Didn't the Guardian Run Wikileaks?

[Swedes2]

Wikileaks were obtained by hacking, which is illegal.

(And I doubt the Tories would have shown any improper favours to the Guardian, they despise the paper and everything it stands for. In fact that could be one factor in Cameron ignoring the advice.)

i disagree with you, that's all. that's not oddly grouchy, that's just one person disagreeing with another. no need to make it personal. i do not think that a newspaper should be telling the PM who to employ other than on its pages. briefing behind closed doors is precisely what got us into this mess.

do i think that rusbridger is in any way a villain of this piece? of course not, as i have repeatedly said the guardian's work has been excellent on this story. i merely mentioned that i found it 'interesting' that he was so keen to say that he had 'warned' Cameron, when imo and ime that suggests he was also keen for traction with the PM.

i refer you to animula's excellent post further up this thread. it's not a 'conspiracy' (your word, btw, and how paranoid), it's an age-old system of 'you scratch my back'. perhaps it's one that is being broken down as we speak, who knows, but that doesn't mean that all the papers weren't working under it prior to now and that in warning Cameron to dodge a bullet that the Guardian wouldn't have expected to have its back scratched (in ways that none of us can declare on) at some point in the future. that's all i am saying, and i am staggered that it seems to be in any way controversial, tbh.

OK, fine.

Btw, Guardian makes a loss but the magazines part of the group, the bit that used to be Emap, was very profitable last time I checked (admittedly not for a year or two). When the GMG took it over I thought employment practices might be a bit less sharp but GMG are as cut-throat as Emap - went through a restructure and it just so happened it was all the women on maternity leave who got sacked from the magazines I happen to know very well.

Emap was even worse, though. I was an editor there and they wouldn't pay a member of my team for acting up in a senior post for six months. When I argued she was taking on loads of extra responsibility, they offered her vouchers for her favourite shop. She was so naive she was really grateful, and I was thinking 'arrrgh, I can't tell you this but WHY don't you join the union and realise this is far cheaper for them than paying you more because there's no tax or NI'?

that's precisely where i'm coming from, edam. this line that NI = Bad and Guardian = Good does no one any favours (well, apart from Paul Dacre).

on a similar note i contacted the Observer about ten years ago to see about writing tv bits for them, sent them my book etc. Got a delighted call back saying 'yes yes yes' but when i enquired about payment the (really nice, really apologetic) guy said 'oh we don't pay. we use students and people who are starting out and just want to see their name in print. i did wonder why you were asking...'

Outrageous. No-one can get started in journalism these days without parents in the South East who can support them during work experience.

Steps back into the fray..

aitch are you aware that Rusbridger was warning Cameron, because of information he'd (the guardian) had found out about the Rees/Morgan case which was going through court at the time?

The Guardian had been investigating that case for years and it was the subject of a media blackout because of the "delicacy" of the details, charges etc. The case collapsed because of "technicalities", so the ONLY way that Rusbridger could have communicated his concerns to Cameron would have been in an "off-the-record" manner, because it was all so sensitive and difficult.

The Rees/Morgan case is one of the big elephants in the room at NI that is yet to be broached, but given the trial collapses, I feel that the murderers will never be brought to justice now.

i am aware, yes. indeed i was aware of that prior to the first time you mentioned it.

kk...

btw i thought it was such a tiny point in the first place, can't believe the reaction. i was just saying that i found R's own interview (on guardian site, where he laid it all out) interesting, as he had no qualms about having given C the heads-up while the story was about press-pol-police being over-cosy. interesting, not earth-shattering or worthy of a major waaaaah. just interesting.