I hope so too Rob, the press have been getting away with this sort of dodgy behaviour for far too long, they seem to think they’re untouchable.

McCrann is significantly less ignorant and wilfully stupid than the average defender of economic liberalism in Australia (compare for example, Andrew Bolt or the Institute of Public Affairs). But he can’t allow himself to be much smarter than his readers, and stupidity and ignorance (whether endowed by nature or acquired by effort) are essential if you are to be a full member of the tribe.

More “accurrate”, “professional editing” from news ltd, or just another way in which newspapers can be distinguished from bloggers?

There were hundreds of comments at the Guardian site on the original story and the tone generally was not very pro-murdoch. No legs here in Australia, nobody cares what Murdoch does, apparently.

These people are dangerous to democracy and should be brought to account.

Nick Davies writes critically today about the police assistant commissioner’s decision. Yesterday on PM he suggested that there is a less than healthy relationship between the cops and the Murdoch press. Sound familiar?

It’s completeley illegal, but yeah, this is nothing new for the Scum News tabloid press (Publish and be damned!). I would suggest in the case of Charles and Camilla they wouldn’t have wanted to go to court and put even more focus on Charles’s desire to be Camilla’s tampon. LOL

“I could be wrong but I don’t recall any legal fall-out for anyone over that.”

It’s going to be different this time because they’ve tapped phones of the rich and famous, News has been on a massive fishing expedition, some of these rich people probably have nothing to hide so I’m picking this will be a massive issue for the Murdoch empire.

It’s also a problem for David cameron, fact is he hired the editor who presided over the original debacle.

This may be a watershed, Murdoch might realise that publish and be damned is getting expensive, I reckon that the Sun made more money out of it’s invasion of Mosley’s privacy than they had to pay out. Hopefully things may now change.

I could be wrong but I don’t recall any legal fall-out for anyone over that.