Milly Downler's voicemails WEREN'T deleted by journalists

[The Todal]

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16146527

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2011-12-12, The Todal <deadm...@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.

[Mel Rowing]

On Dec 12, 9:15 pm, Jon Ribbens <jon+use...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

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.

[Periander]

The Todal <deadm...@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.

--

Regards,


Periander

[R. Giggs.]

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnjecrn8.p...@snowy.squish.net...

might be different if the mail is full

[Ian Jackson]

In message <slrnjecrn8.p...@snowy.squish.net>, Jon Ribbens
<jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> writes

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

[Jen...@theoutfall.net]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:08:04 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

You fucking bastard. Maybe you would take a different view if your
daughter had been murdered.

Cunt

[R. Giggs.]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:9kn8pk...@mid.individual.net...

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.

[D.M. Procida]

The Todal <deadm...@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.

That is quite uncharacteristically charmless.

Daniele

[Jethro]

from El Reg ..
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2011/12/12/notw_dowler_voicemail/
#c_1261406

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" ?

[Theodore]

Fuck you too. I'm sure the million quid would make you feel a little
better too.

[The Todal]

"Periander" <peri...@inbox.con> wrote in message
news:Xns9FB9DB528...@69.16.176.251...

> The Todal <deadm...@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.

[The Todal]

<Jen...@TheOutfall.net> wrote in message
news:svtce710u87is7rvd...@4ax.com...

Dear Cunt (odd name you've chosen)

No, I'd take exactly the same view.

[The Todal]

"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:1kc6uqy.19xt413z69eghN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...

> The Todal <deadm...@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?

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039266/Phone-hacking-Milly-Dowlers-family-offered-3m-settlement-News-International.html

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.

[The Todal]

"Jethro" <krazy...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:SGxFq.55883$8A3....@newsfe15.ams2...

> 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.
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16146527
>
> from El Reg ..
> http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2011/12/12/notw_dowler_voicemail/
> #c_1261406
>
> 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.

[D.M. Procida]

The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

> "D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> news:1kc6uqy.19xt413z69eghN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...
> > The Todal <deadm...@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?
>
> 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?

> in one Mail article it said

An ironic choice of source.

Daniele

[Nigel Oldfield]

> 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'.

WM

[The Todal]

"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message

news:1kc7k2k.15mq6aq1c0av5lN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...

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.

[D.M. Procida]

The Todal <deadm...@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.

Daniele

[The Todal]

"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message

news:1kc7p1h.1t73grafrmk8pN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...

> The Todal <deadm...@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.

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.

[D.M. Procida]

The Todal <deadm...@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.

Daniele

[The Todal]

"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message

news:1kc7qlc.q0l8xvi3lf6eN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...

> The Todal <deadm...@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.

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.

[Jethro]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:28:26 +0000, The Todal wrote:

> "D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
> message

> news:1kc7qlc.q0l8xvi3lf6eN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-

juice.co.uk...
>> The Todal <deadm...@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.
>
> 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.

[D.M. Procida]

The Todal <deadm...@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.

Daniele

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2011-12-13, The Todal <deadm...@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.

[Jethro]

I have another word.

Criminal.

[The Todal]

"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message

news:1kc7sd6.hcs5zv1k91vizN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...

> The Todal <deadm...@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".

Fair enough. I have changed my mind and I think it matters but only as a
symptom of wrongdoing that was taking place in more important ways.

>
>> 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.
>

In that case, your distaste is far more than mine is, and perhaps that means
that in another life, I could have been the sort of journalist or detective
who rummages through a dead person's possessions. Some people do have to do
such things for a living - police, council employees arranging the funeral
of a person who died alone without any apparent relatives, lawyers. Others
can keep at a comfortable distance from such activities.

I don't know how you'd define "ghoulish". That implies an unnatural interest
in death or in dead people. Would it be ghoulish to rummage through the
clothing and toys of Madeleine McCann? The aim of journalists is to find a
story with a new and interesting angle. That's where they go wrong, because
if the only evidence they find is mundane, they'll probably publish a story
which says "Milly's anguished parents were ringing her mobile phone every
hour last week, hoping against hope that she would answer". That's what
passes for human interest. It is however far less damaging and far less
intrusive than the video recording of Max Mosley and his prostitutes.

[The Todal]

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message

news:slrnjeeiji.2...@snowy.squish.net...

That would depend on the nature of the relationship between police and
journalists. There are indications that they pooled information when it
suited them. I don't suppose the police have always been scrupulous in
seeking permission or obtaining court orders before listening to voicemails
on the phones of villains or missing persons.

Obviously the journalists or their detectives were acting unlawfully (or
illegally if you prefer that term) whenever they listened to voicemails. The
fact that the authorities knew and turned a blind eye probably encouraged
this behaviour.

If a member of your family went missing and the police didn't seem to be
making any progress you might well be grateful if the journalists did a bit
of detective work on the case, even if they didn't ask your permission.
What would upset and offend you is if the story they published was an
infringement of privacy.

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Sally-Bob-Dowler.pdf

If you look at what the Dowlers have actually said, you find that what
particularly upset them was photos of them with a long lens when they didn't
realise they were being observed, and all the doorstepping. That has been
glossed over in the news reports because no editor would ever want to forego
his right to camp at a person's front door and badger them into giving an
interview. In addition paras 15 and 16 describe the elation of believing
for a short time that she might be alive. That wasn't in itself
distressing. At para 19 they describe their distress at finding out in
2011, nine years after their daughter's death, that the journalists had
listened to voicemails. At para 25 they describe how the thought of yet
more press interest because of the phone hacking scandal was stressful to
them.

An analogy would be one of those cases such as Alder Hey when parents
discover that parts of their children were not buried with them but are in
specimen bottles in a lab. It is upsetting and distressing. It revives old
memories. Perhaps it would have been better if they had not been told.

[D.M. Procida]

The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

> > 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.
> >
>
> In that case, your distaste is far more than mine is, and perhaps that means
> that in another life, I could have been the sort of journalist or detective
> who rummages through a dead person's possessions. Some people do have to do
> such things for a living - police, council employees arranging the funeral
> of a person who died alone without any apparent relatives, lawyers. Others
> can keep at a comfortable distance from such activities.

It's the business of the police, council employees etc to go, sometimes
uninvited, through dead people's private things. They're doing it
because it's their responsibility, and part of their service to the dead
and to society.

There is no legal or moral duty to do the same if your service is to a
newspaper that's hoping you'll turn up something will provide an
opportunity for some salacious moralising.

> I don't know how you'd define "ghoulish". That implies an unnatural interest
> in death or in dead people. Would it be ghoulish to rummage through the
> clothing and toys of Madeleine McCann?

It would rather depend on whether you were doing it for Madeleine
McCann's sake, or you were using Madeleine McCann and her family merely
for your own ends.

Daniele

[The Todal]

"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
message

news:1kc7v2u.1hlhes7bl1xxfN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...

Although I agree with you, journalists take themselves very seriously. They
reckon that they have a vital part to play in our society, not merely
exposing scandals but also giving us human interest stories that tell us how
people react to stress and to tragedy. If they get confidential information
by using a paid detective, they will fight to the end for their right to
guard the privacy of their source. Until a judge orders them to give that
information.

>
>> I don't know how you'd define "ghoulish". That implies an unnatural
>> interest
>> in death or in dead people. Would it be ghoulish to rummage through the
>> clothing and toys of Madeleine McCann?
>
> It would rather depend on whether you were doing it for Madeleine
> McCann's sake, or you were using Madeleine McCann and her family merely
> for your own ends.
>

So why were there so many stories about the McCann case, and why is it still
discussed in usenet? I don't think it's for Madeleine's sake. It's because
people like to peddle conspiracy theories, or to be controversial by
slagging off the parents.

Periander, for example, will readily offer us his opinion that the McCanns
were irresponsible parents who ought to have been prosecuted or had their
surviving children taken from them by social services. Any hurt or offence
to the McCanns is unimportant to him. And to many other people. But he
grieves for Milly's missing messages. He feels the pain of Mr and Mrs
Dowler but not, seemingly, the pain of Mr and Mrs McCann. So maybe these
cheap and nasty human interest stories in the gutter press exist to help us
calibrate our emotions, or maybe they just exist to boost sales.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2011-12-13, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

> Periander, for example, will readily offer us his opinion that the McCanns
> were irresponsible parents who ought to have been prosecuted or had their
> surviving children taken from them by social services. Any hurt or offence
> to the McCanns is unimportant to him. And to many other people. But he
> grieves for Milly's missing messages. He feels the pain of Mr and Mrs
> Dowler but not, seemingly, the pain of Mr and Mrs McCann.

And yet equally mysteriously you feel the pain of the McCanns but not
that of the Dowlers. I'm not sure how you think that's better.

[The Todal]

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message

news:slrnjeerli.5...@snowy.squish.net...

That's quite untrue. Nobody could fail to share the pain of parents whose
daughter has been abducted and murdered (unless the parents happen to be the
McCanns). The murderer, Levi Bellfield, is the person who deserves all the
hatred and contempt. The Dowlers deserve a lot of sympathy.

The indignation over the hacking of Milly's phone - whereby a journalist or
private investigator can be presumed to have listened to messages left by
Milly's family or friends, within a short time of Milly's disappearance - is
an exaggerated and fabricated indignation. Those who have exaggerated it are
the newspapers, because they wanted to draw attention away from what they
believe is their legitimate practice of hacking the phones of living
celebrities, and the Dowlers' lawyers, because they wanted to get a large
sum in compo and a nice big award of costs for themselves. The hacking
didn't actually harm the Dowlers at the time it was done, but the exposing
of this misbehaviour in 2011 has caused them some pain and stress not least
because once again loads of journalists were doorstepping them and demanding
quotes.

I think it's a pity that the Dowlers have been exploited ruthlessly by
various people who saw ways of making money from them - first the Press,
then the lawyers. I suppose if three million pounds of compensation was the
figure that their lawyers demanded, the Dowlers cannot be blamed for
accepting legal advice and going for the jackpot. It would have been more
dignified to have given it all to charity but people are only human and
people can't help being greedy. Obviously no court would ever have awarded
so much compensation. It was a desperate attempt by the Murdoch empire to
buy some goodwill, and it totally failed - if anything, it gave everyone the
false impression that three million quid's worth of injury had occurred. And
the whole thing is an irrelevant sideshow compared with most of the other
evidence heard by Leveson.

Another curious parallel between the Dowlers and the McCanns is the money
they have each received. The Dowlers have had a disproportionately huge
award of compensation for a wrong done to them in the distant past of which
they weren't aware at the time, and they will use most of it to have a
better lifestyle for themselves. The McCanns have worked hard to raise funds
to enable them to publicise the search for their child and most people seem
to regard that as exploiting their child to make money for themselves, even
though their child remains missing and Milly Dowler is undoubtedly dead.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2011-12-13, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnjeerli.5...@snowy.squish.net...

>> And yet equally mysteriously you feel the pain of the McCanns but not
>> that of the Dowlers. I'm not sure how you think that's better.
>
> That's quite untrue. Nobody could fail to share the pain of parents whose
> daughter has been abducted and murdered (unless the parents happen to be the
> McCanns). The murderer, Levi Bellfield, is the person who deserves all the
> hatred and contempt. The Dowlers deserve a lot of sympathy.

That admirable attitude seemed to be strikingly absent in your first
post to this thread, where you said "Maybe the greedy Dowler family

[The Todal]

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message

news:slrnjef41p.6...@snowy.squish.net...

Your sanctimonious attitude just makes you look foolish and credulous.

Yes, they and their lawyers were overpaid by the News of the World and the
whole lot ought to be donated to charity. That doesn't affect the obvious
fact that the Dowlers lost their daughter and deserve lots of sympathy for
that. It would be really lovely if every family of a murdered child could
get three million pounds, but that isn't the world in which we live.

[Chuckles]

In article <9kokiq...@mid.individual.net>, deadm...@beeb.net
says...

>
>
> 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.
>

Whereas, of course, the moment anyone dares to mention your beloved
McCanns and their extraordinary behaviour re "gimme gimme gimme" you go
apeshit.

Must try harder Todes, such double standards are beneath you.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2011-12-13, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message

> news:slrnjef41p.6...@snowy.squish.net...

>> That admirable attitude seemed to be strikingly absent in your first
>> post to this thread, where you said "Maybe the greedy Dowler family
>> and their greedy lawyers should be paying some money back to the News
>> of the World".
>
> Your sanctimonious attitude just makes you look foolish and credulous.

It might if I had such an attitude. I just thought it odd that you
always defend the McCanns (rightly, in my view) and then make a rather
nasty attack on the Dowlers for no obvious reason. That has nothing to
do with whether or not I think the Dowlers or their lawyers should be
receiving large amounts of money from newspapers.

Your attitude to the hacking of Milly's phone is fairly odd too.
It is pretty obvious why people regard it as worse than the hacking
of celebrities' phones, and it has nothing to do with "because the
papers told them to think so". You seem strangely credulous of the
"auto-deletion" explanation too.

[Periander]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in

news:9kok2v...@mid.individual.net:

>
> "Periander" <peri...@inbox.con> wrote in message
> news:Xns9FB9DB528...@69.16.176.251...
>> The Todal <deadm...@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".

Fair enough, as I say the whole thing's been a non-story for me so I
haven't been following it.


--

Regards,


Periander

[The Todal]

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message

news:slrnjef8be.7...@snowy.squish.net...

I apologise for my discourteous words.

I don't know of a polite way to describe a family who, encouraged by
lawyers, secure damages of three million pounds which is plainly far more
than they are entitled to, from a company which has now closed a newspaper
resulting in many job losses.

It's greedy, but whether the greed can be attributed to the Dowlers or to
their lawyers is something that only they would know. Some people might
settle for a fulsome apology and a donation of say one thousand pounds to
charity.

I don't find it pretty obvious why people regard it as worse than the
hacking of celebrities' phones. I don't find that at all obvious. I
attribute it to newspapers stoking up indignation for their own purposes (ie
to make light of the hacking of living people's phones because they intend
to go on doing that), but you evidently believe that most right thinking
people would find it abhorrent that a journalist has dialled in and listened
to "Milly, please ring back when you get this message". Perhaps someone
could explain why it is so very abhorrent.

And if (as the latest evidence from the Met suggests) any such dialling in
was *after* the Dowlers got false encouragement by realising that some
voicemails had been deleted, then is that less serious or equally serious?

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2011-12-14, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> I don't know of a polite way to describe a family who, encouraged by
> lawyers, secure damages of three million pounds which is plainly far more
> than they are entitled to, from a company which has now closed a newspaper
> resulting in many job losses.
>
> It's greedy, but whether the greed can be attributed to the Dowlers or to
> their lawyers is something that only they would know. Some people might
> settle for a fulsome apology and a donation of say one thousand pounds to
> charity.

I think they might quite rightly expect that News International
should be punished to the tune of more than a few thousand pounds.
I also think it's rather unfair to call it 'greedy'. If somebody
offered you two million pounds that you may or may not deserve
but would be legitimately and honestly yours, I think it would take
very great strength of character to say "I don't deserve it, give it
to charity instead", and if you accepted the money I don't think that
would make you "greedy". It's not like the money is coming from
starving orphans.

> I don't find it pretty obvious why people regard it as worse than the
> hacking of celebrities' phones. I don't find that at all obvious. I
> attribute it to newspapers stoking up indignation for their own purposes (ie
> to make light of the hacking of living people's phones because they intend
> to go on doing that), but you evidently believe that most right thinking
> people would find it abhorrent that a journalist has dialled in and listened
> to "Milly, please ring back when you get this message". Perhaps someone
> could explain why it is so very abhorrent.

For the obvious reason that the victims were ordinary people who were
already undergoing an awful and traumatic experience, as opposed to
celebrities who many people feel practically deserve press intrusion
as it is effectively part of their job.

> And if (as the latest evidence from the Met suggests) any such dialling in
> was *after* the Dowlers got false encouragement by realising that some
> voicemails had been deleted, then is that less serious or equally serious?

*If* that turns out to be the case (and as far as I'm aware there is
no such evidence from the Met as you suggest, what they're saying is
that there is a *lack* of evidence, and I'm not sure precisely what
evidence they're expecting to find at this point) then it would be
less serious than if they did in fact delete voicemails.

[Phi]

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message

news:slrnjehe99.7...@snowy.squish.net...

Would the voicemails not been deleted after being accessed by the NOTW
reporters mobile phone ?

[The Todal]

"Phi" <phi...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:oqadnTygzcZHR3XT...@bt.com...

>
>
> Would the voicemails not been deleted after being accessed by the NOTW
> reporters mobile phone ?

Most of us have mobile phones. You have to press a key (eg 3) to delete the
message.

The new evidence about Milly's voicemails not being deleted by journalists
came from a barrister representing the police, so it could be reliable and
not designed to protect dishonest journalists.

As to what the journalists themselves had in mind, here's the opinion of
Paul "Privacy is for Paedos" McMullen:

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-29-November-2011.txt

Q. Is there anything you would like to say to Lord Justice Leveson to
assist him in making recommendations for the future regulation of the press?

A. Yes. This all came about due to the phone hacking of Milly Dowler's
phone. I don't think anyone gives two hoots about the celebrities, a lot of
whom are being paid by the same companies who paid me. You know, 20th
Century Fox and News International. But last summer -- I have a
two-year-old son who went missing out of our back garden. He only went
missing for about 20 minutes and I was -- I felt the emotion that I imagine
that Mrs Dowler felt when her own child went missing, and it's one of the
most powerful emotions you can feel. I remember sprinting up and down the
high street and out to the park thinking -- you know, I'd left the side gate
of the garden open. Now, it's clear that Glenn Mulcaire appears to have
furnished the information to allow the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone and
it is my -- it's very difficult for me to say that actually, because I know
how corrupt the police can be and how actually, it's run by a bunch of
Inspector Clouseaus, that the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone was not a bad
thing for a journalist, a well-meaning journalist who is only trying to help
find the girl to do. I did a World Service phone-in a little while ago and
from Mexico City to Nairobi, the people there just instantly assumed that
the police are corrupt and more likely to commit a murder than actually
solve one. So they were with me and they said how lucky it was the Dowlers
had bright, enthusiastic, well-meaning journalists on their side also
looking for Milly, and how annoying it must be for PC Plod as his inept
colleagues to hide away information and, you know, it's not such a bad
thing. There's a number of articles that I wrote on
Milly Dowler. I'll show you one. I was the first journalist to put a link
to a railway that may have been -- that's my Daily Mail link to vice girls,
a career-ending story -- that -- so our intentions were good. Our
intentions were honourable. We were doing our best to find the little
girl, and the police are utterly incompetent and should be ashamed that the
man who killed her was allowed to carry on, and there are other mothers now
without their children because of the police's incompetence, and I felt the
same emotions at losing a child that I imagine Mrs Dowler must have felt,
and you must put that aside and say, actually, the press and a free press
and a press that strays into a grey area is a good thing for the country and
a good thing for democracy and that's all.

LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Right.

MR BARR: Thank you for your evidence, Mr McMullan.

[Nigel Oldfield]

> from Mexico City to Nairobi, the people there just instantly assumed that
> the police are corrupt and more likely to commit a murder than actually
> solve one. So they were with me and they said how lucky it was the Dowlers
> had bright, enthusiastic, well-meaning journalists on their side also
> looking for Milly, and how annoying it must be for PC Plod as his inept
> colleagues to hide away information and, you know, it's not such a bad
> thing. There's a number of articles that I wrote on
> Milly Dowler. I'll show you one. I was the first journalist to put a link
> to a railway that may have been -- that's my Daily Mail link to vice girls,
> a career-ending story -- that -- so our intentions were good. Our
> intentions were honourable. We were doing our best to find the little
> girl, and the police are utterly incompetent and should be ashamed that the
> man who killed her was allowed to carry on, and there are other mothers now
> without their children because of the police's incompetence,

... and these are the same police officers who have decided that Ms D's
mobile messages were not deleted?

Who to believe, eh?

WM

[The Todal]

"Nigel Oldfield" <WMCritica...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:jcaomk$c1t$5...@dont-email.me...

Whom indeed.

No, I doubt if it would be *the same* police officers, tempting though it
may be to tar all police with the same brush.

[Nigel Oldfield]

>>> man who killed her was allowed to carry on, and there are other mothers
>>> now
>>> without their children because of the police's incompetence,
>>
>> ... and these are the same police officers who have decided that Ms D's
>> mobile messages were not deleted?
>>
>> Who to believe, eh?
>
> Whom indeed.
>
> No, I doubt if it would be *the same* police officers, tempting though it
> may be to tar all police with the same brush.

They are all the 'same officers'.

WM

[Nigel Oldfield]

They are called ACPO.

WM

[Cynic]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:15:20 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

>On 2011-12-12, The Todal <deadm...@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.

The statement was that voicemail messages *that have been listened to*
are deleted after 72 hours. Thus the phone hackers might have been
indirectly responsible, insofar that if they had not listened to the
messages, they would not have been deleted (unless someone else had
legitimately listened to them)

--
cynic

[Cynic]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:32:59 GMT, Periander <peri...@inbox.con>
wrote:

>The Todal <deadm...@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 ...

Except it will not of course be the child's voice on the voicemails,
but the people who tried to phone the child. those people are no
doubt still alive, so anyone who wants to hear their voice need only
call them.

--
Cynic

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2011-12-14, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:15:20 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
><jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>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.
>
> The statement was that voicemail messages *that have been listened to*
> are deleted after 72 hours.

No phone I've ever owned has worked that way as far as I know.

> Thus the phone hackers might have been indirectly responsible,
> insofar that if they had not listened to the messages, they would
> not have been deleted (unless someone else had legitimately listened
> to them)

Indeed.