News Of the World will close its doors.

200 people from printers to truck drivers, administrative staff to all the journalists will lose their jobs.

The editor, Rebekah Brooks keeps her job. Murdoch heir, James keeps his.

A few journalists who were responsible into the hacking of private people's phone messages have been or will be arrested.

"Meanwhile, Scotland Yard said up to 4000 people may have had their voicemails accessed by the News of the World and added that it was probing claims that the paper had paid policemen for information."

http://tinyurl.com/3q6xldc

Prior to this we had the GFC - Giant Financial Collapse. Who came out of that worse off?

Winding time further back, in Victoria in 1998, a gas explosion causing the death of 2 workers and stopped gas supplies for Victorians for two weeks and the event was blamed upon an untrained worker.

"Esso blamed the accident on worker negligence, in particular Jim Ward, one of the panel workers on duty on the day of the explosion.

The findings of the Royal Commission, however, cleared Ward of any negligence or wrong-doing. Instead, the Commission found Esso fully responsible for the accident."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esso_Longford_gas_explosion

In all cases the people paid considerable incomes were not held responsible for their organisational practices and behaviours.

The only time the much lauded 'trickle down effect' appears to operate is during industry failure, where the majority suffer for the actions of the few.

I am looking forward to an interesting, informed and courteous discussion on corporate behaviour that ultimately impacts on us all.

Ammonite not sure any forum, in the world, can give you the form of discussion you require.
I am unsure putting any limits on freedom to talk in any way comes as a right on starting a thread.
I have never considered in any thread I started installing fences in advance.
Here if we look, is evidence major one family ownership of and such enterprises may be unwise.
I look at the history of this family, father of it present head, having Prime Ministers of this country stand hat in hand at his Adelaide desk and address him as Sir.
Even a glance, while riding a Galloping horse, at the Editorial control,slanted and just maybe knowingly biased nature questions the suitability of this family to own any such enterprises.

Ammonite you have nailed some very important public and commercial probity issues here.

I would like to have seen some examples from other than the commercial sectors, might I suggest the inclusion Professor Michael Mann, Professor Phil Jones and the IPCC’s “railway engineer” Mr. Pashauri.

All of whom seem to fit your criteria that “In all cases the people paid considerable incomes were not held responsible for their organizational practices and behaviors.”

Great topic, Ammonite.

Haven't time for a lengthy contribution at present. Suffice to say that once upon a time, villages were clustered around castles. Both entities were dependent on one another - and they knew it. Somewhere along the line of Western advancement moral stewardship and wise governance has given way to grasping, greedy profit-making as the sole determinate of "making it".

Men and women who govern in any capacity should be imbued with a wise competence for the welfare of society at large - this appears incompatible with capitalist practice.

ha ha..the buck dont stop
but if you stop the buck$
they can be held to account

but as revealed...they will only re-frame the debate
by closing down the paper...and opening *another

they will spin their spin
[they wont giveup their control over our opinion]
and those served by their trickery..wont give up using
what they collectivly offer..[sheeple]

like i just heard on abc...a new proffes-ional
an expert on carbon dioxide 'polution'
who when asked simply how much c02 in a ton of coal
blitherd and blatherd that its vairiable..[so he is a proffesional guesser]

or yet another believaqble/defacto authority
to help govt get their big new tax into law

which is basicly what media is about..*believability
putting voice..to those who supoport..each others adgendas

anything we say..will get drowned out
just as their points..will be parroted add nausium

comentary on commentary..spin on spin
just dont notice the dumbing down

if you dont 'get it'
dont support it

if you cant explain it
dont support it

if you cant explain it
etc etc etc...its spin

one head gets cut off
another will regrow

the media
babble-on-ian..wwwhoar...hydra beast

will rise from the ashes
new paper....new staff..new name..
same old tricks

[be-cause they work]..

Spindoc

Your opinions of the IPCC are very familiar. I posit that the executive staff of this organisation receive far less renumeration than do those of many global corporations such as BHP, BP, Exxon, Monsanto, most financial institutions and many others whose industries create physical impact on our environments and lives.

I do not intend this thread to be diverted into a discussion about climate change.

However, if your point is the higher up the ladder one is the less chance of falling? This is the anomaly what I wish to deal with. Why has the average person become so complacent or apathetic? When we are so obviously being manipulated from all sides?

Belly

I wouldn't have a topic if I followed your dictum. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to reject it completely.

Thanks Ammonite, thought that might throw a spanner in the works.

I’m sure that OLOers will grant you dispensation on “considerable incomes” on the basis that some considerable income is not as large as others.

I thought this was an issue of “organizational practices and behaviors” but obviously I’m wrong and missed the fact that your case is “conditional”

OUG

>> ha ha..the buck dont stop
but if you stop the buck$
they can be held to account

but as revealed...they will only re-frame the debate
by closing down the paper...and opening *another <<

Sad but true, I understand that there is already another rising phoenix like from the ashes of News World as the remaining Murdoch tabloid the Sun.

How to stop the dollars?

Instead of bailing out Wall Street the US government could've paid out the home loans. Imagine how much the average working stiff would have had to spend in the economy instead of finding somewhere else to live.

Instead of sacking workers, the executive staff of News Corp could be held to account by garnishing their salaries for compensation to people whose lives have been disrupted by the invasion into their private phones.

The CEO of BP did lose his crown, but BP (and the majority of its executives) continues to mine in environmentally sensitive areas. Perhaps greater costs need be set from the start to compensate for loss of income (by small business), repairs to environment, percentage of profit put towards research into clean energy sources - current 'carbon tax' is not sufficient.

you cant stop the greedy
as long as those in power need them

we need to take money motives out of powwer
[govts lost the right to make its own money
now its time to stop money controling them]

make any polital gift criminal
even party support...[ie running your election for you]

we need a skills based leadership
where govt is a course...a skill..
they need to prove ability..to handle all that power

nominate specificly
what pool of govt funds the seek control over
name specificly why they DESERVE their power
or can be trusted once they got it

lying should be a jailing offence

we need to know we got leaders..with skills
[not just all former lawyers/or failed docters]

going into the slush buckett
to get govt funding
back to their pay-masters.

who bought the whole game
with cash and spin...from working groups/media

the advantaged..
seeking further advant-age

OK I congratulate you on the topic, waited for some one to post it.
It will be a long one.
As my posting style and beliefs do not suit you I now leave YOUR thread.
Having never OWNED a thread I posted.

It really is funny, Ha Ha that is.

There is an interest group of people who continually bleat that the ownership of media organisations must not be allowed to control the content of that media. Typically these people don't want to invest in a risky business, just control the output of same.

Now we find the same people who, when we find the ownership have devolved daily & content control to employees, mostly unionists I gather, want to hold the same ownership responsible for the failure of those employees.

Do come on folks. If you want ownership to step back from control, you can't then expect them to control the ethics of their output.

Meanwhile, who on earth expects a high moral behaviour from journalists. Just a few seconds viewing of any current affairs program should convince anyone that the two have no place together

Untill I get more info, my initial thoughts are:-

No one can say Rupert is indecisive.

James would no doubt have spoken to dad.

He has made sure this time the problem will not be repeated at NOTW.

Must not be easy to throw away a billion or more of your own money.

Not over yet as some staff will face criminal charges.

No, Rupert is not indecisive - and insiders consider that the closure of News of the World is probably a strategic move.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/08/3264814.htm

There is only so much news you can let out, maybe a link between hasaine and rup, Even news has got to comply to local laws.

Depends upon whether the people who are angriest demonstrate that they are unwilling to accept the current "sacrifice" (based upon expedience) as being full payment for what has transpired. The Royal British Legion, for one, seems unlikely to accept this, so advertisers will hopefully continue to avoid the solution.

Thanks everyone for your replies. I will attempt to do them justice.

Spindoc

Just didn't want topic to be derailed at outset - as for interpretation of "considerable" renumeration, I would posit that being paid in excess of 6 figures is "considerable". Therefore, we are not discussing the money nor even the behaviour of the IPCC - which compared to organisations I have previously used as examples is quite reasonable. I don't expect perfection, just accountability.

It is accountability to consequences that is the issue, not playing semantics.


Belly

For chrissakes, I merely asked that people be excellent to one another - would make for a change if the topic was played instead of the man.

To everyone:

No, Rupert is certainly not a ditherer, I would not expect him to be. And has he made a clever ploy by severing the News of the World? Well any further arrests to be made will be facilitated by the availability of sacked staff who, though morally bereft, were given tacit approval by the reigning executives.

In many ways capitalism resembles a war game - it is always the troops that are expendable, the occasional captain will fall on their sword, but the generals remain safely behind the lines. Capitalism without accountability is just another form of feudalism.

Unpropertied men and women did not receive the vote by remaining silent. Ergot, we are not "bleating" we are questioning.

Maybe we are all doomed. So what? I have never held back when threatened and am not about to start now.

I could say that it will be interesting to follow any repercussions to the Murdoch empire, but I believe that Rupert's swift amputation has taken much of the possible leverage the public could have used for greater responsibility. Loss of 200 jobs notwithstanding.

It is all about maintaining power.

So with whom does the buck stop?

Now it is possible that James Murdoch will face charges - but I am not going to hold my breath.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/08/james-murdoch-criminal-charges-phone-hacking

I agree with your position on this topic Ammonite.

There is some sad irony that those taxpayers in America who contributed to the bail out of the banks now find themselves evicted from their homes by those same banks.

Corporate responsibility is lacking but so is government leadership on this issue. The influence of large corporations on governments is far greater and the scales tipped against the ordinary citizen.

Too many issues to name but food security and safety is one area where government agencies, often headed by ex-corporate types with conflicts of interest (in the US) make decisions on food labelling, GM, food safety and vested interests in trading decisions.

Re-watching Food Inc. recently highlighted some of the worst cases of irresponsibility by some companies. The US government heavily subsidises the corn industry which has led to dumping of corn on countries like Mexico (Food Inc.) and ruined the once thriving corn livelihoods in Latin America. Similar pressure comes from logging companies, seed and pesticide companies who lobby governments into bullying other governments and organisations regardless of the impacts.

The ridiculous situation in the US where Monsanto can sue farmers and others where they believe the patent for GM seed has been 'stolen' when the neighbouring farmer has no control over his crops being contaminated by GM crop. The latest one is a seed cleaner who was taken to court by Monsanto for 'aiding' others to steal seed. It beggars belief.

Have most of us become complacent and accept this state of affairs as normal or do people just feel powerless to have any influence.

How do people mass together to ensure governments adhere to their mandate to represent the people in the best way possible - which may at times even mean kowtowing to corporations - but tipping the scales back to the balanced position does seem almost impossible.

Governments appear to think people are content enough as long as the middle class welfare keeps churning out to serve as distraction from some pretty irresponsible decisions by government and corporate goons.

Ammonite,

Any person in a position of “authority” also carries “responsibility” and “accountability”.

Absolutely nothing new there and you are stating a blinding glimpse of the obvious when you say “accountability and consequences” are the issue.

This is not semantics and has been the case in all hierarchical enterprises since year dot, well at least back to the ancient Egyptians and Chinese.

What you are really saying is why does our modern society NOT maintain this fundamental tenet? which is a very important and valid observation.

I then challenged your conditional characterization of “In all cases the people paid considerable incomes were not held responsible for their organizational practices and behaviors.”

Then “considerable incomes” becomes defined as “6 figures”. To which I might add, this nicely embraces absolutely any person with such authority.

Unless you embrace the same principal for all, your excellent thread is devalued by partisan interest in accusing only media and “big business” of such breaches.

Religious, political, commercial, industrial, scientific, sports, academic, media, charity and NGO management will all be in the “6 figure” salary bracket and are all bound by the same principles

lest we forget that allready the shredding machines
are running non stop...the crime scene will soon[tomorow be sterilised]

its time for the govt [or police]..
to go in and seize the crime scene
to seize the assets..get the phone records..
get every email backed up and into evidence

in short we shall see in time
how much we should have seen done

yet how sloppy the little that was done
was in-deed done..

whats the betting against a neat fire?
acidentially getting rid of the proof*

Dear Ammonite,

I will be very surprised if serious charges are laid against anyone in the "corporate world." Did you see the film "Inside Job" on the global financial crisis? No charges have to date been laid.

The crimes committed by high-status people range from tax evasion, toxic pollution, copyright infringement, stock manipulation, price fixing, corruption of public officials, embezzlement, and fraud. Much of this crime takes place in the context of corporate activities. Even though individual corporate officers are involved in these offenses, fines and other sanctions are often directed instead at the corporation itself, for a corporation is, for most legal purposes, a "person." Additionally, many white-collar offenses escape prosecution because they're dealt with through regulatory agencies (such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, which scrutinizes the stock market) rather than through the criminal courts. It will be interesting to see what happens in this case.

White-collar crime and corporate crime is generally regarded with more tolerance than other forms of crime, yet according to news reports its economic impact is much greater. The US department of Justice estimated a few years ago that this type of crime costs billions a year - about eighteen times the cost of street crime.

The fact that that this type of crime is so prevalent even at the highest levels of society, raises serious doubts about traditional notions of criminals and crime. It may well be that "poverty breeds crime," by giving low-status people an incentive to steal and rob, but it seems that greed can just as easily breed crime in high-status people as well. It is interesting that white-collar crimes are hardly mentioned in statistical reports on crime. The inclusion of statistics on these crimes would substantially alter our picture of the "typical" criminal.

Pelican

Many thanks for your post.

You raised the issue of government. Apart from open revolt by citizenry, the only gatekeeper is the government, which has had its powers limited in favour of so-called free trade, small government and other neo-capitalist buzz-words.

It is government which subsidises many business interests from mining to genetic engineering. I am for a government with the cojones to pull the 'welfare' when industries abuse the support they are given. De-regulation has proven to be a complete failure, with News Corp being the latest example.

We will run short of mineral resources, we are continuing to pollute, we are failing to protest adequately at the ballot box. It is for strong vested interests that small parties like the Greens are demonised by media monopolies such as Murdoch to the point where such parties are still seen as single issue.

However, only 15 years ago none of us could be airing our thoughts like this - will the internet remain as free as it is now, or will it be neutered like other forms of media? Also we still have community radio broadcasts, which is another way to get the news behind the news - and radio is only younger than the print media. I do not see its demise any time soon as I do print. And if we do have to pay for news online as the trend indicates, I won't be spending my dollars on propaganda.

If we can retain the freedom of speech across the globe through the internet, radio and community action (boycotting the Monsantos, the BP's) we have a chance. That and the fact that to survive the human race is going to have to clean up its act - maybe not in my life-time, but we are going to have to find a balance between competition, access by all to food and shelter and responsible government.

Spindoc

You are free to start a topic on semantics any time.

Lexi

Your point:

>> White-collar crime and corporate crime is generally regarded with more tolerance than other forms of crime, yet according to news reports its economic impact is much greater. The US department of Justice estimated a few years ago that this type of crime costs billions a year - about eighteen times the cost of street crime. <<

This type of crime ruins more lives in less time than all other crime combined, except perhaps for war - I have no data for that. Perhaps someone else can find figures for this.

The following is an excerpt from an article on white collar crime:

Crimes of the powerful are not generally dealt with by local police agencies. To the extent they are dealt with at all, there are a variety of agencies responsible. These agencies are typically more distant from average citizens than local police, and are often unknown to those who might want to file complaints. They may not be as responsive, thus discouraging complaints. And those victimized by crimes of the powerful often do not even know it - shoddy products that result in injury or death, sophisticated banking scams, price-fixing, etc. are not the sort of thing the average person is likely to even notice, much less be able to pinpoint responsibility for."

Cont'd

Cont'd

"That responsibility is sometimes murky even where violations of law are clear. Additionally in such cases, because there is no central, well-known place to contact - as is the case for street crimes - it is difficult to even find the right place to make a complaint. Assuming the right place is found, funding is often inadequate to vigorously investigate and prosecute if needed. Investigation and prosecution for these crimes can be extremely difficult, requiring specialized knowledge, access where access is typically denied, and the determination to face all that powerful adversaries can bring against such efforts. Due to a climate nurtured by the powerful that is protective of their interests, the will to prosecute is often absent or weak. This climate makes many reluctant to assign responsibility to the powerful; a reluctance that rarely exists for street crimes.

In some cases it is known that prosecutors are reluctant to go after local businesses that have committed crimes due to concerns about the local economy.

Vigorous prosecution may bankrupt a business, or induce it to leave an area, which means loss of jobs and taxes. Prosecutors generally avoid seeking criminal penalties or harsh sanctions, and instead pursue "conciliatory and restorative interventions". Judges tend to avoid prison time, or to minimize it. Unlike with most street crime, they often note that such defendants' damage to reputation is a punishment itself, and consider that as a mitigating factor.

More bluntly, "Policy makers and state managers understand they are in no position to tell business what to do. Industry is mobile, but regulatory regimes are not."

http://richa.dod.net/crime/thepowerful.htm

Ammonite I return to answer your comment to me.
Yes I get testy say things that are unpopular often .
But here in OLO we have often got rough during debate, not usually before it.
I wish to say to OUG, who asked me to forgive him for some comments he made and explained after.
He said he, totally,disagreed with me, but was not having a shot at me, MATE OUG understand, I care more for your rights to be your self say what you want and not to, is to say only some speech is free.
Ammonite, I am perplexed by your reactions to me, have zero ego problems, put again in print some thing that will make some laugh at me.
I always did the reading/research, but until one under God took the trouble to show me I could not even cut and paste.
Back to our difficulty's, I STILL can see no rudeness in my posts to you in the Myna bird thread, or in fact this one, I did not like School, you remind me why I refused to settle and learn, a teacher was constantly, in every matter talking down to me.
I wish you and your thread well, think it is best I stay away.
But will read, this subject is historic, a quick look at the Murdock's past and present is informative cheers

Dear Ammonite,

There are several stages in the process of selecting the criminal. Only a proportion of crimes are detected, only a proportion of those detected are reported to the police, on;y a proportion of those reported lead to an arrest, only a proportion of arrests lead to prosecution, only a proportion of prosecutions lead to conviction, and only a proportion of convictions lead to imprisonment.

The chances of going from one stage to the next depend largely on two factors: the seriousness of the offense, and the social status of the offender.

According to several studies done in the US judges tend to take the social status of a convicted criminal into account before passing sentence, frequently reasoning that a higher-status offender has "already suffered" through damage to reputation and loss of employment. Although around approx. 70 percent of people convicted of crime offenses go to prison, about 60 percent of white-collar criminals receive no jail terms, and of those who are jailed, the great majority serve one year or less.

In part this discrepancy reflects the public fear of, and outrage at, crimes that are physically directed toward individuals or their property, but in part it also reflects the greater ability of high-status people to evade the full impact of the law.

Big business trusts its associations with the law, government and public complacency.

"There is also a significant matter of commercial interest being currently decided by the Gillard government — a $223 million contract for overseas broadcasting on the Australia Television channel, currently carried out by the ABC. Sky News, which is part-owned by Murdoch and pursues a typically News Limited style of political coverage, is also bidding for the tender. As Stephen Mayne pointed out this week, "it takes a certain level of chutzpah to simultaneously run an utterly biased campaign against the Government whilst sticking your hand out for a juicy government contract, but that’s News Ltd for you."

Richard Ackland writes that the British accusations are now so serious, and the police and government response so feeble, that "what is really needed is a judicial inquiry to see the extent to which the body politic has been poisoned by this and, maybe, by other media organisations. It should cover not just the extent of phone hacking but also the relationship between journalists, newspaper executives and politicians and the way important institutions such as the police and the Press Complaints Commission have been suborned."

The implications for Australian media and democracy may not at first blush seem as serious, but in fact they are identical. They are certainly bigger than questions about who gets a big contract for foreign broadcasting. At stake is nothing less than the democratic trust essential for ordinary citizens to believe and engage with news as it is reported.

News Limited here in Australia has long been understood to have a culture inimical to everyday understandings of democratic beliefs or professional ethics. The toxic culture of News Limited is alive and well in this country, much for the worse of our democracy. "

http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/08/murdochs-business-pox-democracy

Dear Ammonite,

The Age newspaper today - Saturday, 9th July 2011, had an excellent editorial on your question, "Where, Oh Where Does The Buck Stop?"
It was under the title, "A newspaper goes, but doubts live on."
It begins with the following:

"Severely infected limbs are sometimes amputated lest they threaten the life of the patient. James Murdoch - acting, it may be presumed, at the behest of his father, Rupert - yesterday applied that surgical model to the "News of the World," the Sunday tabloid at the centre of Britain's phone-hacking scandal. Mr Murdoch announced that tomorrow's edition of the 168-year-old newspaper would be the last. "The News Of The World," is in the business of holding others to account," he said.
"But it failed when it came to itself."

As The Age states - "Indeed it did." And it continues to point out that there has to be an independent inquiry into the matter and that "no one, however highly placed, evades being held to account. If this is not done, News International's credibility, already severely damaged, may be lost entirely."

Lexi

A lot of this insanity began as you pointed out, when a corporation was granted status as a person. Idiotic, another example of the authoritarianism that hides itself under the cloak called "libertarian". They're about as libertarian as the North Korean government.

Please consider:

"The battle we are in cannot be defined by the old categories. This is not an issue of Right versus Left, at least as those terms are defined by worn-out old cliches and beliefs. It is an issue of the individual versus unaccountable, irresponsible and infinitely powerful authority."

http://www.dogcanyon.org/2010/01/22/unaccountable-irresponsible-and-infinitely-powerful-authority/

"Ask yourself this question. If you had to persuade your community about political opinion X, but corporations opposed your view, would you stand a chance knowing that their “political speech” was worth much more than your political speech? The answer is obvious. Mere people have been thrown on the scrap heap. The U.S. Supreme Court is lifting corporations to the top of the evolutionary ladder."

http://www.dogcanyon.org/2010/01/21/u-s-supreme-court-makes-corporations-supreme-people-mere-monkeys/

On a very local level in one's own job have you kept quiet regarding safety issues, workplace bullying or inequitable wages because to speak out means losing your job?

In the 21st century, just disagreeing with someone who has even a little more power than you can lead to your voice being silenced. We hear a lot of rhetoric about individual rights and have less rights than we did at the end of WW2.

At the bottom of the corporate pyramid, workers are tied up in so much paperwork as to not be able to perform their jobs, for example, policing, nursing, teaching. In fact most jobs that involve the welfare of the average person are the least supported and first to go when a corporation or government is under threat.

Dear Ammonite,

We are on the same page with this issue. No argument from me here, as I've been pointing out in my posts with various explanations about the realities of life in the corporate world. Have you read the Editorial in Saturday's The Age?

The Age tells us: "Those whose privacy has been invaded could reasonably ask why the "News of the World's" journalists - most of
whom, Mr Murdoch onceded, were not even employed by the paper when the
worst abuses took place - appear to have been made scapegoats for those further up the hiererchy of "News International", and News Corp
Rebekah Brooks, who edited the paper in 2002, when Glen Mucaire hacked into and manipulated the voicemail of murdered teenager Milly Dowler, is now chief executive of "News International." Yet Ms Brooks has not been sacked and insists that she knew nothing of any criminal
activity. Mr Murdoch and his father have accepted her avowals, even though "News of the World" paid Mulcaire nearly $A150,000 a year..."

There are many questions that need answers in this case - and an
independent investigation needs to get to the bottom of it and as I stated in my previous post - no one, however highly placed, should be allowed to evade being held to account. But again as I also indicated previously - I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Lexi

The ruthless expediency of Murdoch was the catalyst for this topic. However, I am interested in creating awareness that for every Newsworld violation of people's lives, there remain plenty of other corporations beneath the public radar, acting legally yet free of any ethical constraints.

I can't solve all the world's problems, nor can any single person.

Constant vigilance, my friend.

as to the shredding machines running non-stop, they are no doubt. The files various parties are interested in are electronic files and there can be absolutely no doubt that there are people involved heavily trying desperately to destroy THESE files.

However, this is a major news organisation, the sheer volume of non-incriminating chaff in the electronic memory banks is going to be surreal. The easiest, simplest way to get to the dirt is to let people think they have the opportunity to destroy the records, thereby highlighting ONLY the records that are incriminating.

Once that task is started, they are on a slippery slope indeed. Acting in concert with others to avoid prosecution by destroying potential evidence, is quite frankly going to be an easier crime to prove to a jury than would be the case otherwise. It is, quite simply, a "Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice" which, unlike 'victim-less crimes' like hacking, attracts serious sentences.

That is the crux of the problem Ammonite the fear of reprisals should staff speak out on important ethical issues. I can imagine at News of the World, ethical journalism would not be a vital criteria for career advancement.

It is unlikely that any of the Murdoch family or other senior personnel will face charges. As one article in the CT today reminded us, even if those managers were unaware of these breaches, they set the tone, the environment and inducement for such practices to become commonplace. Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe these actions were not sanctioned by somebody higher up the chain of command. The court trial will no doubt reveal the extent of the rot.

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that 'leaking' is the only protection for whistleblowers and all the more power to them. Leaking is the only action that might result in an investigation by external agencies/organisations. There is little protection in going via the internal process in most cases and the WB often does not know that until it is too late to turn back. It is often the case that those who complain about similar breaches as in the latest hacking scandal, safety, workplace bullying or mismanagement/fraud as Ammonite suggests, would indeed become the target.

Pelican

Have to take a break for now. Am questioning the effects of a monopoly of news dissemination has on thoughts of general populace with particular regard to reporting on science, government accountability etc.

Murdoch (predictably) claims no knowledge of hacking, despite payoffs to private people:

"News Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rupert Murdoch said yesterday that he wasn’t aware of any payments made to settle legal cases in which the company’s newspaper reporters may have been involved in criminal activity. “If that had happened, I would know about it,” Murdoch said in an interview at the Allen & Co. media conference in Sun Valley, Idaho.

...According to the Guardian, Murdoch’s newspapers made out- of-court settlements that secured secrecy about three cases that may have shown evidence of journalists using investigators who hacked into the mobile-phone messages of public figures to access confidential personal data."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ai1_ekYp6_68

Apologies to those who were following this thread, I have not been able to post the information I have nor facilitate as I would normally prefer to do.

I understand that Rebecca Brookes has been arrested - be interesting to watch events unfold and where the buck DOES finally stop.

Thanks to all for thoughtful and erudite contributions.