Received: by 10.42.144.198 with SMTP id c6mr28135828icv.1.1323770863080;
        Tue, 13 Dec 2011 02:07:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: lh20ni17317pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net>
Newsgroups: uk.legal
Subject: Re: Milly Downler's voicemails WEREN'T deleted by journalists
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:07:39 -0000
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <9komfdFijoU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <9kn8pkFirpU1@mid.individual.net> <1kc6uqy.19xt413z69eghN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> <9kokiqF41hU1@mid.individual.net> <1kc7k2k.15mq6aq1c0av5lN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>
X-Trace: individual.net olh1vs47c6Zua6KP/XszGQIDTwswDo4hfG9z0oKKYAvaP5+rF+
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HZwYocZU96gocDTy/UXyt9/Xcm8=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original


"D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in 
message 
news:1kc7k2k.15mq6aq1c0av5lN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
> The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>> "D.M. Procida" <real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote in
>> message
>> news:1kc6uqy.19xt413z69eghN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
>> > 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?
>>
>> 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.