ribbens <jon+use...@unequivocal.co.uk> writes
>On 2011-12-12, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's
>> voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening
>> to the voicemails of living people) but now it seems that the voicemails
>> were probably deleted automatically by the system.
>Sounds highly suspicious to me... "detectives now thought that Milly
>Dowler's voicemails had probably been automatically deleted because
>they were more than 72 hours old". I've never previously heard of
>mobile phone systems deleting voicemails automatically, let alone
>after such a short time as 72 hours. My voicemails certainly don't
>vanish after three days.
Aren't voicemails kept for (say) typically 20 days, and then get deleted?
But can a voicemailbox get full? If, so do the oldest voicemails then get 'bumped off' the list, and deleted?
However, from what I think I heard this evening (BBC R4 6pm news), there are reports of all the voicemails suddenly disappearing together leaving voicemailbox completely empty. All very odd.
-- Ian
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:08:04 +0000, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net>
wrote:
>All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's >voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening >to the voicemails of living people) but now it seems that the voicemails >were probably deleted automatically by the system.
>Maybe the greedy Dowler family and their greedy lawyers should be paying >some money back to the News of the World. Still, the latter probably >have so many guilty secrets, they'd write a blank cheque without even >asking their staff if they've broken the law.
> All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's > voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening to > the voicemails of living people) but now it seems that the voicemails were > probably deleted automatically by the system.
> Maybe the greedy Dowler family and their greedy lawyers should be paying > some money back to the News of the World. Still, the latter probably have > so many guilty secrets, they'd write a blank cheque without even asking > their staff if they've broken the law.
I think the whole thing about the whole thing is that the government want
to have more control over the press.
There already have a lot of control by they want more, they
want a complete propaganda machine which will cover up their own corruption.
The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's
> voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening
> to the voicemails of living people)
I don't know. Are ghouls better or worse than monsters who prey upon the
living?
> but now it seems that the voicemails were probably deleted automatically
> by the system.
Now it is claimed, anyway. I've never heard of this sort of spontaneous
deletion of messages until today.
> Maybe the greedy Dowler family and their greedy lawyers should be paying
> some money back to the News of the World.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:08:04 +0000, The Todal wrote:
> All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's
> voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening
> to the voicemails of living people) but now it seems that the voicemails
> were probably deleted automatically by the system.
> Maybe the greedy Dowler family and their greedy lawyers should be paying
> some money back to the News of the World. Still, the latter probably
> have so many guilty secrets, they'd write a blank cheque without even
> asking their staff if they've broken the law.
The nub of the matter, irrespective of NoTWs deliberate deleting of voicemails, or unintentional (by accessing them, and tripping the 3 day auto-deletion) is the NoTW were *surreptitiously* accessing the account. This meant valuable police time and expertise was engaged in following up apparent phone activity, which might have been better deployed searching for known sex offenders in the area. Who knows, they may have been able to knock on Bellfields door a *second* time, and caught him then.
The sheer arrogance and brass balls of the NoTW cannot be overstated. Who the fuck did they think they were that they could patently (and ILLEGALLY) interfere in a life-or-death police investigation. And here's more thought-fodder ... you don't get an attitude like that overnight. You get it because you have done similar in the past, and got away with it. So how many serious criminal investigations did the NoTW similarly queer ? The only way to find out would be to ask them.
What's that you say ? They've closed down ? I bet the shredders worked overtime in the last 48 hours. I wonder if it was like the film "Downfall" ?
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:55:59 +0000, Jen...@TheOutfall.net wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:08:04 +0000, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net>
>wrote:
>>All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's >>voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening >>to the voicemails of living people) but now it seems that the voicemails >>were probably deleted automatically by the system.
>>Maybe the greedy Dowler family and their greedy lawyers should be paying >>some money back to the News of the World. Still, the latter probably >>have so many guilty secrets, they'd write a blank cheque without even >>asking their staff if they've broken the law.
> The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote in news:9kn8pkFirpU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>> All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's
>> voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening
>> to the voicemails of living people)
> Your child's last words stolen away and never heard ...
No.
The messages that were deleted would have been family and friends asking her to call back. Not her own "last words".
> ... sometimes and only sometimes I do question your judgement.
That's fine. However you should also question why it is that the journalists were allowed to hack voicemails for many years, with management and police turning a blind eye, yet as soon as there is a sob story about how Milly Dowler's voicemails were accessed by journalists (hey, surely someone ought to have listened to them to see if they could provide any leads into the reason for her disappearance) that became the big scandal which justified a public inquiry. And that was a reason for paying the Dowlers and their lawyers over a million pounds.
> I have no interest in the subject generally hence I haven't replied to the
> rest of your post, no other reason.
Ok. I look forward to discussing it when you do develop an interest.
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:08:04 +0000, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net>
> wrote:
>>All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's
>>voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening
>>to the voicemails of living people) but now it seems that the voicemails
>>were probably deleted automatically by the system.
>>Maybe the greedy Dowler family and their greedy lawyers should be paying
>>some money back to the News of the World. Still, the latter probably
>>have so many guilty secrets, they'd write a blank cheque without even
>>asking their staff if they've broken the law.
>> All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's
>> voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening
>> to the voicemails of living people)
> I don't know. Are ghouls better or worse than monsters who prey upon the
> living?
Sorry but this really is emotive drivel and I expect a more sensible response. If you really want to apply to be a headline writer for the Mail, this isn't the place to show off your writing skills.
>> but now it seems that the voicemails were probably deleted automatically
>> by the system.
> Now it is claimed, anyway. I've never heard of this sort of spontaneous
> deletion of messages until today.
>> Maybe the greedy Dowler family and their greedy lawyers should be paying
>> some money back to the News of the World.
> That is quite uncharacteristically charmless.
I found it charmless of the Dowlers and their lawyers to seek huge sums of money for an injury which was largely illusory. Actually, does anyone have an accurate figure for the damages and costs: in one Mail article it said the Dowlers wanted two million for themselves, one million for charity and it wasn't stated what the lawyers would want for their costs but you can bet that would be a big sum too.
This at a time when people are losing their jobs, businesses are closing down and if you sustain a severe injury leading to brain damage and paralysis you might end up with less than one million pounds compensation.
Try not to conflate the fact that their daughter was murdered, a terrible tragedy for them, with the fact that journalists in their attempts to sell newspapers were listening to the voicemails on a dead person's phone. The journalists didn't murder the child. They didn't impede the search for her killer. And if there was a moment when the mother believed her daughter may have accessed the voicemails, it turns out that this was probably because the mails had been automatically deleted by the system. Of course, another scenario might have been that the phone was being used by a thief. I can't believe that this hadn't occurred to the Dowler family.
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:08:04 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>> All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's
>> voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening
>> to the voicemails of living people) but now it seems that the voicemails
>> were probably deleted automatically by the system.
>> Maybe the greedy Dowler family and their greedy lawyers should be paying
>> some money back to the News of the World. Still, the latter probably
>> have so many guilty secrets, they'd write a blank cheque without even
>> asking their staff if they've broken the law.
> The nub of the matter, irrespective of NoTWs deliberate deleting of
> voicemails, or unintentional (by accessing them, and tripping the 3 day
> auto-deletion) is the NoTW were *surreptitiously* accessing the account.
> This meant valuable police time and expertise was engaged in following up
> apparent phone activity, which might have been better deployed searching
> for known sex offenders in the area.
That's pure speculation and (so far) no police officer has said that their time was wasted. Do look at it logically. If it was found that the phone had been used after Milly's disappearance, the most likely explanation would be that the murderer, or a casual thief, was using it. Yes, it's tempting to say that Rupert Murdoch is no better than Levi Bellfield but if we don't see the facts in their proper perspective we'll never regulate the press in a sensible and proportionate way.
> >> All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's
> >> voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with listening
> >> to the voicemails of living people)
> > I don't know. Are ghouls better or worse than monsters who prey upon the
> > living?
> Sorry but this really is emotive drivel and I expect a more sensible > response. If you really want to apply to be a headline writer for the Mail,
> this isn't the place to show off your writing skills.
I'm not making judgements, you are. Why do you think that interefering
with a missing child's phone messages doesn't matter but that spying on
a living person's is much worse?
> The nub of the matter, irrespective of NoTWs deliberate deleting of
>> voicemails, or unintentional (by accessing them, and tripping the 3 day
>> auto-deletion) is the NoTW were *surreptitiously* accessing the account.
>> This meant valuable police time and expertise was engaged in following up
>> apparent phone activity, which might have been better deployed searching
>> for known sex offenders in the area.
> That's pure speculation and (so far) no police officer has said that their
> time was wasted. Do look at it logically. If it was found that the phone had
> been used after Milly's disappearance, the most likely explanation would be
> that the murderer, or a casual thief, was using it. Yes, it's tempting to
> say that Rupert Murdoch is no better than Levi Bellfield but if we don't see
> the facts in their proper perspective we'll never regulate the press in a
> sensible and proportionate way.
... and BTW, Mr Bellfield has never been and is not a 'Sex Offender'.
>> >> All a fuss about nothing. I don't think it even matters if a dead >> >> girl's
>> >> voicemails are deleted by journalists (trivial, compared with >> >> listening
>> >> to the voicemails of living people)
>> > I don't know. Are ghouls better or worse than monsters who prey upon >> > the
>> > living?
>> Sorry but this really is emotive drivel and I expect a more sensible
>> response. If you really want to apply to be a headline writer for the >> Mail,
>> this isn't the place to show off your writing skills.
> I'm not making judgements, you are. Why do you think that interefering
> with a missing child's phone messages doesn't matter but that spying on
> a living person's is much worse?
Because if a child is missing it is *imperative* that all possible leads are followed up, including listening to her voicemail messages. What next? Do you say that nobody should read her personal diary either? I agree that ideally it ought to be police officers who are entrusted with listening to voicemails and reading private diaries. Journalists in search of a story aren't really to be trusted with private and sensitive information, not even if they can be relied on to pass anything important back to the police, but in the event they didn't publish anything from the voicemails that was damaging to Milly's reputation - no stories about secret male admirers asking her out on a date, or anything of that sort.
Listening to voicemails is equivalent to reading short notes that *other people* have sent to that person. What is really intrusive is when the person is living and the message is from a former lover begging for forgiveness or from a business associate complaining about a breach of contract. The messages that are left on a kid's phone are bland and uninteresting unless from a pervert trying to arrange a meeting with them.
The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> > I'm not making judgements, you are. Why do you think that interefering
> > with a missing child's phone messages doesn't matter but that spying on
> > a living person's is much worse?
> Because if a child is missing it is *imperative* that all possible leads are
> followed up, including listening to her voicemail messages. What next? Do
> you say that nobody should read her personal diary either?
You can't tell the difference between a police investigation of a
missing child and the grubbing around of a tabloid newspaper?
> I agree that ideally it ought to be police officers who are entrusted
> with listening to voicemails and reading private diaries. Journalists in
> search of a story aren't really to be trusted with private and sensitive
> information, not even if they can be relied on to pass anything important
> back to the police, but in the event they didn't publish anything from the
> voicemails that was damaging to Milly's reputation - no stories about
> secret male admirers asking her out on a date, or anything of that sort.
That makes it all right then.
> Listening to voicemails is equivalent to reading short notes that *other
> people* have sent to that person. What is really intrusive is when the
> person is living and the message is from a former lover begging for > forgiveness or from a business associate complaining about a breach of
> contract. The messages that are left on a kid's phone are bland and > uninteresting unless from a pervert trying to arrange a meeting with them.
That's like saying it's less intrusive if someone breaks into your house
but as it happens found nothing of salacious interest in your bedside
table.
>> > I'm not making judgements, you are. Why do you think that interefering
>> > with a missing child's phone messages doesn't matter but that spying on
>> > a living person's is much worse?
>> Because if a child is missing it is *imperative* that all possible leads >> are
>> followed up, including listening to her voicemail messages. What next? Do
>> you say that nobody should read her personal diary either?
> You can't tell the difference between a police investigation of a
> missing child and the grubbing around of a tabloid newspaper?
>> I agree that ideally it ought to be police officers who are entrusted
>> with listening to voicemails and reading private diaries. Journalists in
>> search of a story aren't really to be trusted with private and sensitive
>> information, not even if they can be relied on to pass anything important
>> back to the police, but in the event they didn't publish anything from >> the
>> voicemails that was damaging to Milly's reputation - no stories about
>> secret male admirers asking her out on a date, or anything of that sort.
> That makes it all right then.
It makes it a nominal infringement of privacy rather than a dreadful scandal. Actually I suspect the media have dressed up Dowlergate as a dreadful scandal to divert attention from their regular infringement of privacy of celebrities like Siena Miller, Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan. Pretend that the dead girl's messages are far more important than anything else. You can buy that if you want to, but I refuse to.
>> Listening to voicemails is equivalent to reading short notes that *other
>> people* have sent to that person. What is really intrusive is when the
>> person is living and the message is from a former lover begging for
>> forgiveness or from a business associate complaining about a breach of
>> contract. The messages that are left on a kid's phone are bland and
>> uninteresting unless from a pervert trying to arrange a meeting with >> them.
> That's like saying it's less intrusive if someone breaks into your house
> but as it happens found nothing of salacious interest in your bedside
> table.
That's one analogy but it's rather unsatisfactory.
If it was breaking into a house, nobody would condone it. You have to bear in mind that journalists have been listening to private voicemail messages (they, or their paid detectives) for years and the police have been aware of it as has the Information Commissioner, but they have done nothing.
Perhaps the belief was that it was so easy to do and so widespread that a blind eye should be turned.
If someone rings your landline and, knowing what answering machine you have, types the default combination of keys that will enable them to listen to your messages, that would be exactly the same scenario. If a friend or family member did it, you would be very annoyed with them - more so if you knew they had heard something very private and intimate. But you wouldn't necessarily report them to the police.
The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> >> I agree that ideally it ought to be police officers who are entrusted
> >> with listening to voicemails and reading private diaries. Journalists in
> >> search of a story aren't really to be trusted with private and sensitive
> >> information, not even if they can be relied on to pass anything important
> >> back to the police, but in the event they didn't publish anything from
> >> the
> >> voicemails that was damaging to Milly's reputation - no stories about
> >> secret male admirers asking her out on a date, or anything of that sort.
> > That makes it all right then.
> It makes it a nominal infringement of privacy rather than a dreadful > scandal.
If it interfered with the police investigation of Milly Dowler's
disappearance - if it's true that they interfered with the messages -
then it seems pretty serious.
(It find it somewhat amazing that after all these years this is the
first time we've heard of the self-deleting phone messages story.)
But even if it didn't interfere, I think it is still a dreadful scandal;
even if legally it remains what you call a nominal infringement of
privacy, it's still morally disgusting.
> Actually I suspect the media have dressed up Dowlergate as a > dreadful scandal to divert attention from their regular infringement of
> privacy of celebrities like Siena Miller, Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan.
> Pretend that the dead girl's messages are far more important than anything
> else. You can buy that if you want to, but I refuse to.
I don't want to "buy it". It's your suggestion, not mine. I was
questioning *your* judgement that breaking into a missing child's
telephone messages was much less worse than doing the same to live
people, and that it didn't even matter.
>> >> I agree that ideally it ought to be police officers who are entrusted
>> >> with listening to voicemails and reading private diaries. Journalists >> >> in
>> >> search of a story aren't really to be trusted with private and >> >> sensitive
>> >> information, not even if they can be relied on to pass anything >> >> important
>> >> back to the police, but in the event they didn't publish anything from
>> >> the
>> >> voicemails that was damaging to Milly's reputation - no stories about
>> >> secret male admirers asking her out on a date, or anything of that >> >> sort.
>> > That makes it all right then.
>> It makes it a nominal infringement of privacy rather than a dreadful
>> scandal.
> If it interfered with the police investigation of Milly Dowler's
> disappearance - if it's true that they interfered with the messages -
> then it seems pretty serious.
Yes, but no police officer has (yet) said that it interfered with their investigations. It seems inherently unlikely that it could do so.
> (It find it somewhat amazing that after all these years this is the
> first time we've heard of the self-deleting phone messages story.)
> But even if it didn't interfere, I think it is still a dreadful scandal;
> even if legally it remains what you call a nominal infringement of
> privacy, it's still morally disgusting.
>> Actually I suspect the media have dressed up Dowlergate as a
>> dreadful scandal to divert attention from their regular infringement of
>> privacy of celebrities like Siena Miller, Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan.
>> Pretend that the dead girl's messages are far more important than >> anything
>> else. You can buy that if you want to, but I refuse to.
> I don't want to "buy it". It's your suggestion, not mine. I was
> questioning *your* judgement that breaking into a missing child's
> telephone messages was much less worse than doing the same to live
> people, and that it didn't even matter.
That's fine, but you haven't even begun to persuade me that breaking into (listening to) a missing child's messages is anything like as serious as listening to the messages of a living person.
I didn't say that it didn't even matter. It matters as an example of the press infringing privacy. But as a matter of common sense *someone* had to listen to her messages and read her diary and any letters she may have left, whereas the same definitely does not apply to David Blunkett, Tony Blair, Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan etc etc.
So on a scale of importance, Dowler's messages should rate far lower in the scale than anyone else's and the reason they don't is press hysteria which seems to have affected normally rational commentators.
>>> >> I agree that ideally it ought to be police officers who are
>>> >> entrusted
>>> >> with listening to voicemails and reading private diaries. >>> >> Journalists in
>>> >> search of a story aren't really to be trusted with private and
>>> >> sensitive
>>> >> information, not even if they can be relied on to pass anything
>>> >> important
>>> >> back to the police, but in the event they didn't publish anything
>>> >> from the
>>> >> voicemails that was damaging to Milly's reputation - no stories
>>> >> about secret male admirers asking her out on a date, or anything of
>>> >> that sort.
>>> > That makes it all right then.
>>> It makes it a nominal infringement of privacy rather than a dreadful
>>> scandal.
>> If it interfered with the police investigation of Milly Dowler's
>> disappearance - if it's true that they interfered with the messages -
>> then it seems pretty serious.
> Yes, but no police officer has (yet) said that it interfered with their
> investigations. It seems inherently unlikely that it could do so.
Given the questionable arrangements between NI and the Met police, I would be extremely careful on anything they state which can't be independently verified.
The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> > I don't want to "buy it". It's your suggestion, not mine. I was
> > questioning *your* judgement that breaking into a missing child's
> > telephone messages was much less worse than doing the same to live
> > people, and that it didn't even matter.
> That's fine, but you haven't even begun to persuade me that breaking into
> (listening to) a missing child's messages is anything like as serious as
> listening to the messages of a living person.
> I didn't say that it didn't even matter.
You said: "I don't think it even matters if a dead girl's voicemails are
deleted by journalists".
> It matters as an example of the > press infringing privacy. But as a matter of common sense *someone* had to
> listen to her messages and read her diary and any letters she may have left,
> whereas the same definitely does not apply to David Blunkett, Tony Blair,
> Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan etc etc.
> So on a scale of importance, Dowler's messages should rate far lower in the
> scale than anyone else's and the reason they don't is press hysteria which
> seems to have affected normally rational commentators.
The phone was one of the last links to the missing girl. I don't believe
that journalists and their private investigators should have been
dicking about with it for the purposes of selling their newspapers.
And even leaving that aside - perhaps listening to phone messages no
more interferes with them than reading someone's newspaper headlines
over their shoulder interferes with the text on the page - I think it is
an invasive, disrespectful, abusive violating thing to do, and I think
that "ghoulish" is about the right word for it.
On 2011-12-13, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> I didn't say that it didn't even matter. It matters as an example of the > press infringing privacy. But as a matter of common sense *someone* had to > listen to her messages and read her diary and any letters she may have left,
You keep saying that. But I can't see how you can possibly be
seriously claiming with a straight face that there is any kind
of equivalence *whatsoever* between her messages being listened to
by a police officer as part of the investigation, and them being
listened to by a journalist after a news story.
