Leveson 2: Dave's Red Face Day

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

....Dave has a real talent for red face politics eh .... peddling the lie about statutes underpinning regulation ending the free press etc


watching the coverage on Newsnight last night the ex Murdoch hack was seething with a psychotic rage making, appalling personal attacks on the hacked Off people and false characterisations of the Leveson proposals ... would seem they are all at it and just as Dave says no to M'lud the plod announce a further 600 incidents [pure coincidence innit] of hacking and start rummaging at the Mirror ...

this piece in the staggers is sensible seems to me ... telling the Murdoch/Barclay Bros/Rothermere hacks to grow up and get back in their prams ...

one can only see Dave's face getting redder and redder

[Nick Armstrong]

watching the coverage on Newsnight last night

Ta for the link to the article.... but I watched Newsnight last night, and have just checked - it was all papists and bankers.

Do you mean Thursday's edition?

[amateur51]

Ta for the link to the article.... but I watched Newsnight last night, and have just checked - it was all papists and bankers.

Do you mean Thursday's edition?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01r9zbm/Newsnight_14_03_2013/

[Nick Armstrong]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ht_14_03_2013/

Ta

[amateur51]

....Dave has a real talent for red face politics eh .... peddling the lie about statutes underpinning regulation ending the free press etc


watching the coverage on Newsnight last night the ex Murdoch hack was seething with a psychotic rage making, appalling personal attacks on the hacked Off people and false characterisations of the Leveson proposals

Neil Wallis, formerly executive editor of The News of the World, for it is he, known to other journalists as 'wolf man' according to wikipedia

[Nick Armstrong]

Neil Wallis, formerly executive editor of The News of the World, for it is he, known to other journalists as 'wolf man' according to wikipedia

He and the dead-eyed Harris on the other side achieve the considerable feat of making the career politicians seem sensible and nuanced. What a shambles.

[mercia]

can't say I noticed a "seething psychotic rage" - poorly chaired, as a discussion, I thought - why did they invite Wallis if they didn't want him to speak ?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

thanks Ams for linking ....

the Now hack looked in a rage to me compared to his earlier appearances, and well out of order in his comments [think what they are like off screen!]

[amateur51]

can't say I noticed a "seething psychotic rage" - poorly chaired, as a discussion, I thought - why did they invite Wallis if they didn't want him to speak ?

Poor Gavin is disarmed by the lack of an off-set naughty step, I always feel.

[french frank]

Sun admits accessing info from stolen phone of Labour MP and will pay 'very substantial damages'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21831000

[amateur51]

Sun admits accessing info from stolen phone of Labour MP and will pay 'very substantial damages'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21831000

Just reading this made me so angry - do we need to regulate the Press or do we just need to run the ghastly Murdoch family and their bullying ethos and control-freakery out of town? I know that's naive because their influence is pan-national but they have so much to answer for.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

More than 800 potential new phone-hacking victims have been identified, the High Court will hear today, after a tabloid "supergrass" helped police secure fresh evidence.

the Indie says this but how this computes with the 600 last week beats me ...

and it appears a deal is agreed ...

[french frank]

Just reading this made me so angry - do we need to regulate the Press or do we just need to run the ghastly Murdoch family and their bullying ethos and control-freakery out of town? I know that's naive because their influence is pan-national but they have so much to answer for.

Last week: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013...un-journalists

[Richard Tarleton]

There seems to be more interest on this MB in the doings of some elderly men in Rome than there is in the assault on press freedom that is taking place right here. It appears that the Royal Charter will even cover the internet, in a way that Newsnight was unable to pin down last night during an interview with the appalling Shant Grapps - an area specifically excluded by Leveson. It could even extend to this forum - there's nothing to say it couldn't.

It comes as no surprise to see the dirigiste Labour party lining up on the side of statutory regulation (state control) of the press, but I'm bewildered by the Lib Dems embracing it - they should be ashamed of themselves. One of their MPs is even a spokesperson for Hacked Off. I'm appalled that this lobby group were even allowed to be party to the discussions. Whatever his motives, Cameron was entirely right to resist, at least initially. The Royal Charter will of course not be proofed against tampering by politicians - has they known the expenses scandal was heading their way, for example, there would have been no difficulty assembling a 2/3 majority in both houses in favour of muzzling the press. Holding our politicians to account is what the press is there for - the scandalous activities of the mainly Murdoch tabloid press are already illegal, and people are already being held to account for those.

The "exemplary damages" bit for those publications who do not sign up is particularly troubling - the idea of Private Eye doing so, for example, seems counter-intuitive. Full marks to the Spectator which I understand will not be signing. The Independent has already caved in - I hope the rest will refuse, or take as long as possible.

This is not about Hugh Grant, or the Dowlers. It goes to the heart of our democracy, such as it is.

[anotherbob]

The Royal Charter will of course not be proofed against tampering by politicians - has they known the expenses scandal was heading their way, for example, there would have been no difficulty assembling a 2/3 majority in both houses in favour of muzzling the press. Holding our politicians to account is what the press is there for - the scandalous activities of the mainly Murdoch tabloid press are already illegal, and people are already being held to account for those.
The "exemplary damages" bit for those publications who do not sign up is particularly troubling - the idea of Private Eye doing so, for example, seems counter-intuitive. Full marks to the Spectator which I understand will not be signing. The Independent has already caved in - I hope the rest will refuse, or take as long as possible.

This is not about Hugh Grant, or the Dowlers. It goes to the heart of our democracy, such as it is.

Agreed. (Though I'm uncomfortable lining up alongside the likes of Paul Dacre). I thought Ian Hislop's contribution to Lord Leveson's proceedings was most apposite.