The Leveson Inquiry

[Serial_Apologist]

Sorry, the page you were looking for could not be found

apparently!

what link did you intend?

Now amended

[ahinton]

Can't we just get back to the Leveson inquiry? I admit to having no sympathy for Mrs Brooks. Notwithstanding my profound detestation of patronising attitudes towards women at all levels and in all walks of life, I don't care what sex Mrs Brooks is, as I care only about what she appears to have done and allowed to be done and this is what the Leveson inquiry has been dealing with while she was on the witness stand. To introduce sexism of any kind into this issue is to risk distorting the issues at hand and diverting attention away from what matters. I do not "hate" Mrs Brooks or even Rupert Murdoch, as such emotions can only be negative and counter-productive and in any case cannot meaningfully be felt by anyone who does not know either of them personally; my feelings about what they've done in their professional capacities might well be quite another matter. JLW - don't even think to harbour such emotions; it ain't worth it and nor are they worthy of such emotional attention. I do not personally "hate" Breivik either, despite what I feel about his actions; I do not know him personally, so I'd be kidding myself were I to allow myself to think that I actually "hate" him per se. Speaking as a composer, I would encourage people to be careful about emotions, as they are very precious things that we as humans are privileged to have.

Now - sorry for the digression; back to Leveson!

[jayne lee wilson]

I seem to get into worse trouble every time I try to... god, Simon, don't be such a boring literalist, I hate RB like I hate Simon Cowell or Carol Vorderman and... well actually no it's more serious than that but... "sworn" is a figure of speech, y'know?

Look, ANY woman who has tried to achieve ANYTHING in a profession where men tend to be more numerous will have been talked over, condescended to, belittled, insulted or simply ignored often in such a casual way it's scarcely noticed. That is what makes you protective, sometimes, of women in the media spotlight when they come under attack - even against your own instincts and judgment. I imagine - I hope - it's better for younger women now. And now saying THAT will get me into trouble.

Great post handsomefortune!

You gentlemen can get back to Leveson, I think I'd better get back to some music...

I am and will always be a PROUD GUARDIAN SUBSCRIBER!

Er... that's it. Bye.

[Flosshilde]

Look, ANY woman who has tried to achieve ANYTHING in a profession where men tend to be more numerous will have been talked over, condescended to, belittled, insulted or simply ignored often in such a casual way it's scarcely noticed. That is what makes you protective, sometimes, of women in the media spotlight when they come under attack - even against your own instincts and judgment. I imagine - I hope - it's better for younger women now. And now saying THAT will get me into trouble.

but I'm not so sure that it is any better - just look at how 'older' (ie over 50) women are dumped from TV programmes

However, sexism didn't worm its way into this discussion uninvited, but through Mrs Brooks raising it as a diversionary tactic to avoid responding to questions about her closeness to Rupert.

I am and will always be a PROUD GUARDIAN SUBSCRIBER!

I think it is the best newspaper around - & a lrge part of its 'bestness' must be down to the fact that it doesn't have an individual owner, but is owned by a trust.

[Mr Pee]

I think it is the best newspaper around

Oh Flossie, you are a one!!

[scottycelt]

Can't we just get back to the Leveson inquiry? I admit to having no sympathy for Mrs Brooks. Notwithstanding my profound detestation of patronising attitudes towards women at all levels and in all walks of life, I don't care what sex Mrs Brooks is, as I care only about what she appears to have done and allowed to be done and this is what the Leveson inquiry has been dealing with while she was on the witness stand. To introduce sexism of any kind into this issue is to risk distorting the issues at hand and diverting attention away from what matters.

Ahinton, a very good morning to you ...

The records will show that it was Ms Brooks herself who suddenly introduced the issue of sexism into her account at the Leveson Inquiry, so I think it may well be a valid area for discussion?

If Rupert himself had intimated that mention of his age is common in the media (which it is), he would have been almost certainly scorned and ridiculed for hinting that he might be a victim of ageism.

So why should Ms Brooks be treated any differently when it comes to suggestions of sexism, when she already held a position of no little power, merely because she happens to be a woman?

Is that not in itself thoroughly patronising and/or blatantly sexist?

I'll now drop the topic if others here feel embarrassed and uncomfortable over the issue, but obviously Ms Brooks herself thought it relevant enough to bring up at the Inquiry, so please don't blame the messengers!

[ahinton]

Ahinton, a very good morning to you ...

The records will show that it was Ms Brooks herself who suddenly introduced the issue of sexism into her account at the Leveson Inquiry, so I think it may well be a valid area for discussion?

If Rupert himself had intimated that mention of his age is common in the media (which it is), he would have been almost certainly scorned and ridiculed for hinting that he might be a victim of ageism.

So why should Ms Brooks be treated any differently when it comes to suggestions of sexism, when she already held a position of no little power, merely because she happens to be a woman?

Is that not in itself thoroughly patronising and/or blatantly sexist?

I'll now drop the topic if others here feel embarrassed and uncomfortable over the issue, but obviously Ms Brooks herself thought it relevant enough to bring up at the Inquiry, so please don't blame the messengers!

And good morning to you too, scotty.

I accept your point about Mrs Brooks having raise the issue herself at the inquiry, albeit as the diversionary tactic that has beenmentioned here; what I should perhaps have written instead of what I did write was that any discussion of the sexism aspect of the case, insofar as they may be one, should be confined to who raised it and why rather than encouraging it to take on a life of its own and risk turning into the very same kind of diversionary tactic from the inquiry itself and what it's trying to find out. There's nothing "embarrassing" about it, apart, perhaps, from the feebleness of Mrs Brooks's attempts to draw attention away from the principal line of questioning.

[amateur51]

Oh Flossie, you are a one!!

And you have the gall to call other people's posts pathetic

[Mr Pee]

And you have the gall to call other people's posts pathetic

Just responding to a post that was obviously intended as a joke. Lighten up!

[amateur51]

Ahinton, a very good morning to you ...

The records will show that it was Ms Brooks herself who suddenly introduced the issue of sexism into her account at the Leveson Inquiry, so I think it may well be a valid area for discussion?

If Rupert himself had intimated that mention of his age is common in the media (which it is), he would have been almost certainly scorned and ridiculed for hinting that he might be a victim of ageism.

So why should Ms Brooks be treated any differently when it comes to suggestions of sexism, when she already held a position of no little power, merely because she happens to be a woman?

Is that not in itself thoroughly patronising and/or blatantly sexist?

I'll now drop the topic if others here feel embarrassed and uncomfortable over the issue, but obviously Ms Brooks herself thought it relevant enough to bring up at the Inquiry, so please don't blame the messengers!

Scotty you have got to get your head around the fact that the most important aspects of sexism, racism, ageism etc is the ability of those in power, usually older white men, to abuse that power to the detriment of another group of people on grounds of race, gender, disability. This runs from the 'phnuurr-phnurr' depiction on women in certain newspapers to the refusal by some bosses to employ women because 'they might get pregnant' or to emply Black people because they're 'poor timekeepers'.

Glad you've decided not to pursue these issues further, as I was becoming uncomfortable & embarassed for you when you did

[amateur51]

Just responding to a post that was obviously intended as a joke. Lighten up!

I'll let Flossie respond to that observation Pee, but I think you're wrong again

[Flosshilde]

Honestly, Am, there's not much point, is there? The man's a buffoon - best leave him to it.

[scottycelt]

The man's a buffoon ...

If he is, he must feel quite at home on this remarkably buffoon-friendly forum, Flossie ... ?

[amateur51]

If he is, he must feel quite at home on this remarkably buffoon-friendly forum, Flossie ... ?

Good to hear that you fit in, scotty

[Mr Pee]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9264327/News-International-accuses-Leveson-lawyer-of-fantasy-over-Murdochs-influence.html