Paul Dacre at the Leveson Inquiry

[bananaistheanswer]

here

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...

Oooh! I'm watching a day in arrears, but shall await this moment eagerly!

missed it! will try and get a re-run later when the short one is in bed.

Just read through today's evidence - Leveson was right to lose it with the times lawyer. WTF? How did they get away with basically lying to the court on how the nightjacker's identity was confirmed? Did anything happen with this, or is this yet another outstanding legal case that has yet to conclude? I wasn't fully aware of what this story was about, or the relevance (information overload at times with Leveson) but just reading what he said, and how they could come to the conclusion that it was fine to not 'engage' with questions about whether the journalist actually hacked into the police officer's email, and stick to that as he then 'legitimately' found the details via another route.

I particularly liked this bit from earlier evidence, Stephen Wright, the journalist heavily involved in the Daily Mail's coverage of the Stephen Lawrence case. When asked to add any comments to his evidence he said.

"The Metropolitan police ? is like journalists, not above scrutiny," he adds.

Leveson agrees, before saying: "...Who's holding you to account?"

I think we all know the answer to that question...

Why did I miss this? Work, that's why.

Don't understand how the Times justified the outing of Nightjacker. We want whistleblowers, don't we?

They were in love with the idea of playing detective. They're in the wrong job.

Brett must surely face professional disciplinary action now. Mustn't he?

Very uncomfortable with the way the Mail takes the credit for the Stephen Lawrence convictions when they did so much to jeopardise a trial.

I was cheered by that Murderers headline until I thought about it. Did it drag the case into the spotlight? Yes. Did it make it likely the Crown could not proceed against the men? Definitely.

The argument about the Mail publishing their story about the new forensic evidence seems to me like CPS and Met whingeing though.

That was churlish. Credit where credit's due to the Mail.

If they hadn't published that Murderers splash the Met would have buried the Stephen Lawrence case. So the end did justify the means.

Unlike Nightjacker and the Times. James Harding (times ed) probably feels superior to Dacre. He shouldn't. He's weak. If he didn't know what was going on he should have. If he did he's a liar.

What's happened to the Guardian blog for the inquiry? Just watched a clip on ITV news, and still no coverage on the blog. Where else is it covered, anyone know? Can't get onto the BBC live coverage for some reason, it won't load on my netbook.

Fedorcio has resigned to avoid disciplinary proceedings over awarding the PR contract to Neil Wallis. Not so shocking news. Not got much else as the guardian have let me down

well, well, well james murdock has stepped down from bskyb

also is it true that brooks is being called?

Update on the Times computer hacking

I wondered at the time whether anything was happening about this, and now it seems the victim of the hacking is taking action.

It's all awfully quiet round these parts... hoping this is the calm before the storm when they start on the political element of the whole mess. The press have had a kicking, the police have had their kicking, and soon it will be the political establishment who will feel the wrath of those still wincing from their treatment. Can't wait ...

well, phone hacking has gone to the US www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17686754

And now files have been handed to the CPS www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17753490

I am so looking forward to seeing James Murdoch wriggle today.

Leveson was quietly lethal yesterday with Sky News Head of News John Ryley.

'Er yes, we did hack the canoe man's emails'.

'That's illegal, isn't it?'

Explosive today. Cameron and co having dinner 2 days before xmas at rebecca brooks house yet no one seems to 'fully' recollect it . Cameron also discussed the bskyb take over with JM lying b'stard

at today!!!

And so it begins! The Jeremy Hunt being hung out to dry by James Murdoch, got to laugh at the comment in the emails about information being disclosed to them described as 'absolutely illegal' . Cameron is being set up for a mighty fall too. Wonder how many politicians will 'feel the force' of Murdoch tomorrow. I'll bet there will have been a few scores settled by the time Murdoch senior has finished. Not had time to read up that much, but will be back later once I've gone through it all.

Definately explosive noddy!

random 'the' in there. Makes Jeremy Hunt look like a euphamism

I thought it was intentional, banana

oh yes and the '!' now means a joke, who knew?

And Cameron meeting up to discuss the bskyb deal

Can someone do an idiots guide to what happened today please?

What did JM dob Jeremy Hunt in for?

And does this mean that JM has more dirt on other politicians (well, obviously but stuff that he can tell people about)?

this www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/24/news-corp-leveson-inquiry-jeremy-hunt
explains it better then I could just end up confusing myself

I've just finished reading through the guardian blog and I'm just . Don't even know where to start really. Maybe first of all, highlight the irony that Jeremy Hunt is the person that Leveson will report to with his findings at the end of the inquiry, assuming he'll still be in the job.

Hunt's now begging Leveson to allow him to bring forward his own evidence, which from Newsnight reports, Leveson isn't willing to allow. I think what will be most damning against Hunt is the fact that while he has allegedly been feeding daily information/updates to Murdoch via their respective lackys, he has not accorded the same courtesy to those who opposed the bid - this>> The "alliance" of News International and BSkyB rivals who opposed the bid for the broadcaster had one "wooden meeting" with Hunt compared to the daily drip of insider information afforded to Murdoch. shows that they certainly weren't in daily contact with Hunt over the process or what was happening. He's utterly failed in his role to act in a completely unbiased manor while considering the bid. I cannot see how he will get round that. When he does give evidence, Jay will unravel him. I have no doubt about that.

At the break for lunch, one of the ITV reporters tweeted this Leveson rises, James Murdoch's questioner Robert Jay QC walks away and mouths to colleague 'this is such fun'. Jay is a man who enjoys his work Can't say I blame him after today!

I so wish I could watch Murdoch snr tomorrow. I anticipate that Rupert will have a few grenades of his own to lob in, just for good measure. This is just the beginning of the fall out for the political part of the inquiry, as we haven't even got to the politicians giving evidence. Wonder how many will be laid bare tomorrow by Murdoch snr?

What did JM dob Jeremy Hunt in for?

Possibly just for the hell of it, or maybe because Hunt set up the inquiry as the area being investigated falls under his remit as Culture Secretary. I remember at the time Cameron made a big noise about choosing Leveson to run this inquiry, but Hunt will have had a huge hand in that too, as the Culture Secretary. I'm sure JM has a list as long as your arm as to the reasons for the grenades lobbed in today

can Cameron really duck out of responsibility now for any of the Murdoch/BSkyB stuff?

& did you see the Simon Kelner account of the time Murdoch & Brooks strode into the Indie offices shortly before the 2010 election & ripped into him about Indie posters telling the population Rupert couldn't tell them how to vote? (I can't find the link, it was def there earlier, Brooks was quoted as saying "we thought you were our friend" - WTF???)

Weird to contrast Murdoch's total recall today with his previous blanks at select committee

\link{http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/24/james-murdoch-rebekah-brooks-simon-kelner-independen\ah, found it} - was on the Graun, not the Indie

I saw that quote ponders, and had a chuckle at this Their use of language and the threatening nature of their approach came straight from the "Mafioso for Beginners" handbook. There really is an arrogance about the whole lot of them, steadfast in their belief that they would never have to answer to anyone such was the power they wielded over each successive government.

Weird to contrast Murdoch's total recall today with his previous blanks at select committee.

I agree. It was remarkable. Murdoch snr has played dottery old man at the earlier committee already, wonder which version we'll get from him tomorrow?

Holy cow.

Sorry, don't have the energy to summarise fully, but the Murdochs lobbed more than Jeremy Hunt to the wolves today - they lobbed themselves.

This collection of emails presented to the enquiry by Rupert Murdoch (the batch linked from today's BBC article about James' Leveson appearance) narrates in detail the lobbying process as the Murdochs worked their way through and round MPs to try to get what they wanted. I've only read the first 20%, as they attempt to manipulate Cable re the BSkyB takeover.

It gives the absolute lie to the Murdochs' claim that their papers are editorially independent - and makes a liar of James Harding, editor of the Times, who is shown being set up to have an interview with Cable about non-BSKyB business in order to get alongside him, because overt lobbying might turn Cable against News Corp. (Harding banged on at Leveson about how it was absolutely wrong to ever enter the corridors of power to influence power, rather than report on it.)

It discusses a decision not to attempt to use News International to achieve News Corp's BSkyB aims as this would have "no upside". Rather than because it was something NI papers couldn't, wouldn't or shouldn't do.

It talks of helping ministers promote their particular hobby-horses or get their particular messages out, all in the context of the BSkyB deal not being referred to Ofcom.

Like I said, I've read about 20%. Fuck knows what else is in there.

It's not that I'm shocked the Murdochs did this: we always thought they did. It's that Harding and the rest have been swearing on their mothers' graves that editors don't take instructions about content, tone or political allegiance from proprietors.

Gotcha.