The Leveson Inquiry

[bananaistheanswer]

I know there is a thread on Hugh Grant, but wanted to start one to discuss the bits and bobs that's been happening. Might be worth having one thread to cover this? Ignore if you disagree!

Anyway, was interested in a couple of things that have happened today. Diane Watson's parents giving evidence, not directly linked to phone hacking, but as general evidence regarding the PCC's toothless, spineless dealings with complaints about the press and their intrusions. Interesting and compelling evidence. Particularly as they have been campaigning on the issue for years, long before the whole phone hacking thing blew up. This is what the BBC have said they have been doing over the years because of their experience of the press at large -

The submission added that Mr and Mrs Watson had:

direct contact with the newspaper and the magazine (publications that they felt were wrong on what they wrote about their daughter)

complained to the Press Complaints Commission

contacted their own MP and MEP

engaged in correspondence with the Scottish and Home Offices, the Scottish Parliament Committee's Justice Committees and the European Commission of Human Rights

and lodged a petition with the Scottish Parliament on 10 May, 2002, regarding wider policy issues.

Their son committed suicide, with clippings of press articles written about his sister, found in his hand.

Moving onto Gary Flitcroft - had 2 affairs, tried to get the stories snuffed out, was refused and then was hounded by the press. He blames is father's suicide some years later on the publicity given to his affairs, resulting in a man who already suffered from depression, losing interest in watching his son play football because of the publicity his affairs got in the press, and then the chanting at football grounds which were too much for him.

Then, there was Elle Macpherson's assistant, accused of speaking to journalists on her private life/crumbling relationship, who was forced to go to rehab for 'alcoholism' as Elle felt she wouldn't have betrayed her trust if it wasn't for her alcoholism. She went to rehab, but then got sacked afterwards anyway. She wrote to the police on realising that her phone could have been hacked, but wasn't answered. Bizarre story.

The various QCs or whoever, commenting on the fact the Mail on Sunday have now attacked Hugh Grant on a personal level, because of his evidence yesterday, when it was supposedly agreed no attacks would follow anyone who gave evidence.

It's mental so far, the picture being painted (granted by those on the receiving end of the press intrusion) is just awful. Watched some ex NOTW journo on sky trying to justify the Mail's reaction, with a Daily Star Journo actually backing Grant in his stance re his daughter's mother etc.

It's all pretty gripping stuff.

So far, we have had 2 people mentioned as having committed suicide, which their families believe were linked to the press coverage of the stories linked to them. I am genuinely wondering how many more stories we'll hear along those lines.

Nancy, you cannot seriously think that the situation with the Dowlers or Watsons is unusual or just the work of a single journalist (*chokes....er - where have I heard that line before?) I think Leveson has revealed that it is endemic in some publications.

I've no doubt that the motivations of grant/coogan/mosley are wildly different from the likes of the Dowlers, The McCanns etc. It does seem that the inquiry isn't focusing solely on the hacking, but casting a wide net over the entire working practices of the wider press. In fairness, those activities aren't illegal but are as invasive and as distressing for some people. The Watsons weren't hacked, but still suffered greatly as a result of what you might argue would have been decent journalism. I'd imagine their story is one very typical for people whose lives are suddenly in the public domain through tragic circumstances.

I am concerned about the eventual outcome preventing the kind of journalism that broke the expenses scandal, and even this whole issue (given how the police tried to get the Guardian to reveal how they got their story). I was thinking this earlier on, and almost posted something along those lines. I'm actually torn about this for that reason. There is a real sense of the press taking an absolute hammering this week. Whether the evidence of some journalists next week will redress the balance somewhat remains to be seen. I think that's possibly when the police will get a kicking, with the finger pointed firmly in that direction.

Nope. Did not say that.
i think whoever deleted Millie's voicemails was very junior and experienced.
Voicemail hacking was widespread for a while. It hasn't been for years

Banana - actually I very much doubt if the Watson's story is typical

Nancy, you appear to be in denial.

I'm not - i just, unlike most people on this thread, am speaking with a great deal of knowledge on the subject.

Anyhow - I'm off to bed. have to be up tomorrow to peddle more lies, filth and depravity.

I'd argue that it was very typical nancy. Their daughter was murdered. It was a huge story up in Scotland and remained in the press quite a while. Each time a story appeared, that family went through hell. The misinformation about their daughter and what happened, as well as the motivation behind the murder - repeated every time. They repeatedly complained about this, and were repeatedly ignored. That is very typical of how ordinary people are treated by the press. It's a ruthless business, and not much sentiment is spared for families affected by press coverage because of the pressure for details on the journalists looking to get the 'scoop'.

Maybe we will all be more informed after Leveson. Have a good sleep.

@Nancy66

"The enquiry isn't needed."

Good grief. Talk about not being able to see the wood for the trees.

"The Dowlers? No, absolutely unforgiveable. I don't know a single journalist that wasn't appalled by that. I am convinced it was a foolish action carried out by a very junior reporter"

One bad apple, eh? Where have we heard that before?

Oh yes - from the News of the World.

the enquiry isn't needed - you really think it's worth £20million - you're happy for police to be called off murder and rape cases to sift through 300million emails from News International staff - 99% of which will say nothing more interesting than 'what time we having lunch?'

I didn't say one bad apple - i have said many times that hacking was widespread.

You see - if Max Moseley and Coogan and Grant have 'a lot to hide' why is it any business of ours? Unless it is criminal activity or massive deception. Why should I care what Moseley does in bed? I think Steve Coogan is coming across as a whinging arse but why do I need to know about his sex life?

Alot of time and energy is devoted to this sort of thing. But Who exposed mp's expenses? The Telegraph. Who exposed the hacking scandal? The Guardian. What about that care home abuse? The BBC. Tell me, what was the last great public interest story broken by The Mail? Or The Sun? Unless it's some soap opera Twinkie taking coke or suffering anorexia or getting fat or whatever. I mean 'X Factor contestant takes coke and fucks girl (or boy or whatever)' it's not a difficult story to get, is it.

I remember when The Mail published the pictures of The Five Suspects in the Stephen Lawrence case - that's an example of the tabloids at their best.

I've been watching and it is fascinating. Ds1 is at uni and wants to be a reporter - has done some work experience on a national paper - so I am very interested.

I am really interested in Nancy's comments but tbh I wonder if the years of experience and close involvement are shaping the view here, it cuts both ways. I suspect that to be so totally immersed in a world colours your ability to see it from the outside.
Tbh in defending some practices, the casual dismissal of anyone who is deemed as a celebrity seems to be almost a reflex.

The press seem to want to bundle up anyone who is famous in 'well they asked for it' and anyone who is just some poor innocent who becomes famous through tragedy as 'oh well, that was unfortunate'. The Watsons case being a case in point. They didn't matter.

But focussing on the press, whilst interesting, irritates me as I can't believe the police are not being scrutinised as a matter of urgency.

If this does result in restrictions upon the press which limit their ability to uncover and report genuine public interests story it will be the fault of a whole host of people but will include the decent reporters/editors/ papers who just ignored the section of their number who were driving down as fast as the public would go. Saying 'well the public will buy it' explained the Daily Sport but I am not sure it is the best reason for abandoning any standards.

You are right about police, Pag.Was watching QT last night and was impressed by guy from Wiki, an American who spoke about the 1st Amendment. He is absolutely correct - preserving freedom of speech is the most important issue here.

Much of this can be dealt with under existing common law. It just requires the police to be independent and thorough, taking these complaints seriously.

"Much of this can be dealt with under existing common law. It just requires the police to be independent and thorough, taking these complaints seriously."

True but it also requires the legal system/judiciary to be fair/reasonable as well. Considering the Law Society is a club which represents their best interest yet is meant to uphold standards I think between it and the PCC there isn't a hope in hell of any sensible outcome. We need a way for all these institutions are monitored to be truly independent.

@Nancy66 Fri 25-Nov-11 08:51:02

the enquiry isn't needed - you really think it's worth £20million

If it results in a proper balance between privacy/public interest and a universally functioning right of reply (not just for multi-millionaires who can afford the legal costs), then yes it it worth it.

you're happy for police to be called off murder and rape cases to sift through 300million emails from News International staff - 99% of which will say nothing more interesting than 'what time we having lunch?'

There's IT consultants and specialist officers using software who do that sort of work. If you have proof that Met officers have been removed from murder and rape cases then post it.

I didn't say one bad apple - i have said many times that hacking was widespread.

Are you complaining about being misrepresented?

is it true that Piers Morgan is going to appear?

bkgirl the Law Society doesn't regulate the legal profession anymore and hasn't done for some time, it is the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

About ten years ago the Mirror ran a story about my husband which they knew wasn't true. They admitted to him the day it was published that it wasn't true, but they had published it anyway because they could. This was pre CFAs and he couldn't afford to sue and they knew it. About three days later they published a microscopic retraction buried twenty pages in, just to cover their arses in case he did manage to put the money together.

That's the kind of attitude the tabloid press has, and has had towards ordinary people for a very long time.

I have read that a father of a 7/7 bombing victim has withdrawn from giving evidence as he feels as though the inquiry has been "hijacked" by celebrities. I completely agree with Mr Foulkes and feel very sorry that he won't get his day in court. Yes, it is appalling what the journalists did to celebrities but it is not on the same scale as what has happened to Milly Dowlers family and other families who have had their lives turned upside down by tragedy. This was despicable and absolutely atrocious. The celebrities should have been heard second without the press attention.

Everyone involved in the hacking - you are lowlife scum.

Graham Foulks is being rather short-sighted. His point would be more effectively made in the enquiry.

Graham Foulks is quite right to be angry at the way the enquiry is being conducted. Good for him.

Hi Davey, much appreciated -I didn't know that about the Solicitors Regulation Authority, as far as I know the Law Society still rules the roost in this particular part of the UK...must check that one. I must see how independent the SRA are.
I am sorry they ran the story about your husband...hopefully karma will get those responsible.

Its a shame Mr Foulks does not want to brave the banks of reporters/media reporting to testify, maybe this is a tactic by some media to discourage such damming testimony. It's a shame since we would like to hear what Mr Foulks has to say but I understand he doesn't want dissected and humiliated as a punishment for daring to do such that. It is a weakness of the enquiry but nonetheless a necessary evil so we do get a chance to hear the truth and not just a corrupted media version.

bkirl - nice conjecture on your part but actually what Mr Foulkes said was that he objected to the way celebrities had hijacked the inquiry as a platform to air their own grievances about the press.

He also fears that knee jerk measures will be taken as a result.

No mention of not wanting to face the media or fearing that his evidence will be twisted or that he will be humiliated.

I take it the gentleman has suffered enough, I also agree that celebrities by the very nature they are celebrities will gain more press attention and media reporting. It doesn't make their experiences less valuable.
Each testimony will be considered on its own merits and I would surmise that the one most people are really aghast is that of the Watsons.
As for knee jerk reactions, I would hope that some action is taken to remedy the situation and that it is a balanced and considered approach that will protect us all from ill informed and untruthful reporting.So far we can see the PCC has totally failed at best and individuals have been complicit at worst.

I'm a bit at the coverage the press has given to Mr Foulkes comments. There were what, 6000 victims of phone hacking, and only his comments are worthy of extensive coverage in the printed press? Call me a cynic but it seems a bit convenient that this story appears at the end of the 1st week where the press get a kicking, and the 'celebs' have landed quite a few punches.

He's entitled to his own view, and from reading his comments in a few of the papers, he seems to be of the view that the inquiry was in relation to hacking conducted by one publication i.e. NOTW, but mainly on the effect innocent, ordinary members of the public. His view is that what happened already i.e. NOTW closed, NI shares slumped, Murdoch exposed, was sufficient justice for his situation. I agree that the comeuppance the NOTW got was entirely justified, but I strongly disagree that the inquiry has been hijacked by the celebs. I think the most effective punches landed on the press has come from the likes of the Dowlers, the McCanns, the Watsons. I'd imagine that the Watsons finally felt they were being listened to, and their thoughts and feelings understood, after years of banging their heads against a brick wall where the press were concerned. And that was nothing to do with phone hacking, or the illegal activity that kicked this whole thing off.

I agree that it is worrying as to what the outcome will be in terms of gagging legitimate, decent, investigative journalism. I don't think anyone wants the press to be restricted to the point they cannot uncover the likes of the MP expenses scandal. But, what has been demonstrated so far is the press cannot police themselves to stamp out the kind of behaviour that's been detailed by the 'ordinary' members of the public, never mind the experience of the celebrities who have so far given evidence. The PCC has been shown to be a pointless, toothless and frankly spineless set up, with very little power or will to do anything about the extreme behaviour of the worst elements of the popular press.

banana - don't know what papers you've been looking at but Mr Foulkes has received far less coverage than the people who DID appear.