Leveson Inquiry

[EXC]

I don't know if anyone's been following the Leveson inquiry - I certainly have - and I thought I'd post the clips of what I think are the 2 highlights of it so far.

Obviously Lord Leveson and the Counsel to the inquiry, Mr Jay, have to be seen to be impartial in their questioning of witnesses but when those witnesses attempt to mislead the inquiry it becomes an interrogation.

The media coverage of the inquiry so far has obviously focussed on the more well known issues like the hacking of Millie Dowler's phone etc but a less well known issue has been a major bug bear for the Judge. This concerns a follow up story the News of the World ran on the Max Mosley story where they were desperate to pursued 2 women who attended the 'party' to tell their story they attempted to blackmail them in a series of e-mails. In the trial of the Mosley case Justice Eady made a finding of blackmail against the paper. So far all the witnesses for the NOTW don't see too much wrong with the e-mails, much to Leveson's despair that ''they just don't get it''.

This is where the ex editor, Colin Myler, describes the threatening e-mails (which have already been ruled as constituting blackmail) as merely ''unnecessary'' and ''inappropriate''.

Fast forward to 65 minutes Wednesday 14 December 2011 Afternoon

This is where the NOTW's chief in-house lawyer, Tom Crone, is accused of misleading an earlier Select Committee hearing about the blackmail finding and he attempts to mislead the inquiry in turn.

The sequence starts at 115 minutes then there's a break of about 5 minutes where Leveson allows Crone the opportunity to read the committee transcript and it begins again Tuesday 13 December 2011 Afternoon

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: Leveson Inquiry

Question is, do we regulate the press on a massive level, or do we semi regulate?
for agrument sake do we need to know Wayne Rooney has a fetish for purple boxer shorts whilst sipping tia maria and coke, and allow the press to hound him and his family for pictures about his every move. or do we blanket private life as private and miss out on such things as MP's expences?

[EXC]

Re: Leveson Inquiry

Question is, do we regulate the press on a massive level, or do we semi regulate?
for agrument sake do we need to know Wayne Rooney has a fetish for purple boxer shorts whilst sipping tia maria and coke, and allow the press to hound him and his family for pictures about his every move. or do we blanket private life as private and miss out on such things as MP's expences?

This is precisely the argument that ex News of the World journalist Paul McMullan put forward in the memorable row he had with Steve Coogan on Newsnight to justify hacking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV9Sh_R3wB4

This was the same Paul McMullan that later told the Leveson inquiry that ''In some regards, we weren't that well paid. My leaving salary as the deputy features editor was only 60,000 a year, and as a way to bump up salaries, we were given a certain amount of leeway. So I'd claim, I don't know, another 15, 20 a year, of which about 3 was legitimate.''

The leaking of MP's expenses did not involve journalists hacking into people's phones or using any illegal or intrusive means to source the information. But what really distinguishes to 2 scenarios is the test as to what is genuinely in the public interest and what isn't.

Democracy can survive unscathed without knowing the colour of Wayne Rooney's underwear but it cannot function properly if the people we elect and provide for abuse us.

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: Leveson Inquiry

I agree, hacking of phones is obscenely offensive, as is hacking of email, but what if David Cameron was selling The U.K through the back door to Europe, Would obtaining this information by hacking his email or Mobile be deamed as offensive?
The hacking Of Millie Dowlers mobile is sickening as is some of the other alledged offences claimed (I believe them to be true), but what would be an exceptable line, Capturing mr cabinet minister as a peadophile? but we honestly thought he was, but it turned out he was not, David Beckham wears his Mrs Knickers whilst eating super noodles, or Mr local authority used to sell cannabis?
Were do we draw the line?

[EXC]

Re: Leveson Inquiry

In my view the line is perfectly clear. It just needs the press to realise where the rest of us know it to be.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Leveson Inquiry

I think the line has to be drawn at what is for the better good of the public for instance the hacking of Milly Dowlers phone is not but selling the UK through the back door to Europe is.

It is all very much common sense which journalist should have plenty off.

[EXC]

Re: Leveson Inquiry

Piers Moron has had it now as it looks like he misled Lord Justice Leveson into believing that Heather Mills had given him permission to listen to a voicemail message from her ex husband.

Heather Mills - Official Site - Redwood's Cheezly makes it into Channel 4 Food's 'Top 10 Treats for Dairy-free diets'

Bloody marvelous.

[Bill-K]

Re: Leveson Inquiry

Democracy can survive unscathed without knowing the colour of Wayne Rooney's underwear but it cannot function properly if the people we elect and provide for abuse us.

Nicely put, sir. I have always held the view that democracy works in theory - as does communism. But, as soon as you involve human beings in the process of government, then the cold, hard reality is that the process becomes inherently flawed. To me - cynically - the one shining advantage of democracy is that we get to choose who rips us off, along with the style in which they do it. That, alas, is all I consider to be the true value of my vote.

We consent to being policed by fellow humans - but not to the abuse of the system upon which that consent is based. When that system fails us, we turn to the media - the 'Sub-Prime Judiciary,' in effect. We shouldn't have to do that, but when you can't get justice from those whom you pay to provide it, then you hire a thug.

I agree that it shouldn't be like that, but it gets reduced to jungle warfare when the city-dwellers shirk their responsibilities. If the police cannot be relied upon to do the job properly, then this is what we are left with. I have threatened to call in the media on many an occasion, and it has worked, usually. Why ? Because those who operate in a similar fashion know exactly how ruthless the media can be. When we are forced to fight fire with fire, we need a thick skin, ourselves, though.

It shouldn't be like this - but we seem to have allowed it to become so. IMHO, we should be telling the press that they are NOT allowed to cross that blesséd line - BUT - we should be telling the police that THEY should be doing what the press are doing in their embarrassing absence.

Yours iggerently,

Disgusted of Whipsnade.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Leveson Inquiry

Question is, do we regulate the press on a massive level, or do we semi regulate?
for agrument sake do we need to know Wayne Rooney has a fetish for purple boxer shorts whilst sipping tia maria and coke, and allow the press to hound him and his family for pictures about his every move. or do we blanket private life as private and miss out on such things as MP's expences?

That is what is known as a false dichotomy.

Newspapers should be left free to publish reports which are genuinely in the public interest - that is, reports which should be published for the greater good of the public, and not the sordid tittle-tattle of where some footballer gets his cocoa or how he hides his sausage.