Losing the brand is a significant act - the largest-selling in Britain. I would expect they would try to save what was worthwhile from the company, as any loyal employer would.
Why, yes it is. But less important to them than losing the BSkyB merger. Or, it would seem, Rebekah Brooks.
And the paper was largely finished by this point. No advertisers, no readers, an utterly tarnished brand...
But yes, the Beeb has just reported that employees will be placed at other titles within NI. But I would be surprised if they didn't still lose some headcount. After all, most newspapers have been trying to shed employees the last few years. The announcement that they were going to merge some functions between The Sun and the News Of The World was largely motivated by that.
Let me emphasize, that was yesterday. The trickle turned into a flood and then a tsunami today: by the time NewsCorp announced the closure of "News of the World" they only had one major advertiser left on board.
Just to add to this. I emailed the CEO of o2 last night to tell him that I would switch my business to another provider if they didn't pull their advertising and I received a reply within 15 mins (at about 9.00pm) saying they were already doing this and it said "sent from my iPad" so I kind of suspect that it was a personal email I received back. About 15 mins later o2 were being reported as having pulled their advertising following on from Ford, Mitsubishi, Virgin etc. By this morning most major companies had committed to pull their adverts. The whole thing happened in about 24 hours tops. Biggest selling Sunday paper to nothing. 'Name' journalists from other Murdoch brands, even the Times, are reporting being heckled in the street. A lot of people are very angry.
A vigilante meets out extra legal punishment, nobody has been punished, it's just been pointed out by a lot of people that they need to be. Due process didn't work several times in this case because the Police were implicated and failed to investigate properly. Due process generally doesn't work when the system is infected at a high level and there are lots of careers being controlled by the source of the problem. The Prime Minister knew that his director of communications, who has now been arrested, was criminally implicated in this before he was elected a year ago and he was too scared of the tabloids to do anything about it. I think you need a public protest in these situations. Note: that Protest != Violence.
And yet people are leaving the Sun, sister paper in the empire and really quite similar, untouched. In fact some of the advertisers directly said they were swapping their advertising from NotW to the Sun.
Tokenism on all fronts. NI will launch a Sunday version of the Sun within a few months with content suspiciously similar to NotW.
Tokenism indeed. I'm hoping similar fishy stories emerge from the Sun - but not that it'll close even if the exact same stuff happened there. To lose one red-top looks like misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness.
Interesting to note that this was probably largely down to a concerted twitter campaign - egged on, as ever, by the gruaniad. See #notw over the last few days.
Yes, when I noticed that the guardian had a chart of the largest advertisers in the NOTW I did feel it was being a little silly. Though personally, that's why I like the guardian; when it's being biased, it's very obvious.
You knew I'd be citing the Grauniad because they're the only national newspaper that was covering the story in depth. (Until The Independent jumped on board, late in the day.) The Murdoch press and their rival tabloids were all keeping mum, and The Telegraph wasn't touching it either (possibly out of a misplaced sense of loyalty to the PM).
Politicians and rival media outlets are afraid of the NewsCorp empire. They own 30% of the UK newspaper market and a big chunk of its TV programming, and they have long memories. Not people you would want to have holding a grudge against you if you worked in that industry or had to run for re-election.
Actually the Telegraph ran several articles on the issue, including front pages. They are hardly fans of Murdoch. The Guardian really went for it though.
Yeah, the Telegraph have been going great guns recently. But the Guardian have been hammering away at this for yonks.
(I am reminded of the expenses scandal - The Guardian had a journalist who was petitioning the government to release the expense data for years, but didn't get anywhere except repeated trips to the courtroom. Then the Telegraph gets copies leaked from within the expenses office. It's a dirty world out there...)
You'd have to jack the cover price quite a bit to make up for the lost advertising. Also, the public is pretty disgusted about this; I think readership would have fallen off a cliff anyway.
Minus the cut to the retailer, minus the cut to the distributor, minus the cost of printing the thing... The income from advertisers is a much higher percentage of the paper's income than you think.
Tabloids traditionally make a higher percentage of income from the cover price compared to broadsheets, partly because their readers are less affluent and so less appealing to advertisers. Still, this 2002 article puts advertising at 40%, which sounds pretty important.
The Metro is mostly recycled news stories and press releases from their sister paid-for newspaper, the Daily Mail; their costs are going to be a little less.
I've seen this, but It doesn't make sense to me why they would use 1&1 as the registrar. If you look at other News Int properties you will see that they have their own registrar capabilities.
Not sure - it may indeed not have been them. But it may have been done for reasons of plausible deniability, or by a different set of people than normally handle DNS stuff, or it was just a canny domain-squatter.
(was also registered with 123-reg, for the record)
Also, it would be The Sun On Sunday, not the Sunday Sun, as that already exists: http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/
While some of the "hacking" was no more than calling into voicemail accounts with no pin/password set (though most instances would have involved at least caller-id spoofing), it will hopefully (yeah, right, says the cynic in me) make the tabloid rags more careful about overstepping their bounds in future.
The scandal, which blew up massively again after evidence was presented of them interfering with a missing-persons/murder enquiry and has only got worse after evidence that the families of bombing victims and those injured/killed in overseas conflicts were also subject to similar invasion of privacy, has caused significant activity in government and a large amount of embarrassment for News International - possibly to the point of threatening their attempt to buy the rest of Sky.
I wonder how many more phone and email hacking/monitoring scandals, involving the media or other organisations, will drop out of the woodwork following (or during the investigation of) this one...
edit: removed the quotes from "news"paper in the title. A tad hypocritical of me to editorialise like that while taking shots at a tabloid!
Not that you said otherwise, but for what it's worth: accessing someone else's voice mail is no less a crime if they don't have a PIN set.
A lot of nerds are under the very faulty impression that the severity of "hacking" crimes scales with the difficulty of the attack. No. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how hard these things are to pull off.
> accessing someone else's voice mail is no less a crime if they don't have a PIN set.
So by extension, you're saying if I setup a directory on my website called /admin and don't password protect it, then you could be committing a criminal offense if you decide to access it?
Personally I think there is a difference. If there is NO security, then it could be argued that it was intended to be public. If there is security, but it is bypassed, then obviously that is a violation.
So I'm with you that the difficulty of hacking isn't related to the severity. But in the particular case of having no PIN, no password protection, there is no hacking taking place. So it's a moot point IMHO.
Yes. If you browse to /admin and find it non-password-protected, and then deliberately use it to manipulate an application or gain access to information you reasonably know you shouldn't have access to, nobody making a prosecution decision is going to care about your nerdy protestation that there was no password.
You will be afforded the opportunity to argue that /admin was "intended to be public" in court. Depending on what you do with /admin, a judge or jury may even listen to you.
IANAL, but in the UK, according to the computer misuse act - yes that would be a criminal offence as the access is unauthorized, regardless of how access was gained. (guessing URL, phising, guessing password etc)
Yes, if someone goes to /admin on your site and starts to mess around even if it's not password protected, that's a naughty thing and should be (and will be) punished even if you should have known better and ensured that it's well protected. Just like stealing a car is a crime even if the owner left the key inside the car. Or burglarizing someone's home even if occupier has accidentally left the front door unlocked. Don't you agree?
At some point the analogy breaks down.. what if I typo "admin" trying to get to another page? Or, more realistically, what about spiders? What if it's linked and a human clicks the link?
I don't think the analogy breaks down. I think most of the people arguing here need to go re-read Wikipedia on mens rea vs. actus rea. Most of the counter-analogies seem to boil down to things like, "but then Google could one day decide nobody's authorized to visit WWW.GOOGLE.COM and half the US would become felons!"
I think we're talking at different points, I was saying that we don't have like literal robots walking the streets who might accidentally wander into your house, and you can't misclick your way into sticking up a liquor store.
Certainly if you have a whole set of willful misconduct associated with the act, like in this case, then it's illegal/wrong even if the page was wide open and prominently linked.
I guess I was just saying that you couldn't just hold someone culpable for a hit in the access log like you could for being in the wrong kitchen. The bar to prove bad intent is higher.
Sure. Who disagrees with that? If you accidentally stumble onto an /admin page, say "shit!", send an email to the site and then log off, who thinks you should be charged with a crime? Nobody does.
If you find someones wallet in the street. Take the cash then give it back. If it can be proven you took the money, you can be charged with theft. The famous saying 'possession is 9/10ths of the law' relates to proving who's possession something is, not what your rights are once you have it.
The laws regarding found property greatly vary between countries. In some places, if you find something and you it's not possible to determine who the owner is, the founder can keep the found property. In other places, if you cannot determine the ownership of a found property, you have to hand it over to the police, otherwise you could be charged with theft. It's a complicated matter.
However, generally, if you find, say for instance, a wallet in a public thrash can and you can determine the identity of the owner (because, for example, there is a driving license in it), you cannot keep it.
No, it doesn't work like that. Leaving your door unlocked doesn't mean your home is suddenly open to the public who can wander in. Leaving your computer without a password doesn't mean it's legal for someone to hack into it and use it for what they will. It also doesn't mean if you forget to password protect your FTP server that anyone and everyone are free to use it as they will.
There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in these cases. The actual severity might be different depending on the circumstances, but it's still fairly obvious if what you are doing is wrong or not. Obviously, their are grey areas. Does a husband have the right to access his wife's voice mail? What about her computer? What if they share a computer or accounts?
A good example I've always heard concerns banking on public computers. If you accessed your bank account on a public computer, and then left without logging out, would it be okay for someone to then transfer money to their account and keep it? No hacking was involved. No security was breached.
> If you accessed your bank account on a public computer, and then left without logging out, would it be okay for someone to then transfer money to their account and keep it? No hacking was involved. No security was breached.
That's not hacking, but it is theft. How about this: If you accessed your bank account on a public computer, and then left without logging out, would it be okay for someone to glance at the screen, see your account balances, and log you out?
It depends. If it can be established that you accessed someone else's bank balance purposefully or knowingly, understanding it was meant to be private, you can be on the hook for a crime. A classic nerd mistake here is to look only at the computer-related act in isolation; a real prosecution looks at the totality of circumstances. What did you do with the information? What prompted you to access it?
I think it's a stretch to call reading something "access". If someone leaves their private banking documents face up on a table, I'd expect it to be legal to read them.
Please read my comment in the context of the thread. You've agreed with me: It's a crime. The parent post was suggesting this:
> If there is NO security, then it could be argued that it was intended to be public.
You then go on to this:
> If you accessed your bank account on a public computer, and then left without logging out, would it be okay for someone to glance at the screen, see your account balances, and log you out?
You really think things are black and white. Trying to tidy things up into a neat little package.
No, the intent, or motive of the person is to close the sessions. However, if I'd closed the browser window and left, and someone came and opened and then browsed the bank's site, and then made note of some information, and use it in some manner (perhaps, a PI or something), this is more likely criminal in nature.
You cannot simply say: "This is bad" and "This is good." However, it's absurd to think that just because someone forgets to secure something that it's free for public consumption. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain cases. Just because it's easily accessible doesn't mean you have free reign to do what you will with whatever it is.
In physical 'hacking' if you don't make any effort to secure your valuables, you can't claim they were stolen. I wonder why it is different with virtual valuables?
That's also not legal. You can't simply walk into someone's house, regardless of whether it's locked. It's unlawful trespass, it's a gross violation of privacy (especially since you took a picture), and it may be legally deemed breaking and entering, burglary, or some other felony depending on jurisdiction.
Also, I believe that the voicemail "hackers" also deleted some voicemails, and in that case something was indeed taken.
I don't think the analogies are doing justice. Nobody's house, not even a virtual one, was involved. An open-to-the-public voicemail system was used. The 'victim' was sympathetic and folks reacted emotionally. Its not clear to me this was espionage, or even a misdemeanor.
You're still trying to link "unlocked" and "open to the public". The fact that you don't lock something does not mean that it's legally open for anyone to use/take/whatever. If your front door is unlocked, it's still a crime for me to enter. If you leave your voicemail unlocked, it's still a crime for me to access it.
These comparisons are getting pretty tenuous, don't you think?
If you run foo.com, and you open it to the public, then you have made the decision to allow the public to use it. You've got a DNS record that tells the world they're welcome to access your site. On the other hand, if I sit outside your house and use your open WiFi to scan for computers inside your house with open ports, I'm probably committing a crime. If you have not made your desktop machine public, my accessing it is almost certainly against your wishes.
I'm thinking that voicemail is pretty public. Not as public as a web site, but more so than your desktop machine - after all, its available 24X7 from any phone in the universe.
The difference is only expectation. Some folks have the expectation that voicemail is as private as, for instance, an answering machine. Which is clearly not the case if you are technically savvy, which I'm thinking a judge is not.
To access my voicemail, you have to enter my pin. If I have not set a pin, there's still a default one. The way around this is to spoof my number (on a phone that uses pinless voicemail access) and pretend to be me. In no case is my voicemail public, either in practice or in intention.
I'm not sure how you think an answering machine is different from voicemail. I can access my answering machine from any phone in the universe, too, or at least I could if this was still 1995. Voicemail is just an answering machine than handles a lot of telephone lines.
It wasn't open to the public. Her voicemails, my voicemails, your voicemails are in no sense published. In the Milly Dowler case, the PI raked through the bins of the dead girl's family a few days after she went missing to find leads on what her phone number was.
Edit: bins == trash (sorry was thinking in anglicisms)
No, but if you don't lock up corporate secrets, or put passwords on computers, then it isn't industrial espionage when I walk off with a copy of same. This is why everybody carries cardkeys - not because they work very well (folks circumvent ours with a coathanger when they forget their badge) but because the act of having cardkeys makes taking stuff a crime.
At home? In a bar? They are completely different. In a bar, it becomes the property of the bar owner. Who is very likely to give it back, but in no way obliged to do so by law.
Covered adnauseum in the 'iPhone prototype left in a bar' thread. Sorry, I haven't learned to search HN history for articles.
It does seem bizarre, doesn't it? Sometimes petty legal issues are resolved using precedent and it can seem arbitrary, probably because it is.
For instance, its accepted in the US that in a rear-end collision its the car in back that is at fault. In Austria I've been told the car in front is at fault!
Both sides could be argued. But like in baseball with the infield-fly rule, a rule gets made to settle it once and for all, and it is really arbitrary.
> Covered adnauseum in the 'iPhone prototype left in a bar' thread.
What on Earth are you talking about? That phone was still the property of Apple. Gizmodo's blogger was investigated for involvement in felony theft. Leaving your property does not stop it from being your property. If someone finds your property and refuses to return it (or in some cases simply neglects to turn it into the police), they are guilty of a crime.
Dont forget all the stuff about helping people under suspicion of murder spy on the police officer investigting them! And extensive bribing of high level police officers!
Oh yeah and all the links these people had right to the highest level of our government.
WRT more scandals: every newspaper does this. It is standard industry practice. Why do you think they never gave notw a hard time over it, all these years? The same reason political parties never attack each other over funding. Because they all stink.
> WRT more scandals: every newspaper does this. It is standard industry practice.
Which is one of the reasons we might see a few more scandals become public, either because people in the know see the opportunity to milk a few quid out of the momentum built up by the current publicity or because people currently getting the sack don't want to go down without taking a few rivals out on the way. Or, less cynically, just because any public investigation (one of which is promised by the government) into NoTW uncovers significant evidence of the wider issue.
I think (assume) he wasn't questioning the link between what they did with illegality/immorality, just that "hacking" implies something a little more technical.
Aye. The difference between taking a laptop left on a train and breaking into a house to take one. No less theft in either case, but one takes (a little at least) more effort than the other and is less dependent on carelessness on the part of the victim.
Take a laptop left on the train isn't a very good analogy. The train is essentially a public space (for anyone holding a ticket, at least) and people have a right to be there.
Getting in to PIN-less voicemail boxes is like walking down a street and checking which doors are unlocked, and then assuming a lack of security means the owner is permitting you to take whatever you can find inside.
I think his point was not it didn't rise to the legal definition of hacking (of course it did), but whether it rose to the Hacker News definition of newsworthy hacking (hardly).
That's still a bad analogy, and you've used it way too many times in this thread.
Whether or not accessing anything on a webserver is illegal depends partly on your intentions while doing so. That's a basic function of most court trials--to discern your intentions. For example, see the differences between the various degrees of murder, and the way such trials often hinge on "preconceived intent."
If my intention in accessing "/admin" was to access your server without your authorization to access some protected piece of information, damage computers, or defraud you, that may indeed be a crime. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html . It doesn't matter whether it was password protected or not. If I went there by accident, however, it probably was not a crime, although depending on what I accessed I may wind up having to go to court to prove that my intentions were benign.
You absolutely can call it hacking, and people have been prosecuted for things like that. How much simpler can I say it? The difficulty of an attack has nothing whatsoever to do with the severity of the resulting offense. Difficulty is just one measure that can be used to establish your purposefulness in exploiting unauthorized access.
No, it's not a grey area. The "public accessibility" of a URL may serve as evidence that you had no criminal intent (because you didn't have to "jimmy the lock" to get in), but if you then do things with that access, you're criminally liable.
Voicemails were deleted from the missing girl's phone.
One - they could have been evidence (apparently killers often leave sympathetic messages to try and deflect attention), and two - it made the parents and the police think she was still alive when she was in fact already dead.
According to the NYT article summarizing this, the reporters (or PIs hired by them) not only accessed messages in the murder case, they also deleted some to make room for more.
Assuming this is true, it makes irrelevant a lot of gedanken experiments in the thread here.
I have been watching this delicious scandal developing week by week, day by day and recently hour by hour, and I never expected this. Wow. There must be a lot of skeletons in the cupboard if this was murdoch's choice of preemptive action against the upcoming judicial enquiry.
Edit: thinking about it, the enquiry will go ahead regardless. This is more to do with protecting rebekah brooks and the sky merger. He must really like brooks.
I think he is cornered right now and this move is going to buy him some time. He cannot fire Rebekah Brooks right now, for it will seems like the whole thing was approved by the top management.
All this attention being paid to News International is distracting from the more worrying issues:
- Why the police have utterly failed to investigate this.
- Why the phone companies aren't being hammered for security lapses. Data Protection Act anyone??
- What other papers have done the same. The News of the World is in the same building as The Times, and under the same ownership as The Sun. I don't believe those two papers are clean either.
Scotland Yard took no further action, apparently reflecting the desire of Fedorcio [met police press relations officer], who has had a close working relationship with Brooks, to avoid unnecessary friction with the News of the World. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-worl...
I've not read into the technicalities of it, but it seems extraordinary that all four mobile operators would have voicemail that is wide open. Maybe it wasn't all of them? Nothing's been said about that. And I think that the Data Protection Act might make losing personal data an offence of strict liability, that is to say one doesn't need to prove any negligenct. The fact that the data was lost is enough.
It comes set with a default number. Given they have to send you personalized details anyway (phone number etc.) how hard would it have been to randomize it like banks do?
They should take some of the blame for it. But nobody seems to care.
Labour MP Tom Watson told Sky News it was "a victory for decent people up and down the land, and I say good riddance to the News of the World".
Couldn't have put it better myself. (Side note, Tom Watson is one of the few MPs in this country supporting the games industry, which makes me like him already.)
Sadly The Sun will obviously just add Sundays, as suggested in the piece, but still, one less piece of shit to see on news stands I guess.
A large amount of people enjoy reading these papers. Just as a large number of people enjoy watching X-Factor, big brother, and other things you may not enjoy.
It's sad to see such intellectual crap condemning the masses for enjoying what they enjoy.
If you don't enjoy reading a newspaper, don't buy it.
It's not the same thing, though. If the entire country watches big brother, that's entertainment. Do I understand why they enjoy it, no (though I do enjoy X Factor!).
Reading a terrible newspaper is different, and worse. They're not just getting entertainment, they're getting news, they're getting their world view and their political beliefs influenced by it. That's the difference.
While I do look down on celebrity gossip reading, I'm aware that that makes me a snob. However, that's not the issue I have here.
My issue is with the way papers like this, and indeed Fox News, report real news, important news. Reading celebrity gossip may be something that I don't understand, but it's not something than affects me, whereas the actual news, that has a very real impact on people's views on politics, society, the world and so on. That is something we should all care about.
"Wrongdoers turned a good newsroom bad and this was not fully understood or adequately pursued."
"As a result, the News of the World and News International wrongly maintained that these issues were confined to one reporter."
"The paper made statements to Parliament without being in the full possession of the facts. This was wrong."
"The company paid out-of-court settlements approved by me. I now know that I did not have a complete picture when I did so. This was wrong and is a matter of serious regret."
Just read it, it is all complete bullshit, who honestly believes that he did not have the "complete picture" when those settlements were made... Let's face it, settlements were made precisely because they HAD the complete picture. Does anyone think that they did not have "full possession of the facts"? This is careful phrasing to avoid admitting to lying to parliament which is what I for one think they did.
"So, just as I acknowledge we have made mistakes.."
This is laughable, using double-speak in acknowledging mistakes that are not the mistakes you actually made is meaningless.
The paper was likely to go into freefall, with major advertisers dropping it in recent days, and the readership likely to drop sharply.
It will be interesting to see whether killing the paper makes the phone hacking story go away (or at least lose a lot of its momentum) or whether a few people will feel there's no reason not to spill more beans now.
I assume with the staff mostly folding into a Sunday edition of the Sun (presumably) its really more a rebranding, and so they'll hope the story dies.
listening to the voicemail of technophobe A-list celebrities who have their pin set to 0000 is absolutely Standard Journalistic Practice. I admit that and know it, because I've never had to do it myself, but I am a journalist. Any real hacker must take the position that they are essentially inviting people to intercept their comms. They deserve everything they get. What, they expect tabloids to voluntarily use the honour system?!
I think the most fascinating fact was the speed of turnaround. This has been just on the radar of UK reporting for some years, with newspaper investigations and TV documentaries digging into the first and so far only convictions and doing everything but saying "And there is no way this was limited to only one reporter"
But no-one cared enough to turn it into action.
Then suddenly a court had evidence "someone" had deleted voicemails from a kidnap/rape/murder of a 13yr old. Within hours everyone from the PM down had hung them out to dry.
Overstepping the line is a herd instinct. I heard it on radio and just said "someone has to go to jail".
I am just wondering if Murdoch's lawyers are saying "It could be you"
Then suddenly a court had evidence "someone" had deleted voicemails from a kidnap/rape/murder of a 13yr old. Within hours everyone from the PM down had hung them out to dry.
Not just any murder victim -- she was one of the victims of serial killer Levi Bellfield, just recently convicted of multiple rape/murders. And the deletion of voice mails (allegedly because Milly's voicemail box had filled up, and the journalists wanted more material to work with, so they deleted earlier messages to free up space) had mislead Milly Dowler's parents, and probably the police, into thinking she was still alive -- thus impacting an investigation into a serial killer.
Let's also add that another assault/attempted abduction prosecution against Bellfield had to be called off this week due to the tabloid news media prejudicing the jury.
This goes beyond hacking and phone bugging and into the territory of interfering with the judicial system, to the detriment of extremely serious investigations and prosecutions.
A lot of the customers of the tabloids are the kind of people who think the death penalty should be brought in for child abductions and how there are pedophiles all over the internet. This is encouraged by these tabloids. Now it looks like this tabloid was sleazily giving a missing girls parents false hope, and interfering with the police who were trying to find her just to sell some newspapers. They did things that their target market would not like.
You are sadly continuing the perjorative drift with no beef. It's almost a cliche to say a few rude words about it, isn't it? I wouldn't argue with that view if it concerned the Sun or the News of the World (R.I.P - no, I'm joking) though again, a critique minus the purple prose would be welcome.
Over the Anglosphere seventy million people read the Daily Mail. It's a highly successful enterprise. I agree that that does not mean it cannot be 'ridiculous' or 'dubious' but it does suggest that a smidgeon of supporting evidence for your view should be forthcoming. I read it most days and find it amusing and interesting in its reporting on topics not covered in the British broadsheets. Personally I enjoy a spot of reasonably-sourced gossip. I also enjoy looking at pictures of nice girls on beaches. Probably I'm a lost soul.
And so, how would you improve it? Please don't construe my comment as suggesting that that should not take place.
It is malicious IMO in the sense of inciting things like xenophobia or homophobia and having a negative effect on society, but it's not in the sane league as interfering with police investigations.
The Daily Mail is, in it's own passive aggressive way, as malicious as the redtops, and I personally wouldn't be surprised if it is also implicated in the phone hacking scandal - there's been a very strong implication that all the tabloids are 'dirty'.
But an example of just how vile the Daily Mail is can be seen here:
As can be seen from the URL (but subsequently excised from the headline and the story itself), the Daily Mail blamed the death of this schoolgirl, killed by a falling branch, on teachers who were striking on that day.
And a few weeks ago Rebekah Brooks announced that editorial roles would be merged between the Sun and the News of the World. ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jun/28/newsi... )
So I think Ken Clarke said it when he said: "All they're going to do is rebrand it." ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070856 )