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.