Responses (15)
I had the same thought this morning, but not sure how I feel about it.
I'd like to bet they've already thought about this and increased the print run.
It'll probably be a handy investment if cared for!
As it was such a succesful paper could see it having some value, with collecters sometime.
Anyone know which charity? Not to the innocent workers who are going to be jobless?? Perhaps to the charity of Murdoch's pocket?? I have never bought this rag of a paper and certainly don't intend to now. If one comes my way it will have some use though - great for lighting the fire with!!
I wouldn't give it house room Sidesalad, before or after all the fracas.
Aparently at least three charities (unamed at present) have said that they are unwilling to accept free advertising space in the NoW on Sunday. In addition The Institute of Fundraising has warned its members to be cautious when deciding whether to accept the offer of money.
"The decision as to whether a charity ought to accept a donation or not should be grounded in its mission and policy objectives," the institute said in a statement posted on its website. "A clear policy on the acceptance or refusal of donations is important for all charitable organizations. Such a policy needs to be acceptable to all those associated with the charity and agreed formally by a charities' trustees."
I'm with Wendie and Lillie here and wouldn't give the filthy rag houseroom either. I'd rather just give a donation straight to whatever charity it would be going to.
I agree with you all - a load of gabbage only fit for the dustbin. Have only had three or four over the last few year's and they are utter muck and rubbish
I can only say R.I.P. News of the World and so it should be Ripped In Pieces and binned.
Yes let's hope the charities will accept it and it goes to help other people who are in desperate need of help and maybe to a hospice to help sick adults and children in their hour of need and make their life a little easier. Time will tell and it will be interesting to see where the money goes.
Well I am not going to buy a copy today as I agree with the comments here about the terrible behaviour of the NOW and the fact that the editor remains in a job when so many others have lost theirs. I just cannot believe that she did not know what was being done when such large sums of money were being paid to the person doing the phone hacking, and as the person responsible she should be prosecuted.
I saw several people in the newsagents this morning buying at least 3 copies each with one man saying that he intends to store them and sell them in a few years time.
I wonder if we will look back on this in the future and see a very different press from the one we have today. I suspect not as an appetite for voyeuristic stories remains. After Dianna died there was a call for people in the public eye to have more privacy, but that did not happen as we have seen over the last few days. The replacement for the NOW whatever that is will probably become the same old same old.
For a point of clarification the current editor, Colin Myler, has nothing to do with the period in question nor does any of the 200 innocent staff who have lost their job because of the poor behaviour of a few.
You are referring to Rebekah Brooks/Wade, who is now the Chief Executive of News International but was the then editor. However, it is wonderful to see News Corp defend her position by stating on record that when the telephone of Milly Dowler was hacked and messages deleted Mrs. Brooks/Wade was on holiday!
Clearly she presided over a newsroom that was out of control and as editor, whether on holiday or not, the culture that existed and that she fostered, nurtured and therefore created permitted such events to happen.
She is a disgrace, News International are a disgrace in defending the indefensible and I would like to see both go but as that is unrealistic she should be forced to leave. It would mean more if News Corp actually sacked her.
In her own words there is still much more, very much more to come out of the whole debacle. She has said that even two years dowen the line there will be major fallout from this saga. It would appear that what we are witnessing is just the tip of the iceberg!
How long will it be before we see politicians being dragged directly into this mess?
In my opinion there is no need to introduce stronger legislation to control the free press. What needs to happen is that the laws that are already in place need to be enforced and acted upon without fear or favour and not disregarded by the media at all.
However, I would personally not like to see News Corp being granted permission to purchase the controlling shares in BSkyB not until, at the very least, the whole sorry saga and disgraceful practices that News International encouraged and permitted to be employed are fully investigated and that those responsible are called to account and where proved jailed.
They have already shown that they are not fit and proper people to own a media empire.
Thanks for clarifying about the current editor Parchester. I was indeed referring to Rebekah Wade not Colin Myler. If she did not know what was going on then at the time then she is totally incompetant and if that is the case I find it very hard to believe that she would have been promoted to and still be employed as COE at News International.
How do we know for sure that ALL proceeds will go to charity? I can never believe these guys especially when it comes to phoney charitable donations(more like tacky PR for damage limitation purposes).As for collector's item can one really call 5 Million editions collectors' item?
Yes Creativesaver - they have not said how much will go to charity and I'm pretty sure a large proportion will go towards paying their laywers bills.
There is a picture tonight of Murdoch with Rebekah Brooks and he is broadly smiling.
For a man who is well versed in the ways of the media, I'm surprised he doesn't portray himself as a man who has a serious problem to address and appear in public with a sense of gravity.
This, for me, shows the man as totally arrogant and somewhat detached from the severity of the situation his media approach has created.
I guess he just knows he's fireproof!
Petrol and match in hand, I'd like to test your theory!!
Exactly my feelings when I saw them on the television this morning- arrogant or what!!!
Absolutely, Parchester and Sabre, I saw footage of the pair of them last night...beyond belief! If you've got the petrol, Parchester, I'll bring the matches!
I accept that what appears to have happend to Gordon Brown is deplorable but to see him playing 'victim' and hear him bleating on about the criminal element used by News Corp to obtain information is hypocritical.
When their news output were hailing him as the finest Chancellor of a generation he was happy to accept their plaudits and was comfortable being 'in bed' with them and this appeared to garner his silence. Yet when as Prime Minister and knowing what appears to have been in the public domain about dubious information gathering and phone hacking he did absolutely nothing to curb their excesses.
A moral and ethical code of conduct are not principles applied after the event Mr. Brown they should be the guiding tenet upon which decency and professional etiquette exist. To have remained silent at that time, gave consent to their practices and as a victim, at that time, you should have spoken out in a loud and clear voice. Perhaps doing so may have brought this sorrowful episode to a head earlier and spared many innocents intrusion into their private lives.
To describe the media antics as disgusting, when you yourself were complicite in remianing silent, is political hypocrasy at its very worse.
Parchester, I agree that Gordon Brown deserves no sympathy for his crocodile tears having, as you rightly say, accepted the plaudits of the Murdoch press while he was sytematically blagging our pensions, selling the family silver, and spending our reserves.
But I can't help feeling sorry for his wife and son.
Well said Parchester. I have no time for the hypocrite Gordon Brown at all, but like Feline I have some degree sympathy for his wife and son who had their worry and pain exposed to all by this frightful woman Rebekah Brooks whilst it was still sinking in that their son was seriously ill .
I agree with both of you, Feline and Sidesalad, my sympathy is with Sarah Brown.
it would be a collectors item side salad, if you manage to get hold of & destroy the 2 milliion+ other copies out there :-)
Posts within the money.co.uk community represent the views, experiences and opinions of members only. They should not be taken as financial advice and should not be followed without further research.
More Discussions for Charity
Get fast answers to your money questions, Expert insight, top tips & much more...
I agree - I would feel uncomfortable buying it although I used to buy it maybe 25 years ago and enjoyed the gossip. Shame on me! Haven't so much as glanced at it for years.
My father used to call it The Screws of the World as it appeared in the 60's and 70's to be obssesed with sex scandals, which borderd on mild pornography in it reporting.
For a catholic man it was about as close as he would admit to buying under the counter or top of the shelf publications!!
Parchester - It is known amongst journalist as The News of The Screws because of its reputation for salacious stories.
Yes, they've increased the run by 2m copies. Still won't be buying it.
Well, I wish no-one would buy it! With 2m extra copies they're set to make a fortune this week, even if they do give it to charity to try and win people back, and by 'replacing' it with the so-called new 'Sun on Sunday' rag, they will be laughing all the way to the bank!