D
D
Deleted member 77198
Guest
That’s what I thoughtWe shouldn't have taken the money.
Even if we didn't win the case, the opportunity to drag their name through the mud in court must be worth more than a million quid for us
That’s what I thoughtWe shouldn't have taken the money.
Even if we didn't win the case, the opportunity to drag their name through the mud in court must be worth more than a million quid for us
Are you saying this compensation information has come out before? Can you remember When? And where?I remember when this first came out and there was very little press coverage at the time.
Is it a criminal offence to use your log in after you've gone?
It happened six years ago.Are you saying this compensation information has come out before? Can you remember When? And where?
Why would The Times (only source this time round, as far as I can see) re-do it?
Or are you not meaning the ‘compensation’ information from before?
It happened six years ago.
I think the settlement might just have happened
Strange for it to be run again by The Times, maybe they’re connecting dots with regards to the other hacking?NO...the article confirms the settlement was made in 2013.
Your paranoid, surely not.Nor the guardian, football365 or the daily mail.
It’s almost as if there was some sore of agenda...
Strange for it to be run again by The Times, maybe they’re connecting dots with regards to the other hacking?