personal freedom of investigation

soz for the 'intimate' i thought, 'is your cat still sick ?' i dunno where you went with hollidays,(blink) but your dahlia's are nice', or 'the niece of palin just got an illicit twin' were enough to deserve the predicate intimate in english.

so over a hedgerow(or so i understood today), or in the tearooms here over the neighbours, well whereever there is a backdoor ( a joke).

thinking this much over agenda's i must start with the cops.

the first one basically said, if you are out to walk over the cops the press and the public all alike, i admit it wasnt perfect, but within some limitations, at least at my level quite a few ethical (and based on that magic asset 'trust'. we did , the press did that actually better then we as best as we could.

he does stray way from confirming the produce of those (his/mets/the press/notw/policeforces everywhere .. and politics) policy's is either dangerously badly regulated or in a manner that would appeal to a policeman formally applied.

he does acknowledge there is an errormargin.

ofcourse.
that is the natural effect of a free press, a participating journalism, and it would also be for police practice or investigation.

he does confirm that in practice that meant press corp was not the worst of candidates,

i wouldn't mention murdochs excursion to his dad's (unasked for...) motivation. but i like when commenters show sense and respect. no matter i like to be partisan.

murdoch for his part will not be forgiven for admiring a colonial outpost of corporate fascism alike singapore.

nevertheless..

both james and rebekka remembered the meeting that they were 'briefed' beforehand, and, james, met beforehand and with specific financial reference , typically about the higher bids.

this theme got repeated, luckily for james not only on his iniative,
and murdoch pronounced, 'it is ridiculous that (note) people are reduced to this.

(i agree)
so he suggests to pay politicans on some level a million or so a year, i personally doubt it makes a real difference, probably people would be more discrete.. but is that is so much of a help i hugely wonder.

much comes and goes with transparance.. the suggestion is there but in fact many mp's do have acces to plenty money to make the point suspect.

i dunno, looks to me like murdoch took good care only people of rudimentary integrity sit in the english parliament. but its a bit of an exageration i suppose.

the system itself actually allways cares for that.

'confidentiality clauses..

so this does not go good for murdoch so pls pay attention,

it is completely obvious to me that cooperation between a free press and an independent juridicairy force can be good.

both the press and the police, and probably moreso when they need help, deal with horrible stuf a lot, there would not typically be rules for every exceptional situation, it would be up to the journalist , or few, or deskmanager, and in some cases ofcourse company manager, to make decissions about payments policy's and methods.

i must say in the milly dowler case, (i repeat if that is even real) the police would use the same method, i dont believe the reord hasnt been kept, dont even believe the journalist didnt, dont understand the police found any relevance in the deleted messages. (you still have 2,45 , god knows.)

and how would the police make place, in a phone? worse i dont even know, if the police admitted hacking victims phones would the public mind that?

you better be 100% they do. (reality check)

that the police in the very least over the past few years has a near complete file of conversations and literary expression by phone on inet for years now, ok. sure they cannot check everything but the methods are typically advanced,

neccesitates a press with some acces to similar means, there would otherways be no parity in the police representing law unjustfully representing authority, and the means of professional research of actuality that is the press.

and serve the public.

so there is not so much wrong with that alliance, there is nothing wrong with the police tolerating a huge ethical input from the press for this,

(wich is closer to freedom then the opposite), where it is wrong is that the police is asked to prosecute the people that are actively engaging to find the better methods and compromises ,
and being in the defensive position of pressfreedoms , these days i would almost say:), disclose that it actually works pretty rotten with a politics that neither allows itself transparance over policepolitics, neither accepts that media will be willing to engage the unknown, and will need to defend the exercise.

i think i said enough, i was delighted to see rebekka is someone quite up to tasks, and with a way more farreaching commitment to truth, certainly in the mind of others, then murdoch.

the cake came at a great moment,

just like his tapping later did, but i would guess he does it a lot when he is on about company policy's to have his flow, i wondered in how far it was premeditated for lasting the moment , however after murdoch stating he dissolves nothing of what he knows, and james telling, no starting to refer to his legal counsel and not being in charge involved made aware etc,

the moment was that good to hardly believe that.

i considered it someone rightly making the statement singapore is actually not nice, his show of cooperation with , to name it, the police, is not well apreciated or received, and that he is most greedy in only letting us know they are all for sale, and their price is more often precisely theirs then not.

nevertheless the usual check of 700k he would see, or i suppose, have a final say.

now, what is with ethics.
there is a system in wich newscorporations sources can be in great danger, policesources can, and journalists can, not in he first place in england, but could it matter?

secondly there is a system that as if i am sorry to say it is a tabloid instead of serious politics, hunts behind the shadows, so the police could not intercept voicemails..., sorry but methods were on the internet..

people that did a job that was either professional or even up to a high standard of ethics, journalists are in danger to be arbitrary prosecuted, over methods that usually have not lead to bad results, because otherways teh police would after all have interfered, make known, their discomfort,

for the policeman you could say they failed in obtaining something like a national line, however, can that be expected from police operatives, in fact not, and the expectation is suspect for it's implication.

in that i hope english will ponder a bit and i said enough.