Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

The Leveson Inquiry

251 replies

bananaistheanswer · 22/11/2011 13:58

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.

OP posts:
ShirleyKnot · 29/11/2011 12:28

But just because people are prepared to pay to read the salcious, tragic and pointless details about someone's life doesn't mean that all bets are off...

or rather, it shouldn't.

bananaistheanswer · 29/11/2011 12:37

Ooh, and now it gets just soooo conflicting. Davies talking about the story on Millie Dowler's phone being hacked. He had to consider the impact that story would have had on the Dowlers but felt it too important a story to not publish. He says they gave the Dowlers forewarning via the police, but still published, with no actual permission to publish or permission sought. This is where the lines become blurred as the story was too big to consider the Dowlers' feelings on the matter, but the whole crux of the evidence so far from the victims is that they have no say on what the press writes about them or their families/friends etc.

OP posts:
NormanTebbit · 29/11/2011 13:07

Yes it's back to the slippery concept of 'public interest' and why Davies is supportive of an independent body deciding what is 'public interest' Once you start asking people involved in a story for permission to publish, it all gets very messy indeed. There needs to be independent scrutiny.

ShirleyKnot · 29/11/2011 13:22

The thing is to me the "slipperiness" of public interest (such as should the Guardian have published about the phone hacking without permission) is still a million miles away from the harrassment, lies and blackmail that have riddled the tabloid press for years.

bananaistheanswer · 29/11/2011 13:54

I'm going to miss the bulk of McMullan's evidence 'til later, got to go and get the short one in my role as taxi driver. Will catch up when I return.

It just occurred to me reading over some of Davies' comments. The issue of who hacked Millie Dowler's phone isn't clear cut at all. Mulcairn has already stated he didn't delete the messages. He's been described as the 'facilitator' but that several journalists hacked into and then deleted the phone messages. Who ordered this? Who gave that instruction, or did the 'several' journalists who did this, all do it off their own backs?

It's such a complex web being weaved with all the elements of each person giving evidence, crossing over something someone else has said, but the links still far enough apart for it not yet to be 'conclusive' evidence. I don't know who drew up the list of the core participants but they are overlapping and interlinking in such a fascinating way, that this whole inquiry is shaping up to be utterly unmissable.

OP posts:
bananaistheanswer · 29/11/2011 14:51

OK, I'm crushingly disappointed the beige suit has not made an appearance along with Mr McMullan, but WTF is he wearing?

OP posts:
ShirleyKnot · 29/11/2011 15:02

I am literally cringing.

Cringing at him. Unbelievable.

Shock
bananaistheanswer · 29/11/2011 15:09

He's setting himself up to be a warped cartoon version of the worst kind of journalism. He is now blaming those who bought the NOTW as they still paid for the stories they wrote. In a sense, he's right, the readership of that paper has some culpability in this whole mess. The whole argument about what came first, the stories or the demand is irrelevant in a sense. Neither justifies the sort of lurid exploitation of in some cases, completely innocent people and their private lives.

OP posts:
ShirleyKnot · 29/11/2011 15:21
Shock
bananaistheanswer · 29/11/2011 15:31

And he's just landed the editors in it now. You know, those editors who had 'no knowledge' of the illegal activity which was occurring in order to give them the scoops they had. Grin

OP posts:
bananaistheanswer · 29/11/2011 15:32

oooh, and now he names Brooks and Coulson. Bullseye!

OP posts:
ShirleyKnot · 29/11/2011 15:35

You must be a little bit behind me!

He is Shock He has just landed everyone well and truly, up to their NECKS in it.

It's the fact he thinks it so acceptable that is making me boggle TBH. He's almost saying "well, yeah we all did it, and why shouldn't we have?"

bananaistheanswer · 29/11/2011 15:37

I am a bit behind, bloody PC taking ages to reload.

I don't have any pictures or sound, none of the news channels are showing anything today , so I'm not even hearing a lot of what he's saying.

OP posts:
ShirleyKnot · 29/11/2011 15:56

He has flipped, basically.

follow @dansabbagh on twitter.

Bummer, I've got to go and do some work now.

noddyholder · 29/11/2011 15:57

I am watching He doesn't give a shit does he? Good on him

ShirleyKnot · 29/11/2011 15:59

"I have no problem at all in looking at medical records.Any means is fine for me if target is worth it"

daveywarbeck · 29/11/2011 16:03

good on him? care to elaborate?

noddyholder · 29/11/2011 16:06

Yes he is exposing the whole system and verifying what the tabloids have been up to for years which some editors and owners have denied knowledge of for years Brad Pitt has a big chopper pmsl

ShirleyKnot · 29/11/2011 16:07

I'm hoping Noddy means that the enquiry are being told that it's not down to "rogue reporters" it was a systemic and approved of method all the way through the industry.

ShirleyKnot · 29/11/2011 16:07

whoops x post

NormanTebbit · 29/11/2011 16:28

I know it's bad but he is really quite entertaining

ShirleyKnot · 29/11/2011 16:31

"privacy is for paedo's"

Is he..is he having a laugh or a nervy breaker?

Tenebrist · 29/11/2011 16:34

What a creep. I'd agree with Norman though about it being entertaining in a gruesome way - he keeps on happily incriminating himself in criminal activity and the QC has to remind him that he doesn't have to do that.

He has a bizarre definition of 'in the public interest' - if the public are interested then it's OK to print, however intrusive. THAT'S NOT WHAT IT MEANS YOU WAZZOCK!

daveywarbeck · 29/11/2011 16:40

Jesus. His son disappearing for 2 minutes is nowhere near what Millie Dowler's mother went through. Just nowhere near.

Phone hacking Millie Dowler not a bad thing to do to help? What? Loon.

daveywarbeck · 29/11/2011 16:41

Intentions were honourable?

Fucking liar. They had no interest in finding her or helping her parents. They wanted a story.