What does Murdoch have on him, and what are the connotations for any eventual reckoning for the press behaviour over Hillsborough?
"Royal Charter" sounds about right. In the era of privateers a royal charter or "letter of marque" was the difference between being a patriot defending your country against the enemies and being a pirate.
Hard to say DD. I suspect it will be a case of "look we've learned our lessons guvna now let's forget all about the past". They will pay lip service to the whole thing for a while and they'll be up to their old tricks in less than 5 years. As for what Murdoch has on him...it's the fear (still) that Murdoch swings elections. Let's hope Camerons attempts to slither to the "moguls" is the thing that swings the election against him. Now that would make the politicians sit up and think a bit Mind you even if Cameron does get voted out would you trust any of the others to do the right thing either?? They're all the ****ing same
Murdoch's power undoubtedly coming into play here,the Leveson inquiry was always there to merely placate the british public. Whole thing stinks of ****.
So you set up a Public Inquiry. You spend a fortune on it. You give it a very clear framework. You even refer parliamentary issues to it for a 'ruling'. You ensure that it has the highest media profile of any Inquiry for years. Then you accept the report and immediately dismiss the major recommendations. You follow that up with an agreement to work with the other major political parties which you withdraw your party from without reference to the MPs of that party. Finally you begin every statement with "I". Sounds like Sper-Spremo Cameron has made his mind up and to hell with everybody-elses opinion. That's democracy for you!
This is why buying the S*n should basically disbar you from having the vote. Being told what your opinion is on whatever underresearched sensationalist bile relating to foreigners/scroungers/*****philes/EU (delete to taste), quite possibly purporting to be the thoughts of an underclad young woman when in fact the pus-filled dribblings of a (probably) middleaged male murdoch lacky - its just a hate-rag whipping up what passes for populist opinion. I reckon it would fit in nicely in 1930's Germany...
Did anyone see Neil Wallis on Newsnight last night? Let's get this straight - they're not repentent, they'll never believe they were drinking in the last chance saloon, and freedom of speech - initially a concept to do with pamphleteers like Tom Paine, not the right to go through the dustbins of murder victims families, nor dress as doctors to try and implicate greiving relatives identifying their dead relatives - will be 'destroyed' if the state holds them even remotely accountable for lies and slurs. This is the guy who walked straight from the NotW into and 'adviser's' role for the Met. After, of cause, he'd given columnists' roles (highly paid too) to retired senior officers who'd overseen the original, farcical investigations into phone tapping and police/press corruption. As said, we know who the Sun and the Mail will now support in 2015, and if he loses he'll have a nice little earner a-la- Louise Mensch. bent bastards.
We all know the bastards will never be repentant Donga, they only ever grudgingly acknowledged their wrong-doing over Hillsborough because they had their arms twisted. Since my teens I've always been against censorship because it's a tool of a repressive government, but with freedom comes responsibility and sections of the media have shown that they have no morals at all and self censorship simply doesn't work. They'll ruin peoples lives without a qualm if it means they make money or a name for themselves. I'm still against censorship in principle, but something needs to be done to rein in these people and make them act with some integrity. I'm at a loss for a solution, tbh.
saint, there is no answer. We share principle that there should not be any form of censorship. However the media themselves indulge in censorship. If the issue runs contrary to the interest of the media owners it does not get an airing. If the the issue does not appear to associate itself with profitability then it will receive scant attention. Hence the media comes to this discussion with dirty hands. It should however be made clear that the media themselves are guilty of muddying the water. The principle of a free press is not the same as the issue of censorship. Codifying the laws that apply to the press is not in and of itself censorship.
I agree. I used censorship as a blanket term to describe government interference and control of the press and that's probably the wrong usage. A stricter code of practice is perhaps necessary, but effective enforcement is vital. I'm no expert, but it seems to me the press routinely contravene existing codes of practice to the extent of breaking the law in many cases, yet seem to get away with it on the grounds of upholding the "freedom of the press". For hundreds of years now the press has been a necessary watchdog on otherwise untouchable groups of the rich and powerful. Although this was most likely born of rivalry rather than altruism, it did shine a light into some murky corners. I'm sure there are still plenty of decent investigative journalists out there with real integrity, but their reputation is being dragged down by the irresponsible scandal-mongers.
"For hundreds of years now the press has been a necessary watchdog on otherwise untouchable groups of the rich and powerful." As Alun Evans, the QC for the families in their unsuccessful attempt to bring Duckenfield and Murray to justice said, the 'free', 'uncensored' press knew all the details of police/Sun collusion, the altered statements, the holding back of the ambulance services and the ridiculous and self-serving nonsense of Popper's arbitary decision to restrict evidence to the enquirt to 3.15pm for 23 years before last year's Hillsborough enquiry. They did **** all - as FD says, they're very selective, usually based upon the interests of their proprieters, as to how they'll exercise this apparent God-given 'freedom' of opinion and free - speech (none of which is even remotely affected by Levenson's Report). Was in the dentist today waiting for root canal surgery and some geezer was reading the Sun. Almost burst out laughing when I saw the front page editorial - a Winston Churchill speech from 1949 about press freedom. Apparently if we agree to Leveson we'll immediately be taken over by the Gestapo, KGB and Pol Pot. The irony that other arms of the media, such as television, is already regulated in this manner and have been since inception (and we haven't seen any death squads on the streets yet) is lost on them. As for the Mail, well Hugh Grant only has to turn towards Mecca and he'll be the numo unero pantomine villian for mellanie phillips and Amanda plattell to be deported with Abu Hamza. Utter scum, the shower of them, and while investigative journalism of the likes of the late Paul Foot and Jonathon Pilger is the lifeblood of democracy, comparing that to allowing the unrestricted ****-smearing of completely innocent members of the public by the Sun and the Mail is like comparing lif-saving surgeons and nurses with fly-by-night, unregulated cosmetic surgery butchers. Can there be any other part of our society who say that to make them accountable in their work will bring down democracy as we know it? Apart from casino bankers, of course...
Self serving and self interested. Print media is, on the whole, corrupt by virtue of the spiking of worthwhile 'in the public interest' stories, while whoring themselves out to the venal, voyeuristic, perv-courting long lens shots of 'celebs and royalty' and stories that will interest the public (who's shagging who), regardless of the value of the story...
