revolution saint

Sorry Phil but I think that's a conspiracy theory too far. This is a huge story, massive, and doesn't really need embellishment. NI have been reacting to events (events dear boy - never thought I'd quote MacMillan).

I'm not sure Bexy, the problem is that if we pursue this line of argument then it becomes political, subjective and open to interpretation. We've already seen an attempt to label the BBC as just as bad, albeit a poorly thought out attempt. Personally I'd like to focus on just how f*cked up what NOTW did was, and how Murdoch can make reparation for that. It would be a shame if this became a tory v labour argument.

Reporting and Information Manager - that's such a bland title it could mean anything and frequently does.

I agree, and maybe winding up the NOTW isn't such a clever move either. Clearly it was dead duck but by existing it could absorb the outrage of the masses - by getting rid of it there isn't a brand to apologise for it's mistakes. Except there needs to be someone to blame, and not just Wade, so where does that anger get deflected to? As it stands it's the rest of Murdoch's tabloid press (ie The Sun). People are a lot more media savvy these days and personally I don't think they'll take kindly to what is in effect a complete evasion of culpability by News International. The tabloid Murdoch press has been used to whipping it's readers up in a frenzy so it's quite ironic that it's that same baying mob that is causing it's downfall.

No problem, and Alistair Campbell was saying the same on Newsnight last night but so far the only allegations of illegality have been against NOTW. That may change but for now it's just them, and it's a horrible enough crime that it justifies just concentrating on them.

Sorry, but this is about the NOTW. If other allegations arise then that's different. Don't presume to know what I meant.

I can't really see anyone caring about a News International internal investigation. Career wise Brookes is toast, although financially Uncle Rupert will see she's OK.

Exactly. It's nothing to do with party politics, or indeed the wider press. It's about a disgusting and what seems endemic culture within NOTW.

I've not seen that anywhere, have you got a link? Meanwhile this shows how a bit of money hushes things up. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/murdoch-papers-phone-hacking

I'd give most of it to friends, family and charity - that much money is incomprehensible. I'd also buy a few places - certainly in New England and here. I'd also like to design and build my own place, a bit like grand designs. Mostly though I would go back to University and study something totally useless but interesting.

Not really, you just spoil most threads and I like making you look a bit silly. Nothing snobbish about that - I think most people enjoy that.

To be fair, it's not just today.

And sometimes they go and work for the govt too - are you suggesting Andy Coulson has implemented the same phone tapping and breach of law as an employee of the conservative party? No, of course you're not. Fact is until any allegations surface, if there are any, then it's restricted to the NOTW. Given their tactics I would have thought the NOTW would have uncovered anything dodgy in another paper anyway....

Interesting point. Have you anything to suggest other papers are involved? Otherwise it's pretty irrelevant.

I doubt whether any of the broadsheets would have sunk so low and I agree about The Guardian. It's had to rigourously defend itself quite a few times over the last 20 years or so and has been successful (Jonathan Aitken anyone?). Mirror possibly - they did doctor photos a while ago. On the face of it this seems a cultural thing in the NOTW though and it appears as if they have got used to this method of investigation.

Indeed. Advertisers don't want to be associated with a tarnished brand and that's what NOTW is now. I seriously doubt they'll be able to recover any kind of reputation.

There have been a few instances of firms doing something so stupid and repugnant that they've never really recovered. The one that springs to mind is Gerald Ratner (although that was just stupid), and doesn't The Sun still have a particularly low circulation in Merseyside? I could easily see sales of NOTW suffering very badly because this is something so disgusting and without moral. That said I never buy those papers anyway so it's hard to know what the diehards will do. You would have thought a rival tabloid would be out to make an awful lot of capital out of this.

Christ on a bike! What is wrong with you? This was illegal and not an exercise in freedom of the press.

There's quite a few people in their 60's who have been or are in a better position to purchase a 2nd home than people of my generation being able to afford a first one. Remember this is about a generation and not an era.

Except you couldn't afford a property. TV, mobile phone, etc etc those costs come nowhere near being able to live somewhere and renting is even more expensive, it's no wonder pensions are considered a luxury You could of course argue that previous generations had nothing to fritter their money away except on second homes. Obviously it's more complex than that but it does seem to me that it was easier to live and raise a family on a single wage than it is now.

Well we have iPhones, but we can't afford property like we did in the 60's and we can't support a family on a single wage as we did in the 60's and 70's. Still. it's easier cos we can make a few calls eh?

Although the fact that a couple could buy a property based on 3 times a single wage earners wage suggests it's a little easier than now. I don't see many couples being able to buy a place on a single average wage, and bring up a family with the mother staying at home in today's circumstances. That was the norm when I grew up.

Ah the clues are in the original post. HTH. I don't think there's any reason to call people snobs just because they got the jist of the thread and you didn't...

Hmmm surely if you have nothing and compare it with nothing the result is the same? 0=0? Anyway the point still stands this is about whether the ordinary working family of the BB generation got some lucky economic breaks or not? Appreciate you'd like to go on about benefit scroungers etc but I'm a little bored of that.....

This isn't about 25 years ago either. It's about whether the BB generation actually had some lucky economic breaks or they didn't.