Leveson Inquiry - report due TODAY 29.11.12 @ 1.30 pm

Miraflores wrote:Nice one Mrs Murat. Nice one Express

Is this the Express trying to get its own back on the McCanns and friends?[/quote]

They certainly are giving us some 'news' on the case, rather than

Cards on the table. I’m ­totally against statutory regulation of the Press.
However,
I am in favour of a ­responsible Press... one that doesn’t wreck the
lives of decent, ordinary people who find themselves trapped in a
publicity maelstrom because of some devastating personal tragedy.
Those
people should be – and I believe will be – protected in the future by a
media that has admitted its mistakes and is determined to clean up its
act.
However, I refuse to take lessons in morality or ethics –
which is what the Leveson inquiry was about, not ­hacking – from the
likes of Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan or Max Mosley. It’s nauseating, not to
mention hypocritical, to have to stomach these men with bloody great
axes to grind banging on about immorality in the Press.
Grant’s
obsessive hatred of it took hold after he was caught trawling the
streets of LA for prostitutes while in a supposedly committed
relationship with Liz Hurley.
A man who got a woman pregnant
after what he ­insultingly called a “fleeting affair” and who reportedly
spent just half an hour with his newborn child before shooting off to
Scotland to play golf. Nice!
And there’s Max Mosley – a man who
freely admits he has indulged in ­countless orgies, yet blames his
family’s devastation at finding out about them on the Press. So,
betraying his wife wasn’t the problem. But her finding out via a
newspaper was? And while his antics with those prostitutes weren’t
criminal, many saw them as sleazy and ­immoral.
As for Steve
Coogan – he’s as well known for his cocaine-fuelled binges and
dalliances with topless dancers as he is for his day job. Whatever that
is.
And it’s these so-called celebrity champions of the Hacked Off
campaign that one devastated dad blames for Leveson “losing focus”.
Graham Foulkes, whose son David was killed in the 7/7 bombings and whose
life was subsequently turned upside-down by the media, says: “An
important piece of work, which was supposed to be for ordinary people,
was railroaded by the celebrity circus.”
And he’s right.
But
the public aren’t stupid. They have endless compassion for people like
Graham, for Bob and Sally Dowler, for mums like Margaret Watson, whose
15-year-old son Alan killed himself after a series of derogatory
articles about his murdered sister.
But I don’t believe they have
any truck with celebrities who brazenly use the media when they have a
film to promote or a book to publish. Celebrities who have no problem
being in the papers when there’s money in it for them yet who squeal
“invasion of privacy” the minute something’s written they don’t like.
The
public’s indifference to Grant’s rantings was evident last week when
his Channel 4 documentary Taking on the Tabloids got just 470,000
viewers – a piddling 1.9 per cent of the possible audience.
As for
the politicians who’d like to see papers gagged... why is that? Is it
payback for the expenses scandal? Or is it because they want to stop the
spotlight being shone on ­excesses, their wrongdoings, their
­immorality? Pity they don’t get the fact that while the public might
not trust some journalists, they don’t trust any politicians. And they
­certainly don’t want them or a shower of self-interested ­celebrities
in charge of the media.
The fact is, much of what offended and
upset the public – the hacking, etc – ­happened a long time ago and is
now being dealt with by laws that are already in place.
But you can’t introduce state control over ­people’s ethical judgements.
It
took courage for David Cameron to take a stand against ­statutory
underpinning because, as he says, it could become a vehicle for
politicians to impose regulation and obligations on the Press. And if
that happens, God help us all.
Yes, the Press has to put its house
in order, as do politicians – some of whom are still fiddling their
­expenses. Not because people like Hugh Grant say so, but because we
have an obligation and a loyalty to the people who keep us in business.
Those
people are why Britain must remain a ­country that champions free
speech and where politicians remain ­terrified about what the Press
might do or say if they cross a line.
Giving politicians power over the Press would be like letting a fox loose in a hen house... stupid, bloody and wrong!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/god-save-us-from-the-likes-of-hugh-grant-1467450

I'm old enough to remember exactly the same reservations being voiced 30 years ago, RD, but the press never changed. They never will unless they're forced too imo.

I take your point. I totally agree with all she said, and isn't the noticeable by its absence mention of the McCanns interesting?

It was very interesting to see from Carole Malone's article, there wasn't one mention of the McCanns - Hallelujah! Things are really changing in the press.

ETA: It wouldn't surprise me if journalists, TV people, all sorts in the media, read this forum everyday to keep up to date with comments and discussions as to who we, the general public, make of all the fawning and rubbish printed about the McCanns and take their lead from it. The forum has had a lot of (unintentional) publicity over the past year or so, not to mention the Liverpool Echo? yesterday with their adverse comments about the McCanns, even the DM is now allowing adverse comments about the McCanns to go through, something which would never have been allowed a year ago.

russiandoll wrote:I take your point. I totally agree with all she said, and isn't the noticeable by its absence mention of the McCanns interesting?

I don't know who Carole Malone is Who is she?

Ah, the Mail. Enough said

russiandoll wrote:Cards on the table. I’m ­totally against statutory regulation of the Press.
However,
I am in favour of a ­responsible Press... one that doesn’t wreck the
lives of decent, ordinary people who find themselves trapped in a
publicity maelstrom because of some devastating personal tragedy.
Those
people should be – and I believe will be – protected in the future by a
media that has admitted its mistakes and is determined to clean up its
act.
However, I refuse to take lessons in morality or ethics –
which is what the Leveson inquiry was about, not ­hacking – from the
likes of Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan or Max Mosley. It’s nauseating, not to
mention hypocritical, to have to stomach these men with bloody great
axes to grind banging on about immorality in the Press.
Grant’s
obsessive hatred of it took hold after he was caught trawling the
streets of LA for prostitutes while in a supposedly committed
relationship with Liz Hurley.
A man who got a woman pregnant
after what he ­insultingly called a “fleeting affair” and who reportedly
spent just half an hour with his newborn child before shooting off to
Scotland to play golf. Nice!
And there’s Max Mosley – a man who
freely admits he has indulged in ­countless orgies, yet blames his
family’s devastation at finding out about them on the Press. So,
betraying his wife wasn’t the problem. But her finding out via a
newspaper was? And while his antics with those prostitutes weren’t
criminal, many saw them as sleazy and ­immoral.
As for Steve
Coogan – he’s as well known for his cocaine-fuelled binges and
dalliances with topless dancers as he is for his day job. Whatever that
is.
And it’s these so-called celebrity champions of the Hacked Off
campaign that one devastated dad blames for Leveson “losing focus”.
Graham Foulkes, whose son David was killed in the 7/7 bombings and whose
life was subsequently turned upside-down by the media, says: “An
important piece of work, which was supposed to be for ordinary people,
was railroaded by the celebrity circus.”
And he’s right.
But
the public aren’t stupid. They have endless compassion for people like
Graham, for Bob and Sally Dowler, for mums like Margaret Watson, whose
15-year-old son Alan killed himself after a series of derogatory
articles about his murdered sister.
But I don’t believe they have
any truck with celebrities who brazenly use the media when they have a
film to promote or a book to publish. Celebrities who have no problem
being in the papers when there’s money in it for them yet who squeal
“invasion of privacy” the minute something’s written they don’t like.
The
public’s indifference to Grant’s rantings was evident last week when
his Channel 4 documentary Taking on the Tabloids got just 470,000
viewers – a piddling 1.9 per cent of the possible audience.
As for
the politicians who’d like to see papers gagged... why is that? Is it
payback for the expenses scandal? Or is it because they want to stop the
spotlight being shone on ­excesses, their wrongdoings, their
­immorality? Pity they don’t get the fact that while the public might
not trust some journalists, they don’t trust any politicians. And they
­certainly don’t want them or a shower of self-interested ­celebrities
in charge of the media.
The fact is, much of what offended and
upset the public – the hacking, etc – ­happened a long time ago and is
now being dealt with by laws that are already in place.
But you can’t introduce state control over ­people’s ethical judgements.
It
took courage for David Cameron to take a stand against ­statutory
underpinning because, as he says, it could become a vehicle for
politicians to impose regulation and obligations on the Press. And if
that happens, God help us all.
Yes, the Press has to put its house
in order, as do politicians – some of whom are still fiddling their
­expenses. Not because people like Hugh Grant say so, but because we
have an obligation and a loyalty to the people who keep us in business.
Those
people are why Britain must remain a ­country that champions free
speech and where politicians remain ­terrified about what the Press
might do or say if they cross a line.
Giving politicians power over the Press would be like letting a fox loose in a hen house... stupid, bloody and wrong!

Wow, excellent piece RD - good enough to be published somewhere. You`ve verbalised my feelings exactly.

Woofer wrote:

russiandoll wrote:Cards on the table. I’m ­totally against statutory regulation of the Press.
However,
I am in favour of a ­responsible Press... one that doesn’t wreck the
lives of decent, ordinary people who find themselves trapped in a
publicity maelstrom because of some devastating personal tragedy.
Those
people should be – and I believe will be – protected in the future by a
media that has admitted its mistakes and is determined to clean up its
act.
However, I refuse to take lessons in morality or ethics –
which is what the Leveson inquiry was about, not ­hacking – from the
likes of Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan or Max Mosley. It’s nauseating, not to
mention hypocritical, to have to stomach these men with bloody great
axes to grind banging on about immorality in the Press.
Grant’s
obsessive hatred of it took hold after he was caught trawling the
streets of LA for prostitutes while in a supposedly committed
relationship with Liz Hurley.
A man who got a woman pregnant
after what he ­insultingly called a “fleeting affair” and who reportedly
spent just half an hour with his newborn child before shooting off to
Scotland to play golf. Nice!
And there’s Max Mosley – a man who
freely admits he has indulged in ­countless orgies, yet blames his
family’s devastation at finding out about them on the Press. So,
betraying his wife wasn’t the problem. But her finding out via a
newspaper was? And while his antics with those prostitutes weren’t
criminal, many saw them as sleazy and ­immoral.
As for Steve
Coogan – he’s as well known for his cocaine-fuelled binges and
dalliances with topless dancers as he is for his day job. Whatever that
is.
And it’s these so-called celebrity champions of the Hacked Off
campaign that one devastated dad blames for Leveson “losing focus”.
Graham Foulkes, whose son David was killed in the 7/7 bombings and whose
life was subsequently turned upside-down by the media, says: “An
important piece of work, which was supposed to be for ordinary people,
was railroaded by the celebrity circus.”
And he’s right.
But
the public aren’t stupid. They have endless compassion for people like
Graham, for Bob and Sally Dowler, for mums like Margaret Watson, whose
15-year-old son Alan killed himself after a series of derogatory
articles about his murdered sister.
But I don’t believe they have
any truck with celebrities who brazenly use the media when they have a
film to promote or a book to publish. Celebrities who have no problem
being in the papers when there’s money in it for them yet who squeal
“invasion of privacy” the minute something’s written they don’t like.
The
public’s indifference to Grant’s rantings was evident last week when
his Channel 4 documentary Taking on the Tabloids got just 470,000
viewers – a piddling 1.9 per cent of the possible audience.
As for
the politicians who’d like to see papers gagged... why is that? Is it
payback for the expenses scandal? Or is it because they want to stop the
spotlight being shone on ­excesses, their wrongdoings, their
­immorality? Pity they don’t get the fact that while the public might
not trust some journalists, they don’t trust any politicians. And they
­certainly don’t want them or a shower of self-interested ­celebrities
in charge of the media.
The fact is, much of what offended and
upset the public – the hacking, etc – ­happened a long time ago and is
now being dealt with by laws that are already in place.
But you can’t introduce state control over ­people’s ethical judgements.
It
took courage for David Cameron to take a stand against ­statutory
underpinning because, as he says, it could become a vehicle for
politicians to impose regulation and obligations on the Press. And if
that happens, God help us all.
Yes, the Press has to put its house
in order, as do politicians – some of whom are still fiddling their
­expenses. Not because people like Hugh Grant say so, but because we
have an obligation and a loyalty to the people who keep us in business.
Those
people are why Britain must remain a ­country that champions free
speech and where politicians remain ­terrified about what the Press
might do or say if they cross a line.
Giving politicians power over the Press would be like letting a fox loose in a hen house... stupid, bloody and wrong!

Wow, excellent piece RD - good enough to be published somewhere. You`ve verbalised my feelings exactly.

Woofer wrote:

russiandoll wrote:Cards on the table. I’m ­totally against statutory regulation of the Press.
However,
I am in favour of a ­responsible Press... one that doesn’t wreck the
lives of decent, ordinary people who find themselves trapped in a
publicity maelstrom because of some devastating personal tragedy.
Those
people should be – and I believe will be – protected in the future by a
media that has admitted its mistakes and is determined to clean up its
act.
However, I refuse to take lessons in morality or ethics –
which is what the Leveson inquiry was about, not ­hacking – from the
likes of Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan or Max Mosley. It’s nauseating, not to
mention hypocritical, to have to stomach these men with bloody great
axes to grind banging on about immorality in the Press.
Grant’s
obsessive hatred of it took hold after he was caught trawling the
streets of LA for prostitutes while in a supposedly committed
relationship with Liz Hurley.
A man who got a woman pregnant
after what he ­insultingly called a “fleeting affair” and who reportedly
spent just half an hour with his newborn child before shooting off to
Scotland to play golf. Nice!
And there’s Max Mosley – a man who
freely admits he has indulged in ­countless orgies, yet blames his
family’s devastation at finding out about them on the Press. So,
betraying his wife wasn’t the problem. But her finding out via a
newspaper was? And while his antics with those prostitutes weren’t
criminal, many saw them as sleazy and ­immoral.
As for Steve
Coogan – he’s as well known for his cocaine-fuelled binges and
dalliances with topless dancers as he is for his day job. Whatever that
is.
And it’s these so-called celebrity champions of the Hacked Off
campaign that one devastated dad blames for Leveson “losing focus”.
Graham Foulkes, whose son David was killed in the 7/7 bombings and whose
life was subsequently turned upside-down by the media, says: “An
important piece of work, which was supposed to be for ordinary people,
was railroaded by the celebrity circus.”
And he’s right.
But
the public aren’t stupid. They have endless compassion for people like
Graham, for Bob and Sally Dowler, for mums like Margaret Watson, whose
15-year-old son Alan killed himself after a series of derogatory
articles about his murdered sister.
But I don’t believe they have
any truck with celebrities who brazenly use the media when they have a
film to promote or a book to publish. Celebrities who have no problem
being in the papers when there’s money in it for them yet who squeal
“invasion of privacy” the minute something’s written they don’t like.
The
public’s indifference to Grant’s rantings was evident last week when
his Channel 4 documentary Taking on the Tabloids got just 470,000
viewers – a piddling 1.9 per cent of the possible audience.
As for
the politicians who’d like to see papers gagged... why is that? Is it
payback for the expenses scandal? Or is it because they want to stop the
spotlight being shone on ­excesses, their wrongdoings, their
­immorality? Pity they don’t get the fact that while the public might
not trust some journalists, they don’t trust any politicians. And they
­certainly don’t want them or a shower of self-interested ­celebrities
in charge of the media.
The fact is, much of what offended and
upset the public – the hacking, etc – ­happened a long time ago and is
now being dealt with by laws that are already in place.
But you can’t introduce state control over ­people’s ethical judgements.
It
took courage for David Cameron to take a stand against ­statutory
underpinning because, as he says, it could become a vehicle for
politicians to impose regulation and obligations on the Press. And if
that happens, God help us all.
Yes, the Press has to put its house
in order, as do politicians – some of whom are still fiddling their
­expenses. Not because people like Hugh Grant say so, but because we
have an obligation and a loyalty to the people who keep us in business.
Those
people are why Britain must remain a ­country that champions free
speech and where politicians remain ­terrified about what the Press
might do or say if they cross a line.
Giving politicians power over the Press would be like letting a fox loose in a hen house... stupid, bloody and wrong!

Wow, excellent piece RD - good enough to be published somewhere. You`ve verbalised my feelings exactly.

It's already been published Woofer, Carole Malone wrote it and RD posted it here for us to see.

tcat wrote:Ah, the Mail. Enough said

If you're referring to Carole Malone, she writes for the Sunday Mirror not that that's better than the Mail, mind.

ShuBob wrote:

tcat wrote:Ah, the Mail. Enough said

If you're referring to Carole Malone, she writes for the Sunday Mirror not that that's better than the Mail, mind.

Thanks ShuBob I'm sending my virtual apologies to her now.

Cameron ordered the Probe and Cameron rejected Leveson's recommendations. He's going to come up smelling fragrant.

Cameron was elected to govern, obliged to observe and maintain the democratic systems and human rights written into the Constitution.
Any suggestion to amend the Constitution, which introducing law to regulate the Press would constitute that (amendment), can only be taken and effected by unanimous approval or by a majority votes of the Ministers one would imagine.

What was Leveson, a Judge at that, thinking when he includes such a radical reform in his recommendations?
Did he expect a majority in the Parliament to approve using statute to control the Press or is he playing the blinder? Ie. suggesting it to make him look thorough and competent when in fact he knew it's never going to be adopted.

Today's Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242034/Labours-bid-hijack-Hacked-Off-petition-shackle-British-Press-implementing-Leveson-report-full.html

Interesting that figures re the Hacked Off excess of 100,000 signatures are being questioned - and quite rightly too imo.

[quote="aquila"]Today's Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242034/Labours-bid-hijack-Hacked-Off-petition-shackle-British-Press-implementing-Leveson-report-full.html

Another interesting link here
http://order-order.com/2012/12/03/labour-using-millie-dowler-to-harvest-election-data/

...Talking of data, Labour HQ are using Leveson as an opportunity to cynically harvest voter data for the next election. A section of the party website features Maddie McCann and Milly Dowler, asking people to pledge their support. Except the small print reveals the postcode and email data will be used for Labour MPs to contact you. Stay classy…

Hacked Off also encourage people to give their postcodes to help them to contact their MP's. Oh my goodness, they wouldn't be harvesting data would they, surely not!

Police chief backs Leveson plan to divert whistleblowers from media


Andy Trotter says leaks are usually gossip or grudges, and police can root out wrongdoing themselves

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/04/police-chief-leveson-whistleblowers?CMP=twt_gu

John Pilger - Leveson`s Punch and Judy Show

http://www.zcommunications.org/leveson-s-punch-and-judy-show-masks-hacking-on-a-scale-you-can-barely-imagine-by-john-pilger

aquila wrote:Hacked Off also encourage people to give their postcodes to help them to contact their MP's. Oh my goodness, they wouldn't be harvesting data would they, surely not!

Let me see if I understand this correctly: when I inform McCann and his ilk about my whereabouts, he will then show up on my doorstep, drive me to my local MP, open the door for me and wait inside the car till I have made contact with said MP?

That is very good news, all you doubters and critics out there!

Let's assume for the moment he wouldn't use the time I was inside for ringing the C-Rs of this world to slap me with a subpoena exiting the building.

Now, please tell me in plain english, why any living being would want to supply the McCs with information on his or her whereabouts?

Oh dear! It suddenly dawns on me: they wouldn't be selling this information to Labour, or would they?

bravo john , abit of the truth will go down well here i would imagine joyce1938

Woofer wrote:John Pilger - Leveson`s Punch and Judy Show

http://www.zcommunications.org/leveson-s-punch-and-judy-show-masks-hacking-on-a-scale-you-can-barely-imagine-by-john-pilger

A pity zcommunications is not mainstream.

[quote="kitchen"]

aquila wrote:Today's Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242034/Labours-bid-hijack-Hacked-Off-petition-shackle-British-Press-implementing-Leveson-report-full.html

Another interesting link here
http://order-order.com/2012/12/03/labour-using-millie-dowler-to-harvest-election-data/

...Talking of data, Labour HQ are using Leveson as an opportunity to cynically harvest voter data for the next election. A section of the party website features Maddie McCann and Milly Dowler, asking people to pledge their support. Except the small print reveals the postcode and email data will be used for Labour MPs to contact you. Stay classy…

Nice one! Welcome to the forum by the way.

It's the reason I don't do facebook - which will never be regulated much because it is a major harvesting site. Cash is being phased out here, some shops only accept debit cards now. If you wish to pay cash at railway stations and buy a ticket from the ticket office, there is an extra fee to pay for doing this!
Cheques haven't been used for many years now, internet transfers only or direct debit by companies.
If you pay via internet yourself - (no direct debit for company) it entails another fee - punishment for trying to keep the reins in your own hands.

All very convenient for the companies who have the larger part of the population well under control and have plenty of data to pass or sell on.

I don't know where to place this post so please mods move it to wherever you think appropriate. As we are on the subject of data harvesting this article in today's Daily Mail (science section) is worrying - if not for the invention of an app that can be spied upon definitely for the way the reporter chose to word it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2242811/Bluetooth-stickers-pair-phones-track-lost-gadgets-pets-children.html

The Bluetooth sticker that could mean you never lose your keys (or children) again

A snip of the introducion




'Are you forever misplacing stuff like your keys, TV remote, wallet, cats or children?

Help is at hand from a new invention that could make sure you can always locate these essential items - as long as you can find your phone.

A U.S. tech firm has come up with Bluetooth stickers that can be stuck to your valuables then detected by a smartphone app to help you find them.

Best of all, the app doesn't merely set off a buzzer to help you locate them by ear but includes a radar-like function to help you find your way your valuable possessions.'

aquila wrote:I don't know where to place this post so please mods move it to wherever you think appropriate. As we are on the subject of data harvesting this article in today's Daily Mail (science section) is worrying - if not for the invention of an app that can be spied upon definitely for the way the reporter chose to word it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2242811/Bluetooth-stickers-pair-phones-track-lost-gadgets-pets-children.html

The Bluetooth sticker that could mean you never lose your keys (or children) again

A snip of the introducion




'Are you forever misplacing stuff like your keys, TV remote, wallet, cats or children?

Help is at hand from a new invention that could make sure you can always locate these essential items - as long as you can find your phone.

A U.S. tech firm has come up with Bluetooth stickers that can be stuck to your valuables then detected by a smartphone app to help you find them.

Best of all, the app doesn't merely set off a buzzer to help you locate them by ear but includes a radar-like function to help you find your way your valuable possessions.'

Are you forever misplacing stuff like your keys, TV remote, wallet, cats or children?

Indeed, children come last.

And if only Madeleine McCann had been supplied with a telephone, and been able to stick reflectors on her doting parents before seeing them of to who-knows-where, all of us would not have come to know one another, as we have during the past five years.

Portia wrote:

aquila wrote:I don't know where to place this post so please mods move it to wherever you think appropriate. As we are on the subject of data harvesting this article in today's Daily Mail (science section) is worrying - if not for the invention of an app that can be spied upon definitely for the way the reporter chose to word it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2242811/Bluetooth-stickers-pair-phones-track-lost-gadgets-pets-children.html

The Bluetooth sticker that could mean you never lose your keys (or children) again

A snip of the introducion




'Are you forever misplacing stuff like your keys, TV remote, wallet, cats or children?

Help is at hand from a new invention that could make sure you can always locate these essential items - as long as you can find your phone.

A U.S. tech firm has come up with Bluetooth stickers that can be stuck to your valuables then detected by a smartphone app to help you find them.

Best of all, the app doesn't merely set off a buzzer to help you locate them by ear but includes a radar-like function to help you find your way your valuable possessions.'

Are you forever misplacing stuff like your keys, TV remote, wallet, cats or children?

Indeed, children come last.

And if only Madeleine McCann had been supplied with a telephone, and been able to stick reflectors on her doting parents before seeing them of to who-knows-where, all of us would not have come to know one another, as we have during the past five years.

I wanted to pinch myself Portia just to check it's not April Fools Day and a tongue in cheek report had been made but sadly I think it's entry level micro-chipping.