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.

I never suggested he received more coverage. Just that the coverage fits with an agenda being pushed by the press - the very publications being slated this week. Hence my at the article/interview. One of the few angles the press can work is the criticism of the famous folk appearing at the inquiry. It's all a bit too transparent IMO. The interview has received widespread coverage though, albeit not as much as those who gave evidence this week - it's been run in the Mail, Telegraph, The Sun, as well as the Times (which is I think where the original interview came from).

The people who DID appear warranted the coverage they got. With the exception of Sheryl Gascoigne. Not really sure what the point of her being there was.

THIS kind of covers how I view the press reaction to the evidence given this week. The interview given by Mr Foulkes, is another angle the press are working in order to try and distract from the (justifiable) slating they got this week. He is entitled to his view, and I've no doubt he feels strongly about the matter. I just disagree that the celebrities have hijacked the inquiry - as I said, I think the most damning headlines have been the ones covering the Dowlers, the McCanns and the Watsons. Anyway, it's the press/media who decide who gets the limelight, and if they shine that light more on the 'celebs' than the ordinary people who gave evidence, is that not then the fault of the press themselves?

I agree with Mr Faulkes. My heart certainly doesnt bleed for Grant or coogan or rowling

I don't think anyone's heart bleeds for the likes of Grant, Coogen etc. On the basis that the 'celebs' have hijacked the inquiry, has what has gone on this week been pointless? A waste of time and money?

I disagree banana. Obviously it is not quite as revolting as the treatment of the Dowlers, the McCanns etc, but they not obvious candidates who have chosen to sell every aspect of their lives regularly to the likes of Hello or the red-tops, so I see no reason why, just beause they do a job that makes us recognise them, they should have to accept such gross invasions on their privacy and that of their families.

I don't see that celebrities have hijacked anything. The media has chosen to focus on their testimony, unsurprisingly. Doesn't mean the enquiry is more interested in them than anyone else.

And I agree with Fellatio that they are just as entitled to their privacy as anyone else.

and that attitude of 'well, my heart doesn't bleed for them' is indicative of the cancer at the heart of the British popular press.

Fellatio, my comment isn't suggesting that celebs shouldn't be entitled to their privacy. I simply meant that IMO the celebs involved aren't actually looking for the sympathy that would warrant bleeding hearts. I agree that just because someone is famous, it shouldn't mean that their privacy or that of their friends/family is fair game.

ok then, fair enough.

At work so not watching the evidence being given but reading the guardian blog. at Ian Hurst's evidence. He's really sticking the boot in with both Coulson/NI and the Met Police.

Chris Jeffries' evidence was uncomfortable to read, that poor man.

Much of the evidence to the Leveson Inquiry is very distressing. But I'm glad it's been pointed out that hacking was only revealed because of dogged investigative journalism - mainly by the Guardian - in the teeth of official denials from police, government and MPs, including threats of criminal proceedings against the journalists exposing hacking.

No doubt many MPs are enjoying Leveson because they want to get their own back on the press after the exes scandal... I just hope that Leveson doesn't lead to any restrictions on proper journalism - which can almost be defined as 'stuff people in power don't want you to know' whether that power is a large corporation, or a council, or a trade body, or the government.

Should declare my interest, btw, I am a journalist. As were half the people on MN back in the early days (because the founders were). Have never hacked anyone but have told the story of victims of wrongdoing - whistleblowers who had lost their jobs and been driven half mad by trying to expose injustice at work or in the health service. I don't want anything to happen that stops those people using their voice - it's already hard enough for them.

I was a journalist years ago. Don't you feel angry that some journalist were so arrogant that they thought it was fine to listen to the voicemails of innocent grieving families?

I feel angry just thinking about it - I thought reporters, especially the tabs were supposed to be on the side of ordinary Joe public, instead they treated them like scumbags.

So when I hear journalists saying this:

"I don't want anything to happen that stops those people using their voice - it's already hard enough for them."

I think, well it's the fault of Her Majesty's Press that exposing wrongdoing is going to get a whole lot more difficult.

But I'm glad it's been pointed out that hacking was only revealed because of dogged investigative journalism - mainly by the Guardian - in the teeth of official denials from police, government and MPs, including threats of criminal proceedings against the journalists exposing hacking.

Agreed.

I'm a bit at the coverage the press has given to Mr Foulkes comments.

You just have to look at who's publicising his comments for it to make sense.

And of course, unless Foulkes is actually in the public gallery for every day then he is forming his opinion based on the reporting from the media itself.

Fact is that it's more interesting for the papers to publish stories on Hugh Grant's testimony and punctuate it with old arrest photos and that one of him canoodling with a blonde girl at a student house party than depressing ones about grieving parents being doorstepped in the provinces.

I'm just watching Anne Diamond's evidence.

I don't particularly like the woman, but what the press have put her through is disgusting.

Surely there is something Mr Murdoch can be charged with over what he deliberately set out to do to her?

Charlotte Church's testimony was quite revealing today. But then she's a celebrity so she doesn't matter. Apparently.

Here's a little reminder of one of the things that the Daily Star printed when she was fifteen: chilled.cream.org/graphics/charlotte.jpg

I don't think it's that celebs don't matter - but they need to feed the media to keep up their profile and that's slightly different to ordinary people thrust into the spotlight.

I see the point Steve Coogan is making about hacking but I don't want to listen to him whining about interviews he doesn't like or journalists being rude blah de blah - people have far worse jobs.

CHarlotte Church has come through her own media hell with her head screwed on, it seems and I admire her for that.

And I liked this quote from her:

"I don't want to single out Paul Dacre at all. Just in terms of editors and people who are high up in tabloid papers ? he [Dacre] said that there were many journalists who were exposing the misdeeds of the rich, the powerful and the pompous.

It just struck me that Mr Dacre themselves and other editors are probably rich, definitely powerful; I'm not sure about pompous, but if they were subjected to the investigative journalism, maybe they would come out whiter than white, but if they weren't then their misdeeds are much more in the public interest as rich and powerful people than me as a TV presenter/singer or my friends."

Still at work so not had a chance to really go through everything but so far today, again, I think it's pretty clear just how out of control certain aspects of the media are. Charlotte Church's evidence I found strangely compelling, especially when you consider she was still a child when a lot of this happened. And it reminded me of the 'countdown' 'til she was 16, which I still remember being pretty disgusted by.

Roll on tomorrow, I'm going to get the munchies in, glued to the hearings tomorrow.

Paul McMullan tomorrow, should be interesting. Wonder if he has changed his suit.

If Charlotte Church said that then it was scripted for her.

Quite hilarious the juxtaposition of the Star's frothing beserking article on Brasseye on the page opposite with that photo of Charlotte Church aged 15. You do wonder sometimes if their contempt for their readers is so complete that they do these things on purpose.

Why was it scripted for her nancy? Clearly she can't be bright enough to draw these parallels for herself, oh no.

I don't believe the hacking was just listening to voicemails. I suspect they were routinely getting hold of call logs from the phone companies and working things out from there.

It is very disturbing that the freedom of the press may be limited as a result of all this. It seems like they've tended to leave the people in power alone while targeting bereaved families instead. The powerful ones being in a position to sue or otherwise protect their own interests.

Got my large latte, bag of peanuts (chilli coated, my fav) and am just watching a clip of Coogan -v- Mullan on newsnight as a wee reminder of Paul McMullan and his POV. The number of digs he made to Coogan and his private life are comical. His evidence is going to be either fascinating or a load of 'can't comment on that' etc. He'll be under oath, so not sure how far he'll go to give a full picture of what went on and what he indulged in when trying to get a story. Also looking forward to Nick Davies (all hail the shit-hot journalism that broke this story) and what he has to say.

Getting a bit concerned that the autumn statement from Osborne is going to black out the live footage of the inquiry today. I'm interested in what he'll announce, but I really want to see McMullan give evidence