A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
Out of interest, in what way a good victory? A 368 page judgment implies
say £0.5-1m legal fees incurred by Harry. As he's been awarded £140k,
that means he's probably out of pocket, even though I assume he's been awarded costs.
So, there must have been a principle involved, but (yawn) I haven't a
clue what that might be?
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Does anyone care?
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Piers Morgan, many months ago: 'I've never hacked a phone, I've never
told anyone to hack a phone' - BBC News
That was being economical with the truth.
In the judgment:
Mr Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, a publisher for the Guardian before he
became Prime Minister Blair’s Director of Strategic Communications, gave evidence that he went out for a meal with Mr Morgan during the Labour
Party Conference in September 2002 and asked him how he had got the
story about the Jonsson/Eriksson affair:
“Mr Morgan responded to my question by initially asking me which
network provider I used for my mobile phone. I told him which
network I was on and Mr Morgan told me the default PIN for that
network. He then explained that the default PIN numbers were well
known and rarely changed, which is how mobile phone messages
could be accessed remotely using the default PIN number. He said to
me, “That was how we got the story on Sven and Ulrika”, with a
smile, or words to that effect.”
Mr Wegg-Prosser’s evidence was not challenged by MGN.
unquote
Let's remember what Piers said about Meghan in 2021.
The TV presenter and journalist sparked outrage when he said he “didn’t believe a word she (Meghan) says” after Meghan discussed her issues with mental health and suicidal thoughts during the televised chat. Speaking
on GMB on Monday, Morgan said: “I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she says. I wouldn’t believe her if she read me a weather report.”
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Piers Morgan, many months ago: 'I've never hacked a phone, I've never
told anyone to hack a phone' - BBC News
That was being economical with the truth.
In the judgment:
Mr Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, a publisher for the Guardian before he
became Prime Minister Blair’s Director of Strategic Communications, gave >> evidence that he went out for a meal with Mr Morgan during the Labour
Party Conference in September 2002 and asked him how he had got the
story about the Jonsson/Eriksson affair:
“Mr Morgan responded to my question by initially asking me which
network provider I used for my mobile phone. I told him which
network I was on and Mr Morgan told me the default PIN for that
network. He then explained that the default PIN numbers were well
known and rarely changed, which is how mobile phone messages
could be accessed remotely using the default PIN number. He said to
me, “That was how we got the story on Sven and Ulrika”, with a
smile, or words to that effect.”
Mr Wegg-Prosser’s evidence was not challenged by MGN.
unquote
Knowing how something may be done is not the same as doing it or
instructing others to do it though, so I don't accept he was necessarily being economical with the truth. He may have been lying about what he
did of course, but that's a different matter and requires a different
belief.
Let's remember what Piers said about Meghan in 2021.
The TV presenter and journalist sparked outrage when he said he
“didn’t believe a word she (Meghan) says” after Meghan discussed her >> issues with mental health and suicidal thoughts during the televised
chat. Speaking on GMB on Monday, Morgan said: “I’m sorry, I don’t
believe a word she says. I wouldn’t believe her if she read me a
weather report.”
Is that inconsistent with anything he said about phone hacking? Is it
in fact relevant?
On 15/12/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
Out of interest, in what way a good victory? A 368 page judgment
implies say £0.5-1m legal fees incurred by Harry. As he's been awarded
£140k, that means he's probably out of pocket, even though I assume
he's been awarded costs.
So, there must have been a principle involved, but (yawn) I haven't a
clue what that might be?
The gutter press has been sniping at Harry throughout the progress of
the litigation, and misleading the readers. They have said that Harry
has recklessly ignored the advice of his wise old father who has told
him not to sue the Press (in other words, it's likely to rebound against
the reputation of our Family, the Press is like the Mafia, don't
antagonise those powerful editors) and the Press have implied strongly
that Harry is just attention-seeking and being hypocritical in the
context of wanting privacy. They have gleefully reported every
interlocutory decision that went against Harry, implying that he's going
to regret ever getting into this fight.
The principle is: when the Press keeps lying to us, it takes a strong
person to challenge the Press through the courts and win. Maybe that
doesn't matter to many people, who just regard the Press as a source of entertainment and don't give a damn whether its truth or fiction. I
guess many of those people will be yawning.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Does anyone care?
Yes. Many of us do. And I'm sure Piers does, since he likes to portray himself as a courageous knight in shining armour speaking the truth to
power.
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
Out of interest, in what way a good victory? A 368 page judgment implies
say £0.5-1m legal fees incurred by Harry. As he's been awarded £140k,
that means he's probably out of pocket, even though I assume he's been awarded costs.
So, there must have been a principle involved, but (yawn) I haven't a
clue what that might be?
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Does anyone care?
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Does anyone care?
Yes. Many of us do. And I'm sure Piers does, since he likes to portray himself as a courageous knight in shining armour speaking the truth to
power.
On 15/12/2023 16:00, The Todal wrote:
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Does anyone care?
Yes. Many of us do. And I'm sure Piers does, since he likes to portray
himself as a courageous knight in shining armour speaking the truth to
power.
I'm afraid that I simply assumed the worst about Morgan. After all, he
was editor of the NOW at one time.
I suppose that for some people it's a revelation. I see in the news that Morgan is saying the judge got it wrong. What do you make of that?
On 15/12/2023 13:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Piers Morgan, many months ago: 'I've never hacked a phone, I've never
told anyone to hack a phone' - BBC News
That was being economical with the truth.
In the judgment:
Mr Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, a publisher for the Guardian before he
became Prime Minister Blair’s Director of Strategic Communications, gave >>> evidence that he went out for a meal with Mr Morgan during the Labour
Party Conference in September 2002 and asked him how he had got the
story about the Jonsson/Eriksson affair:
“Mr Morgan responded to my question by initially asking me which
network provider I used for my mobile phone. I told him which
network I was on and Mr Morgan told me the default PIN for that
network. He then explained that the default PIN numbers were well
known and rarely changed, which is how mobile phone messages
could be accessed remotely using the default PIN number. He said to
me, “That was how we got the story on Sven and Ulrika”, with a
smile, or words to that effect.”
Mr Wegg-Prosser’s evidence was not challenged by MGN.
unquote
Knowing how something may be done is not the same as doing it or
instructing others to do it though, so I don't accept he was
necessarily being economical with the truth. He may have been lying
about what he did of course, but that's a different matter and
requires a different belief.
I don't think you quite understand the phrase "economical with the
truth", which does not mean lying, it means carefully crafting a
statement that is truthful but creates an impression of total innocence.
For instance, I never hacked a phone. You never asked me if I condoned widespread phone-hacking on the part of my staff.
On 15/12/2023 13:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Piers Morgan, many months ago: 'I've never hacked a phone, I've never
told anyone to hack a phone' - BBC News
That was being economical with the truth.
In the judgment:
Mr Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, a publisher for the Guardian before he
became Prime Minister Blair’s Director of Strategic Communications, gave >>> evidence that he went out for a meal with Mr Morgan during the Labour
Party Conference in September 2002 and asked him how he had got the
story about the Jonsson/Eriksson affair:
“Mr Morgan responded to my question by initially asking me which
network provider I used for my mobile phone. I told him which
network I was on and Mr Morgan told me the default PIN for that
network. He then explained that the default PIN numbers were well
known and rarely changed, which is how mobile phone messages
could be accessed remotely using the default PIN number. He said to
me, “That was how we got the story on Sven and Ulrika”, with a
smile, or words to that effect.”
Mr Wegg-Prosser’s evidence was not challenged by MGN.
unquote
Knowing how something may be done is not the same as doing it or
instructing others to do it though, so I don't accept he was
necessarily being economical with the truth. He may have been lying
about what he did of course, but that's a different matter and
requires a different belief.
I don't think you quite understand the phrase "economical with the
truth", which does not mean lying, it means carefully crafting a
statement that is truthful but creates an impression of total innocence.
For instance, I never hacked a phone.
You never asked me if I condoned
widespread phone-hacking on the part of my staff.
Let's remember what Piers said about Meghan in 2021.
The TV presenter and journalist sparked outrage when he said he
“didn’t believe a word she (Meghan) says” after Meghan discussed her >>> issues with mental health and suicidal thoughts during the televised
chat. Speaking on GMB on Monday, Morgan said: “I’m sorry, I don’t
believe a word she says. I wouldn’t believe her if she read me a
weather report.”
Is that inconsistent with anything he said about phone hacking? Is it
in fact relevant?
It shows why Harry should be particularly gleeful about the judge's
remarks and the effect on Piers Morgan's reputation.
On 15/12/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
Out of interest, in what way a good victory? A 368 page judgment
implies say £0.5-1m legal fees incurred by Harry. As he's been awarded
£140k, that means he's probably out of pocket, even though I assume
he's been awarded costs.
So, there must have been a principle involved, but (yawn) I haven't a
clue what that might be?
The gutter press has been sniping at Harry throughout the progress of
the litigation, and misleading the readers. They have said that Harry
has recklessly ignored the advice of his wise old father who has told
him not to sue the Press (in other words, it's likely to rebound against
the reputation of our Family,
the Press is like the Mafia, don't
antagonise those powerful editors) and the Press have implied strongly
that Harry is just attention-seeking and being hypocritical in the
context of wanting privacy.
They have gleefully reported every
interlocutory decision that went against Harry, implying that he's going
to regret ever getting into this fight.
The principle is: when the Press keeps lying to us, it takes a strong
person to challenge the Press through the courts and win. Maybe that
doesn't matter to many people, who just regard the Press as a source of entertainment and don't give a damn whether its truth or fiction. I
guess many of those people will be yawning.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Does anyone care?
Yes. Many of us do. And I'm sure Piers does, since he likes to portray himself as a courageous knight in shining armour speaking the truth to
power.
On 15/12/2023 13:09, Norman Wells wrote:
Knowing how something may be done is not the same as doing it or instructing others to do it though, so I don't accept he was necessarily being economical with the truth. He may have been lying about what he
did of course, but that's a different matter and requires a different belief.
I don't think you quite understand the phrase "economical with the
truth", which does not mean lying, it means carefully crafting a
statement that is truthful but creates an impression of total innocence.
For instance, I never hacked a phone. You never asked me if I condoned widespread phone-hacking on the part of my staff.
On 15/12/2023 16:34, GB wrote:
On 15/12/2023 16:00, The Todal wrote:
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Does anyone care?
Yes. Many of us do. And I'm sure Piers does, since he likes to
portray himself as a courageous knight in shining armour speaking the
truth to power.
I'm afraid that I simply assumed the worst about Morgan. After all, he
was editor of the NOW at one time.
I suppose that for some people it's a revelation. I see in the news
that Morgan is saying the judge got it wrong. What do you make of that?
I've posted separately about that.
The allegation is that Piers knew that phones were being hacked and that
a story about Ulrike Jonsson was obtained through phone hacking and
Piers boasted about that, so clearly knew that his staff were hacking
phones.
So now Piers says: (a) he never personally hacked a phone or told anyone
to do so and (b) he doesn't know how any story about Harry was obtained
and therefore does not admit that it was through phone hacking.
It doesn't contradict the findings of the judge at all. It's a smokescreen.
On 15/12/2023 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 15/12/2023 13:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Piers Morgan, many months ago: 'I've never hacked a phone, I've
never told anyone to hack a phone' - BBC News
That was being economical with the truth.
In the judgment:
Mr Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, a publisher for the Guardian before he
became Prime Minister Blair’s Director of Strategic Communications,
gave
evidence that he went out for a meal with Mr Morgan during the
Labour Party Conference in September 2002 and asked him how he had
got the story about the Jonsson/Eriksson affair:
“Mr Morgan responded to my question by initially asking me which
network provider I used for my mobile phone. I told him which
network I was on and Mr Morgan told me the default PIN for that
network. He then explained that the default PIN numbers were well
known and rarely changed, which is how mobile phone messages
could be accessed remotely using the default PIN number. He said to
me, “That was how we got the story on Sven and Ulrika”, with a
smile, or words to that effect.”
Mr Wegg-Prosser’s evidence was not challenged by MGN.
unquote
Knowing how something may be done is not the same as doing it or
instructing others to do it though, so I don't accept he was
necessarily being economical with the truth. He may have been lying
about what he did of course, but that's a different matter and
requires a different belief.
I don't think you quite understand the phrase "economical with the
truth", which does not mean lying, it means carefully crafting a
statement that is truthful but creates an impression of total
innocence. For instance, I never hacked a phone. You never asked me if
I condoned widespread phone-hacking on the part of my staff.
And here's a better example. It's clear from the passage I quoted above
that the criticism of Piers Morgan is that he knew phones were being
hacked - by his staff, not by him - and boasted about it.
On 15/12/2023 15:53, The Todal wrote:
On 15/12/2023 13:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Piers Morgan, many months ago: 'I've never hacked a phone, I've
never told anyone to hack a phone' - BBC News
That was being economical with the truth.
In the judgment:
Mr Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, a publisher for the Guardian before he
became Prime Minister Blair’s Director of Strategic
Communications, gave evidence that he went out for a meal with Mr
Morgan during the Labour Party Conference in September 2002 and
asked him how he had got the story about the Jonsson/Eriksson
affair: “Mr Morgan responded to my question by initially asking
me which network provider I used for my mobile phone. I told him
which network I was on and Mr Morgan told me the default PIN for
that network. He then explained that the default PIN numbers were
well known and rarely changed, which is how mobile phone messages
could be accessed remotely using the default PIN number. He said to
me, “That was how we got the story on Sven and Ulrika”, with a
smile, or words to that effect.”
Mr Wegg-Prosser’s evidence was not challenged by MGN.
unquote
Knowing how something may be done is not the same as doing it or
instructing others to do it though, so I don't accept he was
necessarily being economical with the truth. He may have been
lying about what he did of course, but that's a different matter and
requires a different belief.
I don't think you quite understand the phrase "economical with the
truth", which does not mean lying, it means carefully crafting a
statement that is truthful but creates an impression of total
innocence. For instance, I never hacked a phone. You never asked me
if I condoned widespread phone-hacking on the part of my staff.
And here's a better example. It's clear from the passage I quoted
above that the criticism of Piers Morgan is that he knew phones were
being hacked - by his staff, not by him - and boasted about it.
Today he says: he has never hacked a phone or told anyone else to hack
a phone. Does that in any way refute the criticism? Obviously not. But
he complains that he should have been called as a witness (if only he
had been, that would have been fun) and is very rude about the Duke of
Sussex in an attempt to deflect attention from his own position.
https://news.sky.com/story/piers-morgan-defends-mirror-and- launches-scathing-attack-against-prince-harry-13031082
On 15/12/2023 16:00, The Todal wrote:
On 15/12/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
Out of interest, in what way a good victory? A 368 page judgment
implies say £0.5-1m legal fees incurred by Harry. As he's been
awarded £140k, that means he's probably out of pocket, even though I
assume he's been awarded costs.
So, there must have been a principle involved, but (yawn) I haven't a
clue what that might be?
The gutter press has been sniping at Harry throughout the progress of
the litigation, and misleading the readers. They have said that Harry
has recklessly ignored the advice of his wise old father who has told
him not to sue the Press (in other words, it's likely to rebound
against the reputation of our Family,
Don't keep stirring the pot is good advice for anybody in the public
eye.
It just keeps creating stories for the media about something that
most people would have forgotten but for the stirring. Whatever the
Court decision, the celebrity never comes out looking good at the end.
the Press is like the Mafia, don't antagonise those powerful editors)
and the Press have implied strongly that Harry is just
attention-seeking and being hypocritical in the context of wanting
privacy.
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he
can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being
one.
clue what that might be?
I'm no particular fan of Harry, but I gather that part of his concern
about phone hacking, is that it is linked to the press's harassment
of his late mother, which he feels contributed to her death.
Basically Harry has shown that some sections of the media have
limited regard for the law, or for privacy or human rights.
I would guess that Harry's reputation has gone up by about 300%
today.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Does anyone care?
I think Mrs Sussex taught him how to monetize fame.
On 15/12/2023 17:02, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 15/12/2023 16:00, The Todal wrote:
On 15/12/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
Out of interest, in what way a good victory? A 368 page judgment
implies say £0.5-1m legal fees incurred by Harry. As he's been
awarded £140k, that means he's probably out of pocket, even though I
assume he's been awarded costs.
So, there must have been a principle involved, but (yawn) I haven't
a clue what that might be?
The gutter press has been sniping at Harry throughout the progress of
the litigation, and misleading the readers. They have said that Harry
has recklessly ignored the advice of his wise old father who has told
him not to sue the Press (in other words, it's likely to rebound
against the reputation of our Family,
Don't keep stirring the pot is good advice for anybody in the public eye.
But stirring the pot is Pier Morgan's shtick? Harry's too!
It just keeps creating stories for the media about something that most
people would have forgotten but for the stirring. Whatever the Court
decision, the celebrity never comes out looking good at the end.
But everyone will want to hear their comments on the subject.
the Press is like the Mafia, don't antagonise those powerful editors)
and the Press have implied strongly that Harry is just
attention-seeking and being hypocritical in the context of wanting
privacy.
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he
can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of
being one.
I think Mrs Sussex taught him how to monetize fame.
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.“I’m sorry, I don’t believe a word she says. I wouldn’t believe her if she read me a weather report.”
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Piers Morgan, many months ago: 'I've never hacked a phone, I've never told anyone to hack a phone' - BBC News
That was being economical with the truth.
In the judgment:
Mr Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, a publisher for the Guardian before he
became Prime Minister Blair’s Director of Strategic Communications, gave evidence that he went out for a meal with Mr Morgan during the Labour Party Conference in September 2002 and asked him how he had got the story about the Jonsson/Eriksson affair:
“Mr Morgan responded to my question by initially asking me which
network provider I used for my mobile phone. I told him which
network I was on and Mr Morgan told me the default PIN for that
network. He then explained that the default PIN numbers were well
known and rarely changed, which is how mobile phone messages
could be accessed remotely using the default PIN number. He said to
me, “That was how we got the story on Sven and Ulrika”, with a
smile, or words to that effect.”
Mr Wegg-Prosser’s evidence was not challenged by MGN.
unquote
Let's remember what Piers said about Meghan in 2021.
The TV presenter and journalist sparked outrage when he said he “didn’t believe a word she (Meghan) says” after Meghan discussed her issues with mental health and suicidal thoughts during the televised chat. Speaking on GMB on Monday, Morgan said:
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Piers Morgan, many months ago: 'I've never hacked a phone, I've never
told anyone to hack a phone' - BBC News
That was being economical with the truth.
In the judgment:
Mr Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, a publisher for the Guardian before he
became Prime Minister Blair’s Director of Strategic Communications, gave >> evidence that he went out for a meal with Mr Morgan during the Labour
Party Conference in September 2002 and asked him how he had got the
story about the Jonsson/Eriksson affair:
“Mr Morgan responded to my question by initially asking me which
network provider I used for my mobile phone. I told him which
network I was on and Mr Morgan told me the default PIN for that
network. He then explained that the default PIN numbers were well
known and rarely changed, which is how mobile phone messages
could be accessed remotely using the default PIN number. He said to
me, “That was how we got the story on Sven and Ulrika”, with a
smile, or words to that effect.”
Mr Wegg-Prosser’s evidence was not challenged by MGN.
unquote
Let's remember what Piers said about Meghan in 2021.
The TV presenter and journalist sparked outrage when he said he
“didn’t believe a word she (Meghan) says” after Meghan discussed her >> issues with mental health and suicidal thoughts during the televised
chat. Speaking on GMB on Monday, Morgan said: “I’m sorry, I don’t
believe a word she says. I wouldn’t believe her if she read me a
weather report.”
I have to agree with you that it's a good victory. But what I don't
really understand is how it all happened.
It seems to be claimed that all the reporters had to do was call the voicemail service of each target and enter the default voicemail access
code to read their messages. Can that really be true? It seems to me that it's a bit like leaving your front door open when you go away for a day. Of course nobody ought to steal from your house when you do that,
but you'd be unwise to rely on it. And surely no insurance company
would allow a theft claim when they know your door was left open.
It could be that one or two of those hacked were a bit on the dim side,
but I'm still staggered that they *all* were. The risks of not changing
the default PIN on your voicemail or the password on your Wifi router
have been so well known for so long, after all. Or could it be that
some more sophisticated bit of hacking going on? I've seen nothing in
the press about this question at all.
On 15/12/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
Out of interest, in what way a good victory? A 368 page judgment
implies say £0.5-1m legal fees incurred by Harry. As he's been awarded
£140k, that means he's probably out of pocket, even though I assume
he's been awarded costs.
So, there must have been a principle involved, but (yawn) I haven't a
clue what that might be?
The gutter press has been sniping at Harry throughout the progress of
the litigation, and misleading the readers. They have said that Harry
has recklessly ignored the advice of his wise old father who has told
him not to sue the Press (in other words, it's likely to rebound against
the reputation of our Family, the Press is like the Mafia, don't
antagonise those powerful editors) and the Press have implied strongly
that Harry is just attention-seeking and being hypocritical in the
context of wanting privacy. They have gleefully reported every
interlocutory decision that went against Harry, implying that he's going
to regret ever getting into this fight.
The principle is: when the Press keeps lying to us, it takes a strong
person to challenge the Press through the courts and win. Maybe that
doesn't matter to many people, who just regard the Press as a source of entertainment and don't give a damn whether its truth or fiction. I
guess many of those people will be yawning.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Does anyone care?
Yes. Many of us do. And I'm sure Piers does, since he likes to portray himself as a courageous knight in shining armour speaking the truth to
power.
It seems to be claimed that all the reporters had to do was call the voicemail service of each target and enter the default voicemail access
code to read their messages. Can that really be true?
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he
can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being
one.
On 15/12/2023 04:00 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 15/12/2023 13:16, GB wrote:
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
Out of interest, in what way a good victory? A 368 page judgment
implies say £0.5-1m legal fees incurred by Harry. As he's been
awarded £140k, that means he's probably out of pocket, even though I
assume he's been awarded costs.
So, there must have been a principle involved, but (yawn) I haven't a
clue what that might be?
The gutter press has been sniping at Harry throughout the progress of
the litigation, and misleading the readers. They have said that Harry
has recklessly ignored the advice of his wise old father who has told
him not to sue the Press (in other words, it's likely to rebound
against the reputation of our Family, the Press is like the Mafia,
don't antagonise those powerful editors) and the Press have implied
strongly that Harry is just attention-seeking and being hypocritical
in the context of wanting privacy. They have gleefully reported every
interlocutory decision that went against Harry, implying that he's
going to regret ever getting into this fight.
The principle is: when the Press keeps lying to us, it takes a strong
person to challenge the Press through the courts and win. Maybe that
doesn't matter to many people, who just regard the Press as a source
of entertainment and don't give a damn whether its truth or fiction. I
guess many of those people will be yawning.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Does anyone care?
Yes. Many of us do. And I'm sure Piers does, since he likes to portray
himself as a courageous knight in shining armour speaking the truth to
power.
It does make a pleasant change to see the left - so well known for their attacks upon the Murdoch press - swivelling to set their sights upon the Maxwell press.
On 16/12/2023 17:34, Clive Page wrote:
It seems to be claimed that all the reporters had to do was call the
voicemail service of each target and enter the default voicemail access
code to read their messages. Can that really be true?
Happens more often than you might think.
LOTS of people leave security at default settings.
YOU are responsible for your own security . If someone
(skilled)wants access they will get it but at least change any passwords
from defaults.
Cf. The amount of people that leave their router passwords and SSIDs at
the default settings, quite often these passwords are password/admin, is unbelievable.
The others are pretty much documented online (try Googling them or look
at https://www.routerpasswords.com/ ).
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he
can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being
one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at
being unable to retain, and why?
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he
can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being
one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at
being unable to retain, and why?
On 2023-12-16, soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2023 17:34, Clive Page wrote:
It seems to be claimed that all the reporters had to do was call the
voicemail service of each target and enter the default voicemail access
code to read their messages. Can that really be true?
Happens more often than you might think.
LOTS of people leave security at default settings.
YOU are responsible for your own security . If someone
(skilled)wants access they will get it but at least change any passwords
from defaults.
Cf. The amount of people that leave their router passwords and SSIDs at
the default settings, quite often these passwords are password/admin, is
unbelievable.
The others are pretty much documented online (try Googling them or look
at https://www.routerpasswords.com/ ).
You're being rather unfair though. It's all very well saying people are responsible for their own security, but if they don't even know that voicemail services *have* a PIN number they cannot be responsible for
setting it.
Honestly, I've no idea if my mobile service today has such
a feature, or how I would change the PIN if it does.
Router passwords are similar in that many people may well not even know
the router has an admin interface with a password.
And while people will
know that SSIDs exist, they may not be aware that they can be changed.
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he
can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being
one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at
being unable to retain, and why?
On 16/12/2023 22:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-16, soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2023 17:34, Clive Page wrote:
It seems to be claimed that all the reporters had to do was call the
voicemail service of each target and enter the default voicemail access >>>> code to read their messages. Can that really be true?
Happens more often than you might think.
LOTS of people leave security at default settings.
YOU are responsible for your own security . If someone
(skilled)wants access they will get it but at least change any passwords >>> from defaults.
Cf. The amount of people that leave their router passwords and SSIDs at
the default settings, quite often these passwords are password/admin, is >>> unbelievable.
The others are pretty much documented online (try Googling them or look
at https://www.routerpasswords.com/ ).
You're being rather unfair though. It's all very well saying people are
responsible for their own security, but if they don't even know that
voicemail services *have* a PIN number they cannot be responsible for
setting it.
I recall being prompted to create one while setting up a new phone.
Probably not this one, as I would expect it to move with the SIM card.
Honestly, I've no idea if my mobile service today has such
a feature, or how I would change the PIN if it does.
On mine, it is under settings - voicemail - change PIN
Router passwords are similar in that many people may well not even know
the router has an admin interface with a password.
That was with the set-up information that came with my wireless router.
And while people will
know that SSIDs exist, they may not be aware that they can be changed.
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he
can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being >>> one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at
being unable to retain, and why?
He hasn't confided that to me, but ISTR he made quite a fuss about the British taxpayer no longer footing the bill for his personal protection.
You're being rather unfair though. It's all very well saying people are responsible for their own security, but if they don't even know that voicemail services *have* a PIN number they cannot be responsible for
setting it. Honestly, I've no idea if my mobile service today has such
a feature, or how I would change the PIN if it does.
Router passwords are similar in that many people may well not even know
the router has an admin interface with a password. And while people will
know that SSIDs exist, they may not be aware that they can be changed.
On 16/12/2023 22:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
You're being rather unfair though. It's all very well saying people are
responsible for their own security, but if they don't even know that
voicemail services *have* a PIN number they cannot be responsible for
setting it. Honestly, I've no idea if my mobile service today has such
a feature, or how I would change the PIN if it does.
Router passwords are similar in that many people may well not even know
the router has an admin interface with a password. And while people will
know that SSIDs exist, they may not be aware that they can be changed.
I got my first mobile phone in 1998 and just dug out the manual: I admit you get to p18 before finding out how to change your voicemail PIN, but I obviously did it because I've written the new PIN on that same page of the manual. And I'm sure I've done the same for every phone since then. It would be good to see statistics on how many people change their voicemail PINs, the mobile operators probably know.
On 15/12/2023 12:37, The Todal wrote:
A good victory for the Duke of Sussex. The judgment is 386 pages.
It doesn't reflect well on Piers Morgan.
Piers Morgan, many months ago: 'I've never hacked a phone, I've never
told anyone to hack a phone' - BBC News
That was being economical with the truth.
In the judgment:
Mr Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, a publisher for the Guardian before he
became Prime Minister Blair’s Director of Strategic Communications, gave >> evidence that he went out for a meal with Mr Morgan during the Labour
Party Conference in September 2002 and asked him how he had got the
story about the Jonsson/Eriksson affair:
“Mr Morgan responded to my question by initially asking me which
network provider I used for my mobile phone. I told him which
network I was on and Mr Morgan told me the default PIN for that
network. He then explained that the default PIN numbers were well
known and rarely changed, which is how mobile phone messages
could be accessed remotely using the default PIN number. He said to
me, “That was how we got the story on Sven and Ulrika”, with a
smile, or words to that effect.”
Mr Wegg-Prosser’s evidence was not challenged by MGN.
unquote
Let's remember what Piers said about Meghan in 2021.
The TV presenter and journalist sparked outrage when he said he
“didn’t believe a word she (Meghan) says” after Meghan discussed her >> issues with mental health and suicidal thoughts during the televised
chat. Speaking on GMB on Monday, Morgan said: “I’m sorry, I don’t
believe a word she says. I wouldn’t believe her if she read me a
weather report.”
I have to agree with you that it's a good victory. But what I don't
really understand is how it all happened.
It seems to be claimed that all the reporters had to do was call the voicemail service of each target and enter the default voicemail access
code to read their messages. Can that really be true? It seems to me that it's a bit like leaving your front door open when you go away for a day. Of course nobody ought to steal from your house when you do that,
but you'd be unwise to rely on it. And surely no insurance company
would allow a theft claim when they know your door was left open.
It could be that one or two of those hacked were a bit on the dim side,
but I'm still staggered that they *all* were. The risks of not changing
the default PIN on your voicemail or the password on your Wifi router
have been so well known for so long, after all. Or could it be that
some more sophisticated bit of hacking going on? I've seen nothing in
the press about this question at all.
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he
can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being >>> one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at
being unable to retain, and why?
I think he's pretty miffed that he can't get me to pay for his personal protection when he's here in the UK, isn't he?
On 17/12/2023 08:12, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he
can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of
being
one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at
being unable to retain, and why?
I think he's pretty miffed that he can't get me to pay for his
personal protection when he's here in the UK, isn't he?
I think he must be pretty miffed that you and the rest of the public
don't understand his arguments, mainly because the Press distorts and ridicules his arguments.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/1228.html
One of the grounds for which permission was granted was that RAVEC
should have had regard to the claimant's offer, made at a meeting with members of the Royal Household on 13 January 2020, to reimburse or proactively finance the cost of the security measures. In response, on
21 December 2021, the Home Secretary decided that it would be
appropriate for RAVEC to decide an issue of principle: whether an
individual whose position had been determined by RAVEC not to justify protective security should be permitted to receive it on the basis that
they reimburse the public purse for its cost. If the answer was "Yes",
RAVEC was asked to consider whether the claimant should be permitted to receive protective security on that basis. RAVEC met on 24 January 2022
and decided that the answer to the first "in principle" question was
"No", so the second question did not arise.
On 16/12/2023 17:34, Clive Page wrote:
It seems to be claimed that all the reporters had to do was call the
voicemail service of each target and enter the default voicemail
access code to read their messages. Can that really be true?
Happens more often than you might think.
LOTS of people leave security at default settings.
YOU are responsible for your own security . If someone
(skilled)wants access they will get it but at least change any passwords
from defaults.
Cf. The amount of people that leave their router passwords and SSIDs at
the default settings, quite often these passwords are password/admin, is unbelievable.
The others are pretty much documented online (try Googling them or look
at https://www.routerpasswords.com/ ).
But it's hearsay. And hearsay evidence is not allowed. It's not proof
of anything.
On 17/12/2023 11:00, The Todal wrote:
On 17/12/2023 08:12, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he >>>>> can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of
being
one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at
being unable to retain, and why?
I think he's pretty miffed that he can't get me to pay for his
personal protection when he's here in the UK, isn't he?
I think he must be pretty miffed that you and the rest of the public
don't understand his arguments, mainly because the Press distorts and
ridicules his arguments.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/1228.html
One of the grounds for which permission was granted was that RAVEC
should have had regard to the claimant's offer, made at a meeting with
members of the Royal Household on 13 January 2020, to reimburse or
proactively finance the cost of the security measures. In response, on
21 December 2021, the Home Secretary decided that it would be
appropriate for RAVEC to decide an issue of principle: whether an
individual whose position had been determined by RAVEC not to justify
protective security should be permitted to receive it on the basis
that they reimburse the public purse for its cost. If the answer was
"Yes", RAVEC was asked to consider whether the claimant should be
permitted to receive protective security on that basis. RAVEC met on
24 January 2022 and decided that the answer to the first "in
principle" question was "No", so the second question did not arise.
That is, however, a separate matter from his original position, which
was that the State, either here or in Canada, should provide his
personal protection.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 17:16:11 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
But it's hearsay. And hearsay evidence is not allowed. It's not proof
of anything.
Far from not being proof (sic evidence) of anything, hearsay is evidence of that person having said those words.
On 17/12/2023 13:18, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 17:16:11 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
But it's hearsay. And hearsay evidence is not allowed. It's not proof
of anything.
Far from not being proof (sic evidence) of anything, hearsay is evidence of >> that person having said those words.
It always is. But it's not evidence of their veracity.
Router passwords are similar in that many people may well not even know
the router has an admin interface with a password. And while people will
know that SSIDs exist, they may not be aware that they can be changed.
It seems to be claimed that all the reporters had to do was call
the voicemail service of each target and enter the default voicemail
access code to read their messages. Can that really be true?
It could be that one or two of those hacked were a bit on the dim side,
but I'm still staggered that they *all* were. The risks of not changing
the default PIN on your voicemail or the password on your Wifi router
have been so well known for so long, after all.
Or could it be that some
more sophisticated bit of hacking going on? I've seen nothing in the
press about this question at all.
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he
can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being >>> one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at
being unable to retain, and why?
He hasn't confided that to me, but ISTR he made quite a fuss about the British taxpayer no longer footing the bill for his personal protection.
That is, however, a separate matter from his original position, which
was that the State, either here or in Canada, should provide his
personal protection.
On 17/12/2023 11:55, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 17/12/2023 11:00, The Todal wrote:
On 17/12/2023 08:12, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he >>>>>> can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of >>>>>> being
one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at >>>>> being unable to retain, and why?
I think he's pretty miffed that he can't get me to pay for his
personal protection when he's here in the UK, isn't he?
I think he must be pretty miffed that you and the rest of the public
don't understand his arguments, mainly because the Press distorts and
ridicules his arguments.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/1228.html
One of the grounds for which permission was granted was that RAVEC
should have had regard to the claimant's offer, made at a meeting
with members of the Royal Household on 13 January 2020, to reimburse
or proactively finance the cost of the security measures. In
response, on 21 December 2021, the Home Secretary decided that it
would be appropriate for RAVEC to decide an issue of principle:
whether an individual whose position had been determined by RAVEC not
to justify protective security should be permitted to receive it on
the basis that they reimburse the public purse for its cost. If the
answer was "Yes", RAVEC was asked to consider whether the claimant
should be permitted to receive protective security on that basis.
RAVEC met on 24 January 2022 and decided that the answer to the first
"in principle" question was "No", so the second question did not arise.
That is, however, a separate matter from his original position, which
was that the State, either here or in Canada, should provide his
personal protection.
And now he's miffed that he's being treated just as any other wealthy
person and isn't allowed even to buy State levels of security. He's
miffed because he's being treated as ordinary and nothing special.
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
That is, however, a separate matter from his original position, which
was that the State, either here or in Canada, should provide his
personal protection.
Needing protection in the first place is not a "privilege" but a
consequence of being a royal that has not been negated by him no
longer being an active public servant.
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he
can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being >>>> one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at
being unable to retain, and why?
He hasn't confided that to me, but ISTR he made quite a fuss about the
British taxpayer no longer footing the bill for his personal protection.
Ah, no. You are mistaken. He made quite a fuss that he wasn't allowed to
have proper police protection *even if he paid for it himself*. It wasn't >about money.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
That is, however, a separate matter from his original position, which
was that the State, either here or in Canada, should provide his
personal protection.
Needing protection in the first place is not a "privilege" but a
consequence of being a royal that has not been negated by him no
longer being an active public servant.
The relentless campaign of abuse directed at him and his wife by certain sections of the media also makes his need for protection greater than that
of other members of the royal family, including some who are active.
The media in question like to pretend that they have no responsibility for the actions of people who read what they write.
On 16/12/2023 22:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-16, soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2023 17:34, Clive Page wrote:
It seems to be claimed that all the reporters had to do was call the
voicemail service of each target and enter the default voicemail access >>>> code to read their messages. Can that really be true?
Happens more often than you might think.
LOTS of people leave security at default settings.
YOU are responsible for your own security . If someone
(skilled)wants access they will get it but at least change any passwords >>> from defaults.
Cf. The amount of people that leave their router passwords and SSIDs at
the default settings, quite often these passwords are password/admin, is >>> unbelievable.
The others are pretty much documented online (try Googling them or look
at https://www.routerpasswords.com/ ).
You're being rather unfair though. It's all very well saying people are
responsible for their own security, but if they don't even know that
voicemail services *have* a PIN number they cannot be responsible for
setting it.
I recall being prompted to create one while setting up a new phone.
Probably not this one, as I would expect it to move with the SIM card.
Honestly, I've no idea if my mobile service today has such
a feature, or how I would change the PIN if it does.
On mine, it is under settings - voicemail - change PIN
Router passwords are similar in that many people may well not even know
the router has an admin interface with a password.
That was with the set-up information that came with my wireless router.
On 16/12/2023 22:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Router passwords are similar in that many people may well not even know
the router has an admin interface with a password. And while people will
know that SSIDs exist, they may not be aware that they can be changed.
IM (admittedly limited)E ISPs instructions tell you to change
passwords and SSIDs as soon as possible.
Is that not the same with all telecoms companies?
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he >>>>> can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being >>>>> one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at
being unable to retain, and why?
He hasn't confided that to me, but ISTR he made quite a fuss about the
British taxpayer no longer footing the bill for his personal protection.
Ah, no. You are mistaken. He made quite a fuss that he wasn't allowed to >>have proper police protection *even if he paid for it himself*. It wasn't >>about money.
Nobody else is allowed to use the police as their private scurity force, though. So it's still unjustified, even if it isn't about the money.
On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 17:34:59 +0000, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
It seems to be claimed that all the reporters had to do was call
the voicemail service of each target and enter the default voicemail
access code to read their messages. Can that really be true?
Absolutely, yes, it was, and that was really how it was done.
It could be that one or two of those hacked were a bit on the dim side,
but I'm still staggered that they *all* were. The risks of not changing
the default PIN on your voicemail or the password on your Wifi router
have been so well known for so long, after all.
The point is that it wasn't (and still isn't) widely known that you could
get at someone else's voicemail, so long as you knew their phone number, their network and their voicemail PIN. The vast majority of people only ever access their own voicemail from the phone associated with the account, and therefore were under the mistaken impression that the only way an attacker would ever get the opportunity to access their voicemail would be if they also had control of the phone. In which case, ensuring that the phone itself is sufficiently protected (eg, by having a strong lock PIN on the phone)
from unauthorised use would be enough. But, of course it isn't enough, because you don't need to have the actual phone itself in order to access that phone's voicemail.
Plus, a lot of people were probably also under the misapprehension that the initial PIN assigned to them was randomly selected and therefore unique to them (or, at least, only shared with the relatively small number of people who had been alocated the same random number), rather than realising that
the default PIN is the same for everybody.
Because unless you ask someone
else what their PIN is (and why would you?) you wouldn't notice that they've got the same one.
Or could it be that some
more sophisticated bit of hacking going on? I've seen nothing in the
press about this question at all.
No. It really wasn't hacking in any meaningful sense of the word at all.
Even the judgment makes that clear, the judge correctly uses the appropriate term of "voicemail interception" and explains that that's commonly referred to as "phone hacking".
Mark
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/12/2023 22:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-16, soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2023 17:34, Clive Page wrote:
It seems to be claimed that all the reporters had to do was call the >>>>> voicemail service of each target and enter the default voicemail access >>>>> code to read their messages. Can that really be true?
Happens more often than you might think.
LOTS of people leave security at default settings.
YOU are responsible for your own security . If someone
(skilled)wants access they will get it but at least change any passwords >>>> from defaults.
Cf. The amount of people that leave their router passwords and SSIDs at >>>> the default settings, quite often these passwords are password/admin, is >>>> unbelievable.
The others are pretty much documented online (try Googling them or look >>>> at https://www.routerpasswords.com/ ).
You're being rather unfair though. It's all very well saying people are
responsible for their own security, but if they don't even know that
voicemail services *have* a PIN number they cannot be responsible for
setting it.
I recall being prompted to create one while setting up a new phone.
Probably not this one, as I would expect it to move with the SIM card.
That seems very unusual. I've never had that happen when setting up a
new phone, ever.
Honestly, I've no idea if my mobile service today has such
a feature, or how I would change the PIN if it does.
On mine, it is under settings - voicemail - change PIN
No such option on my phone.
Router passwords are similar in that many people may well not even know
the router has an admin interface with a password.
That was with the set-up information that came with my wireless router.
I think the intersection of the subset of routers that come with such instructions and the subset of users who read the instructions is...
small.
Routers these days tend to proactively get you to change the password
during installation, hence making it more reasonable to blame the user
if they don't do so or if they choose a password of 'password'. You
certainly don't get told to change the voicemail PIN when setting up
a new phone though, so either the problem is just being ignored or
has been solved in some other way (e.g. making it so the voicemail
simply cannot be accessed remotely if no PIN has been set).
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he >>>>> can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being >>>>> one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at
being unable to retain, and why?
He hasn't confided that to me, but ISTR he made quite a fuss about the
British taxpayer no longer footing the bill for his personal protection.
Ah, no. You are mistaken. He made quite a fuss that he wasn't allowed to
have proper police protection *even if he paid for it himself*. It wasn't
about money.
Nobody else is allowed to use the police as their private scurity force, though. So it's still unjustified, even if it isn't about the money.
Mark
On 17 Dec 2023 at 20:40:01 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:Ah, no. You are mistaken. He made quite a fuss that he wasn't allowed to >>> have proper police protection *even if he paid for it himself*. It wasn't >>> about money.
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he >>>>>> can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being >>>>>> one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at >>>>> being unable to retain, and why?
He hasn't confided that to me, but ISTR he made quite a fuss about the >>>> British taxpayer no longer footing the bill for his personal protection. >>>
Nobody else is allowed to use the police as their private scurity force,
though. So it's still unjustified, even if it isn't about the money.
Mark
They indeed are! Football clubs pay many thousands for police involvement every week.
And I don't think they are alone in this. Maybe it is a
particularly self-important group of police that are involved in Royal protection, however?
On 17/12/2023 14:57, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/12/2023 11:55, Colin Bignell wrote:The Queen was miffed too. God bless her sacred memory. Let us all
On 17/12/2023 11:00, The Todal wrote:
On 17/12/2023 08:12, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed
that he
can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges
of being
one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at >>>>>> being unable to retain, and why?
I think he's pretty miffed that he can't get me to pay for his
personal protection when he's here in the UK, isn't he?
I think he must be pretty miffed that you and the rest of the public
don't understand his arguments, mainly because the Press distorts
and ridicules his arguments.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/1228.html
One of the grounds for which permission was granted was that RAVEC
should have had regard to the claimant's offer, made at a meeting
with members of the Royal Household on 13 January 2020, to reimburse
or proactively finance the cost of the security measures. In
response, on 21 December 2021, the Home Secretary decided that it
would be appropriate for RAVEC to decide an issue of principle:
whether an individual whose position had been determined by RAVEC
not to justify protective security should be permitted to receive it
on the basis that they reimburse the public purse for its cost. If
the answer was "Yes", RAVEC was asked to consider whether the
claimant should be permitted to receive protective security on that
basis. RAVEC met on 24 January 2022 and decided that the answer to
the first "in principle" question was "No", so the second question
did not arise.
That is, however, a separate matter from his original position, which
was that the State, either here or in Canada, should provide his
personal protection.
And now he's miffed that he's being treated just as any other wealthy
person and isn't allowed even to buy State levels of security. He's
miffed because he's being treated as ordinary and nothing special.
remember how we trooped past her beloved coffin. Alternatively, silly
old lady born into wealth and privilege, wanting to spend our
hard-earned money on her lazy family. They all deserve to be thoroughly miffed.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/elizabeth-ii-mark-sedwill-meghan-queen-diana-b1125876.html
A letter written by the late Queen’s private secretary Sir Edward Young
in January 2020 said providing the Sussexes with security was ‘imperative’.
Focusing on security, Sir Edward wrote: “You will understand well that ensuring that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain safe is of paramount importance to Her Majesty and her family.
“Given the duke’s public profile by virtue of being born into the royal family, his military service, the duchess’s own independent profile and
the well-documented history of targeting of the Sussex family by
extremists, it is imperative that the family continues to be provided
with effective security.”
On 17 Dec 2023 at 20:40:01 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Nobody else is allowed to use the police as their private scurity force,
though. So it's still unjustified, even if it isn't about the money.
They indeed are! Football clubs pay many thousands for police involvement every week. And I don't think they are alone in this. Maybe it is a particularly self-important group of police that are involved in Royal protection, however?
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
That is, however, a separate matter from his original position, which
was that the State, either here or in Canada, should provide his
personal protection.
Needing protection in the first place is not a "privilege" but a
consequence of being a royal that has not been negated by him no
longer being an active public servant.
On 17/12/2023 19:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 17:34:59 +0000, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
It seems to be claimed that all the reporters had to do was call
the voicemail service of each target and enter the default voicemail
access code to read their messages. Can that really be true?
Absolutely, yes, it was, and that was really how it was done.
It could be that one or two of those hacked were a bit on the dim side,
but I'm still staggered that they *all* were. The risks of not changing >>> the default PIN on your voicemail or the password on your Wifi router
have been so well known for so long, after all.
The point is that it wasn't (and still isn't) widely known that you could
get at someone else's voicemail, so long as you knew their phone number,
their network and their voicemail PIN. The vast majority of people
only ever
access their own voicemail from the phone associated with the account,
and
therefore were under the mistaken impression that the only way an
attacker
would ever get the opportunity to access their voicemail would be if they
also had control of the phone. In which case, ensuring that the phone
itself
is sufficiently protected (eg, by having a strong lock PIN on the phone)
from unauthorised use would be enough. But, of course it isn't enough,
because you don't need to have the actual phone itself in order to access
that phone's voicemail.
Plus, a lot of people were probably also under the misapprehension
that the
initial PIN assigned to them was randomly selected and therefore
unique to
them (or, at least, only shared with the relatively small number of
people
who had been alocated the same random number), rather than realising that
the default PIN is the same for everybody.
It is a long time ago, but ISTR that the PIN that came with the phone I changed was 0000, which I would expect most people to realise is a
default setting.
On 17/12/2023 20:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
That is, however, a separate matter from his original position, which
was that the State, either here or in Canada, should provide his
personal protection.
Needing protection in the first place is not a "privilege" but a
consequence of being a royal that has not been negated by him no
longer being an active public servant.
The privilege is having other people pay for it, instead of having to
fund it out of your own pocket as most other celebrities have to.
On 2023-12-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Nobody else is allowed to use the police as their private scurity force,
though. So it's still unjustified, even if it isn't about the money.
I disagree that it's unjustified (the requirement for the security is
due to his public service), but at least the discussion about that would
be vaguely based on reality.
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 21:57:34 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Nobody else is allowed to use the police as their private scurity force, >>> though. So it's still unjustified, even if it isn't about the money.
I disagree that it's unjustified (the requirement for the security is
due to his public service), but at least the discussion about that would
be vaguely based on reality.
The body which decides who needs VIP protection (RAVEC), and what kind of protection they get, concluded otherwise. I'm not sure how much of that decision-making process is public, given that it must, of necessity, include confidential and potentially sensitive private information.
But Harry is currently challenging that decision in court (separately
to his attempt to be allowed to pay for police protection, which he
lost), so the judgment, when it is published, may shed some light on it.
FWIW, I think it's absolutely correct that he lost his bid to be allowed to pay for police protection. That's a privilege not granted to anyone else,
and if Harry had won then it would open the gates to any other billionaire getting to have his own private police force when in the UK.
But I think he may well have an arguable case that RAVEC got it wrong
when making the original decision. So it will be interesting to see
what the court decides.
On 2023-12-18, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 17/12/2023 20:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
That is, however, a separate matter from his original position, which
was that the State, either here or in Canada, should provide his
personal protection.
Needing protection in the first place is not a "privilege" but a
consequence of being a royal that has not been negated by him no
longer being an active public servant.
The privilege is having other people pay for it, instead of having to
fund it out of your own pocket as most other celebrities have to.
How on earth have you forgotten so quickly that I already pointed out
that he was offering to pay for it himself?
And as someone else has rightly pointed out, other public figures
(such as ex prime ministers, of which these days there are many)
do continue to receive protection at public cost even when they
are retired.
On 17/12/2023 19:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
Plus, a lot of people were probably also under the misapprehension that the >> initial PIN assigned to them was randomly selected and therefore unique to >> them (or, at least, only shared with the relatively small number of people >> who had been alocated the same random number), rather than realising that
the default PIN is the same for everybody.
It is a long time ago, but ISTR that the PIN that came with the phone I >changed was 0000, which I would expect most people to realise is a
default setting.
On 18/12/2023 12:12 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Dec 2023 at 20:40:01 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Nobody else is allowed to use the police as their private scurity force, >>> though. So it's still unjustified, even if it isn't about the money.
They indeed are! Football clubs pay many thousands for police involvement
every week.
Do they choose to do so or are they obliged so to do?
On 17 Dec 2023 at 20:40:01 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Nobody else is allowed to use the police as their private scurity force,
though. So it's still unjustified, even if it isn't about the money.
They indeed are! Football clubs pay many thousands for police involvement >every week. And I don't think they are alone in this. Maybe it is a >particularly self-important group of police that are involved in Royal >protection, however?
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 22:45:17 +0000, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 17/12/2023 19:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
Plus, a lot of people were probably also under the misapprehension that the >>> initial PIN assigned to them was randomly selected and therefore unique to >>> them (or, at least, only shared with the relatively small number of people >>> who had been alocated the same random number), rather than realising that >>> the default PIN is the same for everybody.
It is a long time ago, but ISTR that the PIN that came with the phone I
changed was 0000, which I would expect most people to realise is a
default setting.
The phone PIN and the voicemail PIN are not the same. I suspect another common misconception was that the two are the same.
Bearing in mind that you only ever need the voicemail PIN when accessing
your voicemail from a phone other than the one containing the SIM card that the number is assigned to. If you dial 901, or whatever, from your own
mobile phone then you will go straight through to your own voicemail without needing to use a PIN at all. You only need the PIN when you dial the network voicemail number from a different phone. And very few people ever do that.
So a lot of people probably don't realise that there is even such a thing as a separate voicemail PIN.
Mark
On 2023-12-18, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 21:57:34 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Nobody else is allowed to use the police as their private scurity force, >>>> though. So it's still unjustified, even if it isn't about the money.
I disagree that it's unjustified (the requirement for the security is
due to his public service), but at least the discussion about that would >>>be vaguely based on reality.
The body which decides who needs VIP protection (RAVEC), and what kind of
protection they get, concluded otherwise. I'm not sure how much of that
decision-making process is public, given that it must, of necessity, include >> confidential and potentially sensitive private information.
I don't think we get to know who is on that committee (or even what
*type* of person, i.e. politicians, members of the royal household,
civil servants, police chiefs, etc), so I've no idea to what degree
I would trust their judgement to be unbiased.
But Harry is currently challenging that decision in court (separately
to his attempt to be allowed to pay for police protection, which he
lost), so the judgment, when it is published, may shed some light on it.
FWIW, I think it's absolutely correct that he lost his bid to be allowed to >> pay for police protection. That's a privilege not granted to anyone else,
and if Harry had won then it would open the gates to any other billionaire >> getting to have his own private police force when in the UK.
Except it wouldn't, if as I suggested above the rule was that only
people whose need for protection originated in their public service
would be eligible.
On 18/12/2023 12:12 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Dec 2023 at 20:40:01 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:Ah, no. You are mistaken. He made quite a fuss that he wasn't allowed to >>>> have proper police protection *even if he paid for it himself*. It wasn't >>>> about money.
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he >>>>>>> can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being
one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at >>>>>> being unable to retain, and why?
He hasn't confided that to me, but ISTR he made quite a fuss about the >>>>> British taxpayer no longer footing the bill for his personal protection. >>>>
Nobody else is allowed to use the police as their private scurity force, >>> though. So it's still unjustified, even if it isn't about the money.
Mark
They indeed are! Football clubs pay many thousands for police involvement
every week.
Do they choose to do so or are they obliged so to do?
On Monday 18 December 2023 at 17:45:21 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message news:ku9mpl...@mid.individual.net...
On 18/12/2023 12:12 am, Roger Hayter wrote:quote:
On 17 Dec 2023 at 20:40:01 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he
can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being
one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at >> >>>>>> being unable to retain, and why?
He hasn't confided that to me, but ISTR he made quite a fuss about the >> >>>>> British taxpayer no longer footing the bill for his personal protection.
Ah, no. You are mistaken. He made quite a fuss that he wasn't allowed to
have proper police protection *even if he paid for it himself*. It wasn't
about money.
Nobody else is allowed to use the police as their private scurity force, >> >>> though. So it's still unjustified, even if it isn't about the money.
Mark
They indeed are! Football clubs pay many thousands for police involvement >> >> every week.
Do they choose to do so or are they obliged so to do?
Under the provisions of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975
(the 1975 Act), county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan
or London boroughs are responsible for issuing and enforcing a safety
certificates in respect of any sports ground in their area which has
been designated by the Secretary of State.
These are sports grounds that, in his opinion, have accommodation for
more than 10,000 spectators, or 5,000 in the case of Premiership or
Football League grounds in England and Wales.
unquote:
https://sgsa.org.uk/safety-certification/
LA's issue certificates following advice by the local Safety Adversary Group >>
consisting of
a.. Police
b.. Fire service
c.. Ambulance service
d.. Building authority
https://sgsa.org.uk/safety-advisory-groups/
The police have always had a "traditional" role at football matches
of course At one time even riding to matches on white horses.
It's difficult to recall any specific stadium disasters in the run up to
1975 - say from 1970 onwards which would have merited this specific
legislation.
The 1971 Ibrox disaster would seem a fairly obvious one.
Though
I don't know whether that was the trigger
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:ku9mplFbet6U4@mid.individual.net...
On 18/12/2023 12:12 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Dec 2023 at 20:40:01 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:Ah, no. You are mistaken. He made quite a fuss that he wasn't allowed to >>>>> have proper police protection *even if he paid for it himself*. It wasn't >>>>> about money.
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he >>>>>>>> can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being
one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at >>>>>>> being unable to retain, and why?
He hasn't confided that to me, but ISTR he made quite a fuss about the >>>>>> British taxpayer no longer footing the bill for his personal protection. >>>>>
Nobody else is allowed to use the police as their private scurity force, >>>> though. So it's still unjustified, even if it isn't about the money.
Mark
They indeed are! Football clubs pay many thousands for police involvement >>> every week.
Do they choose to do so or are they obliged so to do?
quote:
Under the provisions of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975
(the 1975 Act), county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan
or London boroughs are responsible for issuing and enforcing a safety certificates in respect of any sports ground in their area which has
been designated by the Secretary of State.
These are sports grounds that, in his opinion, have accommodation for
more than 10,000 spectators, or 5,000 in the case of Premiership or
Football League grounds in England and Wales.
unquote:
https://sgsa.org.uk/safety-certification/
LA's issue certificates following advice by the local Safety Adversary Group
consisting of
a.. Police
b.. Fire service
c.. Ambulance service
d.. Building authority
https://sgsa.org.uk/safety-advisory-groups/
The police have always had a "traditional" role at football matches
of course At one time even riding to matches on white horses.
It's difficult to recall any specific stadium disasters in the run up to
1975 - say from 1970 onwards which would have merited this specific legislation.
So maybe it was the disruption caused by football hooliganism
and its effect on local residents which led to the demand
that "something must be done".
bb
On 18/12/2023 05:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:ku9mplFbet6U4@mid.individual.net...
On 18/12/2023 12:12 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Dec 2023 at 20:40:01 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On 16/12/2023 21:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-15, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I don't think they are wrong. He comes across as being miffed that he >>>>>>>>> can't stop being an active royal while retaining the privileges of being
one.
What privileges of being an active royal do you think he is miffed at >>>>>>>> being unable to retain, and why?
He hasn't confided that to me, but ISTR he made quite a fuss about the >>>>>>> British taxpayer no longer footing the bill for his personal protection.
Ah, no. You are mistaken. He made quite a fuss that he wasn't allowed to >>>>>> have proper police protection *even if he paid for it himself*. It wasn't
about money.
Nobody else is allowed to use the police as their private scurity force, >>>>> though. So it's still unjustified, even if it isn't about the money. >>>>>
Mark
They indeed are! Football clubs pay many thousands for police involvement >>>> every week.
Do they choose to do so or are they obliged so to do?
quote:
Under the provisions of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975
(the 1975 Act), county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan
or London boroughs are responsible for issuing and enforcing a safety
certificates in respect of any sports ground in their area which has
been designated by the Secretary of State.
These are sports grounds that, in his opinion, have accommodation for
more than 10,000 spectators, or 5,000 in the case of Premiership or
Football League grounds in England and Wales.
unquote:
https://sgsa.org.uk/safety-certification/
LA's issue certificates following advice by the local Safety Adversary Group >>
consisting of
a.. Police
b.. Fire service
c.. Ambulance service
d.. Building authority
https://sgsa.org.uk/safety-advisory-groups/
The police have always had a "traditional" role at football matches
of course At one time even riding to matches on white horses.
It's difficult to recall any specific stadium disasters in the run up to
1975 - say from 1970 onwards which would have merited this specific
legislation.
Though under a separate jurisdiction, there WAS that one in Scotland in early 1971.
So maybe it was the disruption caused by football hooliganism
and its effect on local residents which led to the demand
that "something must be done".
bb
I'm sure that the police were regular attenders at professional football matches before
that.
On 18/12/2023 13:26, Mark Goodge wrote:
I know that. It was in the instructions. :-) I think I may be unusual in reading them though.
Bearing in mind that you only ever need the voicemail PIN when accessing
your voicemail from a phone other than the one containing the SIM card that >> the number is assigned to. If you dial 901, or whatever, from your own
mobile phone then you will go straight through to your own voicemail without >> needing to use a PIN at all. You only need the PIN when you dial the network >> voicemail number from a different phone. And very few people ever do that. >> So a lot of people probably don't realise that there is even such a thing as >> a separate voicemail PIN.
On 17/12/2023 21:44, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-12-17, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/12/2023 22:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
You're being rather unfair though. It's all very well saying people are >>>> responsible for their own security, but if they don't even know that
voicemail services *have* a PIN number they cannot be responsible for
setting it.
I recall being prompted to create one while setting up a new phone.
Probably not this one, as I would expect it to move with the SIM card.
That seems very unusual. I've never had that happen when setting up a
new phone, ever.
Honestly, I've no idea if my mobile service today has such
a feature, or how I would change the PIN if it does.
On mine, it is under settings - voicemail - change PIN
No such option on my phone.
Router passwords are similar in that many people may well not even know >>>> the router has an admin interface with a password.
That was with the set-up information that came with my wireless router.
I think the intersection of the subset of routers that come with such
instructions and the subset of users who read the instructions is...
small.
Routers these days tend to proactively get you to change the password
during installation, hence making it more reasonable to blame the user
if they don't do so or if they choose a password of 'password'. You
certainly don't get told to change the voicemail PIN when setting up
a new phone though, so either the problem is just being ignored or
has been solved in some other way (e.g. making it so the voicemail
simply cannot be accessed remotely if no PIN has been set).
It isn't the introduction of a new handset, but the introduction of a
new SIM card, (which would include switching provider), that should
trigger a prompt to change the Voicemail PiN.
Nowadays, when retrieving voicemails, the system *should* prompt you to change your PIN if it is still at the default but I haven't tested it on
all networks.
On 17/12/2023 21:44, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Routers these days tend to proactively get you to change the password
during installation, hence making it more reasonable to blame the user
if they don't do so or if they choose a password of 'password'. You
certainly don't get told to change the voicemail PIN when setting up
a new phone though, so either the problem is just being ignored or
has been solved in some other way (e.g. making it so the voicemail
simply cannot be accessed remotely if no PIN has been set).
It isn't the introduction of a new handset, but the introduction of a
new SIM card, (which would include switching provider), that should
trigger a prompt to change the Voicemail PiN.
Nowadays, when retrieving voicemails, the system *should* prompt you to change your PIN if it is still at the default but I haven't tested it on
all networks.
On 2023-12-26, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/12/2023 21:44, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Routers these days tend to proactively get you to change the password
during installation, hence making it more reasonable to blame the user
if they don't do so or if they choose a password of 'password'. You
certainly don't get told to change the voicemail PIN when setting up
a new phone though, so either the problem is just being ignored or
has been solved in some other way (e.g. making it so the voicemail
simply cannot be accessed remotely if no PIN has been set).
It isn't the introduction of a new handset, but the introduction of a
new SIM card, (which would include switching provider), that should
trigger a prompt to change the Voicemail PiN.
Nowadays, when retrieving voicemails, the system *should* prompt you to
change your PIN if it is still at the default but I haven't tested it on
all networks.
Regardless of whether these things "should" happen, they don't happen.
On 27 Dec 2023 at 14:07:11 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-12-26, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/12/2023 21:44, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Routers these days tend to proactively get you to change the password
during installation, hence making it more reasonable to blame the user >>>> if they don't do so or if they choose a password of 'password'. You
certainly don't get told to change the voicemail PIN when setting up
a new phone though, so either the problem is just being ignored or
has been solved in some other way (e.g. making it so the voicemail
simply cannot be accessed remotely if no PIN has been set).
It isn't the introduction of a new handset, but the introduction of a
new SIM card, (which would include switching provider), that should
trigger a prompt to change the Voicemail PiN.
Nowadays, when retrieving voicemails, the system *should* prompt you to
change your PIN if it is still at the default but I haven't tested it on >>> all networks.
Regardless of whether these things "should" happen, they don't happen.
That is certainly what O2 and EE voicemail have done for at least ten
years. But not in the heyday of press "phone hacking".
On 27/12/2023 11:40, Max Demian wrote:
On 26/12/2023 22:14, Simon Parker wrote:
Nowadays, when retrieving voicemails, the system *should* prompt you
to change your PIN if it is still at the default but I haven't tested
it on all networks.
What if you're not particularly interesting in using the remote
voicemail feature *at the moment*?
You should change it regardless.
And until you change the default PIN, remote voicemail should be
disabled so it cannot be used until you have set a PIN.
Which could be inconvenient in the extreme as the first time you might
need to use remote voicemail is when on holiday abroad so you'll be
stuck on holiday unable to set / change the PIN and unable to retrieve voicemails until you do.
On 30/12/2023 13:33, Simon Parker wrote:
On 27/12/2023 11:40, Max Demian wrote:
On 26/12/2023 22:14, Simon Parker wrote:
Nowadays, when retrieving voicemails, the system *should* prompt
you to change your PIN if it is still at the default but I
haven't tested it on all networks.
What if you're not particularly interesting in using the remote
voicemail feature *at the moment*?
You should change it regardless.
What to? You'll have forgotten what it is by the time you decide you
want it.
And until you change the default PIN, remote voicemail should be
disabled so it cannot be used until you have set a PIN.
That's how they should have designed it. But they try to make it
super easy to use.
Which could be inconvenient in the extreme as the first time you
might need to use remote voicemail is when on holiday abroad so
you'll be stuck on holiday unable to set / change the PIN and
unable to retrieve voicemails until you do.
I think that would be a price worth paying for a feature you may have
not known existed.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 42:51:36 |
| Calls: | 6,709 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,353,935 |