BBC as bad as the NOTW ?

[4846]

Obviously the BBC must have had a memory lapse when they broadcast their reports.

It seems it is only terrible when the papers use these private investigators.


http://www.guardian.c...-private-investigator

[jno]

it isn't terrible when newspapers (or anyone else) use private investigators, unless they break the law. This one wasn't "notorious" when the BBC used him 10 years ago.

[4846]

// Whittamore was at the heart of a network of corrupt officials and "blaggers" responsible for obtaining information such as ex-directory phone numbers, car registrations and criminal records. In 2005 he pleaded guilty to breaches of the Data Protection Act and received a two-year conditional discharge.//

[4846]

Are we to believe when he worked for the BBC he obtained all his information legally, I think not

[jno]

really? Do you have evidence for your belief? Did you have it in 2001?

[4846]

Do you have evidence that it was legal ?

[Gromit]

Private Investigators are not illegal in this country and many companies and individuals use them.

The News of the World (and other newspapers) are not in trouble for using private investigators, they are in trouble for using illegal techniques to get private or confidential information. Sometimes the NotW journalists crossed the line, other times a third party was employed.

The BBC are blameless in this instance. There is no evidence that the Private Eye used the same techniques for the BBC in 2001, that he would later used to obtain information for the NotW.

[jno]

nobody has to prove anything they have done is legal. It is for the law to prove that it was illegal.

[4846]

So Gromit you think it was only in 2005 that he used illegal methods.

[Gromit]

Yes. Some of the hacking techniques used in 2005 would not have been available in 2001. As phones become smart and hold more information about us, then the opportunities for mining useful information increases.

It is very dangerous to assume that someone convicted of a crime have been doing that crime all their life. It just does not follow.

[4846]

If he was a serial bank robber it would be ok to say it but seeing he worked for the BBC we must class it as a first offence.

Notice the link above was from The Guardian not The Mail.

[Gromit]

Do you have evidence he was a serial phone hacker before 2005? Your assumptions are incorrect.

[LazyGun]

LoL - No, I do not think so, for several reasons. Firstly, only one recorded incident where this investigator listed the Beeb as a client. Second, this was back in 2001 - We all knew far less about the methods of these investigators. Third, and most important of all, there was a public interest defence - this was not hacking a murdered girls phone, or chasing down some celebrity on a kiss and tell.

The public interest defence holds now as it did then - if the papers can show that they are acting in the public interest, then they have a defence when using illegal methods. The NoW could offer no such defence.

[4846]

LazyGun......if the papers can show that they are acting in the public interest, then they have a defence when using illegal methods.....


So it is OK to use illegal methods...

[LazyGun]

4846 - Absolutely, in my opinion - if the illegal methods being used by the investigators are proportionate to the story, are not capital offences and the story being investigated is in the public interest - And such a defence can beoffered and tested in court.

[Zeuhl]

Private investigators have always been used by the media.

The issue is - for what purpose?

It appears that the OP can't see any difference between tracking down a convicted paedophile and hacking into a murdered schoolgirl's phone messages.

[Philtaz]

I have no problem with the BBC and other media using such personnel in the interests of proper, investigative journalism, particularly where criminal activity may be exposed.

As Zeuhl says it would appear that some can't grasp the distinction between tracking a dangerous and predatory paedophile in contrast to hacking the phone of a murder victim.

[4846]

Zeuhl it is you that seems to think it ok to break the law if it gives the BBC a good story.

How do you know this person when working for the BBC did not hack any other murdered persons phones and the answer is you do not unless you work for the BBC and are privileged to inside information

[jno]

what ever makes you think the BBC know whether he hacked murdered persons' phones?

[Gromit]

4846 reminds me of RebelSouls. I wonder if they are any way related?

[Zeuhl]

<<it ok to break the law if it gives the BBC a good story. >>

True investigative journalism isn't just about getting a 'good story' though that is any journalist's primary role. It is also about informing and exposing matters that are in the public interest.

In that context, most people (including the legal system) have been tolerant of law breaking that is not disproportionate to the crime being exposed.

If the NoTW had been hacking the phones of paedophiles, terrorists or gangsters most people would not have been bothered.

But they weren't! Were they 4846? What criminal activity did they suspect the murdered Milly Fowler to be guilty of?