|
Good innit :-)
Last edited by: madf on Mon 28 Nov 11 at 17:43
|
Well done Guido at www.order-order.com.
The genie is out of the bottle!
|
|
Targeting of relatives – the only time I managed to force an abject apology from the Mail, despite the many lies they have told about me and my family, was when they reported the impact that my father’s death had had upon me. It helped that he was alive at the time
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 28 Nov 11 at 18:04
|
I have only read a few pages - but it is interesting. And Alastair is right about how a lot of the things have come about. And it's not all good.
The 'want it now' culture is not only impacting news/reporting but also debt. I was in the queue at Tesco the other day and someone was on a call on their mobile. Seems they owed someone some money so were popping home to get some on 'Quickquid' or whatever site. What happened to spending within your means. Too many want everything 'now'.
Might read more from Campbell later. Very interesting read.
|
|
Mind, the enquiry lost all credibility with Max Moselys testimony, claiming the press told a pack of lies about him, and he has been shamed by them. As far as I know his sadomasochistic romp with prostitutes was only misreported with reference to Nazis, apparently his prison camp, inmates, guards and military style uniform games had no swastikas.
|
...the enquiry lost all credibility...
Some of the press tactics are indefensible.
But the weakness of the inquiry - so far - is none of the witnesses have been cross-examined.
People have been turning up and making allegations some of which, as someone in the trade, I find hard to believe.
I appreciate there are reporters, and particularly freelance photographers, who try very hard.
They have to, if they don't get a pic and sell it, they don't eat.
But a lot of the claims made just don't fit.
I think it was Sienna Miller who reckoned she had been spat at by a photographer.
Charlotte Church said snappers were trying to get pics up her skirt.
Neither of the above allegations is very likely, and at the very least need closer examination.
Ms Church is one of the many female celebrities who is quite happy to be photographed wearing a short skirt while sitting in the back of a limo.
Maybe that's what she meant.
|
Iffy
I'm surprised that as a gentleman of the press you're dubious about a newspaper market for pics of the 'up her skirt' variety. Pictures of Miss X 'losing her dignity' as her panties are flashed to the world are so common in the Sun/Star etc as to no longer raise an eyebrow. Some, without doubt, encourage it.
If there is a continuum from the Queen Mum to Jordan in this regard then I suspect Charlotte and Katy are within hailing distance of each other. But it's still not justified.
There is of course a long an dishonourable history of this sort of thing. I very much doubt Diana Spencer understood the effect of being lit by a low sun when she posed all those years ago.
Sienna's problems were paparazzi - anything goes.
|
...I'm surprised that as a gentleman of the press you're dubious about a newspaper market for pics of the 'up her skirt'...
Bromptonaut,
I'm not, but the way Ms Church puts it, the snapper was committing a criminal offence, not taking a pic of what she was flashing to anyone present.
What I am surprised at it is the way you are swallowing all these unsubstantiated claims whole.
Look at the quality of the evidence, much of it may be true, but none of it has received any scrutiny.
So far, this inquiry has been little more than a platform for a rant against the media.
In that respect, evidence to it has about as much value as a post on an internet forum.
Last edited by: Iffy on Tue 29 Nov 11 at 02:07
|
Mosely's evidence is quite clear. His issue is privacy.
www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Max-Mosley.pdf
If he wants to have an SM romp then provided it has on any public role or his ability to perform his role in the FIA then that's his business. Not ours. The NoW threatened to send the film to the FIA for no other reason that to get more mileage from it - his defenestration would have sold another quarter million copies.
The judge in the privacy trial found Thurlbeck and others to be unconvincing witnesses. There is evidence from messages left for the women involved in the Mosely sting, not all of whom were in on the plan, were blackmailed and also that NoW tried to engineer a Nazi salute.
The Inquiry will decide on his credibility as a witness. That he was called, along with others who may not be 'victims' like the McCanns or that hugely dignified Scots couple, increases the credibiilty of the inquiry.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 28 Nov 11 at 19:52
|
You're right Bromptonaut. One doesn't have to like Max Mosley or be his friend or share his tastes to agree with him completely on this matter of public interest and privacy.
Those tabloid Sunday rags always reeked of a sort of very stupid and petty hypocrisy, in the very act of manufacturing accusations of the same thing against victims sometimes completely innocent even of being a bit dodgy or unpleasant. They always stank to high heaven, literally sick-making, and they probably always will, because of their avid market (the British).
It's nice to see the arrogant carpcontainers a bit on the defensive for once, although few top heads have really rolled. It doesn't bother me that a few luvvies are making the most of their day in front of this enquiry. It's what luvvies do. We expect it.
|
>> If he wants to have an SM romp then provided it has on any public
>> role or his ability to perform his role in the FIA then that's his business.
>> Not ours.
Nope thats wrong. If he had done it on his own,then that applies. However when there are other parties involved, they have the right to make such activity public. When more than one person is involved, there is no such thing as personal privacy, it simply does not exist, it is neither personal nor private.
|
Don't see it that way myself. The acts themselves require mutual consent and a similar principle applies to making the activity public.
There's a grey area around talking to mates and gossip. But there is ceratinly a right of privacy around exposure in the public presses. In a more rational society it would be covered by a constitution or by a specific privacy staute. But in this country, partly becuase of the influence of NI, Associated etc the politicians decide it's too difficult and it gets left to the judges and the HRA.
|
...that hugely dignified Scots couple, increases the credibiilty of the inquiry...
The female half of that 'hugely dignified Scots couple' made some outlandish claims about an article in the Mirror.
For her evidence to have any value, at the very least the article itself should be put before the inquiry.
But it isn't, so all we are left with is the sound of grinding axes.
|
I'm finding very difficult to sympathise with the poor, maligned press here, even supposing they are being paid out in a very little of their own currency. If they don't like it up 'em, perhaps they'll make the connection.
Separately, I hope that the people who buy these rags will stop to consider what they are encouraging - but there's not much chance of that either.
|
>> The female half of that 'hugely dignified Scots couple' made some outlandish claims about an
>> article in the Mirror.
The witness I had in mind was Margaret Watson, one of the couple whose teenage daughter was murdered. Neither her witness statement nor, so far as I can identify, the transcript of her evidence mention the Mirror. Her complaints are about the Herald and Marie Claire.
|
...The witness I had in mind was Margaret Watson...
Thanks, didn't hear her, so won't comment.
In general, it would be far better if the articles complained of were in front of the inquiry.
Although that's not as simple as it sounds.
One can hardly expect the aggrieved witness to keep a copy as a souvenir, and if the piece was published a few years ago, it may not be easy for the paper to find it.
Always assuming they want to.
|
>> Thanks, didn't hear her, so won't comment.
>>
But which witness did you have in mind as making outlandish claims about the Mirror?
|
...But which witness did you have in mind as making outlandish claims about the Mirror?...
Until you posted, I thought it was the Scottish woman whose child was murdered.
Unless it was, she said the Herald, and I've plucked the Mirror out of the air.
Either way, I'll eat my hack's trilby if the wording of the article was as she described it.
Which is not to say she did not find it offensive and distressing, because she clearly did.
|
>> Mind, the enquiry lost all credibility with Max Mosleys testimony, claiming the press told a
>> pack of lies about him, and he has been shamed by them.
I don't think it detracted from the credibility of the inquiry in any way.
I'd certainly say that characterising him as a Nazi, unless it can be substantiated, is tantamount to a pack of lies.
The thrust of his evidence was that the NoW was out to destroy him, which is entirely believable.
|
|
Max Mosley is the son of Oswald Mosley. Hardly the most liberal of fathers.
|
>> Max Mosley is the son of Oswald Mosley.
Precisely why the NoW must have found the Nazi angle irresistible.
Max's Dad was of course a Labour minister, some time before he invited Hitler to his wedding.
|
>> >> Max Mosley is the son of Oswald Mosley.
>>
>> Precisely why the NoW must have found the Nazi angle irresistible.
>>
>> Max's Dad was of course a Labour minister, some time before he invited Hitler to
>> his wedding.
Most of us may have considered it wise not to indulge in concentration camp games under those circumstances. Not only arrogant but stupid methinks
|
>> Most of us may have considered it wise not to indulge in concentration camp games
>> under those circumstances. Not only arrogant but stupid methinks
Not difficult to resist if you're not that way inclined. But if you were, I think you'd assert your right to a spank wouldn't you? In private?
He does strike me as an odd cove though - he's still spending serious money on his privacy campaign, thereby keeping the story alive. That must be the masochism bit.
|
We like to think that there is a clear distinction between politicians and publicity-seeking celebs, who we feel deserve anything they get, and genuine innocent individuals who find their private miseries exposed and used for public titilation.
But the truth is I suspect that the desire for publicity and celebrity status is addictive, and quite a lot of these "victims" appear to derive unseemly satisfaction from their constant appearance in the public eye. In the end very few of them seem able to resist the temptation to cash in by selling their stories to the papers or publishers.
I admire that chap who a few days ago said he was having nothing more to do with the enquiry. It had been taken over by publicity-seekers, revelling in their new opportunity.
|
>
>> to do with the enquiry. It had been taken over by publicity-seekers, revelling in their
>> new opportunity.
Just about sums it up perfectly.
|
>> >> thereby keeping the story alive.
>>
Why do all the witnesses give me the sneaking feeling that really they are enjoying the publicity, for all their expressions of tortured anguish and huge dignity?
|
A hack who hacked puts hacking into context:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15947473
|
|
I've just listened to him speaking on PM - if he's telling the truth - corruption at the highest level, he was certainly unrepentant...Streets of Shame...was there ever a more appropriately named column.
|
...corruption at the highest level...
I was more interested in his explanation of the day-to-day use made of hacking.
Credit to him for being a frank, honest, and straightforward witness - unlike some of others.
|
|
But was he telling the truth ?!
|
...But was he telling the truth ?!...
Appears so, unless he didn't hack any phones and was just pretending he did.
The reasons he gave for doing so were believable, although I don't expect everyone to agree with his course of conduct.
|
>> was he telling the truth ?!
Looked to me as if he was, as he saw it of course. He is miffed with senior executives for 'dropping me and my colleagues in it' or words to that effect. That has clearly been happening. And he said hacking had become widespread and routine. I always knew of course that once it became possible it must have become routine for well-financed tabloids, although in my view normally used unagggressively to keep hacks on the right track, rather than to provide juicy quotes. I also felt that this was illegal but morally permissible when used like that.
Where I part company with him (and with the normally pretty correct Zero) is the hack's thuggish attitude to privacy. 'Privacy is for paedos' indeed! Sunday newspapers can bring quite serious grief into the lives and relationships of perfectly harmless, even virtuous people who for one reason or another may be thought worth making notorious for a week or so. I won't say it could happen to anyone, but it could happen to a lot of people, and has. From the hack's and reader's point of view they must have been asking for it. But it is often clear that they weren't.
|
>> shinanagins >>
Wozzat?
|
...>> shinanagins >> Wozzat?...
I'd managed to resist, until now:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/shenanigans
|
I think the inquiry is now moving to a more interesting phase. Last week and on Monday we had mostly those affected as individuals. They set one part of the scene.
Yesterday's evidence from McMullan and Peppiatt was about life on the newsdesks. McMullan's statement is potential dynamite for Coulson and Brooks. Today we have Alastair Campbell who might have some observations on Murdoch's influence in politics.
Tomorrow the day is given over to the former Information Commissioner. As a watchdog he barked himself hoarse over the issue of abuse of private data but was ignored.
|
...I think the inquiry is now moving to a more interesting phase...
Not least because we are now hearing from people who know what they are talking about.
|
|
Campbell giving evidence as I type. Had forgotten his background as a Mirror journalist - he's giving an interesting then/now perspective.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 30 Nov 11 at 10:26
|
|
To quote from another forum: "Campbell couldn't even lie straight in bed"
|
Heard Charlotte Church's ex agent on the wireless last night, he said essentially her "evidence" was rubbish, she'd twisted things to sound bad for NI. I don't recall all the detail but she sung for free at a do of his purely and knowingly to get the exposure to the UK market, but more particularly to the US TV stations (Fox) which gave her coverage and opened up her career in teh US, earning her £18m or something. There was more but I don't recall it all now...
Two sides to every story springs to mind...
|
>> Heard Charlotte Church's ex agent on the wireless last night,
IIRC she sued some of her earlier managers/advisers for 'usual reasons' (a fee scale that exploited her youth etc). Axes being ground again??
|
Today's witnesses are press starting with the 'fake sheikh' Mazzer Mahmood then Nevile Thurlbeck. Mahmood will reportedly give evidence from behind a screen.
After a fallow period last week snappers were out in force in Bell Yard.
|
>> Today's witnesses are ... Nevile Thurlbeck.
>>
Lots of interest in my patch as he lives a few doors away.
I expet the snappers will be back.
|
Thurlbeck is one of the few hacks appearing at the inquiry who I vaguely know - I worked with his sister for many years and met him a few times.
Decent lad, although I've no idea what he may have got up to under pressure from the News of the World newsdesk.
He made chief reporter, which they wouldn't give to someone who was, er, uncooperative.
|
I have as much faith in this enquiry as I have in the RBS report published today.
Late, costs a fortune,. tells us what we know already.
Just jobz for the boyz.. and kick can down the road jobbie.
|
...I have as much faith in this enquiry...
There is great political and public will for something to be done, and that something will almost certainly be increased regulation.
At the very least, I expect the wrong things to be done for the wrong reasons.
|
>>Mahmood will reportedly give evidence from behind a screen.
Why does he not just dress up?
|
|
Perhaps he didn't get his screen but his evidence is being given in provate and the usual video feed is sound only.
|
While I freely admit that so much of this goes over my head and accept that I must be missing something obvious, there are some points I don't understand.
We keep hearing about 'corrupt payments' being made to the Police and other parties.
Why haven't the people who accepted the corrupt payments been brought to book for accepting them?
Surely, they are as guilty as those who made them, and in the case of the Police, would certainly have known they were doing wrong?
Pat
|
I think they have been Pat. Most newspaper people who are in court are alleged to have made payments and police and a member of the Armed Forces are alleged to have received them, broadly speaking. News persons are also there re hacking etc .
l.
|
Yes, I would have expected to see members of the police and armed forces in court by now though, much like we have done with the MP's and their expenses.
It seems to a dimple mind like mine to be so one sided.
As an example we as lorry drivers are expected to be professional and are penalised more in court and with the public in general, if we don't exercise that.
Surely Police and the armed services should also be expected to recognise a dubious practice and refuse to be a part of it?
To me, a guilty transaction involves two parties and can't take place without the agreement of both of them.
I've wanted to post this for a couple of weeks now, and don't want to get slated for it either, I really do think I'm missing a part of this somewhere that I don't quite understand.
Pat
|
|
I think the position is Pat that there has been serious and proven wrongdoing already, as a result of which newspaper staff have been charged and imprisoned (Mulcaire and others). Leveson is an Inquiry whose findings will doubtless result in more charges and court appearances and by people other than newspaper employees
|
Pat
DAC Sue Akers gave evidence to the Iquiry on Monday, including a concise but guarded summary of current SoP in the inquiry.
Her witness statement can be accessed via the 'Evidence' tab on the inquiry website at www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/
I suspect there are a lot of people sweating under their soon to be felt collars.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 09:09
|
Not posting in IE9 but my fingers were not working properly this morning.
Para above was meant to read:
DAC Sue Akers gave evidence to the Inquiry on Monday, including a concise but guarded summary of current SoP in Operation Elveden (the corrupt payments inquiry).
Her statement says that while there is clear evidence of payments the actual identity of the public officials receiving them is hidden. It is anticipated that further investigation will identify the people concerned and further arrests will follow.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 14:07
|
'Yes, I would have expected to see members of the police and armed forces in court by now though, much like we have done with the MP's and their expenses.'
Genuine question, how long from arrest to appear in court for the MPs and how long ago were the police and armed forces arrested?
|
Pat,
This a large major enquiry.
Originally there would have been suspicions of wrongdoing (phone hacking)..but..the Officer in Charge (OIC) wouldn't have wanted to bother with it...because that person was in charge of a unit that dealt with major crime...and would have preferred to deal with more serious crime....and would have seen phone hacking as being 'minor'.
It is quite common for some crime to be ignored, although the public do not generally know that. If you report your car broken in to or your garden shed vandalised, the crime is 'screened out' quicker than you can make a cup of tea after your phone call.
Now that this has gone 'bang' the enquiry will be dealt with most thoroughly and every stone will be unturned. It will take an enormous amount of time.
The minor or medium players will not be prosecuted until everything is known...so that pressure could be applied to a bit part player to reveal more...and that individual will hope that their co-operation will be taken in to considerstion by police investigators/CPS when potential charges are considered..and/or a judge at court when sentencing.
The other angle is a small player now might become a big player later, so you wouldn't want to show your hand too early.
It'll be a long old job, but mark my words...there'll be plenty of people that should have known better with their bottom's twitching now...and rightly so.
|
Looks like we're living through some bizarre satirical novel........
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17231308
I honestly believe that you couldn't have made that up. Out hacking with a hack on one of the Met's ex-nags.....I have to pinch myself.....
"Separately, Mayor of London Boris Johnson told BBC London he had never ridden on the retired Metropolitan police horse, Raisa" I am laughing out loud at that - farcical beyond belief...!
Last edited by: R.P. on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 16:37
|
|
Boris, you gotta love him - often makes comments distancing himself from the PM, usually v witty and offbeat.
|
The sidebar to BBC news included this link re new Disney film 'Brave':
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-17220359
Are Princess Meriva and Rebekah by any chance related?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 19:42
|
Cameron: "I did not have sex with that horse"
(Thanks to Bill Clinton for the inspiration!)
Last edited by: Roger on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 20:31
|
Have we really reached the point where who rode what horse is
Important, relevant, newsworthy?
|
Thanks Bromptonaut and Westpig.
The link you poste Bromp is brilliant and I shall enjoy reading that next week when I have more time.
WP, reassuring words and good to know it's not quite as it seems at the moment.
I suppose I come from the age where I don't expect MP's to fiddle their expenses, and neither do I expect the police to encourage something they know is wrong.
I want to respect them both and feel cheated if I can't do that.
Pat
|
Leveson Enquiry - shinanagins. - madf
