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

darkpool

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

Why if you feel so vehemently do you continue to comment. An action you have clearly condemned Martin for doing exactly that with the NotW.

my objection to martin is that he was happy to write for a paper that thought it ok to hack the phones of dead soldiers and murdered schoolgirls.

martin could have done the right thing by giving his fee to charity - but he didn't. instead he gave a feeble reason for keeping the fee.

i have no objection to martin making comments. though, i do object to his comments to justify working for the NoTW and keeping the fees.

Optimist

darkpool wrote: »

my objection to martin is that he was happy to write for a paper that thought it ok to hack the phones of dead soldiers and murdered schoolgirls.

martin could have done the right thing by giving his fee to charity - but he didn't. instead he gave a feeble reason for keeping the fee.

i have no objection to martin making comments. though, i do object to his comments to justify working for the NoTW and keeping the fees.

Perhaps you should show your contempt by leaving this site !

T_T_2

darkpool wrote: »

my objection to martin is that he was happy to write for a paper that thought it ok to hack the phones of dead soldiers and murdered schoolgirls.

martin could have done the right thing by giving his fee to charity - but he didn't. instead he gave a feeble reason for keeping the fee.

i have no objection to martin making comments. though, i do object to his comments to justify working for the NoTW and keeping the fees.

Have you ever considered a silent protest? I hear (no pun intended) that they can be quite effective.

lostinrates

darkpool wrote: »

By not resigning Martin indirectly supported what was going on at the NoTW. His decision to stay was his own, and unfortunately it suggests that money is his main motivation in life.

the same argument could be made of a huge number of British employees working for a huge variety of employers over any number of heinous, illegal or not nice but legal practices.

JoeyG

lostinrates wrote: »

the same argument could be made of a huge number of British employees working for a huge variety of employers over any number of heinous, illegal or not nice but legal practices.

Should there be a thread specifically about those employees I'm sure the same views would be expressed

lostinrates

JoeyG wrote: »

Should there be a thread specifically about those employees I'm sure the same views would be expressed

My guess is some of those employees are the ones ''expressing'' themselves now but haven't joined the dots.

TBH, I agree with the the poster who described Martin's approach as mealy mouthed over this. But I find some of the posts here strangly hysterical and certainly premature. I apply this to the coverage of the whole NOTW saga, which is of course fascinating and very important politically but the full extent of which we don't know...yet at least.

Stryder

For people complaining about why people are upset;

If you bought the NOTW recently, you have supported their actions
If you write for the NOTW, then you have supported their actions

This is because the bribes and the pay offs have come from the sales (the buyers) as people buy it to read (from the contributors)

Their actions have been offensive and illegal ... and if the acttack on murdered childrens privacy is not enough, THEY HAVE "CORRUPTED" POLICE OFFICER. THEY HAVE ACTED LIKE MEDIA MATHIA. THEY HAVE DONE THIS TO SELL A FEW EXTRA PAPER AND NOT UNCOVER REAL NEWS

The reasons why Martin is getting stick is:
1) Martin is a contrbutor, and I assume a consumer, who refused to disassociate himself from the organisation and continue to pay for it.
2) He published what many found offensive to the comments about giving his wages to charity
3) He ruses to comment and underline the controversy
4) He is a "consumer champion" who discusses how consumers opinions should be listen to, but many on the site feel ignored.

This is not about a personal witch hunt. Martin messed up, whether it was by believing the NOTW lies that the corruption was in the past (disclosing evidence from the police happened since he was employed there, I believe), not judging people's mood, not taking a moral stance.

A number of people have left the site, some have removed themselves from the mailing list, and many have been left disappointed. There is no point with these pettry arguements, and rather unpleasant attckes teling people they should leave the site. People have expressed themselves, Martin has been a little red faced, and we should leave it there. Martin by not responding has shown that he is either uninterested in our opinion OR taking a clear "PR" approach of stemming the flow by not responding.

SO PLEASE, let us not continue with the in fighting and petty arguements. time to draw a line and take action (if you think it is important enough),remove yourself from mailing list, etc.

PLEASE Let us not try to bully each other off the site.

MrSmartprice

Stryder wrote: »

This is not about a personal witch hunt. Martin messed up, whether it was by believing the NOTW lies that the corruption was in the past (disclosing evidence from the police happened since he was employed there, I believe), not judging people's mood, not taking a moral stance.

A number of people have left the site, some have removed themselves from the mailing list, and many have been left disappointed. There is no point with these pettry arguements, and rather unpleasant attckes teling people they should leave the site. People have expressed themselves, Martin has been a little red faced, and we should leave it there. Martin by not responding has shown that he is either uninterested in our opinion OR taking a clear "PR" approach of stemming the flow by not responding.

SO PLEASE, let us not continue with the in fighting and petty arguements. time to draw a line and take action (if you think it is important enough),remove yourself from mailing list, etc.

PLEASE Let us not try to bully each other off the site.

Excellent post, Stryder. Martin did indeed 'mess up' and his silence on the boards has been deafening. Clearly he has avoided any sort of debate as he would be a long time trying to justify his shabby conduct.

I do agree that it is time to move on, though. Hopefully Martin will too. But only time will tell if he has learned anything and if he is more motivated by money than worried about morals. Let's see where his Sunday column surfaces....:think:

1984ReturnsForReal_2

MrSmartprice wrote: »

his silence on the boards has been deafening

It certainly says a lot to me.

But after all as we now know ALL ex-employees of News Of The World have been re-employed by other areas of Murdochs empire (Brooks 19th July) I can only assume that applies to Martin working for The Sun On Sunday (or similar such title). Unless of course he chooses to clarify such matters.

MothballsWallet

T_T wrote: »

So they are both monopolies in the non-terrestrial broadcasting industry? How does that work then, how can they both be monopolies in the same industry?

Monopoly: The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

Okay, I'll bite - I should have said that Sky were a monopoly in the satellite TV market before Freesat came alone. If you want cable TV, you've only got Virgin Media to choose from.

I wasn't really looking at them as being in the "non-terrestrial broadcasting industry", more as being in the "satellite broadcasting" and "cable broadcasting" industries specifically.