Re: Private Eye - still on the case !

by **PeterMac** 10.11.13 10:54

Mirage wrote:
No one could blame him for being circumspect.

He is under permanent threat of immediate imprisonment if he is ever found to have libelled anyone. No one could blame him under those circumstances for being very careful indeed.

by Mirage 10.11.13 11:13

PeterMac wrote:
Mirage wrote:
No one could blame him for being circumspect.
He is under permanent threat of immediate imprisonment if he is ever found to have libelled anyone. No one could blame him under those circumstances for being very careful indeed.

I see Peter. Thank you. I do remember something from some time back but had not realised he was still under constraints. My apologies to Mr Hislop for my mis-apprehension.

Admin please feel free to delete my previous post. Thank you.

by juliet 10.11.13 13:08

If Ian Hislop is too frightened to upset anyone then he shouldn't be editing Private Eye. Surely the law doesn't work on a three strikes and you go to jail libel law? Either way Hislop is too old and soft and wealthy to have any edge. The one time infant terrible is a cautious, cosseted old man.

by comperedna 10.11.13 13:33

I'll just say I have good reason to disagree with that last posting.

by **PeterMac** 10.11.13 14:57

juliet wrote:If Ian Hislop is too frightened to upset anyone then he shouldn't be editing Private Eye. Surely the law doesn't work on a three strikes and you go to jail libel law?

He was warned personally by Eady J, I think, or possibly Tugendhat J, that he will be sent to prison for any future finding against him.
I actually think Private Eye is better for that, as you can rely on what is said to an even greater extent than before, with the knowledge that there is proper evidence for them to fall back on.

by juliet 10.11.13 16:45

I have read Private Eye for years and feel it has really gone off the boil. There is no edge, nothing controversial or even slightly risky. If as you say, Petermac, it's because Hislop daren't stick his neck out because of jail then - as I said before - he should quit.
The McCanns and the disgustingly obvious cover up by the Establishment should have long been a Private Eye target. But nothing....for more than six years. Just a few feeble digs at newspapers.

by Miss Trunchbull 11.11.13 14:31

if you were an editor, in possession of real information, provided by trustworthy sources, but could not publish it yourself, don't you think that you might be tempted to leak it to another journalist?

by plebgate 11.11.13 15:02

Miss Trunchbull wrote:if you were an editor, in possession of real information, provided by trustworthy sources, but could not publish it yourself, don't you think that you might be tempted to leak it to another journalist?

I doubt that they would do that as it would possibly make a name for the other journo who might eventually take the editor's job.

by Miss Trunchbull 11.11.13 16:03

plebgate, what if one of the friends or MW resort staff had decided to break ranks or had something of value (like a photo or a torn page of a signing-in book). What are they to with this item?

We agree that Hislop can't publish because he personally risks imprisonment, but you're saying he wouldn't want someone else - another journalist - to get the glory either because it might affect his career as editor? Are people as lacking in conscience as that? I don't think IH is like that at all.

by Miss Trunchbull 15.11.13 13:42

The Oldie magazine is edited (and I believe founded) by Richard Ingrams. He was also a co-founder and former editor of Private Eye. The Oldie 'outed' Jimmy Savile long before the mainstream press and media ran with the story, and with this in mind, the December edition is most interesting.

On page 79 there is a TV review written by Mr Ingrams. In it, he complains about the BBC 'Crimewatch' programme being the dampest of squibs, and merely provided the McCanns with a platform to re-tell their familiar story. He goes on to say that the supposed 'new lead' identikit picture was nothing of the kind as it had been produced in 2008 but had been suppressed because Gerry McCann threatened legal action if it was published. He goes on to say this was possibly because the witness, an Irish holiday-maker, had initially claimed the man seen with a child was reminiscent of Gerry McCann himself.

Ingrams goes on to complain that not a word of this was referred to during the programme and that Kirsty Young tiptoed around the famously litigious couple. The choice of words here is very interesting!

by plebgate 15.11.13 15:35

Miss Trunchbull wrote:plebgate, what if one of the friends or MW resort staff had decided to break ranks or had something of value (like a photo or a torn page of a signing-in book). What are they to with this item?

We agree that Hislop can't publish because he personally risks imprisonment, but you're saying he wouldn't want someone else - another journalist - to get the glory either because it might affect his career as editor? Are people as lacking in conscience as that? I don't think IH is like that at all.

I don't knowwhat Hislop is like, but I don't think he would be able to let any journalist publish anything in PE because as Editor, it would still be his head on the block.