Paul Dacre at the Leveson Inquiry(389 Posts)
I was going to add comment to the other thread I started here at the beginning of the inquiry but purely for the comedy value alone, I felt this warranted it's own, shiney new thread. The above isn't word for word, just the guardian blog, but there are some crackers in there, and I haven't even got to the end.
Did you know, criticism of the Daily Mail stems from a lack of understanding on how journalism works? Next time you see a thread on here quoting the Daily Mail, just remember, we just don't understand how journalism works. Feast your eyes on the pearls of wisdom dished out by the one and only Mr Dacre, and enjoy...
Steve Coogan can be a bit odd. Have met him. By turns obstructive then confessional about cheating on his former girlfriend as if telling me was a penance for his gittishness towards her.
It was for the News of the World. He at first refused to do it but then came round when he realised how many readers it had and how many tickets he needed to sell. Never needed to hack his phone.
I've never met Hugh Grant but I have more respect because I don't think he does do interviews except under the terms he outlined - a press conference for film publicity purposes.
Coogan keeps doing one-on-ones and is surprised when people don't portray him exactly how he wants them to. He's like a child who can't stay away from a hot iron.
'Don't touch that, Steve,'
'I said don't touch that.'
To be fair to Steve 'Oddball' Coogan I understand what he's saying.
It should be a defence to use subterfuge if that's the only way you can obtain a story that's in the public interest. It's good of him to acknowledge that under the circumstances .
I can't imagine there was anything in the public interest on his voicemail though so he deserved his compensation.
bump, I love this thread.....I love the analysis of the whole thing (am living in the sticks so don't hear so much media gossip these days). Still hope that Daniel Morgans death isn't forgotten about, those who ordered the killing (as well as those who did it) really need caught.
Ps. Sorry, the Daniel thing slightly went off the point.......still Dacre is a pompous man who thinks he can bully the truth away, it's interesting comparing the DM now to an issue a year ago. Much of the news is actually old news, I just don't believe they didn't use dodgy methods to get their previous results
Meanwhile 5 Sun journos, a policeman, an Army guy and an intelligence office have been arrested over the 'paying for stories' side to it.
I think it is time to remind ourselves that after the News of the World was closed, Dacre n Murdoch giving evidence to the Levinson enquiry and Parliament, huge chunks of money being paid out and all the rest. Nick Ferrari said on his miserable show a couple of years ago. The Guardian is still banging on about phone hacking. They are the only one, this story just doesn't have legs. Just shows what a 'nose' for news he has.
No problem with someone getting his just deserts over real wrong-doing but I believe at least one of the stories was about shortage of kit for soldiers.
If that's true NI should be doing all they can to protect their journalists and the whistleblowers rather than disgracefully offering them up to save the Murdochs' grip on the company.
Also I don't understand what was going on in the heads of the Times editor and senior executives who authorised the outing of the police blogger NightJack. He was doing us a useful service. They should be ashamed and prosecuted for lying to Justice Eady to get the man's injunction lifted.
In newsrooms some people put more emphasis on finding the story than asking whether the result justifies publication.
Juliet Shaw's blog piece should be required reading for anyone who's ever even tempted to read the Daily Mail, on or offline. God, I loathe that "paper". I want to see it & Dacre taken down.
So, we are back today and bloody hell. Talk about throwing in a few grenades. Sue Aker's summary of the findings/investigations so far. We kind of know what they have uncovered but to hear it summarised the way it was just seemed so much worse some how. Paddick's evidence was particularly eye-opening. Mulcaire having details of people in police protection schemes. This Paddick says one of the methods Mulcaire used was persuading the telecoms company to reset mobile the pin number to default by phoning their helpdesk So even if you were clued up enough to change your pin to prevent hacking, the telecoms companies were changing them back to default settings on the persuasion of Mulcaire. And who knows who else. Prescott's evidence too.
Seriously. Bloody hell. All this with the backdrop of Murdoch and his triumphalism over the Sun on Sunday too. Bloody hell. I've said that already haven't I?
The Met gave Rebekah Brooks a horse.
Couple of things that have stood out so far. This Mr Mulcaire was sentenced on the basis of activity that he received £12,300. The fact the court did not have before it information that was clearly known, known to the police because they told Rebekah Wade, known to Tom Crone, Andy Coulson, that was not in the court's knowledge is a serious failure which meant the court was asked to do a job on the basis of incomplete evidence
And now this Hames says she was put under surveillance, her email was tampered with, and people were trying to get financial information. She says it was impossible not to conclude that there was "collusion between people at the News of the World and people who were suspected of killing Daniel Morgan"
This part of the inquiry is just mind blowing so far. I'm just gripped by it all. This just goes way, way beyond a basic invasion of privacy that hacking is. How on earth has Brooks managed to remain at liberty with all this going on? Why is she not being huckled into the nearest police station? My brain just does not compute why Brooks is still a free woman. It's just makes no sense whatsoever that she can stick with the party line of claiming to know nothing, while the officer investigating the murder of Daniel Morgan is put under surveillance, for 'according to Brooks' having an affair with his own partner? This is just madness.
WTF is going to happen when we get to the last third of the inquiry?
Tom Watson is going to be talking on the issues raised at today's evidence, tomorrow in parliament, with parliamentary privilege, covering what has come out this week, including the issues surrounding the murder of Daniel Morgan. Oh. My. God. This is just about to go nuclear. I think. This is mental. Just mental. The link to Brooks with the meeting about the surveillance on the investigating officer has been highlighted this week, and Watson is going to give it both barrels tomorrow, with no come back due to parliamentary privilege. What Brooks told the staff at the NOTW when they shut it down, about there being much worse still to come out, wasn't an exaggeration. Bloody hell.
Is no one interested in this? This shit is HUGE.
Banana do you know what time? I'm close to a TV tomorrow.
My point about the horse is that I cannot believe how it's swinging from criminal behaviour to banal greed and favour-mongering.
PM's Q's is on at 12 lunch time, then coverage of the day's proceedings afterwards.
Knowing Tom Watson he will raise questions during PM's Q's ?
Not sure limited, it's between some parliamentary stuff i.e. a lull or something, after a scheduled debate or something. It was mentioned on CH4 news earlier but I didn't quite catch all of it.
I get your point re the horse. The more worrying aspect is how the met have responded to this info i.e. serious overkill in trying to normalise what has happened. Oh, she was just being a good egg looking after the horse before it was re-homed. My jaw has rarely lifted from the floor reading this stuff today. Yesterday was mind blowing, today has just taken it to another level. Serious, serious stuff being implicated/alleged and how the fuck NI wriggle out I can't imagine.
Not very good at describing parliamentary business am I? Just. Can't. Find. Words. <thicko alert>
Don't worry, banana.
I just copied what I wrote from the BBC Parliament's webpage for tomorrow's viewing !
I want to throw a sickie and watch BBC parliament all day tomorrow. That's just not normal is it? I just can't past how massive this all is.
It's an adjournment debate Tom Watson is having tomorrow <watching ITN news>. Still no idea what time though.
I'll watch for you ! Not that I'll be any good at reporting back.
It's funny, this got massive coverage, like the work experience/work programme is at the moment, and then a funny thing happens. Life moves on, and people forget. Nothing stranger than folk, I suppose ?!
It is massive, I agree. I don't completely understand how massive though...can you help me to understand ?
I realise that this has massive implications for the met and NI and current/previous employees, but how far does it go ? Are we to hear that good ol' Scameron knew all this when he let AC go ? How deep does it all go I wonder ?
If you can get near a tv tomorrow, I would imagine Tom will be talking after PM's Q's, which generally lasts an hour.
banana it is entirely natural to me but DH does wonder what I do on these days
MrsDeeBee Copying is a legitimate newsgathering technique.
I learned this as an inexperienced reporter doing my second shift on a national when I watched someone more experienced than me copy every single word from a TV report on an aircrash for his 'first person' piece the next day.
His name was Neville Thurlbeck.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.