'My column at the News of the World' blog discussion

Fifer

I was extremely critical of Martin's original decision and I still am, but ironically, this thread seems in places, to be turning into a NOTW style witch-hunt. He made a wrong call, he was criticised for it, then considered it overnight and changed his position the next day. None of us are perfect, but few of us suffer the indignity of having our failings and errors scrutinised by thousands in public. My mistakes, like those made by most of us thankfully, are hidden from the public glare and even then, I feel the pain of the limited exposure they do receive when I get it wrong. I'd be mortified and horrified at the prospect of this volume of negative criticism for a wrong call made in the heat of a fast moving, complex situation. And how may of us/them criticising have been NOTW readers over the years of their hardly lily-white journalism, have consumed the salacious stories resulting from the journalistic misdeeds now exposed, have voted for Blair and/or Cameron governments despite their endorsement by Murdoch and continue to line Murdoch's pockets by subscribing to Sky (guilty m'lud) or other NI titles? Our own hypocrisy should temper our treatment of others who, despite peripheral involvement, did not cause or contribute to the substance of what was wicked in this situation.

Martin got it wrong. But he's listened, he's changed his mind and since then, events have overtaken his ability to make further significant moves in any case. And it's hardly surprising, given the reaction to all his comments so far on the situation, that he's now chosen to stop digging and maintain a silence. I suspect that's what I'd have done. I think it's time for the pitchforks to return to their sheds and for a sense of proportion to prevail.

geri1965_2

Well said, Fifer. I also disagreed with Martin's original decision but some of the criticism and flack he has received since was well over the top.

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi everyone

Someone said we've removed posts on this thread so I've just had a look back to check and 5 have been deleted.

Four were removed by the people who wrote them.

One was removed by the MSE Team because it quoted someone else's post but had changed the quote.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Hi everyone

Someone said we've removed posts on this thread so I've just had a look back to check and 5 have been deleted.

Four were removed by the people who wrote them.

One was removed by the MSE Team because it quoted someone else's post but had changed the quote.

Any chance of mentioning to Martin when you bump into him next that he has a lot of questions to answer from his adoring fans.

I am quite keen to know if he will take Murdochs money in another paper knowing that he may well have blood on his hands from dead soldiers with the last wad he took.


Have a lovely day & tell Martin not to bother about the veiled threats of legal action this time around.

darkpool

If you think working for a newspaper that phoned up the phones of murdered schoolgirls and dead soldiers is OK you are absolute SCUM!!!!!

I have some sympathy for people working for NoTW that have a mortgage and only one source of income. But I doubt the NoTW was your only source of income.

Money first ehhh Martin? Is that the lesson you are trying to tell us? Sell your soul for a couple of quid?

darkpool

Fifer wrote: »

He made a wrong call, he was criticised for it, then considered it overnight and changed his position the next day.

changed his position? he found out the NoTW was going to close then made some story up about resigning.

mikey72

Wonder if he be writing for the Sunday Sun, or whatever it'll be?

50Twuncle

I don't know which is worse - the idea that someone could stoop so low as to try to increase readership by using a dead childs phone or to deny doing it.....
And I bet that the person ultimately responsible - escapes scott free - only to open another (profit making) stinking/lying rag (Sun on Sunday ?) in a matter of weeks ....
This truly sickens me.
And shame on Martin for not realising earlier & pulling out

jamesd

21Twinkle wrote: »

And shame on Martin for not realising earlier & pulling out

Please confirm that you're not paying News Corporation money yourself for the following products or any of their others:

Newspapers and publications: The Sun, Scottish Sun or Irish Sun; The Times, The Sunday Times and The Times Literary Supplement; The New York Post, Dow Jones, The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, Marketwatch, any of the Dow Jones indexes.

Film studios: 20th Century Fox, Fox Starlight Pictures, Fox 2000 Pictures. Films distributed include Avatar, The Simpsons, Star Wars, Ice Age, Garfield, Alvin and the Chipmunks, X-Men, Die Hard, Alien, Speed, Revenge of the Nerds, Planet of the Apes, Home Alone, Dr. Dolittle, Night at the Museum, Predator, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, and The Chronicles of Narnia. Future releases can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films#2010s .

20th Century Fox Animation: includes Rio, Ice Age series films, TV series The Simpsons.

20th Century Fox Television: a list of some of the shows.

20th Television: Shows include The X-Files, Firefly and Buffy The Vampire Slayer

20th Century Fox Entertainment: Titanic and Avatar distributor. MGM and United Artists DVD releases.

New Regency Productions: films like Mr. & Mrs. Smith. (20% interest)

Regency Enterprises: upcoming film releases include Monte Carlo, What's Your Number?, The Darkest Hour, In Time, Contagion, Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked. (20% interest)

Fox TV productions and channels, including the National Geographic channels.

ITV television in the UK (7.5% interest), largest commercial broadcaster in the UK

British Sky Broadcasting (aka Sky) (39.1% controlling interest, looking to buy more).

Those who work for a company have a living to make. Purchasers are the ones who provide the profit.

antrobus

Paulgonnabedebtfree wrote: »

Yes, I know there were abuses in Fleet Street that had to be curbed.

Well that's putting it mildly.

Paulgonnabedebtfree wrote: »

I'm just not convinced that deliberately provoking a dispute to cause a strike (meaning that the workers could be legally sacked) was the best way of dealing with it.

Well that's one interpretation of events. The truth is that SOGAT were happy to strike because they thought it would be an easy win because, irrespective of News International's ability to print papers at Wapping, their members working at the wholesalers would block distribution, thereby bringing NI to its knees. Sadly this cunning plan failed, mainly because SOGAT hadn't noticed someone had changed the law making such secondary action illegal, but also because SOGAT members working in distribution weren't that interested anyway.