The Leveson Inquiry

[ahinton]

Guilt?



Tony Blair - A million a year as strategy adviser to JP Morgan

But did that appointment lead to their recent loss of £1.2bn? We should be told. Let's have a public inquiry!

[Lateralthinking1]

But did that appointment lead to their recent loss of £1.2bn? We should be told. Let's have a public inquiry!

It didn't prevent it. Personally, I have no problem with Leveson Plus from now until the end of time. However, we will need to see solid outcomes that go far beyond the fate of key individuals. To use the buzz word, the entire system which forms the basis to political dialogue needs radical "restructuring". This will require public transparency in respect of conclusions from the inquiries and consequential political actions as well as any deterrence via suitable penalties for those ultimately found guilty to date.

Until comparatively recently, the powers that be have been adept at hiding misdemeanour from the public while scrutinising the public on almost everything. Only the press had the resources to investigate them before the public got IT. In this light, the objective of the Coalition to introduce greater monitoring of the public can be seen as a counter-attack. The worst of all worlds would be for the press and public to lose their powers of scrutiny and for those in charge in the future to do whatever they like.

[ahinton]

It didn't prevent it. Personally, I have no problem with Leveson Plus from now until the end of time. However, we will need to see solid outcomes that go far beyond the fate of key individuals. To use the buzz word, the entire system which forms the basis to political dialogue needs radical "restructuring". This will require public transparency in respect of conclusions from the inquiries and consequential political actions as well as any deterrence via suitable penalties for those ultimately found guilty to date.

Until comparatively recently, the powers that be have been adept at hiding misdemeanour from the public while scrutinising the public on almost everything. Only the press had the resources to investigate them before the public got IT. In this light, the objective of the Coalition to introduce greater monitoring of the public can be seen as a counter-attack. The worst of all worlds would be for the press and public to lose their powers of scrutiny and for those in charge in the future to do whatever they like.

Agreed on all counts!

[LHC]

The situation of the Scott Trust (now, properly, the Scott Trust Ltd) seems ambiguous.

But it really is no more than a continuation of the original intentions of the owners of the Manchester Guardian: in a world where the major press media are predominantly owned by right-wing, profit-motivated private proprietors/moguls, the Scotts wanted to safeguard the continuance of a rare, independent liberal voice. The Trust was set up to 'avoid' tax in order that the profits could prop up the newspaper, not relying on huge injections of private cash into loss-making concerns which would make the editorial line vulnerable; by virtue of the profit/shareholder relationship, that line would inevitably alter both the independence and the political slant. It's what capitalism does.

This, without being terribly clued up, is how I would see the situation.

I can't believe that any reasonable (I stress that point, since it seems to me that the concept of 'reasonability' is embodied in the view) person, however much they might dislike, hate, despise the Guardian's politics, would want to have its voice silenced. No one can say that as an influence on public opinion in the UK (still less globally) it is 'too powerful'.

Nevertheless, I'm surprised. And shall be more surprised if they're found guilty. A view which you can interpret as you wish ...

You appear to be suggesting that the Guardian should adopt the Ken Livingstone defence - tax avoidance is bad, except when I/ we do it.

For the record, I think the Guardian is one of the better newspapers around and I certainly wouldn't want it or its voice silenced. I just think it would be helpful if it practiced more of what it preached.

[french frank]

You appear to be suggesting that the Guardian should adopt the Ken Livingstone defence - tax avoidance is bad, except when I/ we do it.

For the record, I think the Guardian is one of the better newspapers around and I certainly wouldn't want it or its voice silenced. I just think it would be helpful if it practiced more of what it preached.

I wasn't suggesting that: I was outlining what I saw as being the situation.

Nevertheless, a lot of money is needed to run a newspaper at the best of times and with advertising revenue not being what it was you need the cash or you close.

I suppose that it *might* see itself in the same light as a charity (and it has a charitable arm to which contributors can donate their emoluments - I know, because I did!) and is 'non-profit' in that the profits are generated purely for the continuance of the corporation. I accept the difficulty there in campaigning against the avoidance of corporation tax by big business. The 'justification' (if there can be such a thing in this case) may lie in the definition of what constitutes a 'profit'.

[amateur51]

It appears that Mr & Mrs Brooks are being charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and this clip explains the distinction and the likely process ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18072097

Could be a quiet Christmas then

[John Wright]

I expect their lawyers will argue that the recent publicity and expensive enquiry means they cannot have a fair trial...... :eh:

It's been said on TV that their trial won't be till next year.

Is that how long it'll take lawyers to work out a plausible alibi or a non-guilty plead?

Mr Brooks has said to reporters he reckons there will be insufficient evidence to convict him, hmmm that sounds to me like an admission that there WAS sufficient evidence but some has been been destroyed......

[ahinton]

I expect their lawyers will argue that the recent publicity and expensive enquiry means they cannot have a fair trial...... :eh:

It's been said on TV that their trial won't be till next year.

Is that how long it'll take lawyers to work out a plausible alibi or a non-guilty plead?

Mr Brooks has said to reporters he reckons there will be insufficient evidence to convict him, hmmm that sounds to me like an admission that there WAS sufficient evidence but some has been been destroyed......

Indeed - and by whom, one might wonder? On this, the Leveson inquiry outcomes and much else, we'll simply have to wait and see what we do or do not see, all in the fullness (or emptiness) of time...

[french frank]

I'm sure the trial will be a long way ahead - but speculations/assumptions about their guilt or otherwise is a bit dangerous ...

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm sure the trial will be a long way ahead - but speculations/assumptions about their guilt or otherwise is a bit dangerous ...

I agree that such things should be avoided. Having listened to RB's comments several times now, I am convinced that she said what had happened was injust rather than unjust. If so - given her positions in the profession - that really is a crime.

[amateur51]

Sir Harold Evans was on spiky form, putting the record straight ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/17/harold-evans-leveson-murdoch-times?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=feed

while Daily Telegraph columnist Peter Oborne made a typically thoughtful contribution ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/17/leveson-inquiry-political-lying-criminal-offence?INTCMP=SRCH

[ahinton]

Sir Harold Evens was on spiky form, putting the record straight ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/17/harold-evans-leveson-murdoch-times?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=feed

while Daily Telegraph columnist Peter Oborne made a typically thoughtful contribution ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/17/leveson-inquiry-political-lying-criminal-offence?INTCMP=SRCH

"Evens"??

[Flosshilde]

balances out all the odd people from NI

[amateur51]

"Evens"??

Many thanks ahinton - duly amended and credit given

Did you watch the clip? - he was going great guns

[ahinton]

Many thanks ahinton - duly amended and credit given

Did you watch the clip? - he was going great guns

No, I've not had time to look at it yet but wioll do so in due course; many thanks in advance of this for posting it!