blonde poker forum

And good fucking riddance!

Can't see what difference it will make, the Sun will just fill its place anyway.

Our current PM had xmass dinner, goes shooting and socialises with the people involved with this, wish the fuk he would go too.

Probably their only choice considering such bad publicity..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733

Advertisers were pulling out left right and centre.. I was just waiting for the facebook and twitter campaigns to tell people not to buy it

wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.

now just Thesun and all that other Murdoch filth to go.

I doubt very much that it was just the NOTW where this phone hacking took place.

Massively this. Probs not anymore but it was pretty standard practice for most newspapers/front line media companies. Guess they are going to be the scape goats as they were dumb enough to get caught.

I don't buy papers anyway, but this so called 'dispicable act' doesn't bother me in the slightest. It should teach people to change the pin on their voicemail.

[ ] have bothered to change my voicemail pin.

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2011/7/6/1309986068953/David-Cameron-and-Rebekah-007.jpg)

lol, yeah because TB and GB never had anything to do with the NOTW and The sun etc.

"Police investigating allegations of phone hacking by the News of the World have called for patience as they contact almost 4,000 people whose names appear in documents seized in 2005.

Which party was in charge again in 2005?

Hell, TB even wrote for the sun

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article69105.ece

I think their is a huge difference though with the Torys, who had coulson working for them ffs. He only left becasue of the constent pressure from the other parties. TB was a snake anyway, sold his soul to get in and stay there.

It ain't going anywhere mate, pretty sure they will have the sunday sun soon or whatever..........

I had this discussion with MrsB yesterday. All parties in the UK are too close to the tabloids. It's the only way they feel that can get re-elected, and they sad thing is that they're probably right. They don't have the balls to stand up to the media anymore.

Corrupt MPs, the sensationalist press essentially rules the country and the police accept bribes money from reporters for information and fail to investigate those reporters breaking the law properly.

If it happened in Africa you'd say "See how corrupt those banana republics are?".

sigh, I know you're right but just let me have these 5 minutes of bliss mate.

When are the stories about all of the other papers doing this going to come out?

Lord Prescott: 'no doubt' NOTW will become 'Sunday Sun'; closure is 'management stunt'.

They won't. This is the price for just letting it be. Murdoch won't face a fine (which TBH would probably be very small anyways) and criminal procedings probably won't be brought against those behind all this.

You can bet your ass that that's the sort of deal they have made.

Which is why I am of the opinion that the UK needs another Guy Fawkes...but this time he should succeed.

Totally this.  The NOTW is just the Sun on Sunday anyway.  Now it will just get that title.  I am not so sure that the other papers are up to this to the same degree.  The simple weight of resources and number of stories based on this kind of evidence just isn't as prevalent in other papers (except the Sun obv).  As much as this has undermined the reputation of journos I think is has also shown that we have some truly brilliant journalists in this country too.  The work Nick Davies has done on this for the Guardian has been truly superb.  It is just a shame his other work hasn't had the recognition at government/policy level that this will get.

Yeah it's funny that other papers ordered many more investigations by private detectives than the NotW (mail had 6 times as many...) and yet no stories have emerged. It's also funny that the BBC reported that it was common practice for the PINs to be changed to stop other journalists accessing voice mails and yet the NotW were the only ones doing it.

It all smacks of a disgraceful cover up to me...

News International had already started making plans to integrate their daily and Sunday titles two weeks ago, putting managerial changes in place.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jun/28/newsinternational-rebekahwade

Interesting stuff - where did you read about the investigations numbers?

1723:

Former News of the World features editor Paul McMullan said the decision to close the title was shocking. "One really bad act by a rogue freelance private investigator who used to be a failed professional footballer - I mean who hired him - you know and it's all over," he said.

lol, yeah just one guy.


And then the "press" complain when people say that their freedom should be curbed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/privacy_personal_data_protection_from_the_press/

www.thesunonsunday.co.uk was registered two days ago.

Yeh pretty obv The Sun will go 7 days a week and replace it. Still a pretty historical day in the world of journalism. It's been in circulation for over 150 years

(http://www.spectator.co.uk/article_images/articledir_14159/7079708/1_fullsize.jpg)

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7079708/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml

The sad thing is that the graph on the left could also relate to circulation......

Yes, Murdoch has run another, formerly, perfectly decent newspaper into the ground and turned it into a massive lying and imorral heap of shit.

But that shouldn't surprise anyone as that is what he does.

Will be interesting to see how Sky News (By idiots for idiots) will report on this.

I couldn't disagree with this more, in the case of Milly Dowler some **** from the NOTW hacked the phone and deleted messages, this gave the family false hope it was her who had done it, are you saying they should've been thinking about changing the pin on her voicemail, if they even knew it, when they had this going on in there life, really ? I can't imagine how distressing that must've been for them and the person who did it should go to jail imo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/11/jonathan-rees-private-investigator-tabloid


Just so it's clear that others also paid for it

Loving Newsnight

NoW is just a breeding ground for 1% good 99% cockroaches

Hugh Grant is spot on

Regards

M

If tomorrows Guardian is correct and Andy Coulson is going to be arrested for effectively paying policemen then this is going to get very uncomfortable for the Tories.

Oh look he admitted he did in 2003:
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1AJjnl2y8U

Blimey - NOTW is lead story on the CBS Evening News.

I find Rebekah Brooks position absolutely fascinating.  If it is true that they are effectively throwing Coulson under the bus then they are also putting the British government in a very difficult position.  What has she done, or what does she know, to inspire such loyaty???

Telegraph has a bit of a blog about that here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100095919/rebekah-brooks-the-human-shield-for-james-murdoch/

Interesting about the select committee and how they were scared to go hard on Rebekah and others in fear of their personal lives being trawled through and exposed. One of them was outed the year later by her paper for digging too deep :)

I thought Hugh Grant was spot on last night and that Sun columnest took a real cheap shot with him.

I think its shocking that the one guy from the select committee who tried to force her hand was outed as being gay, so what!!!! Personally I dont think the idea that MP's and celebs sex and private lives is in the public interest

is there only me that likes to read the news of the world.

glad you put this ....i like it too but was scared to post the fact ...lol

pmsl. you know me, never shy away from the truth. some feckers have been buying the paper all these years.

people love sleaze and seeing people getting a kick in the pants. just look at the hits on here. put a bit of controversy in your thread and it becomes more popular than any other.

agreed think you need to start provoking a reaction from George

News of the World is awesome

Gonna have a little cry wank over it on Sunday.

Tikay must be gutted he's been reading it every Sunday for 168 years.

rotflmfao.

the trouble with going after george is that he is such a nice guy and we look super douchy. will have a think about what we can do tho.

I guess it depends on what standards you have. These people make obscene amounts of money out of trying to destroy almost anyone who is in the public sphere. Rebekah Brooks openly admitted corrupting the nations biggest police force, Coulson lied at the Tommy Sheridan trial and yesterday James Murdoch admitted bribing witnesses in a criminal trial. They have also corrupted, to a greater or lesser extent every British government for the last 25 years. They really are the lowest people imaginable. The demise of the NOTW of the world is a great start but this is an opportunity to do lasting damage to the Murdoch empire. If the BSKYB merger doesn't go through it would be a huge step towards ridding this country of that evil man's influence. One time.

Very much this.

I am not surprised that the NOTW is the biggest selling tabloid but that doesn't make what they did right. Loads of people read the Daily Mail, the sun, watched Big Brother and the Jeremy Kyle show as it's car crash reporting and car crash television.

I am not surprised that it's popular, I am just saying that I think the world would be a better place without it.

yea i have to agree he is a nice guy i get on really well with him and Shelly .......sigh

corruption is what  it is, everyone has a price and tnotw just highlight this. scunthorpes mp is doing bird for a fiddle and the drug dealers in town get tipped off about major operations. the biggest informants in scunthorpe are the police. you dont live in OZ. its a real world we live in.

They have done such an incredible job of eroding all standards of moral and ethical decency that people (see above) actually think what they have done and similar crimes involving drug dealers are acceptable. It's frightening that someone who seems to be so confident and certain in their views holds this opinion.

how has a paper eroded all standards of moral and ethical decency. i am a realist and dont look down on the world from an ivory tower. peoples views of morals and ethical decency have to be subjective. i dont blame Jeremy Kyle for all the teenage problems in this country but do find him a hypocrite when taking the moral high ground given his chequered history.

Think this blog is pretty com:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/07/lord-ashcroft-why-ed-miliband-needs-to-take-a-close-look-at-his-own-private-office-before-he-critici.html


Not so thinly veiled threats...

Pretty big difference between trying to access the bank records of a major political party especially with regards to payments made by Ashcroft and hacking the phones of the families of dead soldiers or abducted children.  Ashcroft really is scraping the barrell here to score party political points.  Are they really that desperate?

So you think that the only thing that every other paper got up to was hacking the Conservative Party's bank account?

Really? I think hacking into bank accounts is REALLY not on. Obviously hacking into phones etc is bad, doesn't matter who the target is, if it's done by a newspaper. But hacking into bank accounts??

Out of curiosity Boldie do you have a Sky subscription?

No I don't but in that article what Ashcroft is trying to do is throw some mud at Ed Millibands private office on the basis that his director of comms was once involved in gaining access to the Conservative Party's bank account.  Woodward and Bernstein gained access to financial records when they were investigating Watergate and given Ashcrofts record then his financial affairs are pretty much fair game imo.  It wasn't exactly an invasion of anyones privacy and certainly shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as the hacking of Milly Dowlers phone and giving her family hope she was alive.  Such desperate measures suggest to me that either the Tories are very rattled by all of this or Michael Ashcroft doesn't have an ounce of moral fibre.  Probably both really.

So where do you draw the line then? It's obviously not where the law draws it, what if other people see it differently? What if other papers also hacked Milly's phone or something similar?

We get free Sky as the Mrs works for the evil empire

 On Sky ealier:

Adam Boulton to Ed Miliband "Do you know if Tom Baldwin takes cocaine?"

 Ed "Don't care what he does in private life"

lol

It is quite funny how Labour are now trying to look like they're not in Murdoch's pocket...well, I guess they're not anymore as Murdoch decided to support the Tories (Obv not in a deal that would ensure he would get the go-ahead to take full control of Sky....it'd be silly to suggest that)

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dan-hodges/2011/02/phone-hacking-personal

Tom Baldwin (a good Murdoch man) gave Labour instructions not to link phone hacking to the takeover...

If other papers had hacked Millys phone they should be strung up too.  The crime is what is important not the perpetrator but those crimes have differing magnitudes.  On a personal level whilst I don't think Sienna Miller should have had her phone hacked she puts herself in the public spotlight and does very well financially out of it so invasion of privacy is very much a part of the job and whilst i find it a bit distasteful I also think pictures of her in her bikini on holiday in Barbados are too.  As for the Ashcroft case.  Firstly it wasn't anyones personal bank account, it was the Conservative Party account which shouldn't have to be hacked.  You should simply be able to walk into a bank and ask to see it imo.  Secondly, at the time it had been found out that Ashcrofts name was in DEA files and there were question marks about other elements of his businesses so i think investigations into his affairs and relationship with one of our major political parties is pretty much fair game.

Isn't that the thing though? Everyone seems so desperate to hang Murdoch that no one else is asking: "Who else did similar?"

What about the role of the Police in all this? I expect this behaviour from the tabloids but the Police are meant to uphold the law. Given the NotW told them about a voicemail left on Milly's phone at the time (the one about the job offer) then they must have known and yet turned a blind eye.

The absolute worst case scenario I can think of is the Police telling Milly's parents that voicemails had been deleted and maybe she was alive whilst knowing it was far more likely to be a newspaper's doing. Maybe that wasn't the case but fuck, if it was, it's a whole order of magnitude more disgusting.

At last, some proper journalists are covering the case.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGegvzU9S8U

lol, a sad day when you have to go to cartoon news to get proper images.

Boldiefish, you can't hate a man that gives you free telly and keeps a roof over your head imo.

I'm gonna miss it. How am i gonna get my breaking headlines fix?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-w2x5l5s-ij0/ThahNprLRgI/AAAAAAAAHXM/rSCJ6ulekNg/s400/notw.jpg)

(http://www.politicshome.com/images/notw0.jpg)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gxyEEhXIV00/ThYn3RiS3cI/AAAAAAAASPg/GEm4z7Env-0/s1600/notw.jpg)

Yeah, you'd think not...bit of a strange one that.

I'll scoop the euromillions tonight though so MrsB can retire and we can switch to Woolyjumper (thereby indirectly giving money to Mr Murdoch as you'd still pay for Sky sports and all that stuff)

i honestly think you are in a monority boldie

To be fair the stuff with ashcroft was the Times so another Murdoch paper anyway.  I am sure it will all come out in time.  The expenses scandal started out by focussing largely on Labour ministers but widened out eventually.  On your point about the police I think this is part of the problem and that all of this is potentially only the tip of the iceberg.  

Is it cus I'm German and short?

p.s. I obviously know I'm in the minority on this one mate. That's why the Sun and NOTW are Brittain's best selling newspaper, people still voted Blair in for a 3rd term, MPs get away with stealing our tax money etc.etc.

 I just despair that behaviour like that is the norm these days.

i was born in germany myself.  i despair at the world i have bought 3 boys into and cant see it getting any better

You do live in Scunny though.

this is true.

If someone breaks in to tightend's house on a hot July night and whips off his bedcovers before taking a high res picture of his naked bottom and then puts a link to it all over twitter, then I'm not going to be happy with the guy who did that. Tightend is a lovely fellow, absolutely does not deserve such treatment.

You shouldn't break into people's houses, you shouldn't take pictures of their naked bottoms without their permission, and you shouldn't distribute it via social media. It's naughty, and if the person gets caught they should be punished.

I'm going to have a look at the picture though. Perhaps if it's been put on a website selling wool, I might not buy any wool from that website anymore. Such a protest would come after I looked at the picture. Does this make me a hypocrite? The whole world is looking at this poor man's exposed rump and I opt to have a quick swatch too.

I do not buy the argument that because I looked there's a market for what they're doing, therefore whatever ends journos go to obtain these pictures (and/or seedy stories) are justified. That they're just fulfilling a demand, that it's my fault and not theirs. I'm not sure there is a pre existing demand
for photos of tightend's arse. I would just look out of curiosity, see what all the fuss was about.

I'm all for a free press to print what they like, (and I consider myself free to not like a bunch of them.) If they break the law though... boom, suffer the full consequences and die die die. I'm going to exercise my freedom of speech to add to the public hysteria that serves to expedite this metaphorical death death death, and when it's all over I'm free to dance about on their metaphorical graves.

If nobody breaks into tightend's house and does snappy snappy twitpic then obviously there won't be any bum for me to look at. I'm confident that this won't mean I lead any less full a life as I would have otherwise.

If there was a naked picture of Tightend's bottom online I wouldn't be curious to see it. Not one bit.

What if someone has been on photoshop and turned it into a dot-to-dot puzzle?

Pics or it never happened.

If somebody photoshopped Megan Fox's arse over Tightend's arse and then did the dot-to-dot I would be ok with it. The puzzle itself isn't enough to make the Tightend version any more appealing to me.

All I can say is that you're of stronger moral character than me Mantis.

I would have to look at the bum.

I agree with thetank.

I don't know what they says about me :(

Maybe if the photo was rumoured to be of Tightend's massive swinging trouser snake. That in the darkness the photographer thought he was being attacked by a man with a cricket bat. Then I would look out of curiosity. But ass? No thanks.

Tank and Mantis - loving your work.

:D

Tautologous post.

I wish I had Tank's way with words.

I am wearing pyjamas tonight. Just in case

Wish you had wore pyjamas that night we shared a room ;)

He did - just opted not to...

Please be the s*n to go next:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/11/phone-hacking-news-international-gordon-brown

Nice, like to see that copper sacked.


and the times as well please.

Seems clear now that Murdoch should not be allowed to take over BskyB IMO.

I have never been a fan of Murdoch but have bought the Sunday Times for years but now I think it is pretty much impossible to justify supporting any of their titles and, if the takeover goes through, then will have to ditch Sky too.  There has to be a point at which you take a stand as a consumer and this is it for me now.

The shareholders aren't happy either:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8630545/Shareholders-sue-News-Corp-for-failing-to-take-early-action-on-phone-hacking-scandal.html

To be fair judging by this somewhat disturbing picture the old fella is pretty relaxed about it all

(http://i.imgur.com/FeFuf.jpg)

Michael Wolff, Vanity Fair contributing editor, tweeted: "#MURDOCHGATE Get out of Dodge strategy being discussed at News Corp: Sell all of News Int."

please let this be true

This makes some sense given that pretty much all of the News Corp's business is predicated on raising debt through cashflows then sacrificing the papers to get hold of Sky makes some sense from a business perspective.

If the Sun somehow dies I'll take that as a win and he can do whatever he wants from there. Me and him are cool from that point on.

I'm somewhat puzzled by the sudden righteous indignation as the nation realises that a significant proportion of tabloid journalists are scum sucking bottom feeding pondlife. Did we not already know this?

I'm also highly doubtful that the NOTW was the only or even the worst culprit.

I like the Sunday Times. Although I generally only read the News Review. Proper journalism in there (and Jeremy Clarkson), and I think it'd be a shame to lose it. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be an error. You get stolen personal information that is most definitely in the public interest (MPs expenses), and stolen personal information that most definitely isn't. Are MPs or even judges really the best to draw the line? I think not. Neither is Murdoch, obv. Unfortunately neither are the general public, for we are mostly idiots and sheep who think that the sex life of footballers is somehow vital information. :). Tough one.

Random late night slightly tipsy outpouring over. Sorry.

Isn't this kinda the point?  We did know but were powerless to see them brought to book or held accountable and now that is happening it is very cathartic.

Well people could have stopped buying them beforehand...

I agree with your first point obv. But reporters and P.I.s being paid to hack into someone's bank account is just not on. (Let alone what the scum, alledgedly, did to the Brown family's medical records)

I think my point was that there is a very fine line between good investigative journalism that sometimes requires possibly shady dealings to get information, and pulp journalism where the end can't justify the means. I'd rather the line wasn't drawn by politicians, who's dodgy activities are frequently exposed by good journalism, although are also sometimes on the wrong end of bad.

I think it's a good thing that people are waking up to the fact that buying crappy tabloids drives bad journalists to do bad things. That might be the only driver the industry needs to clean up it's act. I worry that we're going to end up with more than that, and good journalism will be punished by it.

fair point

Am I the only person who thinks, hang on a second here, is Glenn Mulcaire the only Private Investigator in the country who knew how to hack people's voicemails? Is News International the only organisation that ever used stufff obtained illegally?

I take Rex's point that good investigative journalism is important and that some blurring of the lines must take place for wrongdoing to be exposed, but do we really believe that it was News International and only them that has passed the point where the line is not just blurred, but erased, or left diminishing in the rear-view mirror?

No your not, that's why the thread is 7 pages mate :) bongo posted a nice graph earlier in the thread that shows the Daily Mail has actually hired P.I's a lot more than NOTW has..and obviously the sun is  a scummy newspaper (at best)

My bad - obviously missed a couple of pages in the thread

 ;noflopshomer;

The rumour mill is suggesting it wasn't hacking, might have been a leak, might have been a plant by the Browns. Most odd...

Gordon went out of his way not to suggest illegality:
“You’re in public life. And this story appears. You don’t know how it’s appeared. I’ve not questioned how it’s appeared. I’ve not made any allegations about how it’s appeared. I’ve not made any claims about [how it appeared]. But the fact is it did appear. And it did appear in the Sun newspaper.”

http://gawker.com/5820243/jon-stewart-tackles-the-news-of-the-world-scandal

well funny..

It was 'blagging' - and yes it was illegal.  Why should an organisation that has shown it is completely amoral with regards to privacy and the law surrounding it have decided to follow a 'correct' and legal route in this one instance?

Was it actually social engineering (a far more correct term imo)? Or was it leaked by someone for their own purposes? Or even planted by a member of the government?

And I'm not sure if you're describing the tabloids of the government, but I'd assume the worst in both cases.

I was referring to News Int.

http://twitter.com/#!/tombradby

tombradby tom bradby
Breaking News; Sun sources claim they got the story on Fraser from a Brown family friend. So now it looks like all out war.

tombradby tom bradby
The Sun also claims it didn't pay anything for the story.

Government it was then, good call boshi!

The sun and sun sources are suddenly reliable and truthful!!

::)

Brown seems to disagree with Mr Bradby;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-gordon-brown-news-international

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14112097

although I have no time for Brown as a politician, I VERY much doubt that he would use his sick child as a publicity tool.

Also, Mr Bradby seems to have had issues with Brown for ages

Where has he disagreed?

His statement seems very careful to say nothing other than the story appeared in the Sun...

This passage
It seems to me to imply that it definitely didn't come from him and the whole "Brown family friend" thing also doesn't fly. That's just what tabloids say when they don't actually want to disclose a source or have made up a story.

I would be stunned if this came from a political ally of Brown.

He hasn't responded to those allegations though, nor does his statement say anything other than the Sun published the story.

Also odd that he didn't say anything at the time (2006)... If he was that upset why did he attend Rebekah Brook's (editor of the Sun when the article was published) wedding in 2009? Why did Sarah Brown organise her 40th birthday party (2008) and invite her to a slumber party at Chequers:

"More than a dozen female friends, mosty with a media background, have been invited to stay the night [at Chequers]. Guests include Rupert Murdoch’s wife Wendi and his daughter Elisabeth, the television presenter Claudia Winkleman and newspaper editor Rebekah Wade. It is thought Mr Brown will be at Chequers, the prime minister’s country residence, at the time but will not be involved in the party which is being paid for by the Browns."

It doesn't add up...

Because he wanted to get elected..and you can't do that if you piss the sun off.

On the wedding front I would agree but I don't think you have to plan parties for the editor and invite her to a slumber party at your house to not piss them off...

afneil Andrew Neil
Labour conference 2009. Brown calls Murdoch to stop Sun deserting to Tories. Fails. "I will destroy you," growls Brown, slams down phone.
4 hours ago

also:

afneil Andrew Neil
The Surrey police knew Milli Dowler's phone hacked in 2002. Yet did nothing. Why?

In 2008 Paul Dacre (left), the editor of the Daily Mail, gave a speech to the Society of Editors that covered this. And who did he praise for helping to ensure that journalists don't go to jail for blagging? It was Gordon Brown.

Here's the key section.


    The fourth issue we raised with Gordon Brown was a truly frightening amendment to the Data Protection Act, winding its way through Parliament, under which journalists faced being jailed for two years for illicitly obtaining personal information such as ex-directory telephone numbers or an individual's gas bills or medical records. This legislation would have made Britain the only country in the free world to jail journalists and could have had a considerable chilling effect on good journalism.

    The Prime Minister – I don't think it is breaking confidences to reveal – was hugely sympathetic to the industry's case and promised to do what he could to help.

    Over the coming months and battles ahead, Mr Brown was totally true to his word. Whatever our individual newspapers' views are of the Prime Minister – and the Mail is pretty tough on him - we should, as an industry, acknowledge that, to date, he has been a great friend of press freedom.

(that's from the Guardian!)

I don't see why Gordon Brown's bad temper and bad judgement are particularly relevant to what's actually at stake here. Rupert Murdoch's organisation is accused of and in many cases has admitted to very serious criminality.

Which, apparently, GB helped them get away with. I also doubt they were the only papers to engage in such practices. Funny that many media organisations would rather Murdoch didn't get hold of BSkyB...

I know, I remember having a massive rant over this at the time with someone who thought I was over reacting when I said that the bit in bold was such an idiotic argument against this sort of legislation and that the press were ripping the piss out of this.

That the other papers may or may not do it as well is absolutely no defence. All of the papers need to be investigated without question but even the with the shambolic way Murdoch and son have dealt with this situation, I'd be sure they are aware that wrongdoing at any other paper is no defence for the crimes committed by their organisation.

There's no one that doubts that both the Tories and New Labour were massively in Murdoch's pockets and have been for ages. About a year after I moved to the UK I thought to myself "Wow, the tabloids here actually rule the govt....interesting and probably not healthy". I've been having enough rants against GB and Blair that I think it's safe to say I'm not on their side. Their use of the media and his backstabbing is well documented. They're nothing but media whores, as are most politicians, they have to be if they want favourable press-coverage. He has to invite Brooks to his "slumber party" (What a disgusting phrase to use for middle-aged people having a party BTW...bring the car keys out and throw them in the bowl by the door) as she might have a fit if he doesn't and he doesn't want to risk that. I just don't think he's cynical enough to use his sick child to gain favour.
Politicians are shit scared of the tabloids.
The tabloids have always been too powerful in Brittain though. simply because they do not report on the news. They all have their own political agenda and a newspaper should never set the agenda. The public should set the agenda and the press should report on that. What happens in Brittain is that the press determines the debate and the people and politicians react to the press.


Anyways, that's a completely different rant altogether and hopefully this will now change.

Except no one seems to be mentioning the other papers...

they will...the focus is all on Murdoch now, The Times and sun will almost surely be looked at and investigated...and then the rest will be done.

You have more faith than me old bean!

Anyway it seems it's OK to go against Murdoch as long as you're all in it together as the Government and Labour say they will vote in favour of a motion against him buying BSkyB.

Would be great if the Sun's headline tomorrow was "Et tu, Cameron?"

This is boldiedash - opinions, whether expressed by papers with an agenda, or any other source are pretty much the only reason I would read something.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/07/12/fraser-brown-medical-excl_n_895783.html

This says that a member of the public gave them the information (his son was being treated with GB's and he wanted to raise awareness) and that GB gave them quotes to use...

Think this stuff with Brown is all a bit weird really.  As much as it pains me to say it The Suns position on their sources for this story seem perfectly reasonable and likely and GB's  position seems to be more a case of implying wrongdoing that he can't prove more than anything else.

Not quite what they've gone for. Probably because it's the sun.

Really? I read it to gain information rather than have the paper tell me I should vote Labour or Tory.

Might be a cultural thing though, I have never grown up with newspapers/tabloids expressing their opinions that clearly.

If this is the case and Brown gave them quotes to use and is now bitching about it my opinion of the man is even lower than it was.

I suppose my train of thought is that I like opinion pieces because they waken your critical faculties and so one can agree or disagree. Just 'the news' could be very dull. eg at a silly extreme, sports reporting without opinions would be pretty much unreadable. There's a place for a summation of 'news' or stats, like Wisden, but it's more for reference, not a great read...unless you're Tighty :-)

Also, often, other people can articulate the motivation behind a piece of legislation (which I might struggle with) and this is another stimulation to thinking for yourself. Newspapers have to precis, edit and pull key points out of a mass of info out there and the edit will always be subjective - in a sense, we have a better chance of spotting any bias in the editing if we are aware of the papers' general agenda. So, all in all, I prefer them to have an overt view as this provides a context that would be difficult to spot if they weren't allowed to express opinions on any given issue.

Fair point, I also like opinion pieces but I like them beside facts and I don't want them to dominate the newspaper.

I see what you're saying though and I don't have an issue with papers like The Guardian or the Times as such. They are good papers and you know which side they're on.

I love the tabloids for the education and insight they give me:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2013650/Healing-vibes-curing-cancer-Medical-mumbo-jumbo-thats-actually-TRUE.html

Why the hell isn't that guy in charge of the WHO?

TBF to the Daily mail (And I hate being fair to them) they do essentially point out that most of it's a pile of bollocks.

My problem with the article is that they don't point out that it's all a big load of nonsense.

I'm going to publish a study showing that the Daily Mail causes cancer. I wonder how the Daily Mail would report that...

TABLOIDS CAUSE CANCER!!!

"Tabloids like the Sun cause cancer says scientist"
And then blame it all on Murdoch obv.

Looks like DC wants the entire organisation (News int etc.) investigated;

The Prime Minister indicated that he believes the allegations against the News of the World should have repercussions for its parent company News International and for News Corporation's bid to buy the shares in satellite broadcaster BSkyB which it does not already own.

'There needs to be root-and-branch change in this entire organisation,' said Mr Cameron.

'It is becoming increasingly clear that while everybody to start with wanted somehow to separate what was happening at News International and what is happening at BSkyB, that is simply not possible.

'What has happened at this company is disgraceful. It has got to be addressed at every level. They should stop thinking about mergers when they have got to sort out the mess they have created.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014270/Cameron-Miliband-shoulder-shoulder-slam-News-International-Rebekah-Brooks-hacking-scandal.html#ixzz1RzBnAcpc

KIM KARDASHIAN WEARS BIKINI ON BEACH!

Pics or it didn't happen.

"The next great science myth: Daily Mail causes canc" and then the rest of the paper is blank. Aside from the adverts for health pills, slacks and awful ornaments.

Seems like Piers Morgan is getting dragged into this now too...

About time he got involved in another scandal, it really F***s me off that he is working for CNN now and some people consider him a decent enough bloke to be on telly.

Piers Morgan is no better than old man Murdoch and the sooner he's dead, the better.

lol. you need something else to focus your mind on.

Well, I was focussed on Kim Kardashian in a bikini but there are no pics of that, apparently.

never happened then :0

NewsCorp have withdrawn bid for BskyB wiiiiiiiiiiiii can keep Sky!!!!!

this make me very happy.

Now all that is left is destroying his newspapers :)

So how long do you think until it's back on the cards and supported by all sides of the house?

9 months?

Nah, will be decided at the next election

Please, please, PLEASE let them have done this in the US;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8636257/Phone-hacking-Rupert-Murdoch-faces-inquiry-into-US-companies.html


Over here Murdoch might get into a bit of trouble and maybe get a pathetic fine but in the States he would stand to lose an awful lot of money through fines and lawsuits.

Prison, if people working for him hacked 9/11 phones. This is working out loads better than I'd dared to hope.

Also lol'ed hard at this

the only US channel not reporting on it;

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fox-news-watch-avoids-news-corp-scandal-almost_b75808

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/seealso/2011/07/us_view_how_a_uk_scandal_affec.html

this might just become the greatest thing since the fall of the Berlin Wall or the moon landing

gg Brooks.

And that's one. It's too late now though, the thing has spread to the Murdochs. Very silly of them to leave it this long. If they had dumped her, or she had "resigned", earlier they could have avoided an awful lot of hassle and might hve got away with it.

This whole story has been brilliant. It just keeps getting worse and worse for Murdoch and I can imagine him eventually just disappearing off the face of the earth. Six months from now the Americans will finally track him down to some bunker in Pakistan and he'll emerge wearing just his underpants looking dishevelled with a million cash in a suitcase. What's also funny is The Sun's daily ignoring of this explosive story. The whole thing is abs hilarious. It's like in The Wizard of Oz when Dorothy threw that bucket of water over the wicked witch of the west and she all melted to the floor before your very eyes.

Just when you though things couldn't get any worse the Daily Mail is set to launch a red top tabloid.

Come on, who doesn't want a paper with stories and op-ed like this? (All from today BTW)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014978/Why-mother-believes-fat-children-taken-care.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2014986/Three-jobs-going-foreigners-UK-migrants-No-wonder-Britons-languish-benefits.html

(the link below that is this where they say that Bangladeshi kids from a poor background have better English lit skills than poor white kids BTW...You have to admire their consistency)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2014967/Failing-entire-generation-Not-clever-all.html

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjS5TGS4mSc
lol

Rumours abound that Brooks has been arrested.

confirmed;

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rebekah-brooks-arrested-over-phone-hacking-124413633.html :)

First pics of the Rebekah Brooks arrest.


(http://babysimpson.co.uk/info/arrests/8f20_sideshowbob.jpg)

imagine a rebekah brooks/brent horner love child!

Genius

BREAKING NEWS:  Rupert Murdoch

and that's nr 2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14181344

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/news-of-the-world-sean-hoare

whistleblower found dead


they will make a film about this one day

hahhahahahahaha

The Suns website has been hacked

http://twitpic.com/5s9yji/full

Guardian online link...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/sun-website-hacked-lulzsec

LulzSec also claimed to be "sitting on their [the Sun's] emails" and that they would release the emails on Tuesday. They tweeted what they claimed was Rebekah Brooks's email address at the Sun, and said they knew her password combination.

More revelations and jolly capers to follow perhaps?

Surprising how much the media is downplaying the seriousness of the allegations against Yates and Stephenson. They are both looking reasonable bets to end up in prison themselves imo. They are directly responsible for a total failure to investigate very serious alleged crimes, for which they had mountains of evidence and now it turns out they were close friends with a number of the  people who were/are accused of these crimes.

I seriously doubt it, this will get swept under the carpet mate or someone will say "Well, they already resigned and that's punishment enough"

Watching Stephenson at Home Affair Cttee now I would be amazed if he is ever arrested and tbh I think he might be a bit hard done by.

lol.......skycopter following Murdoch/Rebekah's journey to Parliament

Shades of Watergate with PM's Chief of Staff protecting PM by turning down briefing??

Apparently Lulzsec hacked into the the Sun's website and planted a hoax story. For their next trick, they're going to fart in a sewer.

Breaking news; The Murdochs admit that NI is still paying Glenn Mulcaire's legal fees (according to Yahoo. I can't watch it live).

Is they crazy? Did they give an explanation for this?

pmsl. needed more love here or on the joke thread were it would be appreciated

Murdoch attacked during testimony

Didnt look serious, claiming it was a "custard pie" of shaving foam on bbc

idiot, turned the PR of the whole day round in favour of Wendi Murdoch. Good slap she has on her

Don't understand how anyone could be so stupid.  This was one of the few opportunities for the Murdochs to be brought to task in a democratic arena and he not only turned all the focus away from what they said (and the fact that Colin Myler has subsequently said some of their testimony was wrong) but also risked getting the whole thing cancelled and the murdochs an out.  Only amusing thing in it all is that the guy who did its girlfriends twitter now reads "not funny, not clever, not your girlfriend"

Uniformed police, undercover police,Murdoch security, and Wendi gets the right hook in first ;nana;

I wonder how much it would cost to 'hire' a standup like that

A disgraceful day for British politics. Cameron's refusal to answer almost every question put to him by the opposition makes a complete mockery of parliament.

Very much this. Did however, for the first time ever, enjoy today's Daily Record headline "Foam Whacking Scandal" - think they've employed a headline writer from the NotW already.

I also don't think Cameron handled things badly at all today and I'm no fan of his at all. Think this whole thing is much much bigger than a mere party political issue. Perhaps with a stronger opposition it could've been interesting today but Ed Miliband is just so poor.

I think it's fascinating.

Cameron is clearly in a bit of bother here as he's very close to Murdoch, as Brown and blair have always been.

Milliband became leader of Labour when thesun would have nothing to do with them anymore and therefore never got the chance to court them. He definitely would have done, if he had the chance though. He must have breathed a sigh of relief or two in the past few weeks as he got away with one here.

Clegg, well..no-one gave a shit about Clegg and they still don't. He's a complete non-entity in politics. I can hardly think of a leader of a party who is, or has been, more irrelevant in British politics. (Other than the leader of the Monster Raving Loonies) The trouble for him is that he can't be too blunt in his attacks on Labour/the Tories as he'd have to go after Cameron. Clegg knows his party would be decimated in the next general election and that's what would definitely be called if Cameron had to go.

At the end of the day, they're all a bunch of spanners.

WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII the Mirror and Piers Morgan are next;

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ex-mirror-journalist-makes-hacking-claim-035932578.html

Hope that scumbag gets done as well.

Wow,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/28/phone-hacking-sarah-payne

The evidence that police have found in Mulcaire's notes is believed to relate to a phone given to Sara Payne by Rebekah Brooks as a gift to help her stay in touch with her supporters.

wow this is lower than low.

Other than the fact they gave her the phone, which is not really the relevant matter surely, what's the difference between this and the Milly Dowler case, genuinely asking as I don't see how it is ?

love  to see george has the same quoting skills as me. but agree

Define hacked phone? None of it was really hacking, just accessing the voicemail using the default pin.

Well it's a phone, that has been hacked

Given that no senior executives were charged over hacking for so long, and yet it is so unlikely that they weren't involved, the previous setups eg Milly Dowler have always had a degree of space separating the dirty deed from the people at the top. In this case, however, the Lying King herself has handed over what is possibly the instrument of privacy invasion. Possible that she knew nothing of how instrumental this action was, but it certainly won't be perceived that way.

It's a phone, it wasn't hacked, none of the others were, they accessed the voice mails illegally by using the default pin. Unless the accusation is the pin on the voice mail was specifically changed to allow them access before it was given (and I haven't heard that mentioned) then the only way the giving of the phone helped is that it created the voice mail for them to access.

It's not like they planted a listening device in the phone is it? (unless they did of course, I guess you can't rule it out).

I can't see how morally the giving of the phone as a gift is anyone near as bad as the hacking of the voicemails and deleting them to give false hope as they did with Milly Dowler.

The BBC have a couple of interesting tidbits:

"The BBC has not been able to confirm whether the evidence does relate to this particular mobile." (the one given by Brooks).

"A source close to Mrs Brooks says she believes the voicemail system on the phone provided by the NoW was not activated until 18 months ago."

We all believe sources close to the upstanding and honourable Mrs Brooks.

Well, championing "Sarah's law" for ages and having her mother write an opinion piece in the last edition of their paper really does to show just how cynical this lot are IMO.

It's the BBC though, it's not like they're a big fan of hers and they went out of their way to make 2 very big caveats...

The BBC often regurgitates tabloid nonsense on their website.

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

The caveats are clearly there because the BBC is not the NOTW/Daily Mail/s*/any other tabloid and want to be careful that they don't report something as gospel when no-one knows whether it's actually true or not. The caveats are vital because the Beeb has lawyers that tell them to add it.

I wouldn't say it was a defence of RB and the NOTW but it's good to take notes of the caveats they have added as it essentially means that the headline that the story has in quite a few tabloids might well be bollocks, or at least part of it might be.

That was the point I was making really.

How do they know that her voicemail wasn't activated until the last 18 months?

They tried listening in before then, ldo.

If that was the reason NOTW sure are gonna come out with that statement in their defence ldo

Maybe they rang and it didn't go to voice mail. Maybe 18 months ago she rang up RB and said "How do I turn voice mail on?". Maybe she's talking rubbish. I'm sure we'll all have moved on to the next outrage by the time the truth comes out!

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHVVKAKWXcg 

(one minute in :D)

If you leave your front door unlocked & someone waltzes in and steals all your stuff - they still get done for breaking and entering. It might not be hacking in a computer-geek subverting security kind of way - but trying the default password is the same as trying all combinations.

Pretty sure they knew the voicemail code when they gave the phone to her, so not hacking.
If you don't know the passcode and you try the default, you are certainly hacking, yes. It was just an easy hack.
But if you know the code then use this to listen to messages illegally, it's not hacking, and not a 'hacked phone'. Didn't stop all the mainstream news from calling it hacking/hacked phone though.

Isn't the implication that they gave her the phone so that they had the number in order to be able to hack it?

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

Meh - That I'd still call another level of hacking - if you can't break the code ensure they use something you've already got the code to.

BUT the post I was answering specifically referred to using the default codes, so original post stands.

Are you seriously comparing the validity of quantum mechanics and homeopathy?

Pls read my post again slowly and you'll see that I'm obviously not. Quantum mechanics is the science of the very small. Something you should know plenty about ;)

I'm calling FOUL here as well, I've yet to see a proper Homoeopathy study where they have passed a peer review on their methods - so I sincerely doubt the *very*  (especially when the studies AVOID trying the placebo to check for placebo effect when proper studies do include it).

Having read it at half speed I need to ask if you are comparing empirical evidence with 'somebody felt a bit better'?

Very good, the central issue was the placebo effect.
However O'Brien's complaint that 'IT'S JUST WATER' puts him in the same camp as those who rejected the findings on the 'a priori' principle that if you can't demonstrate the same broad mechanism as common medicines (molecular action) it must be crap. To reject based on such a principle is really bad empirical science. If such an approach was valid, quantum mechanics could have been rejected right at the start. eg *Nothing travels faster than the speed of light* *Nothing comes from nothing* *If you know where everthing is and what forces are involved, you can say where everything will be in the next stage*. All common sense assumptions, just like 'molecules are the vehicle of chemical action', all widely held, all wrong.

lol Manuel, you do realise that Dara is not a lecturer, right? He's a comedian, he exaggerates for comedic effect.

On top of which he's obviously right and homeopathy is a massive load of bollocks.

I've met him, he's a clever man, good degree in mathematics, he knows what he's talking about, just happens to be funny enough to be a comic.
I take issue with your 'homeophathy is a massive load of bollocks' assertion, my friend had arthritis for many many years and took special treated water for just a year and now she is playing volleyball every week. What are you calling this, a fluke? Millions of people take homeopathic medicine, what are you saying, they are all NUTS?

Yes. "Took specially treated water", indeed. Billions of people "believe" in God, I'll call them all nuts as well until someone can show me that they are not talking complete and utter nonsense.

But thanks for starting the homeopathy thing, I'm sure Kin will be along soon :)

Science cannot know everything, human reason is by its nature very limited.
Here is Dara getting it very wrong about the evolution of the eye.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdi_u1ZenRw

no        dont reply        dont get involved         it is not worth it

damm

Yes - they are nuts

LOL - But surely to state that *very* best scientist studies have suggested it worked, given that you know the flaws in those very studies, puts you further past the 'trusted opinion on science' pale than Mr O'Brien's bit of deserved (in my view) comic criticism of those charlatans who claim that it works?

And let's face it IT IS JUST FECKING WATER.

Damn, and here I was thinking that a one eyed monkey really did hump everything in sight.

If a bunch of bog standard scientists had come up with experimental results that seemed to fly in the face of common sense, reason, and other empirical data, the first things you would suggest would be that their methodology, measurement or results were wrong. Less likely to find these in a near Nobel-Laureate genius experimental chemist with many successful drugs to his name. So instead of attacking his methods, some attacked the very notion that he could be right, since it just appeared to be water. And water has no memory.

Name and links to his studies please.

Sorry - but we're on story time here.

You seem to expect us to believe your story just as you expect us to believe 'near Nobel-Laureate genius experimental chemist' when you have showed your method to be flawed and instead are relying on anecdotal evidence & then crying 'foul they want reality'.

IF your genius chemist used placebos as a control and followed normal scientific controls which are there for a reason then why wouldn't his study be accepted? Did he?

I'd also have trouble trusting a chemist making medical claims, since medicine is not (or should not be) a study of chemistry & biology but should take into account psychology as well. Hence the requirement to test for placebos.

So far Manuel:

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrPfhs5WnB4

A brit defending the french from attacking germans, who would have thunk it ;)


The Life And Work Of Jacques Benveniste
Was Written Not Only In Water
(1935 – 2004)

Jacques Benveniste is a charismatic man who has a considerable history as a medical research scientist. Born in Paris in 1935, Jacques studied medicine and rose quickly to become a head of clinic at the medical faculty. After training as a doctor and working with cancer patients, he dedicated himself to research. He is committed to one of the most exciting areas of biological research : the communication between cells, especially the cells which make up the human immune system. He has devoted his life to try to discover the pathways between a select group of cells which are activated when foreign substances enter the human body. Throughout his long career, working both in France and the U.S., Jacques Benveniste published more than 300 scientific articles and with the “Platelet Activating Factor” (paf-acether) discovery in 1972, gained an international reputation as a specialist on the mechanisms of allergies and inflammation. From 1973, he was the head of several INSERM (French National Institute of Health and Medical Research) departments and in 1984 was appointed Research Director.

He was responsible for the development of new ways of approaching inflammation including the patenting of an innovative allergy test. Over the last 20 years, the literature has grown exponentially, and Jacques contributed to this significantly. It is difficult to read anything on the subject without finding a reference to his work.
Benveniste's research into allergy has taken him deep into the mechanisms which create such
responses. Understanding that the smallest amount of a substance affects the organism -"A
person can enter a room two days after a cat has left it and still suffer an allergic response"-
led Benveniste in the mid-eighties, to research how very high dilutions appear to have a real and
material effect upon immune system cells called basophils.

He tackling problems that mattered to him, rather than those that were simply fashionable. Of equal importance, Jacques had an amazing intuition and an ear for apparently bizarre phenomena on the margins of medical science, coupled with the ability to bring them to center stage. It was in the mid-eighties, in his Inserm laboratory, that he became interested in hormesis and in the mysteries of high dilutions. This was the beginning of the “water memory’’ saga.
Jacques Benveniste finished his race on October 3rd, 2004 and with him went a good chunk of
scientific creativity.
2
Scientific biography of Benveniste
ACADEMIC CURRICULUM :
- 1951 : Baccalauréat
- 1953–1960 : Medical study at Faculté de Médecine de Paris
Hospital titles:

- 1956 : Externe des Hôpitaux de Paris
- 1959 : Interne des Hôpitaux de la Région de Paris
- 1961 : Interne des Hôpitaux de Paris
- 1967 : Assistant des Hôpitaux de Paris
University degrees :- 1967 : Medical doctor, Faculté de Médecine de Paris, Thesis silver
medal
- 1967-1969 : Chef de Clinique, Faculté de Médecine de Paris
RESEARCH POSITIONS :
1965-1969 : Part-time researcher at Institut de Recherche sur le Cancer, CNRS,
Villejuif (Dr. J.C. Salomon and Prof. W. Bernhardt)
1969-1972 : Research Associate, Department of Experimental Pathology, Scripps Clinic
and Research Foundation, La Jolla, California (Drs C.G. Cochrane and F.J. Dixon)
1973 : Chargé de Recherches, INSERM Unit 25, Hôpital Necker, Paris
1977 : Head of the Research Laboratory on Immediate Hypersensitivity and

Immunopathology, INSERM Unit 25
1978 : Directeur de Recherche 2ème Classe INSERM, INSERM Unit 131, Clamart
1980 : Head of INSERM Unit 200 : Immunology of Allergy and Inflammation, Clamart
1981-1983 : Close consultant to J-P Chevènement, French Minister for Research.

1984 : Directeur de Recherche 1ère Classe INSERM
1995 : Head of Digital Biology Laboratory, Clamart
2004 : Head of NeutrAct Laboratory, Paris
3
Jacques BENVENISTE - Selected publications* :

BENVENISTE J, HENSON PM, COCHRANE CG : Leukocyte-dependent histamine release from rabbit platelets : the role of IgE, basophils and a platelet-activating factor. J EXP MED, 1972, 13:1356-1377.**
BENVENISTE J : Platelet-activating factor, a new mediator of anaphylaxis and immune
complex deposition from rabbit and human basophils. NATURE, 1974, 249:581-582.
BENVENISTE J, LE COUEDIC JP, POLONSKY J, TENCE M : Structural analysis of
purified platelet-activating factor by lipases. NATURE, 1977, 269:170-171.
CHIGNARD M, LE COUEDIC JP, TENCE M, VARGAFTIG BB, BENVENISTE J : The role
of platelet-activating factor in platelet aggregation. NATURE ,1979, 279:799-800.

BENVENISTE J, TENCE M, VARENNE P, BIDAULT J, BOULLET C, POLONSKY J : Semi-synthèse et structure proposée du facteur activant les plaquettes (PAF) : PAF- acéther, un alkyl éther analogue de la lysophosphatidylcholine. C R ACAD SCI PARIS, 1979, 289, série D:1037-1040.**

CHAP H, MAUCO G, SIMON MF, BENVENISTE J, DOUSTE-BLAZY L : Biosynthetic labelling of platelet-activating factor (paf-acether) from radioactive acetate by stimulated platelets. NATURE, 1981, 289:312-314.

DAVENAS E, BEAUVAIS F, AMARA J, OBERBAUM M, ROBINZON B, MIADONNA A, TEDESCHI A, POMERANZ B., FORTNER P, BELON P, SAINTE-LAUDY J, POITEVIN B, BENVENISTE J : Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE. NATURE, 1988, 333-816-818.

BENVENISTE J, DAVENAS E, DUCOT B., CORNILLET B., POITEVIN B, SPIRA A : L’agitation de solutions hautement diluées n’induit pas d’activité biologique spécifique. C R ACAD SCI PARIS,1991,312,série II:461-466.

BEAUVAIS F, SHIMAHARA T, INOUE I, BENVENISTE J : Anti-IgE induces the opening of non selective cation channels on human basophils. FUNDAM CLIN PHARMACOL, 1994, 8:246-250.

NGUER CM, PELLEGRINI O, GALANAUD P, BENVENISTE J, THOMAS Y, RICHARD Y : Regulation of paf-acether receptor expression in human B cells. J IMMUNOL, 1992, 149:2742-2748.

CALABRESSE C, NGUER CM, PELLEGRINI O, BENVENISTE J, RICHARD Y, THOMAS Y : Induction of high-affinity paf-acether receptor expression during T cell activation. EUR J IMMUNOL, 1992, 22:1349-1355.
4

BEAUVAIS F, HIEBLOT C, BURTIN C, BENVENISTE J : Regulation of human basophil activation. III. Impairment of the inhibitory effect of Na+ on IgE-mediated histamine release in patients with allergic rhinitis. J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL, 1992, 90:52-58.

BEAUVAIS F, HIEBLOT C, BURTIN C, BENVENISTE J : Regulation of human basophil activation. IV. Dissociation between cationic dye binding and histamine release : role of Ca2+ ions. FUNDAM CLIN PHARMACOL, 1992, 6:153-158.

EL AZZOUZI B, JURGENS P, BENVENISTE J, THOMAS Y : Immunoregulatory functions of paf-acether. IX. Modulation of apoptosis in an immature human T cell line. BIOCHEM BIOPH RES COMMUN, 1993, 190:320-324.
BIDET B, LEBOYER M, DESCOURS B, BOUVARD MP, BENVENISTE J : Allergic
sensitization in infantile autism. J AUTISM DEVELOP DISORD, 1993, 23:419-420.

PELLEGRINI O, DAVENAS E, MORIN L, BENVENISTE J, MANUEL Y, THOMAS Y : Stress proteins in human lymphocytes. II. Modulation of stress proteins in a human T cell line. EUR J PHARMAC, 1994, 270:221-228.

EL AZZOUZI B, TSANGARIS G, PELLEGRINI O, BENVENISTE J, MANUEL Y, THOMAS Y : Cadmium induces apoptosis in a human T cell line. TOXICOLOGY, 1994, 88:127-139.

HILLIQUIN P, NATOUR J, AISSA J, GUINOT P, LAOUSSADI S, BENVENISTE J, MENKES CJ, ARNOUX B : Treatment of carrageenan-induced arthritis by platelet- activating factor (paf) antagonist BN 50730. ANN RHEUM DIS, 1995, 54:140-143.

HILLIQUIN P, HARRAN H, AISSA J, BENVENISTE J, MENKES CJ : Correlations between paf-acether and tumor necrosis factor in rheumatoid arthritis. SCAND J RHEUM, 1995, 24:169-173.

GUIMBAUD R, IZZO A, MARTINOLLE JP, VIDON N, COUTURIER D, BENVENISTE J, CHAUSSADE S : Intraluminal excretion of paf, lysopaf, and acetylhydrolase in patients with ulcerative colitis. DIGEST DIS SCI, 1995, 40:2635-2640.

KORTH RM, HIRAFUJI M, BENVENISTE J, RUSSO-MARIE F : Human umbilical vein endothelial cells : specific binding of platelet-activating factor and cytosolic calcium flux. BIOCHEM PHARMAC, 1995, 49:1793-1799.

AÏSSA J, HARRAN H, RABEAU M, BOUCHERIE S, BROUILHET H, BENVENISTE J : Tissue levels of histamine, paf-acether and lysopaf-acether in carrageenan-induced granuloma in rats. INT ARCH ALLERGY IMMUNOL, 1996, 110:182-186.

F.Joly, D.Poisson, P.Clauser, J.Akimjak, L. Kahhak, J. Bidault, Y. Thomas, J. Benveniste : Effet du nitrate d'éconazol dans un modèle d'inflammation sous-cutanée chez le rat. La lettre du Pharmacologue, 1995, 9: 125-127.
5

L. Kahhak, A. Roche, C. Dubray, C. Arnoux and J. Benveniste : Decrease of ciliary beat frequency by platelet-activating factor; Protective effect of ketotifen. Inflammation Research, 1996, 45: 234-238.

Y. Thomas, M. Schiff, L. Belkadi, P. Jurgens, L. Kahhak and J. Benveniste : Activation of human neutrophils by electronically transmitted Phorbol-Myristae Acetate. Medical Hypotheses, 2000, 54(1) : 33-39.

Excellent post (esp the psychology medicine bit), and nice vid lol. I'm not trying to show he's right as a scientist, I'm trying to show that the reasons to reject him 'a la O' Brien' are wrong. 'The mechanism of medicinal action (and psychological action as well), is *molecular*. We found something that appears to have an effect without a molecular action, therefore reject it. This is the wrong approach. Quantum mechanics is a perfect analogy, it flies in the face of all Classical Physics assumptions, but remains right. You could reject it 'a priori' in just the same way that the 'Memory of Water' is rejected. Shame on you.

Oh thanks god, you meant Jaques Benviste's paper. I almost thought you'd found something that wasn't widely proven to be unreliable and, essentially, nonsense

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7505286.stm sums it up for the not so scientifically minded.

Oh, BTW..to proof or dis-proof water memory (and let's remember it's up to the scientists to prove it) does not equate to proving (or indeed dis-proving) homeopathy as a whole.

Shame on you Manuel - you are guilty of trying to pass of flawed studies as studies by *very* respected scientists as evidence then when the flaw is pointed out you try to breeze past it with a well done.

You argue about bad empirical science without seeming to grasp that your quantum physics example has been proven empirically (enough to show that there is something beyond the molecule) - that's why people believe it even if they don't understand it. NOTHING you have quoted shows anything to back up such a claim for Homoeopathy.

You then try to force the bluff with a near Nobel-Laureate (what is that  - one in the next lab to a REAL Nobel-Laureate?) chemist - and when pulled up on the scientist-dropping present with a wiki-paste about a medical scientist.

GUYS - I'm calling TROLL here. Better things to do.

Yeah, I'd have to go with Rod and say troll is the most likely.

Still tilts me though.

BTW, where the F is Boshi?

Read my words again *SLOWLY* and you'll see that once again you totally fail to grasp the content of my post, instead twisting it so that you can attack it with poorly-rehearsed arguments.

Internet homeopathy argument>>>donkeyporn imo

Sigh. So, in simple words, what is your argument? I haven't really seen you make one. You're just saying that a comedian is wrong when he says homeopathy is a load of bollocks. Yet you don't offer any evidence that states that it's not bollocks.

No, I repeatedly said that I did not take issue with him that homeopathy was bollocks, I said that I take issue with his a priori position that he shares with many scientists, viz that homeopathy should be rejected because 'after all, it is just water, and drug-medicinal action happens via molecules, and there are no new molecules here'. Instead of saying THERE CAN BE NO EFFECT they should say 'THERE MAY BE A NEW MECHANISM OF EFFECT THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND'.
There could be two conclusions to the homeophathy debate
1) It really works
2) It's bollocks

But it will always remain true that rejecting a scientific finding because you enter the scientific process with *assumptions that the experiment then seems to challenge* is right up there with the closed-mindedness of religious belief. As an analogy of this closed-mindedness, I suggested that the findings of early quantum mechanics would have appeared complete and utter nonsense to those pursuing research at the time on the basis of Classical Physics. This was an 'a priori' argument. Rob, however, with his really poor ability to see points of view that don't mesh perfectly with his own, translated this into an 'a posteriori' argument where 'the poorly understood but true empirical findings of quantum mechanics cannot be used as an analogy for scientific studies of homeopathy. Then in another of his wild tantrums starts pulling the 'troll' card wtf.
[ ] GCSE Biology and the odd flick through of 'New Scientist' = substitute for substantial formal scientific education. Ciao.

I reckon that Dara is closer to the truth when he says "It's bollocks" than any homeopathy believing "scientist" has ever been with "It really works"!
If it really worked you'd think there would be something more than theories that have consistently been found out.

The "water memory" theory is not the same as the quantum mechanics debate from years ago in that it doesn't just take place on a theoratical level but people have been trying to prove it and consistently failed to do so. This is not theoretical science.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Water_memory sums it up very nicely.


Water memory has effectively been disproved and therefore I really think your entire argument, that Dara, and scientists, shouldn't discard the idea, essentially doesn't hold and can be written off as a load of bollocks as well.

Thread back on track;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14346050

MP apologises to Piers. Reckon she should get the sack now? (Personally I think everyone who hides behind parliamentary privilige when making comments in an effort to score some cheap points should be sacked TBH)
Or is this just a result of a newspaper all of a sudden coming out with stories about her using coke and Morgan having shown who's the boss now?

On Desert Island Discs he bangs on and on and on about phone hacking being the norm and everyone did it so it was fine. He citied very specific examples of when it was done, the man is a complete prick. Only Richard Littlejohn, Paul Dacre and Clarkson ahead of him in britain's dumbest journalistic prick contest.

Completely agree with you (though I love Clarkson TBH) funny though that now that stories are being leaked about eh MP she immediately backs off

Well it seems she was wrong so fair enough that she should apologise. Doesn't mean Morgan is innocent though just that she misread the evidence in that particular case.

News International paying the Dowler family £2 million.

http://news.sky.com/home/article/16072953